STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ae FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD : FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, e “| - yo! U pL Petitioner, Vv. CASE NO. 2008054046 ANTHONY MEGAS, Respondent . / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Anthony Megas ("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 2630 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 10550 Deerwood H.\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc : u FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint Park Blvd. #609, Jacksonville, Florida 32256. 4. On or about May 16, 2008, Anthony Megas (Respondent) developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for property commonly known as 1863 Woodmere Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32210(Subject Property), and estimated its value as $1,025,000.00 A copy of the Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. 5. At the time the Report was developed and communicated, Respondent was a State Certified Residential real estate appraiser. 6. Respondent made the following errors and omissions on the Report: A) Failure to discuss, analyze or reconcile the current opinion of value with the Subject Property’s prior sale price of $750,000, in October 2007; B) Incorrect census track for the Subject Property in the Subject section of the Report; C) Inconsistent adjustments in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the report without explanation or discussion; D) Incorrect age, based on workfile documentation, for comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report; E) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 2 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for it’s Date of Sale/Time; F) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for it’s Site size difference; G) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for it's Age difference; H) Use of MLS support documentation for comparable sale 1 dated September 27, 2007; . T) Incorrect age, based on workfile documentation, for comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report; J) Use of MLS support documentation for comparable sale 2 dated September 27, 2007; RK) Failure to verify the correct water frontage for comparable sale 2, when there is a discrepancy between workfile documentation; L) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for it’s Date of Sale/Time; M) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for it’s View difference; N) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for it’s Site size H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 3 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint difference; 0) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for it’s Age difference; P) Failure to note the superior upgrades for comparable sale 3, as evidenced in workfile documentation; Q) Incorrect Site size for comparable sale 3, as evidenced by workfile documentation; R) Incorrect age, based on workfile documentation, for comparable sale 4 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report; S) Incorrect Site size for comparable sale 4, as evidenced by workfile documentation; T) Failure to note that comparable sale 4 had a boatlift; U) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 4 for it’s boat lift; v) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 4 for it’s Age difference; W) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 4 for it’s Date of Sale/Time; X) Incorrect age, based on workfile documentation, for comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report; H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 4 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint Y) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 5 for it’s Age difference; and Z) Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 5 for it’s Date of Sale/Time. 7. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the One-Unit Housing Trends data in the Neighborhood section of the Report. 8. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the One-Unit Housing data in the Neighborhood section of the Report. 9, There is no documentation in the workfile to support the Present Land Use % data in the Neighborhood section of the Report. 10. There ig no documentation in the workfile to support the 16 comparable properties currently offered for sale in the subject neighborhood as listed in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 11. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the 5 comparable sales in the subject neighborhood for the past twelve months as listed in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 12. The wrokfile lacks documentation to support the FEMA data listed in the Site section of the Report. 13. The workfile lacks documentation and analysis to support H.\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 5 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint the increase in value from the prior sale in October 2007 for $750,000 and the current opinion of market value of $1,025,000 in May 2008. 14. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $75,000 Site adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 15. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Site adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 16. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $420,000 View adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 17. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $250,000 View adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 18. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $75,000 View adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 19. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 View adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 20. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 6 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint $60,000 Age adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 21. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Quality of Construction adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 22. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $75,000 Condition adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 23. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $150,000 Condition adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 24. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $8,000 Room Count adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 25. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $8,000 Room Count adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 26. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $10,000 Room Count adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 27. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $6,000 Room Count adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in the Sales H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 7 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint Comparison Approach section of the Report. 28. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $6,000 Room Count adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 29. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $123,200 Gross Living Area adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 30. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $34,850 Gross Living Area adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 31. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $93,150 Gross Living Area adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 32. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $40,350 Gross Living Area adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 33. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $35,650 Gross Living Area adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 34. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $9,180 Basement & Finished adjustment made to all comparable sales in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 8 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint 35. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $9,180 Rooms Below Grade adjustment made to all comparable sales in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 36. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Functional Utility adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 37. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Functional utility adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. . 38. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Functional Utility adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 39. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Functional Utility adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 40. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Functional Utility adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 41. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the $50,000 Garage/Carport adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 42. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the HAFREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 9 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint $5,000 Porch/Patio/Deck adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 43. There is no documentation in the workfile to support $5,000 Porch/Patio/Deck adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 44. There is no documentation in the workfile to support $3,000 Porch/Patio/Deck adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 45. There is no documentation in the workfile to support $3,000 Porch/Patio/Deck adjustment made to comparable sale 5 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 46. There is no documentation in the workfile to support the the the the the the the the $2,500 Fireplace adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 47. There is no documentation in the workfile to support $10,000 Other/Inferior adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 48. There is no documentation in the workfile to support $7,500 Other/Inferior adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 49, There is no documentation in the workfile to support $10,000 Other/Inferior adjustment made to comparable sale 4 in H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc the the the the the FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint Sales Comparison Approach section of the Report. 