The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
Findings Of Fact The pleadings in this case, Petitioner's Notice of Intention to Suspend" and Respondent's "Petition for Formal Hearing" establish the following uncontroverted facts: William D. McCaffrey is a mortgage solicitor holding license number HK0007207. The Department of Banking and Finance is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, including the duty to suspend the license of those persons registered under the act for violations of the terms therein. William D. McCaffrey has been convicted of a federal offense and is presently in federal custody at the Federal Correctional Institute in Montgomery, Alabama. On November 13, 1985, Respondent pled guilty to "Interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained credit cards, in violation of title 15 U.S. Code, Section 1644(b) as charged in count 6 of the Indictment". (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Count 6 of the indictment provides: Count Six On or about December 13, 1982, defendants WILLIAM D. McCAFFREY and WILLIAM BARTRAM III did knowingly, with unlawful and fraud- ulent intent, transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce from Clarkston, Georgia, by way of Nevada, to the District of Arizona, a fraudulently obtained American Express Credit Card in the name of William Smith, knowing said credit card to have been fraudulently obtained. All in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 1644(b), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in case #CR 85-53 PHX adjudged William D. McCaffrey guilty as charged and convicted, sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 years, and ordered that he pay a fine of $10,000 and make restitution to American Express in the amount of $5,481.27. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2 Judgement and Probation/Commitment Order)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's mortgage solicitor's license for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Clyde Taylor, Jr., Esquire 1105 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ann K. Croasdell, was a registered real estate broker at all times material hereto. She has been issued License #0141344. On June 28, 1978, William Young, the owner of apartment #47, 848 Park Lake Circle, Maitland, Florida, conveyed said apartment to Susan B. Bickley. A warranty deed as to this transaction was recorded on June 30, 1978. On April 24, 1979, Bickley conveyed apartment #47, 848 Park Lake Circle, Maitland, Florida, to Respondent. This deed was recorded on April 25, 1979. Thereafter, on April 26, 1979, Respondent conveyed apartment #47, 848 Park Lake Circle, Maitland, Florida, to William Young. The warranty deed was signed by Respondent in Young's presence and Respondent delivered the warranty deed to Young by physically handing it to him after the document had been notarized. The warranty deed from Respondent to Young was not recorded until September 3, 1980. Over a year after she conveyed to Young, Respondent went to Levie Florida Investments, licensed mortgage brokers, and made application for a second mortgage loan on the subject property. Respondent dealt with James Levie, a mortgage banker with Levie Florida Investments. Levie was present when the application was made and saw the Respondent sign the document. His signature also appears on Respondent's mortgage loan application dated August 11, 1980. On August 20, 1980, the closing for the second mortgage on apartment #47, 848 Park Lake Circle, Maitland, Florida, was held. On that date, Respondent executed a mortgage deed and mortgage note from herself to Levie Florida Investments, a certificate of confirmation specifically stating that Respondent was the owner, a notice to first mortgage holder, and a loan closing statement. At that closing, Levie Florida Investments disbursed, to Respondent, its check #5937, in the amount of $6,000.00. The check was signed by James Levie and was delivered to Respondent at the time of closing. Subsequently, the check was negotiated by Respondent and returned to Levie Mortgage marked paid. Respondent never advised Levie Mortgage Company or any of it agents, including James Levie, up to and including the date of closing, that she had executed a deed to the property to any other party. She never indicated to anyone at Levie Mortgage Company or any of its agents that anyone else had any other interest in the property; nor did she ever indicate that she was acting as a trustee, agent or in any other fiduciary capacity on behalf of another person in seeking this loan. Further, Levie was never made aware by anyone, while the transaction was pending, that, in fact, a deed had been executed to another individual. It was not until after the loan had been closed and the mortgage had been placed in default that James Levie ultimately found out that a deed had been executed by William Young. This was discovered when he requested a title search be made by Giles, Hedrick & Robinson prior to the institution of foreclosure action. The evidence was inconclusive as to the reason Respondent failed to inform Levie Mortgage Company as to the ownership status of the property on which she sought and obtained the second mortgage loan. Respondent claims she was serving in a trust relationship with William T. Young at the time. Young denies this relationship existed or that he had knowledge of the second mortgage transaction.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of three years. 2/ DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1983
