02-001270 Department Of Financial Services, F/K/A Department Of Insurance vs. Lynn Haven Home Center, Inc.; Christopher Wilson; And Doyce Lindley Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, November 6, 2002.

Summary: Evidence demonstrated fraud and misrepresentation by mobile home dealer but not by salesperson--inflated various costs or used fictitious costs to increase loan amount.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND )

FINANCE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 1270

)

LYNN HAVEN HOME CENTER, INC.; )

CHRISTOPHER WILSON; AND DOYCE )

LINDLEY, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above - styled

case was held on July 26, 2002, in Crestview, Florida, before

Diane Cleavinger, a duly - designated Administrative Law Judge

with the Division of Adminis trative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Clyde C. Caillouet, Esquire

Department of Banking and Finance

4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103

Pensacola, Florida 32503

For Respondent

Christopher

Wilson: Brant Hargrove, Esquire

Law Offices of Brant Hargrove

2984 Wellington Circle, West

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

For Respondent

Lynn Haven Home

Center, Inc.: No Appearance

For Respondent

Doyce Lindley: No Appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in the case are whether Respondents committed

fraud and/or misrepresentation in entering into various retail

installment contracts in violation of Section 520.995(1)(b),

Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Banking and

Finance is entitled to an Or der against Respondents, including

fines and a Cease and Desist Order.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 4, 2002, the Department of Banking and Finance

(Department) filed an Administrative Complaint to Enter a Cease

and Desist Order, Imposing Penalties an d Notice of Rights

against Lynn Haven Home Center, Inc., Christopher Wilson, and

Doyce Lindley for entering into various retail installment

transactions involving fraud and/or misrepresentation in

violation of 520.995(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondents

Wilson and Lindley denied all of the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint, asserted an affirmative defense under

Section 517.061(11), Florida Statutes, and requested a formal

administrative hearing. Respondent Lynn Haven did not request

an administ rative hearing and did not respond to the

Administrative Complaint. The case was forwarded to the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

Prior to hearing, the attorney for Doyce Lindley withdrew

from representing him.

At the hearing, the Department call ed nine witnesses and

offered seven exhibits into evidence. Respondent Wilson did not

call any witnesses and did not offer any exhibits into evidence.

Lynn Haven Home Center did not appear at the hearing. Likewise,

Respondent Lindley did not appear at t he hearing.

After the hearing, Petitioner and Respondent Wilson filed

Proposed Recommended Order s on September 10, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto, Lynn Haven Home Center,

Inc. (Lynn Haven), was a licensed motor vehicle retail

ins tallment seller with locations at 3250 Highway 77, Panama

City, Florida 32405; and 161 Racetrack Boulevard, Fort Walton,

Florida 32547.

2. Christopher Wilson was an employee of Lynn Haven Home

Center, Inc.

3. Doyce Lindley was allegedly a director of L ynn Haven at

its Fort Walton office. However, no competent evidence was

submitted at the hearing supporting these allegations and no

witness was familiar with Mr. Lindley, his role in Lynn Haven,

or his association with any sales of Lynn Haven. Since no

relationship with the company was established and no

relationship with any of the sales of the company was

established, no findings can be made regarding Mr. Lindley.

Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed in

regards to him.

4. Lyn n Haven had a dealer agreement with Bombadier

Capital Company (Bombadier) under which Bombadier would finance

the purchase of a mobile home by a qualified buyer based, in

part, on the buyer's credit application, credit history and

manner of financing the m obile home, including the amount of the

down payment. The dealer agreement between Lynn Haven and

Bombadier stated, in part, as follows:

Each consumer will have paid any specified

down payment in cash or by trade - in prior to

delivery of Home, and no part of such down

payment will have been loaned or otherwise

provided directly or indirectly by Dealer

or, to Dealer's knowledge, any other person;

any property received by Dealer in trade on

a Home which secures a Security Instrument

shall be free from any lie ns, security

interests, encumbrances or any other claims,

and each Consumer at the time of execution

of the Security Instrument shall be the

legal owner of such Collateral.

5. The agreement also required Lynn Haven to give truthful

information on retail installment contracts. If the dealer did

not supply truthful information, the deal would be cancelled

prior to funding. If the false information was discovered after

the loan was funded, the dealer would be pursued for repayment

of the loan.

