a [ete STATE OF FLORIDA - DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION’ FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, Vv. CASE NO. 2000000803 BRIAN P. NASHICK, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Brian P. Nashick (“Respondent”), and alleges: ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475 of the Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. 2. Respondent is currently a Florida state-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license 3482 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part II of the Florida Statutes. 3. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state-certified residential real estate appraiser at 8540 State Road 84, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33324. FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 735 LAKESHORE DRIVE, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 4. Onor about June 8, 2001, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report for a home located at 735 Lakeshore Dr., Delray Beach, Florida, and estimated that the market value of the property was $600,000. 5. In the Sales Comparison portion of his appraisal report, Respondent stated in part: The subject property was purchased for $387,500 in March 2001 as a distress sale in need of renovation. Since then the subject property has undergone extensive renovations by the current owner. (SEE ADDENDUM) ... 6. In the Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent stated in part: URAR: Condition of Improvements _.. This home was gutted and striped down to the bone structure and rebuilt. Recent renovations include; new roof structure and cement tile roof covering, in many areas of the dwelling existing plaster was removed and drywall was installed, new upgraded electric service, complete rewiring of the electrical system throughout the dwelling, new central air conditioning system including all new duct work, all new windows have been installed, new interior and exterior doors, new landscaping, new driveway, the entire plumbing system has been updated, the bathrooms have been completely renovated including new plumbing fixtures, the entire interior trim work is new, all new electrical fixtures. The interior and exterior of the dwelling has been recently painted. The pool has new diamond bright, new tile new coping, new decking and a new screened enclosure. Building plans and specifications were available for the appraiser to review. Building permits were also provided for the appraiser to review at the time of inspection. This appraiser has verified from the building and zoning department that all additions and renovations are legal and have been constructed per building code. FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint 7. Inthe Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent also stated in part: URAR: Sales Comparison Comments All comparables utilized within this report have undergone moderate to extensive renovations, which greatly reduce their effective age. The effective age of these sales are considered to be similar to the subject, therefore, no age adjustment was deemed necessary based on paired sales. .. 8. Respondent included no copies of plans, specifications, or other documentation to identify the scope and character of the improvements or proposed improvements. 9. Most of the improvements that Respondent alleged to have been made would have required permits from the Building Department at Delray Beach. 10. In the Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent stated: URAR: Condition of Improvements _. . This appraiser has verified from the building and zoning department that all additions and renovations are legal and have been constructed per building code. 11. The Building Department has no record of any permits pulled or work legally performed on the subject property for the period 1997 through 2003 except for a resurface of a driveway. 12. Many of the improvements enumerated by Respondent were never made by the date that Respondent issued his appraisal report. 13. In the Sales Comparison portion of his appraisal report, Respondent stated in part, “The subject is located near the Historical District of Delray Beach. These homes are well kept and vary greatly in size, age and appeal.” 14. Horizon Bank, FSB, which made a mortgage Joan in reliance on this appraisal, engaged Rick West, Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser license no. 1118, to perform an appraisal of FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint this property. 15. On or about May 20, 2002, Rick West developed and communicated an appraisal report for the home located at 735 Lakeshore Dr., Delray Beach, Florida, and estimated that the market value of the property was $375,000. 16. The 2000 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) provided in part: Standards Rule 1-1(b) and (c) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: (b) not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; (c) not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affect the credibility of those results. Standards Rule 1-4(h) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information applicable to the appraisal problem, given the scope of work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f). - (h) When appraising proposed improvements, an appraiser must examine and have available for future examination: q) plans, specifications, or other documentation sufficient to identify the scope and character of the proposed improvements; (ii) evidence indicating the probable time of completion of the proposed improvements; and (iii) reasonably clear and appropriate evidence supporting development costs, anticipated earnings, FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint occupancy projections and the anticipated competition at the time of completion. * * * Standards Rule 2-1(a) and (b) Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: (a) clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; (b) contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; * * * Standards Rule 2-5 An appraiser who signs a real property appraisal report prepared by another in any capacity accepts full responsibility for the appraisal and the contents of the appraisal report. