The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner's disability.
Findings Of Fact Mr. McMahon was a member of Suncoast beginning in approximately 1986. In 2008 and 2009, Mr. McMahon had a checking account, a VISA card, a savings account, and a loan with Suncoast. Mr. McMahon claims that he is disabled and that he suffers from personality disorders, post-traumatic stress, passive aggression, and obsessive compulsive disorder. No medical evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. He has been receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration based on a personality disorder since approximately 1996. Suncoast perceived Mr. McMahon as having a disability, based on his repeated assertions that he was disabled. In November 2008, Mr. McMahon filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. (BBB), alleging that Suncoast was discriminating against him by not accommodating his communication disability. The BBB investigated and found that Suncoast had blocked access to Mr. McMahon's accounts because he was delinquent on a loan. The BBB contacted Suncoast concerning the complaint, and Suncoast provided Mr. McMahon a three-month payment due date extension on the loan, lowered his monthly payments, and unblocked his account. In January 2009, Mr. McMahon was delinquent on his loan. Again Suncoast tried to help Mr. McMahon with his delinquent account. At some point, Mr. McMahon's loan payments were put on automatic payments in order to reduce his delinquencies. Money would automatically be taken out of his account to make the monthly loan payments. Mr. McMahon had a direct deposit for his Social Security benefits payments. After the loan payments began being deducted automatically, Mr. McMahon canceled his direct deposits into the account from which his payments were automatically being deducted. Thus, there was no money in the account to make the monthly payments on his loan, and Mr. McMahon ceased making payments on the loan and again became delinquent on his loan. When one of Suncoast's members becomes overdrawn with regards to either a checking or savings account or credit card, or is delinquent in making payments on any credit card or loan obligation, that member loses access to his or her services, including use of all internet services, ATM cards, ATM machines, credit cards, and debit cards. The member would also be unable to access his or her account balance or make deposits into overdrawn accounts if the member attempted to make a deposit via ATM, as those services are suspended. These restrictions are typically automatically placed upon the accounts of any member with a delinquent loan account after 60 days of delinquency, and within 30 days of any overdrawn share draft account. Any member with a delinquent or overdrawn account, where services were suspended would be prevented from applying for a mortgage loan. If the member contacted Suncoast staff to apply for a mortgage loan or to utilize any other services, the member would be directed to the loss mitigation section of Suncoast, and loss mitigation would attempt to collect the debt or rectify the delinquency. Because Mr. McMahon again became delinquent on his loan payments after stopping the direct deposits, his accounts were restricted, meaning that he could not access the accounts. Mr. McMahon began a campaign of making repeated calls to Suncoast, screaming and yelling at Suncoast representatives, talking over the representatives, making vulgar statements, and using profanity. Mr. McMahon attributes his behavior to his communication disability and requested on numerous occasions that Suncoast accommodate his disability with "patience and understanding." A note was placed in the loss mitigation's note system and in Suncoast's host system, so that all employees of Suncoast who were working with Mr. McMahon could see and accommodate his request for patience and understanding. Suncoast representatives did provide Mr. McMahon with an abundance of patience and understanding. However, nothing seemed to appease Mr. McMahon, and his repeated calls were unproductive. Because of the repeated nature of Mr. McMahon's calls and his behavior during the telephone calls, there were numerous complaints by Suncoast's representatives to management. Jacqueline Gilbert (Ms. Gilbert), vice president of loss mitigation, determined that in order to protect Suncoast's representatives from Mr. McMahon's harassing behavior that all calls should be directed to her; Linda Fales (Ms. Fales), vice president of risk management, cardholder disputes, and DSA compliance for Suncoast; or Ben Felder (Mr. Felder), Suncoast's general counsel. Suncoast's representatives were advised that Mr. McMahon's calls should be transferred to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, or Mr. Felder. When the representatives would tell Mr. McMahon that they could not help him and that his call would have to be transferred, Mr. McMahon was verbally abusive to the representatives. Many times, if Mr. McMahon was going to be transferred, he would hang up and call right back to speak with a different representative. Sometimes, Mr. McMahon would call and hang up when a representative answered the call. At different times, Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, and Mr. Felder talked with Mr. McMahon to attempt to discuss the reasons that his account was restricted. However, they had little success in communicating with Mr. McMahon because of his behavior. Although Mr. Felder was not able to service Mr. McMahon's account, he decided to handle all Mr. McMahon's requests and assign any work to be done to the appropriate employee because Mr. McMahon's behavior toward Ms. Gilbert and other Suncoast employees was unacceptable. Mr. McMahon did not make any loan payments between May 2009 and August 2009. During this same time period, Mr. McMahon's VISA credit card was well overdrawn. Carolyn Stepp (Ms. Stepp) had cosigned on Mr. McMahon's loan. On or about September 4, 2009, Suncoast exercised its "right of offset" and used funds in both Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts to pay off the loan. There was still an outstanding balance of $1,046.86 on his VISA credit card. On September 10 and 14, 2009, Mr. McMahon asked to apply for a mortgage loan by telephone. He was not sure that Suncoast would give him a loan because of his delinquent accounts, but he felt that he should have the opportunity to apply because the loan had been satisfied when Suncoast exercised its right of offset. Although the loan was satisfied, Mr. McMahon still had an outstanding balance on his VISA credit card, which he had not been able to use for several months because his accounts had been restricted. He was advised that he would have to contact Mr. Felder to discuss the status of his account. On September 11, 2009, Mr. Felder and Mr. McMahon discussed his account. Part of the discussion concerned Suncoast's writing off Mr. McMahon's loan and VISA credit card balance, returning the offset amounts to Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts, disbursing the remaining amounts in Mr. McMahon's account to him, and closing Mr. McMahon's accounts. At the conclusion of the conversation, Mr. Felder understood that Mr. McMahon was in favor of this solution and began to take steps to accomplish the tasks. Mr. Felder advised Mr. McMahon by telephone on September 17, 2009, that the tasks had been completed and that Mr. McMahon's accounts with Suncoast were closed, meaning that services at Suncoast were terminated and that Mr. McMahon's access to information was no longer available. Mr. Felder followed up the telephone conversation with a letter dated September 17, 2009, confirming the telephone conversation. Individuals who are not members of Suncoast are not qualified to apply for a mortgage loan with Suncoast. At the time that Mr. McMahon applied for a mortgage loan on September 14, 2009, his accounts at Suncoast were in the process of being closed. Mr. McMahon's requests to apply for a mortgage with Suncoast were not denied because Mr. McMahon was disabled. They were denied because Mr. McMahon had various account delinquencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Suncoast did not commit an unlawful housing practice and dismissing Mr. McMahon's Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 27th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Charles Peters was employed by Ameri-lantic Corporation at the time he applied for licensure as a mortgage broker, and he is currently employed by Ameri-lantic Mortgage Brokerage Company. Mr. Peters' duties at Ameri-lantic have included contacting potential lenders. These duties have also included discussing loan terms and rates with potential lenders. As an employee of Ameri-lantic, Mr. Peters has received compensation for his efforts on behalf of his employer, in the form of salary. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' compensation was based on commissions of any kind. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' duties included contacting persons who wished to borrow money, or that he acted to bring together those who wish to borrow with those who wished to lend money for mortgages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Charles Peters for licensure as a mortgage broker be granted, if he meets the other requirements for licensure, such as sucessful completion of the written examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Robert L. Saylor, Esquire 215 Fifth Street Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether respondent acted as a mortgage lender within the meaning of Section 494.001(3), Florida Statutes, and thus is subject to Division licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Act which is codified in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Division regulates mortgage lenders and requires such persons or entities to secure a license. Respondent, White Pine Resouces, Inc. (WPR), is a Florida corporation formed in March 1986. Its sole shareholder is John R. Grass, a Pensacola attorney. Although the corporation was originally formed for a number of purposes, its primary activity is the real estate investment business. It holds no licenses issued by, or registrations with, the Division. WPR's current business address is 358-C West Nine Mile Road, Pensacola, Florida. WPR's principal source of money is Grass, or his professional association, who loan money to the corporation. In some cases, the money is used to acquire parcels of property for resale, make necessary repairs or improvements, and then provide owner financing to the buyer. In other cases, WPR loans money to persons needing to make improvements to their homes or rental property and takes back a second mortgage from the borrower. These types of transactions, which occurred during the years 1992-95, are found in documents offered in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-5. Respondent has also stipulated that several other transactions of this nature occurred during that same period of time. In every case, WPR was investing its own money or that of its principal. In 1992, a Division examiner analyst noted the following listing in the Yellow Pages section of the Pensacola telephone directory under the heading of "Mortgages": White Pine Resources Having Trouble With Financing Residential & Land Fast Service on 1st Mortgages The advertisement also contained respondent's street address and telephone number. In the 1993-94 telephone directory, WPR carried the following advertisement under the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pine Resources Specialists! Bad Credit - We Can Help Vacant Land Loans In the 1995-96 telephone directory, WPR placed the following advertisement in the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pines Resources A Private Investor Not a Mortgage Broker Specialists! We Can Help Vacant Land Loans Although the Division first noted one of WPR's Yellow Page advertisements in 1992, for some reason it did not conduct a formal investigation of respondent's activities until February 28, 1994. On that day, an examiner analyst made an unannounced visit to respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its records to determine if WPR was acting as a mortgage lender. However, WPR's principal, John R. Grass, was not in the office, and the analyst simply left his business card and a message for Grass to contact him. The next morning, Grass telephoned the analyst's supervisor and advised him that since WPR was merely a private investor, and not a mortgage lender, it was not subject to the Division's regulation, and hence it would not provide copies of its records. A subpoena duces tecum was then issued by the Division, records were produced pursuant to the subpoena, and this controversy ensued. The parties agree, however, that this action was not prompted by complaints from consumers or other persons having dealings with WPR. The record indicates that a mortgage lender differs from a private investor in several material respects. An important distinction is that a private investor uses its own funds rather than those of another party. Also, a private investor does not buy or sell paper, does not escrow taxes, does not split or broker commissions, and does not close its own loans. In all of these respects, WPR had the attributes of a private investor. When mortgage brokerage firms are involved in transactions with private investors, they must supply the private investor with certain documents that are not provided to an institutional investor. Among others, they include a disclosure agreement, receipt of recorded instruments, an appraisal or waiver of the same, and title insurance. In addition, Division rules require that a mortgage brokerage firm record its transactions with private investors in a log journal known as DBF-MB-888. The evidence shows that for transactions between WPR and at least two mortgage brokerage firms during the years in question, the two firms recorded those transactions on DBF-MB-888. They also provided WPR with documents typically given to private investors. The Division has adopted Rule 3D-40.290(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a person is deemed to be holding himself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business if he advertises in a manner "which would lead the reader to believe the person was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans." The rule has not been challenged and, for purposes of resolving this controversy, is presumed to be valid. In view of the representations that WPR provided "Fast Service on 1st Mortgages" and "Vacant Land Loans," it is fair to infer that the Yellow Page advertisements made by WPR would reasonably lead the reader to believe that WPR was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans. Therefore, by virtue of advertising in the Yellow Pages, WPR is deemed to be holding itself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business. During the years 1993-95, the Division routinely sent WPR questionnaires regarding various WPR transactions with licensed lenders. The transmittal letter accompanying the questionnaire noted that the Division was conducting "a routine examination" of the licensed lender (and not WPR), and WPR's comments would "be of material assistance to (the Division) in determining compliance with the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act." By way of an estoppel defense, WPR has essentially contended that the questionnaires constituted a representation by the Division that WPR was merely a private lender. It further contends that, to its detriment, it relied upon that representation. But there is nothing in the documents that states that the Division considered WPR to be a private lender. Nor is there any evidence that the Division made any other oral or written representations to WPR that it did not need to secure a license. Finally, assuming arguendo that such a representation occurred, there was no showing that WPR relied to its detriment on such an alleged "misstatement of fact." WPR also raises the defense of laches arguing that it was severely prejudiced by the Division's delay in prosecuting this action. Except for testimony that respondent was forced to secure the services of an attorney to defend against this action, and its principal was required to attend a hearing, there was no showing of prejudice on the part of WPR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order requiring respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage lending business without a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 17th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-0290 Petitioner: Because petitioner's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. Respondent: Because respondent's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, III, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Clyde C. Caillouet, Jr., Esquire 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire 358-C West Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32534-1818