Findings Of Fact Respondent William H. Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced on November 11, 1993. This adjudication was at least peripherally related to a mortgage loan he brokered which had closed on June 21, 1989. Mr. Hughes was deposed concerning the loan on December 20, 1991, in which deposition he lied. He was indicted on May 27, 1993 and pled guilty to perjury on September 3, 1993. At all times material, William H. Hughes held individual mortgage broker license number MB 262740745. He is a Respondent herein because he was convicted of perjury. DBF was immediately notified concerning Mr. Hughes' perjury conviction. The agency did not file its amended disciplinary action until July 22, 1994. It may be inferred that there was an original complaint to amend, but its date is not of record. The agency's chief witness testified that the agency did not do an immediate field audit of Mr. Hughes' business upon notification, did not file an immediate cease and desist order against his mortgage brokerage activities, and has at no time considered Mr. Hughes continuing to operate as a mortgage broker to be an imminent threat or danger to consumers. (TR 113-116) Apparently, periodic DBF field audits since the amended administrative complaint was referred to DOAH also have not caused DBF to move to expedite the instant case or take any emergency action. Mr. Hughes operated as a sole proprietorship, license number MBB 591623417, from 1968 until May 17, 1993. The loan at issue was closed June 21, 1989. The deposition that gave rise to the perjury occurred on December 20, 1991. The plea was September 3, 1993. The adjusdication of guilt was November 11, 1993. The sole proprietorship license was current until August 31, 1994. The sole proprietorship is a Respondent in this cause because its license was in effect at all times material. On May 17, 1993, Respondent Hughes converted his sole proprietorship to a corporation in which he was sole stockholder, President, and qualifying broker with license number MB 262740745. Janeen Davis was Vice President. This corporate entity was known as, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," license number MBB 593113739. On May 27, 1993, Respondent Hughes was indicted. On September 3, 1993, he entered a guilty plea to perjury. The corporation of which he was sole principal continued to operate until September 23, 1993, when the stock was transferred to James Etheredge as sole stockholder, with Respondent Hughes as qualifying broker. Corporate mortgage brokerage license MBB 593113739, continued in effect until January 12, 1994. This corporation is a Respondent herein because its license was in effect at the time of Mr. Hughes' guilty plea and adjudication of guilt. On November 17, 1993, James Etheredge applied for a corporate mortgage brokerage license in the name of the "new" corporation, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," owned exclusively by Etheredge, with Janeen Davis as qualifying broker instead of Respondent Hughes. On November 23, 1993, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced. On January 12, 1994, a new corporate mortgage broker license, number MBB 593113739-001, was issued to the new corporate entity. Respondent Hughes continued to work for the new firm as a mortgage broker. This corporate license, number MBB-593113739- 001, was renewed September 1, 1994 and is current through August 31, 1996. That licensed corporation is not a Respondent herein and DBF has stipulated that it has no charges or evidence against it. (TR 19-21; 47-48; 50). In 1989, William Neufeld had come to Respondent Hughes seeking a mortgage loan for a condominium located at B-801 Grand Mariner, Destin, Florida. Sugar Sands Development Corporation was purportedly selling the condominium to Neufeld. The purported purchase price was approximately eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). Appraisals were provided to Respondent Hughes by the Seller to verify the value of the property. Respondent Hughes forwarded Neufeld's mortgage loan application to Carteret Savings Bank, which then accepted the loan. During this period of time, Carteret regularly called for a review appraisal for every loan, regardless of who did the original appraisal. Carteret regularly ordered a review from a different appraisal company to make sure that property valuation was true and accurate. It is inferred that Carteret performed its own separate appraisal on the B-801 Grand Mariner condomimium as it did in every other case. The parties to the loan brokered by Respondent Hughes were Sugar Sands Development Corporation as Seller, William Neufeld as Purchaser, and Carteret Savings Bank as Lender. Carteret Savings Bank funded the mortgage for the condominium after its own investigation and upon agreed terms. Respondent Hughes personally brokered the mortgage loan between William Neufeld and Sugar Sands Development Corporation, which was funded by Carteret Savings Bank. He received a $20,475 commission therefor. His commission amount was based upon points, which was in no way remarkable in the mortgage business. William Neufeld subsequently defaulted on the loan. At the time of the transaction, Respondent Hughes knew that the condominium was owned by an entity named Altus Bank prior to its transfer to Sugar Sands Development Corporation. On December 20, 1991, Respondent Hughes was deposed in a civil action resulting from Neufeld's default, Case No. 91-30398-RV, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A., v. First American Title Insurance Co., Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. In his deposition, Respondent Hughes testified as follows: Q: When, if ever, did you find out an entity by the name of Altus Bank was involved in these transactions? A: I don't know if -- to my knowledge, I did not know -- Altus wasn't involved in our transaction. We never dealt with Altus at all. So, to my knowledge, I don't know if I knew Altus was