6. Aroun d May 1998, Bombadier financed one loan for Royal

Gaddy which had been originated by Lynn Haven. Mr. Gaddy did

not testify at the hearing. Therefore, no competent evidence

regarding the negotiations between or the exact home purchased

or seen by Mr. Gadd y was introduced at the hearing. The

purchase documents reflect that the serial number of the home

was the same on all the purchase documents, indicating that one

particular home was being purchased by Mr. Gaddy. However, the

invoice for the home and the purchase agreement for the home

disagree as to the width of the home. The invoice reflects a

width of 24 feet and the purchase agreement reflects a width of

27 feet. It is unclear what documents Bombadier reviewed in

agreeing to make the loan to Mr. Gad dy. There was no competent

evidence presented at the hearing on how the documents for this

purchase and loan were prepared or why there was a discrepancy

in the home width among the documents. Collin McGowan, the

alleged owner of Lynn Haven, submitted th e loan to Bombadier.

7. For unknown reasons, Mr. Gaddy defaulted on his loan

and the mobile home was repossessed by Bombadier. The lender

discovered by visual inspection that the trailer was not the

size represented on the retail installment contract. The

trailer was, in fact, 24 feet in width instead of the 27 feet

indicated on the sales agreement.

8. No competent evidence was introduced which indicated

that Respondent Wilson filled out any document possessed by

Bombadier as it relates to Royal Gaddy . Likewise, there was no

competent evidence that Respondent Wilson had anything to do

with the Gaddy purchase or loan. The documents themselves do

not constitute evidence of fraud or misrepresentation since the

width discrepancy could just as reasonably be due to a

typographical error. Therefore, this allegation of the

Administrative Complaint against the Respondents should be

dismissed.

9. Around January 1998, Donna Huff bought a home from Lynn

Haven. Mrs. Huff talked to Respondent Wilson about the p urchase

of a mobile home. At some point, she spoke with a salesperson

that she could not afford a five percent down payment on a home.

She did not know if the salesperson she told this to was

Respondent Wilson or another salesperson. The salesperson tol d

her not to worry about it and that she could get into a new

mobile home. Ms. Huff put down $100.00 cash on the mobile home.

She purchased the mobile home under an installment contract.

The installment contract was later assigned to Green Tree

Financia l Center, Inc. No one from Green Tree testified at the

hearing regarding this loan, any dealer agreement it had with

Lynn Haven, or the representations, if any, Green Tree relied on

to take assignment of this installment contract. Nor did anyone

from Gre en Tree or elsewhere testify as to the standards in the

industry regarding borrowing a cash down payment.

10. Ms. Huff’s retail installment contract states that she

paid $3,602.92 as a cash down payment. Ms. Huff did not notice

the amount of the down pa yment until this investigation, several

years after her purchase. She does not know where the amount of

the down payment in the installment contract came from.

11. From a review of the documents, it appears that the

remainder of the down payment came from money remaining after

the seller closed the sale with Ms. Huff. The down payment was

generated by adding $2,003.00 to the setup and delivery costs

for the mobile home under the heading "TI over allowance." The

setup and delivery costs were included in the total sales price

of the home. The cash sale price was $33,665.00 plus $2,069.90

in taxes for a total of $35,734.90. The difference between the

cash sale price of $33,665.00 and the unpaid balance of the loan

of $32,131.98 is $1,534.92. The diffe rence of $1,534.92 plus

$2,003.00 equals $3,602.92 or the down payment amount listed in

the retail installment contract for Ms. Huff's home. In effect

the money for the down payment came from the amount financed

under the installment contract.

12. No ev idence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that any document Mrs. Huff signed was submitted to any lending

institution.

13. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that any document Mrs. Huff signed was utilized by any lending

instit ution for any purpose.

14. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any document submitted

to a lending institution regarding the source of any down

payment funds provided by Mrs. Huff for the purchas e of her home

or that the source for such down payment was from borrowed

funds. Without such evidence, none of the Respondents are

guilty of fraud or misrepresentation and the parts of the

Administrative Complaint regarding Ms. Huff's transaction should

b e dismissed.