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: From approximately October of 1989, to February of 1990, Respondents were employed as telephone consultants by United Financial International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UFI"), a Florida-based business owned by Laura Correa and Anita "Ann" Cuevas that offered to provide assistance to consumers seeking various types of loans, including mortgage loans. Respondents were not then, nor have they ever been, licensed by the Department as mortgage brokers in the State of Florida. Furthermore, at no time did UFI have a license or registration issued by the Department to operate as a mortgage broker, mortgage brokerage business, correspondent mortgage lender or mortgage lender, although it did have at least one employee during the period of Respondents' employment, telephone consultant John Archer, who possessed a Department-issued mortgage broker's license. As telephone consultants for UFI, Respondents answered and screened telephone calls placed by potential UFI clients. Among the callers Respondent Cook screened were Dudley Phipps and Arthur McCullough. Among the callers Respondent Jelich screened was Connie Wiscaver. Phipps, McCullough and Wiscaver were all interested in obtaining mortgage loans. While on the telephone with a potential client, Respondents, as a general rule, identified themselves by name, explained to the caller the services offered and fees charged by UFI, and obtained from the caller the following information, which they recorded on a form provided by their employer: the caller's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, social security number, employer, salary, financial standing, and credit history; and the type, amount and purpose of the loan sought by the caller. Respondents also typically asked what the caller hoped for in terms of interest rate, size of monthly payments and loan repayment schedule. In addition, they indicated what items the caller needed to send to UFI to complete the caller's loan application package. The representations that Respondents made during a typical telephone conversation with a potential client seeking a mortgage loan gave the impression that, if the caller submitted a complete loan application package along with the requisite loan application processing fee, and everything "checked out," Respondents would make the arrangements necessary for the caller to obtain the mortgage loan he or she wanted from one of the lenders with whom UFI had an established relationship. UFI management, in writing, instructed all of its telephone consultants, including Respondents, to incorporate the following in their presentation to potential clients and it randomly monitored the consultants' telephone conversations to make sure that these instructions were being followed: We Co-Broker loans. We are not lenders nor do we have a Funding Committee to evaluate the Loan Package after we receive it. It takes twenty one (21) to thirty (35) [sic] business days from the day we receive ALL the information to evaluate the package. We have an application Fee of $399.00. MANDATORY Please use these statements to increase your credibility and assertiveness with potential clients. The maximum life of the loan will be determined by the investor/lender. The interest rates will be fixed and vary between 12-18 percent. The application fee is non-refundable and the assessed fees to your loan are separate from the application fee. There will be a Brokerage fee of 1-5 percent assessed to your loan upon closing. To increase your potential, please make sure when your [sic] finishing with your potential client to ask them [sic] when they [sic] would like to obtain a loan. Also in your closing statements be sure to tell your client to Bill Recipient with our Federal Express/Express Mail Service to Guarantee overnight delivery. Be advised this is for the return of the Application Fee Only! The application istself [sic] is returned at the client's own expense. The client may pay the application fee by personal check; however, as the checks will be out-of-state it will take approximately (21) days for the check to clear which will hold up the clients [sic] processing. Therefore, we recommend a money order to expidite [sic] the process. We do not like to use regular mail for sending the money orders, we rather the client use our courier sevice [sic]. (see above) If you need assistance please do not hesitate to phone us at 1-800-729-5666. We want to help you secure the funds you require as soon as possible. We sincerely thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. In most cases, Respondents followed these instructions. As compensation for performing their duties as UFI telephone consultants, Respondents received a percentage (either 20 or 30 percent) of the non-refundable loan application processing fee submitted by each caller whose call they screened. In an effort to encourage a caller to submit the fee, Respondents sometimes told the caller that, based upon the preliminary information provided, the chances of the desired loan being approved "looked good." They never stated, however, that loan approval was "guaranteed."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of having violated Section 494.093(1), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing upon each of them an administrative fine of in the amount of $5,000.00 for having engaged in such wrongdoing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (j), and (m), Florida Statutes (2005),1 by allegedly engaging in financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, abandoning a construction project, or committing misconduct or incompetence in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a certified general contractor pursuant to license number CGC59204. Respondent is the qualifier of South West Florida Development Corporation (South West) doing business as Back Bay Homes (Back Bay). On February 7, 2006, Respondent executed a contract with Gail and Gary Veith to build a residential home on a vacant lot located at 3218 Southwest 11th Place, Cape Coral, Florida. The contract price was $276,983.00 (the initial contract). The initial contract provided for the construction of a sea wall at a cost of $17,257.00 in addition to the contract price of $276,983.00. On February 7, 2006, Respondent entered into a second contract with Mr. and Mrs. Veith. The only difference between the initial and second contracts was the contract price of each contract. The second contract price was $289,686.00, excluding the sea wall cost of $17,257.00. Mr. and Mrs. Veith secured payment of the construction project with a construction loan from Market Street Mortgage Corporation (Market Street) in the original approximate amount of $412,000.00. The total loan amount was intended to be sufficient to cover the second contract price of $289,686.00 and the amount contracted by Mr. and Mrs. Veith for acquisition of the vacant lot (construction site), which was $128,000.00.2 Clear and convincing evidence shows that Respondent engaged in financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to his customers in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2. Clear and convincing evidence also shows that Respondent committed incompetence and mismanagement in the practice of contracting. The percentage of completion of the residence, which was zero, was less than the percentage of the contract price paid to Respondent, which was 29 percent. Respondent received approximately $84,655.00 in construction loan proceeds from Market Street in two draws. Market Street paid the first draw at closing on May 5, 2006, in the amount of $42,901.20 and paid the second draw to Respondent on June 26, 2006, in the amount of $41,754.00. However, Respondent never commenced construction of the residence. Respondent reported a profit of $48,637.72 on the Veith property and completed only the sea wall at a cost of $17,257.00. Respondent paid the cost of the sea wall and other expenses on the Veith property to keep the net profit at $48,637.72. Other expenses included $420.00 for surveys, $34.34 for blue prints, $1,707.75 for plan drafts, $350.00 for septic engineering, and $3,138.19 for construction loan interest. Respondent was not entitled by the terms of the contract to retain the funds paid to Respondent by Market Street. The loan agreement provided that draws were to be made at the discretion of Market Street based on work completed and materials incorporated into improvements. Respondent never commenced construction of the residence. Respondent did not obtain permits for the job. Mr. Winston testified that when Market Street transferred a single, lump sum deposit to his company in the amount of $41,754.00 on June 26, 2006, he did not know that he was appropriating funds he was not entitled to under the contract. When that testimony is weighed against evidence that the work Mr. Winston had performed was limited to a sea wall costing only $17,257.00, the testimony is persuasive evidence to the trier of fact that Respondent engaged in mismanagement.3 Respondent billed Market Street for payment of the sea wall when Respondent completed the sea wall. However, the draw schedule in the loan documents does not provide a draw payment for the sea wall. Respondent stopped paying construction interest that Respondent was obligated to pay under the terms of the construction loan. Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Veith paid construction interest of approximately $13,800.00. Clear and convincing evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the construction project within the meaning of Subsection 489.129(1)(j). Respondent failed to perform any work on the residence for 90 consecutive days without just cause. Respondent did not notify Mr. and Mrs. Veith that Respondent had abandoned the project. Rather, Mr. and Mrs. Veith started receiving requests for payment of construction loan interest. Respondent failed to conduct any construction activity on the project site for more than 90 consecutive days. On May 13, 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Veith received notice that their loan had been assigned from Market Street to Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company (Gulf Coast). Gulf Coast sent Mr. and Mrs. Veith repeated demands for payment of the construction loan principal and interest. Mr. and Mrs. Veith entered into a transaction identified in the record as a "short sale" in which they sold the construction site, which they originally purchased for $128,000.00, for $20,000.00. The $20,000.00 sale proceeds were paid to Gulf Coast. Mr. and Mrs. Veith have been financially unable to make payments to Gulf Coast. They remain liable for the full amount of the loan, including delinquent principal and interest. Mr. and Mrs. Veith brought a civil action against Respondent. They were unable to sustain the action because they could not afford the attorney fees. Petitioner incurred investigative costs in this matter of $204.26. The investigative costs do not include attorney time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing the fines enumerated in paragraph 24 of this Recommended Order; requiring Respondent to pay investigative costs in the amount of $204.26; and requiring Respondent to make full restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Veith in the amount of $61,747.72. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age and handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harold Asher (Asher), was born on January 13, 1929, and as of April 1, 1992, he was 63 years old. Respondent, Barnett Banks, Inc. (BBI), is a holding company that owns and controls numerous banks in Florida and Georgia. The banks in Florida owned by BBI are located in three geographical regions: the north region, the central region, and the south region. In the south region there are nine banks: Barnett Bank of Key West, Barnett Bank of South Florida (Miami), Barnett Bank of Broward (Fort Lauderdale), Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County, Barnett Bank of Martin County, Barnett Bank of Treasure Coast, Barnett Bank of Lake Okeechobee, Barnett Bank of Naples, and Barnett Bank of Lee County (Fort Myers). Each bank has branches. Barnett Banks, Inc. is an employer subject to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Harold Asher was hired by Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County in 1983, at the age of 54 as a loan review officer and was later promoted to Vice President/Loan Review. His job responsibility was to review loans which had been granted by Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County. A loan review is an evaluation of the portfolio after a loan is made to insure that the loan was properly approved, that the analysis done to support the sources of repayment was adequate, that the loan is collectible, that the risk factors associated with the loan is in line with policy and regulatory standards, and that the loan is properly underwritten. The loan review is memorialized on a line or summary sheet. While employed by Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County, Asher had several supervisors, including Ken Parrish, Art Kite, James Kammert, Noel Coan, and Martin Streischek. Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County used a rating system of one to five in evaluating its employees, which equated as follows: 1.0 to 1.49 means fails to meet minimum position accountabilities; 1.5 to 2.49 means with few exceptions, meets position accountabilities; 2.5 to 3.49 means meets position accountabilities; 3.5 to 4.49 means exceeds position accountabilities; and 4.5 to 5.0 means significantly exceeds position accountabilities. In March, 1988, James Kammert rated Asher's performance as 3.0. On January 1, 1989, Art Kite rated Asher's performance for 1988 as 3.70. In June, 1989, Art Kite rated Asher as meeting or exceeding in the key result areas (KRAs) of Asher's position. On January 1, 1990, Art Kite performed an evaluation of Asher's performance for 1989 and rated him 3.45. On January 18, 1991, Neal Coan rated Asher's performance for 1990 as 3.0. While working for Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County, Asher was never disciplined. Prior to 1991, BBI and its banks had a dual system for loan reviews. Some of the banks such as Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County, had set up loan review sections which operated at the bank level only. The staff of these sections would report directly to the bank. BBI had a loan review section for each of its regions. The BBI regional loan review sections would review loans in each of the banks located in that particular region. In January, 1991 a decision was made by BBI to consolidate the loan reviews at the holding company level. On-site teams were established in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Palm Beach. A travel team reviewed loans at all the banks including the banks which had on-site teams. As a result of the consolidation, the local banks eliminated their loan review departments and the staff comprising those particular departments were terminated from their positions. At the time of the decision to consolidate, Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County's loan review section consisted of one secretary and three loan officers, one of whom was Asher. The three loan officers interviewed for positions with BBI. Asher and Steven Clapp were hired by BBI. Asher was 61 years of age when he was hired by BBI on January 1, 1991, as the on-site manager for Credit Quality Review at the Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County. His office was located on Datura Street in West Palm Beach. Part of Asher's duties included supervising Mr. Clapp. The BBI on-site manager for Credit Quality Review at Barnett Bank of South Florida (Miami) was Barry Goldberg, who was born on September 24, 1962. The BBI on-site manager for Credit Quality Review at the Barnett Bank of Broward County was Mark Tavoletti, who was born on December 19, 1961. Although the same methods were used to review loans for BBI as were used to review loans for Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County, there were some changes. Computers were used more at BBI. Instead of traveling to the 45 branches of Barnett Bank of Palm Beach to review loans, Asher received the files through the interoffice mail. BBI loan reviews focused more on a loan instead of the work of the loan officer. Monthly reports were required by BBI. BBI report formats differed from those of Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County. Asher no longer selected the loans to be reviewed. BBI selected the loans using specific criteria established by BBI. Asher reported to Scott Bechtle. While working with Mr. Bechtle, Asher did not receive any criticism or disciplinary action. In July, 1991, Edward Angulo (Angulo) took over Mr. Bechtle's position as the Regional Credit Review Director for the south region. Asher, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. Tavoletti began reporting to Angulo. Angulo's primary duty was to review the line sheets that were generated by the on-site groups and the travel team. From July, 1991 to the end of December, 1991, Angulo met with Asher approximately three to five times and talked with Asher numerous times on the telephone. Angulo reviewed all the line sheets that were generated by Asher and Clapp during that six-month period. In reviewing the work done by the Palm Beach on-site group, Angulo noted that generally the line sheets did not have sufficient quantifiable information, did not contain information supported by an independent evaluation, and contained deficiencies regarding underwriting. He would make comments concerning these problems and call Asher to discuss them. Some times Asher would not provide additional information requested by Angulo or would provide it in an unsatisfactory manner. During the last six months in 1991, Angulo spent more time in connection with the Palm Beach loan reviews than he did with the other loan review teams because of the problems the Palm Beach team was having. Angulo sat in with Asher during an exit meeting with bank management wherein Asher appeared indecisive and unprepared, forcing Angulo to take over and conduct the meeting in its entirety. Angulo completed a performance evaluation on Asher for the period 1/91 to 12/91. Asher was evaluated on nine KRAs: 1) supervise staff, 2) analyze specific loans, 3) determine quality of credit analyses, 4) evaluate underwriting standards, 5) insure accuracy of CSS, 6) evaluate overall credit administration, 7) evaluate loan approval process, 8) prepare reports and exit meetings, and 9) train junior officers. Each KRA was weighted and rated on a scale of one to five, with one being the lowest rating and five being the highest. For KRAs 1, 5, and 9, Asher was rated as 3, which meant that his performance met expectations. For KRAs 2, 3, 7, and 8, Asher received a rating of 2, which stood for approaches expectations. In the KRA concerning evaluating underwriting standards, Asher received a rating of 1, which meant that Asher's performance failed to meet expectations. Angulo noted on the evaluation that Asher needed to improve his performance in the following areas: technical/analytical, independent/inquisitive attitudes, and judgement/decisiveness. Asher's total weighted rating was 2.25, which equates to an overall rating of 2. At the time of the evaluation, Asher and Angulo understood that Asher's position was a Review Officer III. Asher had been performing the work of a Review Officer III. Accordingly, Angulo evaluated his work using the standards for Review Officer III, and evaluated the work actually performed by Asher. However, at the hearing it was revealed