even involved in this unit until after this had already closed, because here again we were presented a contract of sale, we dealt directly with our customer, the buyer and really never had an occasion to even deal with the seller. * * * Q: You did not know, you had not heard any rumors, you had no indication whatsoever that Altus Bank had any interest in this unit at any time prior to the FBI coming to talk to you a year ago? A: No. I think that's the first time I knew that Altus was involved. Respondent Hughes was subsequently indicted on May 27, 1993 in Case No. 93-03069-01/RV, United States v. William H. Hughes, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The indictment contained nine felony counts relating to an alleged "flip transaction" on the subject condominium involving Altus Bank, Sugar Sands Development Corporation as "straw man", and William Neufeld, the purpose of which was to artificially inflate the condominium's real property value and obtain an inflated loan amount of approximately $800,000 in loan proceeds for property truly valued at only approximately $385,000. The indictment alerted Carteret Savings Bank, which has since gone out of business, and other lending institutions to audit Respondent Hughes' transactions with them and to otherwise institute quality control reviews of loans he had placed with them. No discrepancies or dishonest dealings of any kind were uncovered by these institutions. On September 3, 1993, Respondent Hughes pled guilty to one count of engaging in perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1623, based exclusively upon his deposition testimony quoted supra. The remaining eight felony counts were dismissed. These counts were the counts alleging that Mr. Hughes knew of the "flip transaction" aspects of the loan. Exhibit P-9 shows the foregoing to have been a plea bargain which encompassed evidentiary factors. It was not merely a "plea of convenience." At formal hearing herein, Respondent Hughes admitted that knowing the question in the deposition, he gave the wrong answer. He has accepted responsibility for that wrong answer. However, he credibly denied any knowledge that a flip transaction was intended. He explained that he had understood that the loan amount was determined upon independent evaluations and appraisals which included projected renovation costs to be expended to conform the condominium to the needs of the Purchaser, Mr. Neufeld. On November 23, 1993, a federal judgment was entered against Respondent Hughes. Pursuant to that judgment, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 by engaging in perjury. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of $50.00; to pay $1,724.50 in juror fees; was placed on probation for a term of three years; and was placed on home detention for a period of six months. Respondent Hughes' probation is not scheduled to end until November 1996. Respondent Hughes has continued to practice as a mortgage broker without interruption during the eighteen months since his conviction and is currently employed as a mortgage broker by William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc., the firm reconstituted with Mr. Etheredge as the sole stockholder and Janeen Davis as its qualifying agent as of January 12, 1994. See, supra. Respondent Hughes has practiced his profession since 1968 (27 years) with only this one bad incident on his record. Respondent Hughes continues to enjoy a good reputation in his wider mortgage brokerage business community, although the reputation testimony herein is diminished by the fact that many of those who have dealt with him and who have expressed reputation opinions to the witnesses who testified were not aware of his perjury conviction or its circumstances. Respondent Hughes' reputation for truth and veracity and for fair dealing in the mortgage brokerage community as it currently exists within the Florida Panhandle has remained "good" and "very good" since knowledge of his perjury conviction has become known in that community. Two mortgage brokers, two employees of lending institutions, one attorney and one bank officer testified as fact witnesses that they were willing to deal with Mr. Hughes as a mortgage broker in the future, despite their knowledge of his perjury conviction. Two of these persons were formerly employed by Carteret Savings Bank and were fully aware of all circumstances of his criminal case. DBF's only expressed reason for requesting license revocation instead of other permissible disciplinary penalties was its perception that the perjury in this case was directly related to the transaction of mortgage brokerage business.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order that: Finds Respondent Hughes individually, license MB 262740745, is guilty of the charged offense; Assesses an administrative fine against Respondent Hughes individually for $3,000, payable within 10 days of entry of the final order; and Places Respondent Hughes on probation until November 30, 1996, termination of probation to be conditioned upon his successful completion of his federal sentence; his practicing during probation under the supervision of a broker approved by DBF, and his being subject during this probation to unannounced DBF audit and review of all his transactions; and further providing that any violation of the final order, any discrepancy in his accounts, or any violation of Chapter 494 F.S. during his probationary period would subject him to immediate and summary revocation of his license. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RO 94-5114 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8, 24-26 are covered in FOF 1-8 as necessary. Otherwise accepted but not adopted. 