15. Around March 1998, Rick Laux bought a mobile home from

Lynn Haven. Mr. Laux dealt with Respondent Wilson, but did not

recognize him at the hearing. Mr. Laux traded in a mobile home

to Lynn Haven towards the purchase of a new mobile home .

Mr. Laux's equity of $9,472.68 in the mobile home he traded in

was used as a down payment on the new mobile home. No cash down

payment was made by Mr. Laux.

16. Lynn Haven set up the new mobile home on ten acres

that Mr. Laux owned. Lynn Haven a lso installed a well, septic

system, and power pole on Mr. Laux's ten acres. The land had

already been cleared by Mr. Laux. No clearing was done by Lynn

Haven. The ten acres also served as collateral on the mortgage

used in part to buy the mobile home f rom Lynn Haven.

17. Mr. Laux had no knowledge of who arranged for

financing of his mobile home. However, the home was financed by

Unicor Mortgage. The loan was closed by Stewart Title of

Northwest Florida, a third - party loan closing agent.

18. A review of the HUD statement, a federally required

loan closing document, shows that Lynn Haven was paid $9,996.00

for costs associated with land improvements. The purchase

agreement, signed by Mr. Laux, shows that Mr. Laux was charged

$3,500.00 for land prepara tion that was not done by Lynn Haven.

The $3,500.00 charge was part of the $9,996.00 in land

improvement costs paid to Lynn Haven at closing. The remainder

of the land improvement costs were a well ($3,850.00), septic

system ($1,350.00), and power pole ( $1,296.00). The $3,500.00

charge appears along with other figures which eventually yield

an estimated total cost and an estimated loan amount, which

estimated amount became the final amount financed by Mr. Laux

and funded by Unicor. The purpose for the $ 3,500.00 charge

could only have been to increase the estimated loan amount for

the transaction in order to pull money out of the transaction to

balance against the equity down payment allowed on the trade in.

However, it is unclear that Unicor relied on o r even saw the

purchase agreement between Lynn Haven and Mr. Laux. Further, it

is unclear whether the amount allowed for the trade in was

accurate or inaccurate. What is clear is that the $3,500.00

figure was a made - up figure.

19. Mr. Laux had no knowle dge of who filled out any form

relating to his purchase. No one from Unicor or Stewart Title

testified as to who filled out the loan closing documents or who

supplied the numbers and information used therein. Likewise,

there was no evidence introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any document submitted

to a lending institution regarding the source of any down

payment funds provided by Mr. Laux for the purchase of his home

or that Respondent Wilson filled out the pur chase agreement

associated with this transaction. However, it is clear an agent

of Lynn Haven prepared the sales agreement in which the land

improvement costs were included and that underlies the eventual

loan amount for the Laux transaction. The $3,500. 00 amount is a

fictitious amount and a misrepresentation on the part of Lynn

Haven. Therefore, Lynn Haven is guilty of misrepresentation in

an installment loan transaction.

20. In 1998, Brian Withey purchased a mobile home in a

home package from Lynn Hav en. The package included a lot, well,

septic tank, and power pole, as well as permits and other

necessities for setting up the home. The salesperson for

Mr. Withey was Respondent Wilson. Mr. Withey paid $900.00 as a

cash down payment for the mobile home. The purchase agreement

reflects a proposed cash down payment of $13,075.00. The amount

is very hard to read and may actually be a different amount, but

the down payment does appear to be over $10,000.00. It is

unclear from the documents exactly w here the amount of the

proposed cash down payment came from or if it was the amount of

payment actually used to close the loan.

21. The HUD Settlement Statement was unreadable.

Therefore, it is impossible to determine the closing costs

involved in the lo an or to trace through other documents the

amounts used in the HUD statement.

22. A new home closeout sheet reflects an over - allowance

of $12,225.00 and an item labeled "extra gross" of $7,075.00.

