PARRISH v. FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION (2023)

We consolidate these related cases for disposition and any further proceedings. In Case No. 22-913, Parrish challenges the annulment of her mortgage loan originator license. In Case No. 22-914, the mortgage broker company of which she was principal, Assertive Mortgage, LLC, challenges the denial of its license. We affirm.

Under her previous last name of Glover, Parrish held a Florida mortgage loan originator license, and her company held a Florida broker's license. She did not update her records with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) when her last name changed to Parrish, nor when she moved from Florida to Georgia.

Each Florida license was annulled or revoked following administrative proceedings in 2009 that alleged financial irregularities. In those proceedings, OFR filed an administrative complaint and attempted to serve it on Parrish and her company at the last address Parrish had provided to OFR. These service attempts failed because the contact information on file (under the name Glover and a Florida address) was no good. OFR effected service by publication in compliance with governing law. Neither Parrish nor her company responded. OFR issued a default final order revoking the licenses of Parrish and her company, fining them $7000 jointly and severally, and ordering them to refund $2130 to two clients.

OFR attached an affidavit of diligent search to the 2009 default order, attesting to its efforts to contact Parrish (under the only name it had for her, Glover). In addition to publishing notice in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper, OFR sent an investigator to the Florida address on file three different times, and he failed to find her. A neighbor told the investigator no one had been living at the address. The investigator also went to the Plantation, Florida, physical address on record for the company, and discovered that the business address was also out of date.

In 2020, Parrish applied for a Florida loan-originator license, under the name Parrish at a Georgia address. She failed to disclose that she had previously held a license under the last name Glover, although the application required the listing of all previous names. She also failed to disclose that her earlier license, and that of her company, had been revoked and that she was subject to fines and restitution that were unpaid—all of which was required to be disclosed in the new application. In addition, she failed to disclose an unsatisfied 2018 Georgia tax lien of $488,439 against her (which was released later as mistakenly imposed, but only after she filed her new Florida applications). To the contrary, she expressly denied having any unsatisfied judgments against her and claimed that no regulatory agency had ever revoked her registration or license.

OFR granted Parrish's 2020 license application, but then discovered that Parrish was Glover and that her previous licenses had been revoked for cause, making her and her brokerage company ineligible for new licenses. OFR filed separate administrative complaints against Parrish and her company.

Parrish petitioned for a formal evidentiary hearing and to set aside the 2009 revocation. OFR presented evidence of Parrish's failures and omissions. Parrish admitted that she had been aware of a complaint against her, but denied actual knowledge of the final action. Her defense was that OFR's 2009 substituted service by publication was defective. She argued that her omissions were unintentional, but she also admitted she did not even read the instructions. She admitted that she knew her applications could be denied for making knowingly false statements. She obtained old OFR employee e-mails discussing the search for Glover, in which a possible Georgia address was identified and rejected because that was not the address of record. She argued that a better search might have been successful, and suggested multiple additional steps OFR employees could have taken that might have found her.

The administrative law judge rendered a recommended order against Parrish, rejecting under the doctrine of administrative finality her attempt to attack the 2009 substituted service. The recommended order also rejected Parrish's defense that her misstatements were unintentional, because intent is not required. The ALJ concluded that any of Parrish's multiple misstatements, including failure to disclose the recent Georgia tax lien, could suffice to support OFR's adverse actions. OFR's final order followed the ALJ's reasoning and result, annulling Parrish's license and denying her company's.

On appeal, Parrish repeats her argument that OFR's 2009 search for her was insufficient. She argues that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue because the doctrine of administrative finality does not bar her new attempts to litigate the service issue. OFR responds that administrative finality does apply; and that in any event, Parrish's material misstatements required denial of her new applications, making the administrative finality argument moot.

We agree with OFR's material misstatement argument, and therefore need not address the administrative finality argument. OFR has the clear statutory authority to discipline a licensee, including by license revocation, for making a “material misstatement or omission of fact” on an application. § 494.00255(1)(s), (2)(c)–(d), Fla. Stat. (2020). The statute does not include any exception for lack of intent, nor does case law recognize one.

We can affirm on this basis alone, because Parrish does not dispute that she made multiple misstatements or omissions of fact in her 2020 applications to OFR. Her predicament is one of her own creation, even beyond her failure to give OFR her new name and new contact information before the 2009 annulment and revocation of her licenses. In her 2020 application, she did not disclose that she had previously had the last name Glover, nor that she had previously held a license under the name Glover. She did not disclose a large Georgia tax lien. Collaterally but tellingly, in the proceedings below, she admitted having known a complaint had been filed against her, but she did nothing. Her intent is irrelevant; the facts remain. See Winton v. Off. of Fin. Regul., No. 05-4070, 2006 WL 690693, at *6–7 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 16, 2006) (Recommended Order) (finding applicant had no intent to deceive and misunderstood the scope of the question; but it was a misstatement regardless, permitting the agency to deny licensure). Thus, affirmance is proper even without the 2009 revocation, making the sufficiency of service in the 2009 proceedings moot.

Affirmed.

Kelsey, J.

Nordby, J., concurs; B.L. Thomas, J., concurs in result.