that Asher had been a Review Officer II at the time of his employment with BBI and held that position until his termination. On or about April 1, 1992, Angulo met with Asher and discussed Asher's performance since January, 1992. Angulo cited a problem that had occurred concerning a review of Southside Investors which had been done by Asher's subordinate, Steven Clapp. Angulo had discussed with Asher several inconsistencies or omissions in the report relating to potential underwriting problems and asked Asher to have the deficiencies cleared up. As of April 1, 1992, the deficiencies had not been resolved. Angulo also discussed with Asher problems dealing with the adequacy of supervision of report preparation and the conduct of exit meetings with bank management. Deficiencies in these areas had been pointed out in Asher's 1991 annual performance evaluation. Since that evaluation, a monthly report by Steven Clapp had to be amended because of his erroneous conclusion that the bank's overall underwriting and lending practices were inadequate. The incorrect finding was not corrected until a draft of the report was reviewed by the regional office. As the on-site manager, Asher should have reviewed Mr. Clapp's report and caught the error before it was sent to the regional office. Angulo also pointed out to Asher that his performance at exit meetings with bank management still lacked decisiveness, resulting in the need for frequent changes in reports. As a result of the continued deficiencies in Asher's performance since his 1991 performance evaluation, Angulo felt that Asher needed technical training, improvement in supervisory skills, and familiarization with BBI policies and procedures. To assist Asher in reaching an acceptable level of performance, Asher was moved from his on-site manager position to Barnett Banks, Inc.'s Credit Review Office travel team on or about April 1, 1992. There was no decrease in salary, benefits, or pay grade. Additionally, Asher was placed on a 90-day probationary period. In mid-April, 1992, Asher wrote Ken Veniard, a Senior Vice President, stating that he disagreed with Angulo's evaluation and felt that the negative comments were "based on factors totally unrelated to performance, such as age, personality, or simply the lack of complete information." Asher requested to be considered for a transfer. Veniard received the memorandum on April 29, 1992. On or about April 1, 1992, Jack Shoben, a credit review officer with BBI since 1989, was moved into the position of on-site manager for Credit Quality Review at the Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County at the Datura Street location. Jack Shoben was born on October 1, 1947, and as of April 1, 1992, he was 44 years old. Angulo chose Shoben as the on-site manager because of Mr. Shoben's qualifications and experience. After Mr. Shoben became on-site manager, the work product from the on-site team at Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County began to improve; thus Angulo did not have to spend as much time on the Palm Beach site as he had when Asher was on-site manager. William Westland, who was born on October 26, 1927, was Asher's supervisor on the travel team. During Asher's first two weeks on the travel team, he worked in Broward County. His performance was satisfactory. The third week on the travel team was spent in Miami, where Asher was required to review real estate loans. Mr. Westland noted that Asher needed some training in the real estate loan area. On May 10, 1992, shortly after Asher returned from Miami, he suffered a brain seizure and was hospitalized for two days. Six weeks after his seizure, Asher returned to work. As a result of Asher's seizure, his doctors prohibited Asher from driving for at least six months and possibly longer and required his work-related travel to be kept to an absolute minimum, which included avoiding long travel trips of any type. An essential requirement for the position that Asher held on the travel team was that he be able to travel to the different banks in the south region to conduct loan reviews. Asher was aware that extensive travel was a requirement of his job and so advised his doctor by letter dated July 3, 1992. When Asher returned to work, he was temporarily placed on the on-site review team at Palm Beach under the supervision of Jack Shoben. Steven Clapp who had been at Palm Beach on the on-site review team was transferred to the travel team. Asher's probationary period was extended to August 7, 1992. The temporary placement was to accommodate Asher's non-travel status until December 31, 1992, and after such time Asher's continued employment was contingent upon his satisfactory completion of the probationary period and his ability to meet the requirements of all credit review officers of his level, which included travel. During June 1992 until Mr. Asher's termination, Jeff Asher, his son, often drove Asher to Barnett Bank's offices on Datura Street in West Palm Beach. He also drove him home from that location during the same time. Jeff Asher also drove Asher to and from branch locations within Palm Beach County during the same period. A memorandum dated July 28, 1992, was sent from Ken Veniard, Angulo's supervisor, to BBI Credit Quality Staff, stating that although BBI was committed to maintain the on-site loan review teams, that all on-site staff would be required to travel and assist the travel team as necessary. On August 7, 1992, Asher's probationary period lapsed. There was no evaluation of Asher's performance at that time. In August, 1992, Steven Clapp was transferred to the BBI office in Jacksonville to fill a position for which he had posted. The position on the travel team that Mr. Clapp had filled in Asher's absence was held open for Asher in the event that his travel restrictions would be lifted in January, 1993, thereby enabling him to return to his position on the travel. In November, 1992, Asher, Sarah Ketchum, Jack Shoben, and Angulo participated in a teleconference, at which time Angulo advised Asher that if Asher's doctor did not approve a full time travel schedule in January, 1993, Asher's employment with BBI would be terminated effective as of December 31, 1992. On December 28, 1992, Asher visited his doctor, who continued the travel restrictions. On December 30, 1992, Asher, Jack Shoben, Joan Slaughenhaupt, and Angulo participated in a teleconference. Asher stated that his travel restrictions had not changed. Angulo advised Asher that his employment would be terminated effective December 31 due to his inability to travel. Mr. Asher's employment ended on December 31, 1992. On January 1, 1992, the on-site teams in Miami and Fort Lauderdale were each reduced from three to two on-site personnel. The Palm Beach on-site team was reduced to one one-site person, Jack Shoben, who was the only loan review officer there from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993. In January, 1994, all on-site positions were eliminated. Mr. Asher's salary at the time of his termination was $47,339.96 annually. In the spring of 1993, Asher and his wife went to Huntsville, Alabama, traveling by automobile two days each way. In June, 1993, all Asher's travel restrictions were lifted. Prior to his driving restrictions being lifted, Asher began driving short distances in his neighborhood. In January, 1994, BBI made an offer of reinstatement to Asher, whereby he would have been reinstated as a Credit Review Officer II on the regional travel team with the same salary, same seniority, and same salary grade level as when he was terminated on December 31, 1992. In addition, a procedure was implemented whereby Asher could report directly to Janice Gurny, Director of Human Resources for BBI in the Jacksonville office, any complaints regarding harassment on the part of his supervisors. Asher received the offer but did not contact anyone at BBI regarding the offer of reinstatement. Asher did not take the offer because it was a Credit Review Officer II position (he was under the impression he was a Credit Review Officer III at the time of his termination); he felt the environment was hostile; and he had his house on the market to sell.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 8th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5815 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraphs 3: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The third sentence is accepted to the extent that Petitioner received two letters which advised him of his increase in salary and thanked him for his hard work and professionalism and advised him that the bank was glad that he was on the team. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is accepted to the extent that the methods to review loans were basically the same but rejected to the extent that the only changes were in the format of the loan review reporting process. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 10-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: The last sentence is rejected to the extent that it implies that Asher was rated on work for which he was not performing. He was doing the job of a level III but his personnel file reflected that he officially was placed in a level II position. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 14-16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: The first sentence is rejected as recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: The first, second, sixth, and tenth sentences are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The third, fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth sentences are accepted in substance except as to the reference to the placement on the travel team as a demotion. The seventh sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20-23: Rejected as recitation of testimony and constituting argument. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 25: The first, second, third, and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The eight sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The ninth sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence in that the charge against Asher was his failure to catch Mr. Clapp's errors before the report left the Palm Beach office. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26: The first sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by any evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 28: The first, third, and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The second and fifth sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 29: The first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 30: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 31: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 32: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 36: The first and second sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 37: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 39: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 40: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 43: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as it applies to the time period from June, 1992 to June, 1993. The second sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 44: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 17-18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: The first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 21: The sixth sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 22-24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The third sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 26-27: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 28: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 30-34: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 35-39: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Moye, Esquire Patrick J. Kennedy, Esquire 201 East Pine Street, Suite 710 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Tannenbaum, Esquire Shea & Tannenbaum 204 Brazilian Avenue, Suite 210 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended for violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Irving Zimmerman holds Mortgage Brokerage Registration No. 90-3337. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License was issued by the Department of Banking and Finance dated March 24, 1975 and served on Respondent Irving Zimmerman by certified mail. Said Emergency Order is now in effect: Through his attorney, Milton R. Wasman, Respondent Zimmerman requested this formal administrative hearing. The attorney for Respondent, Mr. Milton R. Wasman, called the undersigned Hearing Officer on the day immediately preceding this hearing, that is June 23, 1975, requesting that the hearing be postponed because of a physical disability of said attorney. Said request was denied because of the late hour of request and because of grievous inconvenience to the parties and to the witnesses that had been subpoenaed. Said request was denied orally by telephone to Respondent's attorney whereupon said attorney requested that the transcript of the proceeding be made available. Said attorney was assured that he could view the transcript upon his request when it was available. Upon request of William Corbett, Counsel for the agency, authorization was given to take the deposition of witness Joseph M. Magill, a witness who could not attend the hearing. Said deposition is filed with this record. The attorney for Respondent Zimmerman, Mr. Wasman appeared in behalf of the Respondent at the taking of said deposition in Miami, Florida on July 18, 1975. The following instruments were made part of the record: Summons dated March 24, 1975; Order of Emergency Suspension of License filed March 24, 1975; Petition for Hearing filed by Respondent's attorney; Deposition of witness for the agency, Mr. Joseph M. Magill; Transcript of record of this hearing and also transcript of record at the taking of deposition. On or about July 10, 1974, Mr. Leonard G. Pardue issued a check in the amount of $7,500 payable to "State Farm Mortgage Co., escrow account" for the purpose of making a mortgage loan to Hans G. and Ann M. Widenhauser. Subsequently, after the Widenhausers decided not to make this loan, the Respondent contacted Mr. Pardue and attempted to negotiate a substitute loan to Alan and Marcia Hollet. After that loan did not close, Mr. Pardue, by his attorney, Mr. Roger G. Welcher, wrote several letters to Respondent which demanded a return of the $7,500 to his client. Mr. Pardue filed a civil suit against Respondent to recover said funds; however, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent has failed or refused to return the money. Mr. Bernard Supworth made a mortgage loan to Robert E. and Madeline Pope in June of 1972, through the Respondent as broker. The monthly payments were made to Respondent who in turn was supposed to remit the funds to Mr. Supworth. Subsequently, on or about January 25, 1974, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth that the mortgage was being paid off and Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction thereof to Respondent. Later, Mr. Supworth learned that the Pope mortgage had been paid off in July, 1973, and that a check had been issued by Dade Federal and Savings & Loan Association on July 9, 1973, payable to State Farm Mortgage in the amount of $3,544.98. Notwithstanding such payment in full on the Pope mortgage in July, 1973, Respondent continued to remit monthly payments on it to Mr. Supworth. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to receive any monthly payments after the mortgage had been satisfied and to date has not received all of his money on the Pope transaction. Respondent Zimmerman negotiated another mortgage loan to Mr. Supworth to James and Phyllis Lowe, as borrowers in the amount of $4,600 to be paid in the amount of $97.74 per month. These payments were to be paid by the Lowes to the Respondent, who was to remit said payment to Mr. Supworth. Thereafter, on or about November 21, 1973, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth, by memorandum, that this mortgage must be paid off. Thereupon, Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Respondent. He continued to receive monthly payments from Respondent on the Lowe mortgage up until January, 1975. Mr. Supworth later learned that the Lowe mortgage had been paid in full to Respondent in October, 1973. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to this transaction. On or about August 15, 1973, Mrs. Judith Valenza made a mortgage loan at the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Later Mrs. Valenza negotiated a mortgage loan through Respondent, as broker, to pay off the existing mortgage to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Pursuant to that transaction, Mrs. Valenza closed said loan through Respondent, as broker. Thereafter, a check was issued on "Irving Zimmerman Trust Account" in the amount of $3,510.78, and payable to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. The check was returned because of "insufficient funds". As of the date of the hearing, the Commercial Bank of Kendall had not received payment of said check from Respondent. On or about January 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Magill executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $3,500 in favor or Helen R. Stahl, as trustee, at the offices of Respondent. Respondent failed to account for or deliver money to the person entitled thereto, on demand failed to disburse funds in accordance with the agreement, and failed to keep funds in a trust account.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents engaged in loan transactions with Florida consumers in which the combined rate of interest for each of the loans exceeded 18 percent in violation of Subsection 516.