The extra gross item was made up of amounts for a well

($900.00), power ($710.00), septic system ($700.00), and

driveway ($4,765.00). Lynn Haven did not install a driveway for

Mr. Withey. The extra gross amounts were the differences

between dollar figures listed in a column labeled "charged" and

dollar figur es listed in a column labeled "actual." The figures

appear to be related to costs. However, there was no evidence

to support that conclusion. The figure in the charged column

for the driveway was $4,765.00, but the figure in the actual

column was $0. T here was no evidence regarding this extra gross

sheet and the document was not recognized by Mr. Withey at the

hearing. Likewise, there was no evidence regarding how these

two documents were used in closing the loan, what the loan

amount was, or even who the lender was.

23. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that any document introduced into evidence was submitted to any

lending institution or utilized by any lending institution for

any purpose. Likewise, none of these documents can be linked to

Respondent Wilson as providing any of the information on any

documents submitted to a lending institution regarding the

source of any down payment funds provided by Mr. Withey for the

purchase of his home. Therefore, Respondent Wilson is not

g uilty of fraud or misrepresentation and the portions of the

Administrative Complaint relating thereto should be dismissed.

The evidence regarding whether Lynn Haven charged Mr. Withey for

a driveway which he did not receive is not clear since how the

extr a gross sheet was used in the eventual loan or purchase is

not clear. The suspicion is that the driveway value was used to

inflate the requested loan amount in order to yield enough cash

for a down payment. However, there was insufficient evidence to

sup port such a conclusion since the HUD statement was

unreadable. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative

Complaint related to the Withey transaction against Lynn Haven

should be dismissed.

24. Betty Brown bought a home from Lynn Haven in March of

1998 . The salesperson she dealt with was Randy, last name

unknown. Respondent Christopher Wilson had no involvement with

her purchase. Ms. Brown traded in her mobile home for a new

mobile home, and she was allowed $7,000.00 for her trade in. No

other cash was deposited by Ms. Brown. The new mobile home was

placed on the lot owned by her where the old mobile home had

been. No land improvements were required and no septic system,

power pole, or well was required since those items were already

present on the property.

25. However, the salesperson for Lynn Haven told her they

would add charges for a septic tank and well to account for a

$10,000.00 down payment. In essence, false charges or

allowances for improvements would be added to the loan amount to

incr ease the loan amount to balance against a $10,000.00 cash

down payment. Ms. Brown was uncomfortable with this process and

questioned the salesperson about it. She was told that it was

standard practice in purchasing a mobile home.

26. The lender for Ms. Brown’s transaction was Unicor

Mortgage, Inc., and the closing agent was Stewart Title of

Northwest Florida, Inc. No one from either of these

corporations testified as to this loan or who supplied the

figures used in the HUD closing statement.

27. No ev idence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that any document signed by Ms. Brown was submitted to any

lending institution. Likewise, no evidence was introduced by

Petitioner demonstrating that any document Ms. Brown signed was

utilized by a lending institution for any purpose.

28. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner which

demonstrated that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any

document submitted to a lending institution regarding the source

of any down payment funds provided by Ms. Brown for the purchase

of her home. Therefore, Respondent Wilson is not guilty of

fraud or misrepresentation and the portions of the

Administrative Complaint relating thereto should be dismissed.

The evidence did show Lynn Haven charged or included in the

purchase agreement amounts for a well, power pole, and septic

system which were already present on her property in order to

inflate the value of the loan so that a $10,000.00 down payment

could be reflected for the loan. This practice is at worst

fraud, at best a n intentional misrepresentation of the actual

down payment for the mobile home. Therefore, Lynn Haven is

guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in an installment

contract.

29. Around June 1998, Maureen Pooler purchased a mobile

home from Lynn Haven. The s alesperson she dealt with was Randy,

last name unknown. Ms. Pooler never dealt with Respondent

Wilson.

30. Ms. Pooler did not discuss any down payment

requirements with the salesperson, but did tell him that she

only had $2,000.00 to put down on a mobile home. While looking

at the homes on Lynn Haven’s sales lot, the salesperson told

Ms. Pooler that Lynn Haven would reduce the price of any mobile

home on the lot because the business was moving down the road.

Ms. Pooler picked out two mobile homes and gave the salesperson

a check for $2,000.00. Lynn Haven ran a credit history on

Ms. Pooler. Later, the salesperson called to inform Ms. Pooler

that she had been approved for a loan on the lesser of the two

mobile homes. The evidence did not demonst rate if any sales

contract or other paperwork was submitted to gain such approval.