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IL Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty misrepresentation or culpable negligence in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3565 S. LAKE DRIVE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 17. On or about September 7, 2001, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report for a home located at 3565 S. Lake Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, and estimated that the market value of the property was $535,000. 18. In the Sales Comparison portion of his appraisal report, Respondent stated in part: The subject property was purchased for $175,000 in March 2001 as a distress sale, not arms length in need of renovation. Since then the subject property has undergone extensive renovations by the current owner. ... 19. In the Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent stated in part: URAR: Condition of Improvements ... This home was gutted and striped down to the bone structure and rebuilt. Recent renovations include; new roof structure and shingle covering, in many areas of the dwelling existing plaster was removed and drywall was installed, new upgraded electric service, complete rewiring of the electrical system throughout the dwelling, new central air conditioning system including all new duct work, all new windows have been installed, new interior and exterior doors, new landscaping, new driveway, the entire plumbing system has been updated, the bathrooms have been completely renovated including new plumbing fixtures, the entire interior trim work is new, all new electrical fixtures. The interior and exterior of the dwelling has been recently painted. The pool has new diamond bright, new tile new coping, and new decking. Building plans and specifications were available for the appraiser to review. Building permits were also provided for the appraiser to review at the time of inspection. This appraiser has verified from the building and zoning department that all additions and renovations are legal and have been constructed per building code. FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint 20. In the Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent also stated in part: URAR: Sales Comparison Comments All comparables utilized within this report have undergone moderate to extensive renovations, which greatly reduce their effective age. The effective age of these sales are considered to be similar to the subject, therefore, no age adjustment was deemed necessary based on paired sales. . . 21 Respondent included no copies of plans, specifications, or other documentation to identify the scope and character of the improvements or proposed improvements. 22. In the Supplemental Addendum to Respondent’s appraisal, Respondent stated: URAR: Condition of Improvements _. . This appraiser has verified from the building and zoning department that all additions and renovations are legal and have been constructed per building code. 23. The Building Department has no record of any permits pulled or work legally performed on the subject property after 1992. 24, Many of the improvements enumerated by Respondent were never made by the date that Respondent issued his appraisal report. 25. Horizon Bank, FSB, which made a mortgage loan in reliance on this appraisal, engaged Rick West, Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser license no. 1118, to perform an appraisal of this property. 26. On or about May 20, 2002, Rick West developed and communicated an appraisal report for the home located at 3565 South Lake Drive and estimated that the market value of the property FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint was $300,000. 27. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 as though fully set forth herein. COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation or culpable negligence in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as may be appropriate, to issue a Final Order as final agency action finding the Respondent(s) guilty as charged. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication, or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 475.624, Florida Statutes and Rule 6131-8.002, Florida Administrative Code. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 455 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration, or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication; restriction of practice; injunctive or mandamus relief; imposition of a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 455.227, Fla. Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-8.002. SIGNED this_7_ day of SeaZ%m Dae. 2003. Panza Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation By: Jason Steele Director, Division of Real Estate FDBPR v. Brian Nashick Case No. 2000000803 Administrative Complaint ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER A. Santana, Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: JS/CB/JB 9/03 WMO/k NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PLEASE BE ADVISED that mediation under Section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to this Administrative Complaint you may request, within the time proscribed, a hearing to be conducted in this matter in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes; that you have the right, at your option and expense, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative in this matter; and that you have the right, at your option and expense, to take testimony, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on your behalf if a formal hearing is requested. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that if you do not file an Election of Rights form or some other responsive pleading with the Petitioner within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner will file with the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board a motion requesting an informal hearing and entry of an appropriate Final Order which may result in the suspension or revocation of your real estate license or registration. Please see the enclosed Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form.

Docket for Case No: 04-001666PL