9-20, 22-23 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 21, 27-31 Rejected as conclusions of law or legal argument, not proposed findings of fact Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 are introductory and labelled "Statement of the Case." They are covered within the "Preliminary Statement" of the Recommended Order. 8-17, 20-21, Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate 23, 25-27 and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 18, 24 Rejected as a conclusion of law, not a proposed finding of fact 19 Irrelevant 22 Accepted only as modified and covered in FOF 27-29 COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 J. Ladon Dewrell, Esquire Post Office Box 1510 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32541 Honorable Robert Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Frederick L. Roberts (Respondent) was a licensed Florida mortgage broker, holding license number MB 316324569. In November 1993, a friend of the Respondent, Alan Petzold, introduced Tami Aaronson to him. Ms. Aaronson owned property in Maryland and was interested in securing a mortgage on the Maryland property to provide funding for a Florida home for herself and her son, Jarrett. According to Ms. Aaronson, Mr. Petzold is the father of a minor son, Jarrett Aaronson. The Respondent believed that such was the case at the time he met the family. The Respondent met several times with Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent gave a “Flagship Mortgage Company” business car to Ms. Aaronson. The business card had the Respondent’s name printed on it. The Respondent had been briefly employed by Flagship Mortgage Company, but apparently was not so employed at the time he met Ms. Aaronson. Frederick L. Roberts (Respondent) received check number 0170, dated November 22, 1993, from Tami Aaronson as “Custodian for Jarrett Aaronson” in the amount of three thousand dollars. The notation on the check states that it is for “refinancing.” Ms. Aaronson believed the check was payment for services the Respondent would render in obtaining refinancing of the Maryland property. There was no written agreement between the Respondent and Ms. Aaronson, or between the Respondent and Mr. Petzold. The Respondent completed no written documentation related to the Aaronson transaction. The Respondent did not place the Aaronson deposit into a segregated escrow account. The Respondent did not record the Aaronson deposit into an escrow transaction journal. During the period he held the Aaronson funds, the Respondent worked on unrelated business, and traveled to China for about thirty days. The Respondent performed no work on behalf of Ms. Aaronson, Mr. Petzold, or Jarrett Aaronson. There is no evidence that the Respondent intended to perform any work on behalf of Aaronson/Petzold. The Respondent asserted that he asked for a three thousand dollar “deposit” as a means of discouraging the couple from asking for his assistance. The assertion is not credible. The Respondent asserts that the three thousand dollars he received from Ms. Aaronson was a deposit against travel expenses he would incur during his examination of the property in Maryland. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. In the spring of 1994, the Respondent received a telephone call from Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent asserts that he believed Ms. Aaronson to have called him from a mental hospital. For whatever reason, at that time he determined that he no longer wanted to be involved in the Aaronson/Petzold situation. Shortly after receiving the Aaronson phone call in spring 1994, the Respondent also received a call from a Department of Banking and Finance investigator, apparently looking into a complaint received from Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent thereafter contacted Mr. Petzold and made arrangements to return the funds to him. According to a notarized statement dated May 9, 1994, the Respondent returned the three thousand dollars to Jarrett R. Aaronson and Alan C. Petzold. The Respondent testified that the money had been returned on May 8, 1994 to Mr. Petzold. The Respondent offered into evidence a document dated May 8, 1994, purporting to be a receipt received from Mr. Petzold for return of the funds. The signature is not notarized. The Respondent did not return the Aaronson deposit to Tami Aaronson. There is no evidence that Ms. Aaronson authorized the return of the three thousand dollars to Mr. Petzold. There is no evidence that Ms. Aaronson authorized the return of funds to Jarrett. Ms. Aaronson has not received any part of the three thousand dollars allegedly refunded. There is no evidence that the funds have been redeposited into the minor child’s custodial account. The Respondent asserts that he was not acting as a mortgage broker and was merely investigating the property to determine whether the Aaronson property could be used as a source of funds for the purchase of Florida property. The Respondent asserts that had a refinancing situation arisen, he would have referred Ms. Aaronson to another licensed person who would assist in the actual refinancing. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. The Respondent asserts that in the spring of 1994 he had reason to believe that Ms. Aaronson had been hospitalized in a mental facility, and therefore he returned the funds to Mr. Petzold. The rationale for the failure to return the funds to the appropriate party is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order suspending the mortgage broker license held by Frederick L. Roberts until the following conditions are met: Payment to Tami Aaronson of $3,000 plus appropriate interest calculated from November 22, 1993. Payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. After compliance with the above conditions, the license suspension shall be lifted, and a two-year probationary period shall begin RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Clyde C. Caillouet, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Michael W. Carlson, Esquire Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, at all times relevant thereto, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0035549 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, in 1971. He also has the designation of a Graduate of the Realtors Institute (GRI), having successfully completed its requirements. At the time the events herein occurred, Hallock was a salesman for Don Asher and Associates in Orlando, Florida. On or about August 8, 1980, Respondent, through reading the Orlando Sentinel Star, became aware of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association 1/ pending against James A. and Jeanie Lockwood, husband and wife, who owned a home located at 4813 and 4815 Basswood Lane, Orlando, Florida. 2/ Hallock had been told to vacate his apartment, and was in the process of finding a new home. He was "looking for a bargain" and believed he found one when he read of the Lockwoods' plight. The Lockwoods were separated at that time and only James Lockwood lived in the house on Basswood Lane. Hallock telephoned James Lockwood on Friday evening, August 8, 1980, and told him he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding and wished to meet with him to discuss a possible sale or way to avoid foreclosure proceedings. Lockwood, who was in the process of moving to Winter Haven and wished to immediately sell the property, was receptive and invited Respondent to meet with him that evening. Respondent and a lady friend (Mrs. Florence Harrison) then visited James that night. Hallock introduced himself, and showed two cards to prove his identity. Hallock made clear he did not represent his employer, Don Asher and Associates, but was simply representing himself. Although conflicting stories as to what happened during and after this first meeting were given by the various witnesses, the undersigned finds the following to be the more credible version of the sequence of events. Upon meeting Lockwood, Hallock proceeded to discuss the various alternatives available to Lockwood. These included selling the home to Hallock's brother, who lived in Miami, allowing Hallock himself to purchase the house, or simply letting the lending institution foreclose. Because the mortgage payments were in arrears and a foreclosure proceeding in progress, Lockwood offered to give the house to Hallock if he would bring the payments current. Hallock, who knew consideration for a real estate transaction was required, declined the offer and instead offered James "a minimum of $50 equity." No total purchase price was discussed since the balances on the first mortgage, and a second mortgage held by Freedom Federal Savings and Loan of Tampa, were unknown. Neither was the agreement reduced to writing. James also wished to avoid paying a commission on the sale of the house that might be due since another realtor, Area One West, Inc., held a listing. However, Hallock advised James that because Jeanie Lockwood had not signed the agreement, the listing realtor would have "no claim whatsoever." Hallock also told James that his wife needed to concur in their agreement. That same evening, Hallock telephoned Jeanie Lockwood, who resided in an apartment in Orlando. He told her he had just talked with her husband concerning a possible sale of their house, and wished to discuss the matter with her that evening. She agreed, and subsequently met Hallock and Mrs. Harrison later that evening. Also present was Jeanie's neighbor, Carol Gordon, who had been asked by Jeanie to sit in on the discussions. Hallock identified himself to the ladies, told them that he had become aware of the foreclosure proceeding by reading a newspaper, and had discussed a possible sale with the husband. He briefly described the same alternatives available to her as he had with James. When asked by Hallock whether she wished to keep the house or move into it, Jeanie stated she did not. No purchase price or equity payment was discussed that evening. However, Hallock requested Jeanie to call the two lending institutions on the following Monday morning to authorize him to ascertain the balances owed on the mortgages. He also advised her that the listing then held on the property by the other realtor was not valid because Jeanie had failed to sign the listing agreement. Hallock called James early the next morning (Saturday) and asked to meet with him. James was moving his possessions out of the home that day and told Hallock to come over right away. Upon arriving at the home, Hallock told James he had a deed prepared that conveyed the property to him and wished to have James sign it that day before he moved to Winter Haven. However, he indicated he would not record it or pay any consideration until the mortgage balances were ascertained, the chain of title checked, and final confirmation received from the Lockwoods. James agreed to meet Hallock at 10:00 a.m. that morning to sign the deed. Hallock then telephoned Jeanie and asked to meet her that morning. When they met, Hallock explained he wished her to sign the deed that day so he would not have to interrupt her work schedule during the following week. Hallock told her to meet James and himself at Wescott Realty at 10:00 a.m. to sign the papers. He also told her that "the least you will get is $100 for the house." At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, the Lockwoods and Hallock met at Wescott Realty in Orlando. There they executed a warranty deed conveying the property in question from the Lockwoods to Hallock (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). It