31. The retail installment contract shows a down payment

of $13,000.00. A separate document titled “Purchase agreement”

lists no amounts for a down payment. The purchase agreement

does contain a net trade amount of $13,000.00. The New Home

Washout Sheet reflects a $10,000.00 over allowance. However,

none of these figures can be traced through to the installment

contract and the evidence did not demonstrate the relations hip,

if any, among these various documents.

32. The installment contract was assigned to Green Tree

Financial Center, Inc. No one from Green Tree testified at the

hearing regarding this loan, any dealer agreement it had with

Lynn Haven, or the represen tations, if any, Green Tree relied on

to take assignment of this installment contract. Nor did anyone

from Green Tree or elsewhere testify as to the standards in the

industry regarding borrowing a cash down payment.

33. No evidence was introduced by Peti tioner demonstrating

that any document signed by Ms. Pooler was submitted to any

lending institution. Likewise, no evidence was introduced by

Petitioner demonstrating that any document Ms. Pooler signed was

utilized by any lending institution for any purp ose.

34. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner which

demonstrated that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any

document submitted to a lending institution regarding the source

of any down payment funds provided by Ms. Pooler for the

purchase of her home . Therefore, the portions of the

Administrative Complaint relating to the Pooler transaction

against the Respondents should be dismissed.

35. Around April 1998, Larry Laux purchased a mobile home

from Lynn Haven. The salesperson he dealt with was Randy

W ilson. Mr. Laux never dealt with Respondent Wilson in any

material manner.

36. Mr. Laux did not make a cash down payment on the

mobile home. He did use some land he owned and had been living

on as collateral. Mr. Laux told the salesperson that he could

not make a cash down payment. The salesperson replied that,

given Mr. Laux’s credit rating, the lack of a down payment

should not be a problem.

37. The alleged purchase agreement for the mobile home

contained two signatures for Mr. Laux and his wife. H owever,

the signatures were not those of the Laux’s, and Mr. Laux did

not recognize the purchase agreement.

38. In any event, the home was purchased and a loan was

closed by Mr. Laux. The lender was Green Tree Financial

Services and the closing agent was Stewart Title of Northwest

Florida, Inc. No one from either corporation testified as to

the Laux loan or the paperwork relied on for that loan. The HUD

statement for the loan does not reflect a down payment.

However, the HUD statement does reflect a di sbursement of funds

to Lynn Haven for land improvements in the amount of $4,450.00.

The land improvement figure consisted of charges for a power

pole ($1,000.00), water, and sewer hookups ($3,000.00) and land

clearing ($450.00). Except for the power pole , Lynn Haven did

not provide these items to Mr. Laux, and Mr. Laux was never

given the money for the hookups or land clearing. Lynn Haven

kept the money for services it did not provide. Therefore, Lynn

Haven is guilty of fraud in a financial transaction for home

improvements.

39. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

that any document signed by Mr. and Mrs. Laux was submitted to

any lending institution. Likewise, no evidence was introduced

by Petitioner demonstrating that ay document Mr. and Mrs. Laux

signed was utilized by any lending institution for any purpose.

40. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner which

demonstrated that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any

document submitted to a lending institution regarding the source

of any down payment funds provided by Mr. and Mrs. Laux for the

purchase of their home. Therefore, the portions of the

Administrative Complaint related to the Laux transaction against

the Respondent Wilson should be dismissed.

41. In December 1997, Terries M esiner bought a home from

Lynn Haven. Respondent Wilson was the salesperson who dealt

with Mr. Mesiner. The facts surrounding the Mesiner

negotiations and eventual sale are unclear. There appears to

have been some sort of prequalification or approval fo r a

purchase of a mobile home. However, there were two different

mobile homes involved. The first was the one the Mesiner’s

wanted but did not purchase. At some point there were

discussions for additions to a mobile home they wanted to

purchase which in cluded a whirlpool tub, large deck, and extra

insulation. However, the evidence did not show to which mobile

home the discussion of these additions pertained. Likewise the

evidence did not demonstrate that these discussions resulted in

a contractual agre ement that Lynn Haven would provide these

additions.

