Mohammad v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
2013 IL App (1st) 122151
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Vali Mohammad was a registered mortgage loan originator whose license had been renewed after a prior 2000 mail-fraud conviction.
- A 2009 amendment to the Residential Mortgage License Act, effective in 2009, barred license renewal for felonies involving fraud, dishonesty, or breach of trust.
- The Department denied his 2010 renewal application based on the amended statute.
- An administrative hearing and the circuit court both upheld the Department’s decision.
- The court analyzes the statutory text de novo, rejects retroactivity arguments, and affirms the Department’s nonrenewal based on the amended law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended 7-3(2) applies to Mohammad’s 2000 conviction | Mohammad argues the law should not apply retroactively and that rehabilitation should be considered | Department contends the amendment governs licensure eligibility going forward | Not retroactive; amendment precludes renewal based on post-amendment standards |
| Whether mail fraud qualifies as 'fraud' under 7-3(2) | Contends mail fraud is not the type of fraud contemplated by the statute | Mail fraud is a form of fraud within the statute's broad meaning | Yes, mail fraud constitutes 'fraud' under 7-3(2) |
| Whether the law can be read to permit exceptions for rehabilitation | Requests consideration of rehabilitation and mitigating factors | Statute contains no exceptions for rehabilitation | No exceptions; plain language controls |
| Whether the court should depart from the plain language to avoid harsh results | Argues for judicial interpretive flexibility to soften the impact | Court should not read in unstated exceptions where statute is unambiguous | Court adheres to plain meaning; harsh results do not justify reading in exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2013 IL App (1st) 121509 (2013 IL App (1st) 121509) (de novo review of agency decisions; statutory interpretation framework)
- County of Knox ex rel. Masterson v. Highlands, LLC, 188 Ill. 2d 546 (2000) (plain-language approach; cannot read in exceptions when language is clear)
- People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264 (2003) (statutory interpretation and intent; plain language governs)
- Valdez v. Zollar, 281 Ill. App. 3d 329 (1996) (vested rights doctrine; reliance on prior law)
- InPhoto Surveillance, Inc. v. Crowe, Chizek & Co., LLP, 338 Ill. App. 3d 929 (2003) (statutory interpretation; consideration of plain meaning)