50. There is no documentation or analysis in the work file to support the $600,000 Opinion of Site Value in the Cost Approach section of the Report. A copy of the Workfile is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. COUNT ONE 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 TWO Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically the Conduct Section of the Ethics Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14}, Florida Statutes. COUNT THREE Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically the Recordkeeping Section of the Ethics Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc : iW FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint Statutes. COUNT FOUR Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-1(a), (b), and (c), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT FIVE Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT SIX Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-6(a), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT SEVEN Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 12 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards 2-1(a) and (b), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT EIGHT Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-2(b) (viii), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT NINE Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. COUNT TEN Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically the Scope of Work Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2008) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 3 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint 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, 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 61071-8.002, 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) H:AFREABa\FREAB\megas.doc 14 FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint 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 mot 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 notice; 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 /Y_ day of July , 2009. ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ss 2 Robert Minarcin Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 163147 Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: MR/FG 7/09 H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc FDBPR v. Anthony Megas Case No. 2008054046 Administrative Complaint 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 allowed by law, 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. H:\FREABa\FREAB\megas.doc . 16 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES Subject Address 1863 WOODMERE DRIVE Legal Description LAKESIDE PARK N 51.5FT OF $ 55.5FT WATER LOT 3 (EX W 130FT) BLK 59 PB-6 City JACKSONVILLE County DUVAL State FL Gp Code 32210-4380 Census Tract 0024.00 6433, Map Reference Sale Price $NA Date of Sale Borrower RICHARD & THERESA LARSEN Lender/Gllent 4ST HERITAGE MORTGAGE CO. Size (Square Feet) Price per Square Foot Location LAKESIDE PRK Age 91 YEARS Condition GOOD Total Rooms 5 Bedrooms Baths ANTHONY W. MEGAS, SRA Date of Appraised Value 5/16/08 $ 1,025,000 Broom, Moody, Johnson, & Grainger, Inc. Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 53262 ‘The purpose of this summary appraisal report is to provide the lender/ciient with an accurate, and rately supported, opinion of the market value of the subject Property Address_ 1863 WOODMERE DRIVE City JACKSONVILLE State FL Zip Code_32210-4380 Borrower RICHARD & THERESA LARSEN ‘Owner of Public Record RICHARD & THERESALARSEN __Coumly DUVAL Descripfion LAKESIDE PARK N 51.5FT OF S 55.5FT WATER LOT 3 (EX W 130FT) BLK 59 PB-6 PG-44 Assessor's Parcel #_093557-0000 Tax Year_ 2007 ALE. Taxes $_ 4,011.14 Neighborhood Name_LAKESIDE PARK Map Reference 6433 Census Tract 0024.00 Occupant Bq Owner ["] Tenant [_] Vacant Special Assessments $_0.00 Co PuD _HOA$ N/A per year {J per month Property Rights Appraised (XJ Fee Simple [J Leasehold [_] Other (describe) Assignment Type Purchase Transaction _D<) Refinance Transaction Other (describe) _ Lender/Client 1ST HERITAGE MORTGAGE CO. Address 140 STONE POST ROAD, LONGWOOD, FL 32279 1s the subject property curently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior tothe effective date of this, appraisal? ives [J No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s). __ MLS - LISTED ON 5/16/07 FOR $889,000. 1 C) did did not analyze tha contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the resutts of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. N/A. . Fea Contract Price $ N/A Date of Contract N/A 1s the property seller the owner of public recor? [_] Yes |_]No_Data Source(s) N/A {s there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or downpayment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? CYes {XI No IF Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe tha items tobe paid. N/A. Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Location (] Urban] Suburban _[_] Rural Property Values [J increasing X] Stable [_} Declining PRICE AGE | One-Unit 88 4) Buit-Up [Xj Qver 75% [_] 25-75% Under 25% | Demand/Si Shortage [XJ In Balance [_] Gver Supply |_$ (000) 2-4 Unit hl Growth Rapid (I Stable] Slow Marketing Time [_] Under 3 mths OX) 3-6 mins Over 6 mths} 125 Low NEW | Multi-Family 2% Neighborhood Boundaries THE SUBJECT 1S LOCATED ‘SOUTH OF PARK STREET, NORTH AND EAST|5 MIL+ Hi 400_| Commercial 5% #1 OF ROOSEVELT BLVD. AND WEST OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER. [400-500 Pred. 50-75 | Other 5% ighborhood Description SEE PAGE 3. Markel Conditions including support for the above conclisions)__ SEE PAGE 3. Dimensions 50.0 X 208.0 X 50.25 X 208.5, Area_+-10,400 S.F. Shape RECTANGULAR View RIVER ecitic Zoning Classification RLD-D Toning Description RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. Zoning Compliance [XJ Legal_{_] Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) (_} No Zoning _(_; legal (describe) Ts the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present usa? Blves No_if'No, describe Utiitles Public Other (describe) Public Other (describe) Off-site Improvements - Type Public Private Electicty Od Water x] Street_ ASPHALT. Gas OO 0) Sanitary Sewer DY] Alley NONE FEMA Special Hood Hazard Area_[_] Yes_[X} No__FEMA Flood Zone_x500 FEMA Map #_1200770141E. FEMA Map Date_ 8/15/1989 ‘Ara the utilties and off-site improvements typical for the market area? OX] Yes ~ [1 No _If No, describe ‘Are there any adverse site conditions or extemal factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land uses, etc.)