was notarized by Barbara Boehmer, an employee of Wescott. Also present was Mary Black, another employee of Wescott. Prior to their signing the document, the Lockwoods were asked by Hallock if they were of legal age, were husband and wife, were under duress or threat to sign, or were subject to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the signing was done in a rather hasty fashion, there was no effort by Respondent to cover or conceal any portion of the document. The word "deed" was not mentioned at any time during the transaction, nor were the Lockwoods verbally advised at that time as to the nature of the document being signed. Neither was any money or other consideration exchanged. On Monday, August 11, 1980, Jeanie Lockwood called Margaret M. Norman at Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan to request the balance on the mortgage held by that institution. Mrs. Norman advised Jeanie to make the request in writing; Jeanie then prepared a letter requesting that the institution give Hallock "any information he requires regarding the foreclosure on our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Hallock telephoned Jeanie on Monday evening and told her he would give her $65 equity instead of $50.00. She concurred with this amount. He also told her he was in the process of having the title checked and would not record the deed unless the title was clear. On Tuesday morning, Hallock telephoned Mrs. Norman to ascertain the balance on the mortgage held by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan. Upon receiving preliminary information concerning the mortgage, Hallock called James in Winter Haven and advised him the wife had accepted the $65 equity offer on Monday night. The husband complained he wanted an amount closer to $100; Respondent said he would "split the difference" and upped the equity payoff to $75. The husband then gave his concurrence. At 11:43 a.m. on August 12, 1980, Hallock recorded the warranty deed signed by the Lockwoods in the Orange County Courthouse and paid $232 for documentary stamps affixed to the deed (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He later requested and obtained from the Department of Revenue a partial refund of the stamp tax after he determined the stamp tax paid exceeded the amount actually required. After recording the deed he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $75 and mailed it to James in Winter Haven. However, James never cashed the check and returned it to Hallock. On that same Tuesday, Jeanie called Area One West, Inc., the listing realtor, to let them know she had received foreclosure papers on the second mortgage. A salesperson told Jeanie that she had a prospective buyer for the house, and suggested they view the property that afternoon. Thereafter, two representatives of Area One West, the prospective buyer and Jeanie all met at 4815 Basswood Lane. Upon reaching the premises, they found the realtor's sign and multilock in the carport, the front door unlocked, and Hallock's car in the driveway. Inside was Hallock showing the house to a prospective buyer. Jeanie told Hallock she now had a buyer and would not sell the house for $65. Hallock told her he had bought the home, already recorded the deed she had previously signed on Saturday, and had mailed James a check for $75. Jeanie then accused Hallock of being "in cahoots" with James. On August 14, 1980, Respondent telephoned James Lockwood in Winter Haven to inquire about a lawnmower, edger and books that James had left in his house. James told Hallock to keep his books but stated he wished to keep the lawnmower and edger. During the next day or two, James came and took the lawnmower, drapes and oven racks from the house. Thereafter, Hallock called James and asked if he would swap the edger for the missing oven racks; James agreed. Hallock ultimately changed the locks on the house on Saturday, August 16, 1980. James Lockwood is a 29-year-old stockholder employed by Merrill Lynch in Winter Haven, Florida. Prior to his present employment, he worked for an Orlando automobile dealership. His wife is a secretary with the State of Florida. Although their formal education was not disclosed, James did attend college for an undisclosed period of time. Jeanie described her husband as being as honest and truthful "as the next person" but acknowledged he sometimes lied. The listing agreement with Area One West, Inc., was signed by James Lockwood and Carol Lockwood on July 3, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). 3/ Carol is his second wife. Jeanie did not sign the agreement. The house was originally listed for $56,900 on the agreement but that figure was marked through and replaced with a figure of $49,900. Hallock purchased the house for approximately $39,600.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint against Respondent Wilbur Lewis Hallock be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to honor a subpoena issued by Petitioner as is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ASPEC, Inc., is a Florida Corporation engaged in the business of Mortgage Brokerage in Florida. Shanker S. Agarwal is President of ASPEC, Inc. Mr. Agarwal has been licensed by the Department as a Mortgage Broker since May 24, 1985 and currently holds License No. HB-0016435 which expired, by its terms, August 31, 1986. On February 14, 1986, the Department received a consumer complaint about ASPEC, Inc., and pursuant to its investigation of Respondent's brokerage activities, the Department sent a certified letter to ASPEC, Inc., on March 21, 1986, to the attention of President Agarwal requesting that an appointment be scheduled with its Area Financial Manager, Division of Finance, Paul Richman. The returned service of the referenced letter was postmarked April 14, 1986. President Agarwal, or an officer from Respondent failed to schedule an appointment with Paul Richman as requested. On May 22, 1986, the Department served Respondent a subpoena duces tecum on May 23, 1986, by its then Financial Examiner Analyst I, Kevin J.C. Gonzales. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp 9-10.) The subpoena issued to President Agarwal requested that the custodian of records, an officer, director, employee or member of ASPEC, Inc. appear before Paul Richman on May 30, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. at the Department's Miami Office and produce all books, papers and documents (of ASPEC, Inc.) from its inception to April 29, 1986, so that the Department could determine ASPEC's compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. President Agarwal, or a representative on behalf of ASPEC, Inc., failed to appear at the date and time specified on the subpoena, or thereafter, at the designated place to produce the requested documents. Respondent has challenged on constitutional and other procedural grounds, the Department's authority to conduct an investigation of Respondent as a licensee under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Respondent's challenges were determined to be either beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer or lacked merit, and rulings to this effec were made during the course of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Mortgage Brokers License No. HB-0016435 issued to Respondent for a period of (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles J. Gopman Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Shanker S. Agarwal, President ASPEC, INC 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in April 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination? Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in May 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of mortgage brokers pursuant to Part II of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 494.0033(2)(b), Florida Statutes, individuals who apply for licensure as a mortgage broker are required to pass a licensure examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. National Assessment Institute is the company employed by Respondent to administer the licensure examination. Petitioner applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 64. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on May 12, 1995. She questioned her failure to receive credit for fourteen of her answers on that examination and provided written explanations why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those fourteen questions were reviewed by staff of National Assessment Institute. The individual who reviewed Petitioner's responses did not testify in this proceeding. This individual determined that Petitioner's answers to those fourteen questions were incorrect and that her explanations were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was not entitled to additional credit for her answers on the April 1995 examination. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her April 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her responses to the challenged questions on the examination. Petitioner also sat for the licensure examination administered May 23, 1995. Petitioner received a score of 74 on this examination. On June 9, 1995, Petitioner reviewed the grading of answers to the May 1995 examination. Petitioner asserts that the reviewer gave her the wrong question book so that the answer key would make her answers appear incorrect. For her review on June 9, 1995, Petitioner was provided a correct copy of her examination book, a photo copy of her answer sheet, her original scratch paper, and two challenge sheets. The information provided Petitioner reflected the response to each question the Respondent considered to be the correct response. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her May 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her response to any question on the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that the April or May examination was improperly administered. She likewise failed to establish that the opportunity to review the scoring of these two examinations was compromised by fraud or mistake. The Respondent has promulgated Rule 3D-40.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes it to request additional information in conjunction with a licensure application, which information may include the applicant providing evidence of a passing score on the mortgage broker examination. That Rule requires that additional information requested must be received by the Respondent within 90 days. The Respondent requested that Petitioner provide evidence that she had received a passing score on the examination. Petitioner has been unable to provide that information.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's challenges to the scoring of the April and May 1995 licensure examinations be dismissed and, consequently, that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5132 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are rejected as they are not supported by the record. While Petitioner purports to explain her answers to certain questions on the April 1995 examination, this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The fact that Petitioner challenged ten question as a result of her review on June 9, 1995, was not established. Since there was no dispute that the request for formal hearing was timely and this is a de novo proceeding, the proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nasrin Y. Niknam 53 Castle Harbour Isle Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