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of Chapter 516 (the Florida Consumer Finance Act) and Chapter 560, part IV (the Deferred Presentment Act). The Florida Consumer Finance Act regulates consumer lending transactions of amounts less than $25,000. The Deferred Presentment Act regulates deferred presentment transactions and provides an exception to the requirements of Chapter 516 for entities registered thereunder. Neither of the respondents is registered with Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 516 or 560, or any other chapter regulated by Petitioner. Respondent, EZPawn Florida, Inc. (EZPawn), is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices located at 1901 Capital Parkway, Austin, Texas 78746. EZPawn is licensed in Florida as a credit services organization (CSO), operating pursuant to Chapter 817, Part III, the Credit Service Organizations Act (CSO Act). Respondent, Integrity Florida Funding, L.P. (Integrity), is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal place of business located at 84 Villa Road, Greenville, South Carolina 29615. Integrity lends money to Florida residents in consumer finance transactions. EZPawn and Integrity are independent entities. The entities are not affiliated entities and do not otherwise share common ownership, control, or management. Neither entity discloses to the other information regarding their cost of funds, profit margins, or overhead expenses. On November 30, 2005, EZPawn and Integrity entered into a business arrangement pursuant to written contract. The contract is identified in the record as the Credit Services Organization and Lender Agreement (the CSO/Lender Agreement). The CSO/Lender Agreement, in relevant part, authorizes EZPawn to take loan applications from Florida residents and submit them to Integrity for approval. Integrity charges an interest rate of 18 percent on each loan. EZPawn charges a fee of either $15.00 or $30.00 for each $100.00 loaned by Integrity. If Integrity approves a loan, Integrity funds the loan through the local EZPawn office. The EZPawn fee is added to the loan amount. If the fee charged by EZPawn was aggregated with the interest charged by Integrity, the rate of interest for the loan would exceed 18 percent. The factual issue is whether the fee charged by EZPawn is a "cost of obtaining a consumer finance loan" (cost of the loan) within the statutory definition of interest in Subsection 516.01(5). The quoted statutory phrase is not defined by statute or rule. Nor did the parties cite any controlling judicial decisions defining the quoted phrase in Florida. The trier-of-fact finds the evidence to be clear and convincing that the fee charged by EZPawn is a cost of the loan and must be aggregated with the interest charged by Integrity to determine the total amount of interest. Although EZPawn structures the legal form of its services as those provided by a CSO, the legal form is without economic substance. Economic reality demonstrates that the EZPawn fee is a cost of the loan. EZPawn casts its fee in the form of a charge for CSO services. The CSO agreement between EZPawn and each of its customers states that EZPawn will assist customers in preparing applications and compiling documentation necessary to apply for loans, will issue letters of credit (LOCs) on behalf of the customer to improve the customer's creditworthiness, will assist the customer in obtaining a loan, and will enroll customers in a credit reporting service, identified in the record as the PRBC, to report their loan payments. The enumerated CSO services are expressly authorized in the CSO Act. EZPawn does not share any of its fee with Integrity, and Integrity does not share any of the loan principal or interest with EZPawn. The two entities have separate rating, or underwriting requirements, and they do not share that proprietary information. Integrity determines the total amount of loans it will make and funds the loans out of its own capital. The LOC issued by EZPawn does not eliminate the risk of loss to Integrity. The economic substance of the loan transactions is substantially different than the legal form in which Respondents have chosen to cast the transactions. The legal form of the transactions has no economic effect. The EZPawn fee is not a fee for separate CSO services. EZPawn does not receive a fee unless Integrity funds a loan. If Integrity does not fund a loan, nothing happens, the EZPawn customer owes EZPawn nothing, and there are no loan payments to be reported by PRBC to improve the customer's creditworthiness. The EZPawn customer owes EZPawn no fee for separate CSO services unless Integrity funds a loan. No customer of EZPawn obtains a loan from Integrity unless the customer agrees to pay the EZPawn fee. Each of the approximately 36,000 loans at issue in this case share meaningful characteristics of payday loans. Each loan is a short-term single payment loan for a relatively low dollar amount that is more than $100.00 and less than $1,000.00. Payment is due on the next day the customer is paid between seven and 37 days after the date of the loan. Integrity charged an annualized percentage rate of interest of 18 percent on each of the loans. The EZPawn fee varies directly with the amount borrowed. Payment of the EZPawn fee is financed and is due and payable at the same time the principal and interest is due and payable to Integrity. The fee charged by EZPawn is an economic function of the amount and term of the loan from Integrity. EZPawn charges a fee on loans with a term of seven to 23 days in an amount equal to $15.00 per $100.00 borrowed. For loans with a term of 24 to 37 days, EZPawn charges a fee of $30.00 per $100.00 borrowed. EZPawn charges an additional fee, in addition to the accumulated interest charged by Integrity, each time a borrower refinances his or her loan. A borrower may refinance a loan up to six times. The first six refinances result in no payment on the loan principal. After refinancing a loan six times (a rollover loan), a borrower may continue to roll the loan over. However, the borrower must pay $50.00 toward principal for each rollover loan after six. An economically significant amount of the fees that EZPawn charged for titular CSO fees consist of rollover fees. Of the total fees that EZPawn charged for denominated CSO services, approximately 28,829 transactions were charged in rollover loans and approximately 11,631 transactions were for first-time loans. EZPawn charges a fee for every loan that Integrity makes. Integrity has not made any loans to any Florida borrowers to whom EZPawn did not provide alleged CSO services. Each note conditions the loan on the agreement to pay the 18 percent interest to Integrity and the charge identified as a CSO fee to EZPawn. Each note requires the borrower to, “promise to pay [Integrity] the Total of Payments in 1 payment on the due date indicated.” The "Total of Payments" includes the reputed CSO fee. Customers do not pay the alleged CSO fee to EZPawn independently from the loan made by Integrity. Rather, the EZPawn fee is included on the face of each loan note as part of the finance charge and total of payments. The EZPawn fees are payable only through an electronic debit transaction that deducts the money from the borrowers bank account automatically on payday (ACH). The loan documents processed by EZPawn treat the so- called CSO fee as an interest charge for federal reporting and disclosure requirements. The documents that memorialize the loans are substantially the same in substantive form for each of the approximately 36,000 loans. The note treats the CSO fee as a finance charge for purposes of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TLA). The note specifically recognizes that the CSO fee is part of, “[t]he dollar amount the credit will cost you [the borrower].” The CSO fee is also included in the TLA calculation of the actual percentage rate (APR) of finance charge. The loan documents acknowledge the charge to be part of, “[t]he cost of your credit as an annual percentage rate.” The economic substance of the charge identified in the loan documentation as a CSO fee, in relevant part, is a charge by EZPawn for its extension of credit to the borrower. The extension of credit is cast in the form of an LOC. The charge for the extension of credit by EZPawn, in the form of an LOC, is not for a separate loan of a different sum of money. The charge by EZPawn and the interest charged by Integrity are each part of the aggregate economic cost of the loan to the borrower. EZPawn agrees in the LOC to pay Integrity principal, interest, and a non-sufficient funds fee in the event of default by the borrower. In every one of the loan transactions at issue, EZPawn issued an LOC. In response to over 36,000 loan applications, Integrity made a loan every time EZPawn issued an LOC. Integrity never made a loan without an LOC. EZPawn applies its own loan guidelines or underwriting requirements. Once EZPawn approves a loan application, EZPawn issues an LOC in favor of Integrity in an amount not to exceed principal, interest, and dishonored item fee as applicable to the loan arranged by EZPawn. The LOC provides that EZPawn will pay Integrity the principal and interest owed upon the loan: (1) becoming past due and unpaid, (2) the dishonoring of any ACH debit or other payment device, and (3) not more than three days elapses since the latter of the above things occurs. Upon default, Integrity collects on the LOC automatically. Integrity immediately receives payment of its principal along with any accrued interest and a non-sufficient funds fee. The economic reality of each loan transaction is that the risk of loss and burden of collection is on EZPawn. Any risk of loss shouldered by Integrity is limited to the financial health of EZPawn, which has been significantly enhanced after entering into the CSO/Lender