42. What is clear is that Respondent Wilson told

Mr. Mesiner he needed 15 percent of the purchase price as a down

payment on the purchase of mobile home. Mr. Mesiner indicated

he could only pay $3,000.00 as a down payment. Respondent

Wilson told him they would "work around it." Mr. Mesiner paid

$3,000.00 as a down payment on the mobile home. The down

payment shown on the HUD settlement statement was $13,001.83.

There was no evidence which dem onstrated where the figure used

for the down payment in the HUD statement came from. Neither

the lender nor the closing agent testified at the hearing and

none of the documents introduced into evidence pertaining to

this transaction seem to relate to this figure. Moreover, the

HUD statement does not list Lynn Haven as the seller, but some

other individuals whose roles were not identified at the

hearing.

43. Mr. Mesiner performed a walk - through of his

newly - purchased home and approved of everything as being

appropriate that was included in his home.

44. Mr. Mesiner further signed all closing documents, none

of which mentioned a deck, a whirlpool, or extra insulation or

charges for such items.

45. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner demonstrating

t hat any document signed by Mr. Mesiner was submitted to any

lending institution or utilized by any lending institution for

any purpose.

46. No evidence was introduced by Petitioner which

demonstrated that Respondent Wilson wrote anything on any

document su bmitted to a lending institution regarding the source

of any down payment funds provided by Mr. Mesiner for the

purchase of his home. Therefore, the portions of the

Administrative Complaint regarding the Mesiner transaction

should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION S OF LAW

47. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

48. The Department is authorized to enforce the provisions

of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated

thereunder.

49. Section 520.995(1)(b), Florida Statutes, states:

(1) The following acts are violations of

this chapter and constitute grounds for the

disciplinary actions specified in

subsection (2):

* * *

(b) Fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or

gross negligence in any home improvement

finance transaction or retail installment

transaction, regardless of reliance by or

damage to the buyer or owner . . . .

50. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that Lynn

Haven committed fraud and misrepresentation in both retail

installment transactions and home improvement transactions.

However, no competent evidence was introduced which indicated

that Respondent Wilson lied about the source of down payment

funds on docu ments submitted to any lender in order to obtain

financing for retail installment contracts. Further, there was

no competent evidence introduced by Petitioner that Respondent

Wilson charged buyers for improvements that were never

delivered. Finally, ther e was no competent evidence that any of

the Respondents fraudulently contracted with any buyer for a

27 - foot home, but delivered a 24 - foot home to him. Of great

concern in this case is, that while the evidence in some cases

did not support a finding of f raud or misrepresentation, the

documents and the numbers contained in those documents are

highly suspicious as to whether various costs and allowances for

improvements were being inflated to result in borrowing the

money for the down payment from the purch ase loan. If lenders

or assignees are unaware of the inflation and the information is

material to a lender's decision, then the practice is violative

of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. However, except for

Bombadier, none of the lenders or closing agents t estified at

this hearing.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions

of law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance

enters a final order as:

1. That Lynn Haven Home Center, Inc., cease and desist any

and all further violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and

the rules duly promulgated thereunder, including, but not

limited to Section 520.995(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and

2. That Lynn Haven Home Center, Inc., pay a fine in the

amount of $1,000.0 0 (one thousand dollars) per violation; and

3. That the Administrative Complaint filed against

Christopher Wilson and Doyce Lindley be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

_____________________ ______________

DIANE CLEAVINGER

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

File d with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 6th day of November, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Clyde C. Caillouet, Esquire

Department of Banking and Finance

4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103

Pensacola, Florida 32503

Brant Hargrove, Esquir e

Law Office of Brant Hargrove

2984 Wellington Circle, West

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

Doyce Lindley

13 Warwick Drive

Shalimar, Florida 32579

Michael A. Reichman, Esquire

Post Office Box 41

Monticello, Florida 32345

Honorable Robert F. Milligan

Offic e of the Comptroller

Department of Banking and Finance

The Capitol, Plaza Level 09

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

Robert Beitler, General Counsel

Department of Banking and Finance

Fletcher Building, Suite 526

101 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue th e final order in this case.