Calgary mortgage broker's licence cancelled over forging signatures

(Pexels/Andrea Piacquadio)

A Calgary mortgage broker cannot deal in mortgages in Alberta for at least three years after he committed fraud with two home purchases.

The Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) announced last Friday that the licence held by Casurt Roy Morgan was cancelled and he cannot apply for a new one until at least 2026.

• Get local, live and breaking news right to your email inbox. Sign up for our daily newsletter

The decision came after a hearing by the council that found Morgan participated in "fraudulent or unlawful activities in connection" with mortgage dealings.

THE M.B. AND T.O. PURCHASE

Some of the forgeries included of the signatures of two clients Morgan was working with in February 2016.

The buyers, a couple identified in the decision as M.B. and T.O., were assisted by Morgan through their purchase of a home owned by M.B.'s mother. The address of the home was omitted from the hearing's decision.

A number of documents were created as part of the deal, including a purchase contract, mortgage commitment form, mortgage disclosure form, initial disclosure form, insurance form and client consent form, which all needed to be signed.

Four years after the sale was completed, M.B. was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The panel heard after learning of this, M.B. contacted Morgan about life insurance on the mortgage.

"Morgan replied that [M.B.] and [T.O.] had declined mortgage insurance. [T.O.] says she was shocked. She did not recall doing this and it would be out of character for her," the decision read.

T.O. attempted to follow up with Morgan about the insurance issue but he "ceased communication with her in October 2020."

M.B. died on Jan. 12, 2021.

T.O. ended up contacting S.B., a mortgage broker who worked at the same company Morgan did, to obtain a copy of the insurance form.

More investigation determined Morgan forged the missing signatures of both M.B. and T.O. on mortgage disclosure, initial disclosure, insurance and client consent forms.

"[T.O.] testified that Morgan did not provide her and [M.B.] with copies of the client consent, mortgage disclosure, initial disclosure, or insurance form at any point. She first saw these documents when she received them from [S.B.]," the RECA decision reads.

T.O. told the registrar that the signatures on all four documents were not hers and she did not give Morgan consent to sign documents on her behalf.

She also denied telling M.B. to instruct Morgan he could sign documents on her behalf.

"[T.O.] testified that she was ultimately unable to receive a life insurance pay out on the mortgage because of the signed insurance form declining insurance.

"She ultimately had to sell another property and rely on a 'go fund me' campaign set up by her friends to help her make the mortgage payments."

THE S.C. PURCHASE

In the second incident, Morgan forged signatures on two "gift letters" that had been prepared in connection with a mortgage transaction for a buyer identified as S.C.

"The 'gift letters' indicate that each of the two donors provided [S.C] with $25,240 and certify that the donors are immediate family members, have no interest in the sale of the subject property, and that the funds are gift and need not be repaid," the decision reads.

"Gift letters are commonly submitted to prospective lenders where a portion of the down payment for a property is coming from funds held by someone other than the purchaser or recently received by the purchaser.

"Often, they are required to demonstrate to the prospective lender that the 'gift' portion of the down payment does not constitute a debt owing by the purchaser that could affect the purchaser’s ability to repay the mortgage."

After that purchase was completed, G.S., the regional vice-president for the Prairies at Invis, was contacted by the National Bank, which said it had conducted a review of a number of gift letters related to loans it had funded.

National Bank, according to the RECA decision, indicated that the gift letters submitted as part of the S.C. deal were "falsified."

S.B., the same broker involved with the M.B. and T.O. deal, was asked by G.S. to look at the letters and her opinion was that they were "not authentic."

When G.S. contacted Morgan about the letters, he "agreed something about the gift letters was not right" but claimed his assistant had prepared them.

"(Morgan) stated that he had been unaware of the forgeries until [G.S.] brought them to his attention," the decision reads.

(Pexels/Kindle Media)

NO EVIDENCE OF ASSISTANT

During S.B.'s testimony at the hearing, she told the registrar "she was unable to find any evidence that Morgan ever had an assistant."

"This is significant because, according to [G.S.] and [S.B.], Invis had certain protocols that applied to assistants in terms of what they could or could not do and kept files on the assistants for privacy and other policy reasons.

"Both [G.S.] and [S.B.] felt that, had Morgan's assistant existed, there would have been paperwork for him. There was none."

According to investigation records, Morgan said his assistant, named Richard Vasquez, prepared the gift letters.

An email address and phone number for Vasquez were provided to the investigator, but after calling the number, it was found to not be in service.

Morgan himself attempted to call the same number, the decision reads, and came up with the same result.

"(The investigator) followed up by email the following day. Morgan responded: 'I didn't speak with him. I've emailed him to have him contact myself or you directly.' (The investigator) responded, requesting a copy of the email Morgan had sent to 'Richard Vasquez', along with any other emails Morgan might have demonstrating that 'Richard Vasquez' existed."

Morgan reportedly provided the same email address the investigator already had and stopped communicating altogether.

Upon review of the gift letters in the S.C. deal, the RECA panel determined the handwriting on the gift letters was "substantially similar" to Morgan's handwriting on the M.B. deal documents.

"The style used to write the date on gift letters, which appears: 'month – date – year' using dashes instead of commas or slashes, is the same style that appears where Morgan wrote the date on the [M.B. deal] documents."

As for the signatures, the panel said they "do not – by any stretch of the imagination – match the signatures used by those same individuals on the client consent forms."

The panel determined that Morgan committed forgery in relation to the M.B. deal and S.C. deal.

Morgan was also ordered to pay costs of $15,260 and fines of $30,000.

"If any consumer has transactions in progress or existing client relationships with Morgan, please contact Morgan's mortgage brokerage Axiom Mortgage Solutions Inc. o/a Axiom Mortgage Solutions," RECA said in a release.

"RECA publishes these decisions to protect consumers, ensure transparency, and educate existing RECA licensees on the standards of practice."