agreement with Integrity. Integrity requires EZPawn to issue an LOC as a prerequisite for each loan. An LOC is an underwriting requirement that a borrower must satisfy to obtain the loan. Integrity will not approve a loan without an LOC. EZPawn controls the distribution of loan proceeds to the borrower. Integrity sends an electronic direct draft to EZPawn (the draft). EZPawn prints the draft, which is payable to the borrower. EZPawn then immediately provides cash to the borrower in exchange for the draft. EZPawn employees instruct borrowers that the draft can only be cashed with EZPawn or Integrity. No borrower ever leaves an EZPawn store without cash. The Operation Manual adopted by EZPawn contains specific instructions emphasizing that EZPawn employees should not give a draft to a borrower. The economic effect of each loan transaction is that two lenders charge for the same loan. Integrity funds the loan and charges interest as a cost of the loan. EZPawn charges a fee for extending credit to the borrower, assuming the risk of loss, and undertaking the burden of collection. The economic reality is that the charges imposed by both lenders are aggregated to determine the cost of the loan to the borrower. EZPawn’s Operations Manual identifies the "CSO fee" as interest in Florida. In the table identifying “Interest Rates by State” the entry for the Interest Rate in Florida includes “18% APR Lender Fee + $15 per hundred broker fee.” A determination that the charge imposed by EZPawn is part of the cost of the loan to the borrower is made based on the finding that EZPawn and Integrity are separate and independent businesses which are not associated, affiliated, or engaged in a joint venture. If two separate lenders charge interest for the same loan, and the aggregate interest exceeds the legal amount, neither party informed the ALJ of any legal authority that exonerates the two lenders. A determination that the charge imposed by EZPawn is part of the cost of the loan is not dependent on a determination that EZPawn is a loan broker for Integrity. However, the trier- of-fact considers findings relevant to the broker issue to be appropriate given the ample hearing time and evidence that the parties devoted to the issue. EZPawn is a loan broker. In addition to maintaining the exclusive contractual right to market, offer, and promote Integrity loans, EZPawn performs numerous functions on behalf of Integrity pursuant to the CSO/Lender Agreement. The CSO/Lender Agreement identifies EZPawn customers as joint customers of both entities. EZPawn is permitted to use Customer Information to market and sell other loan products without Integrity’s consent. However, Integrity must obtain written consent from EZPawn before using Customer Information in a similar fashion. Similarly, EZPawn may assign its rights or obligations to an affiliate without written consent from Integrity, but Integrity must obtain EZPawn’s permission to do so. A borrower completes one four-page application for both the stated CSO services from EZPawn and the loan from Integrity. Customers complete the application at one of EZPawn’s stores located in Florida. Before the loan is ever evaluated by Integrity, EZPawn uses the information on the application to make an independent determination based on its own underwriting criteria of whether to issue an LOC. EZPawn gives each borrower a document entitled a Credit Services Organization Disclosure Statement (CSO2). The CSO2 lists the services EZPawn will provide to the borrower for the fee identified as a CSO fee. The services include all collection functions related to the loans, maintaining substantially all records, issuing all adverse action notices on behalf of Integrity, and delivering all legally required disclosures on behalf of Integrity. The third document that EZPawn provides to a borrower is the Credit Services Organization Agreement (CSO3). The CSO3 is the actual agreement between EZPawn and the borrower regarding the services identified as CSO services. The CSO3 identifies the same CSO services as those disclosed in the CSO2. The fourth document that EZPawn provides to a borrower is the promissory note, which includes the TLA disclosure (the CSO4). The CSO4 prescribes the terms of the loan from Integrity. The cost of each loan at issue in this proceeding exceeds 18 percent. The details of the 36,000 loan transactions are well documented in the record. At the hearing, Petitioner introduced paper copies of files that contain loan documents for two representative borrowers as sample documents. The sample documents were also attached to the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondents also introduced paper copies of representative loan documents. Petitioner’s Exhibit N is a printout of a spreadsheet file listing the name and other pertinent information of each customer. Each customer on the spreadsheet is associated with a unique Customer identification (ID) number. Petitioner’s Exhibit GG contains an electronic spreadsheet with a number of pieces of data associated with each of the loans. The information includes the customer ID number and loan number for each transaction. The disclosed APR for each of the loans is far in excess of 18 percent. The APR listed for every loan exceeds 18 percent by hundreds of percentage points. The APRs range from 210.31 percent to 1,472.23 percent. The loan made to borrower Y.M. on June 7, 2006, carries an APR of 439.18 percent. The loan made to borrower N.H. on June 6, 2006, carries an APR of 626.34 percent. The loan made to the borrower in the example loan note provided by Respondents carries an APR of 515.85 percent. On June 6, 2006, N.H. obtained a loan of $1,000.00 that matured on June 15, 2006. On May 15, 2006, N.H. obtained a rollover loan of $270.00 that matured on May 30, 2006. In the first loan to N.H., the cost of the loan included an annualized rate of interest of 18 percent, or $4.44, payable to Integrity and a stated CSO fee of $150.00 payable to EZPawn. The cost of the loan for the rollover loan to N.H. included an annualized rate of interest of 18 percent, or $1.86, payable to Integrity and a stated CSO fee of $40.50 payable to EZPawn. The TLA disclosure in the first loan to N.H. stated that the true cost of her credit was an APR of 626.34 percent. The TLA disclosure in the rollover loan stated the true cost to be an APR of 409.03 percent. The loan documents in each of the loans to N.H. required N.H. to authorize Integrity to execute an ACH debit transaction from the borrower’s checking account. The cost of the $1,000.00 loan to N.H. was $154.44, which was financed and rolled into the loan amount. The loan documents authorize EZPawn to collect a fee of $150.00 from the $154.44, or 97.1 percent of the cost of the loan. The balance of $4.44 represented interest payable to Integrity at an annualized rate of 18 percent. The rollover loan did not result in the distribution of any loan proceeds to N.H. Rather, the loan amount of $270.00 was paid on the existing account. Nevertheless, loan documents authorize EZPawn to collect $40.50 and Integrity to collect $1.86 in annualized interest. EZPawn collected approximately 95 percent of the cost of the rollover loan. The workings of the original and rollover loan to N.H. are illustrative of those in the other borrower files Petitioner entered into evidence. On May 26, 2006, Y.M. obtained a loan of $500.00 that matured on June 8, 2006. On June 7, 2006, Y.M. obtained a rollover loan of $500.00 that matured on June 22, 2006. The cost of the first loan included $3.21 charged by Integrity at an annualized rate of interest of 18 percent and a charge of $75.00 by EZPawn for a stated CSO fee. The cost of the rollover loan included a charge by Integrity of $3.45 at an annualized interest rate of 18 percent and a charge of $75.00 by EZPawn for a stated CSO fee. The TLA disclosure for the first loan to Y.M. disclosed that the true cost of credit was 439.18 percent. The true cost of credit for the rollover loan was 409.06 percent. A preponderance of the evidence showed intent to violate the statute. However, the trier-of-fact finds the evidence less than clear and convincing that Respondents intentionally violated Florida law. The legal structure of the business conducted in Florida is fashioned after a similar mechanism that is lawful in Texas. Although the statutes in the two states are different, there is ample evidence that Respondents undertook reasonable due diligence, including appropriate legal opinions, to ensure that the mechanism used in Florida complies with Florida law. This proceeding is apparently the first enforcement effort of this type by Petitioner in the state. Petitioner has not previously advised either of the respondents that Petitioner considers their business practice to be unlawful. Petitioner has not promulgated a rule, has not issued a written policy, has not issued a personal letter of advisement, and has not conducted public seminars to publish its statutory interpretation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order requiring Respondents to cease and desist the business practices proven in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2008.
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