? Yes No_ If Yes, describe THE SUBJECT HAS APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON THE ST. JOHNS RIVER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ACCESSED FROM WOODMERE STREET BY AN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT. Units J] One [_] One with Accessory Unit Concrete Slab _[_| Crawl Space Foundation Walls CONC.PIERS/AVG _|Floors CPT.WD,VINYUAV. # of Stories ONE FullBasement Cj Partial Basement_[Exterior Walls CONC.BL,FRM/AVG [Walls PNT.PLST,W/P/AV Type Bx] Det_ [J Att. [_j S-Det/End Unit |Basernent Area 1,836 _sq.ft{Roof Surface SHINGLE/AVG TrinvFinish__ PNT. WOOD/AVG Exsti Proposed [_] Under Const Basement Finish 0 _ %|Gutters & D its NONE Bath oor CARPETIAVG Design (Style) TRADITIONAL. Outside Entry/Exit [7] Sump Pur Window Type ALUM S/H/AVG Bath Wainscot C. TILE/AVG. Year But 1917 Evidence of _[] infestation Storm Sash/insulated_NONE (Car Storage Nore Effective Age 415-20 Dampness Settlement Screens ~_SCREENS/AVG Driveway _# of Cars 2 Attic None Heat BWA RWBB Radiant] Amenities Woodstave(s) # {Dr Surface_ GRAVEL,CONC., Stair (J Stairs Other Fuel ELECT. Fireplace(s) #1 Fence YES Gar #otCas 2 Foor (J Scuttle Cool Central Air Conditioni Paio/Deck COV. x] Porch ENTRY Carport __# of Cars [Fished Heated Individual Other Pool Other Ait. Det. Built-in lances (_] Refrigerator D< Range/Oven [<] Dishwasher _[X] Disposal_[_] Microwave _(_] Washer Other (describe) Finished area above grade contains: 5 Rooms 2 Bedrooms 4 _Bath(s) 7,818 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.). COVERED FRONT ENTRY, COVERED. REAR PORCH, SOLID SURFACE COUNTERS SECURITY, UNFINISHED BASEMENT, UNFINISHED FLOORED ATTIC, DOCK, BULKHEAD, DETACHED 2-CAR GARAGE. Describe the condition of the property (Including needed repairs, deterioration, renovations, remodeling, etc.). __THE. SUBJECT IS A 91 YEAR OLD SINGLE FAMILY. HOME THAT WAS IN OVERALL GOOD CONDITION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION. WITHIN. THE PAST 8 MONTHS, THE SUBJECT HAS. BEEN RENOVATED WITH A NEW KITCHEN WITH STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES AND QUARTZ COUNTERS, UPDATED BATHROOM, REFINISHED HARDWOOD FLOORING, NEW BULKHEAD, UPDATED ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING, NEW LIGHT AND PLUMBING FIXTURES, NEW WOOD FENCING, REBUILT REAR PORCH. THESE ITEMS ARE FULLY CONSIDERED IN THE FINAL OPINION OF VALUE. Are there ical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the ivabiity, soundnass, or structural integrity of the property? ‘Yes_[X] No_if Yes, describe Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (tunctional utility, style, condition, usa, construction, etc.)? Yes [_] No_ If No, describe oh Freddle Mac Form 70 March 2005 Page 1 of 6 EX Form 1004 — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, , Ps, Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Fle # 53262 There are 16 comparable properties currently offered for sale in the subject neighborhood ranging in price from $_625,000 to$ 1,625,000 There are —_comparable sales in the subject neighborhood within the past twelve months ranging in sale price from $ 855,000 to$_ 1,500,000 FEATURE SUBJECT COMPARABLE SALE # 1 COMPARABLE SALE # 2 COMPARABLE SALE # 3 Address 1863 WOODMERE DRIVE 1839 WOODMERE DRIVE 8082 ORTEGA FOREST DRIVE |5224 ORTEGA FOREST DRIVE JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210-4380 | JACKSONVILLE. JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE Proximity to Subje SAME STREET. 2.20 MILES SOUTH, 2.42 MILES SOUTH Sale Price $NA $1,500,000} 5 855,000 $ 1,124,000 Sale Price/Gross Liv. Area [$ sqt.|$ 360.30 sq.ft. $339.96 sqft. $305.35 sqft, Data Source(s) EXT. INSPECTION/MLS/AGENT | EXT. INSPECTION/MLS/AGENT | EXT. INSPECTION/MLS/AGENT Verification Source(s) PUBLIC RECORDS PUBLIC RECORDS PUBLIC RECORDS VALUE ADJUSTMENTS: DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION | +(-)$ Adjustment ( DESCRIPTION | +(-}$Adjustment | DESCRIPTION | +(-) $ Adi Sales or Financing CASH CONV. CONV. Concessions NO EFFECT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT Date of Sale/Time CL: 3/23/07 CL: 6/14/07 CL: 5/16/08 Location LAKESIDE PRK|LAKESIDE PRK| ORT.FOREST NONE] ORT.FOR/INF. BELOW Leasehold/Fee Simple FEE SIMPLE __|FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site +:10,400 S.F._|+-20,500 S.F. BELOW/|+-19,000 S.F. BELOW|+-17,500 S.F. View SO'RIVERIAV/GD | 85'RIVERAVIGD. ~420,000]113' RIVER/AVG NONE! 100'RVERJAVG +250,000 Design (Style) TRADITIONAL |2-STORY. NONE! RANCH NONE!|CONTEMP. NONE Quality of Construction CB,FRWAV/GD|BRICK/AVG. NONE| STUCCO/AVG NONE] STUCCO/GD -50,000 Actual Age 91 YEARS 51 YEARS NONE/33 YEARS NONE(3 YEARS. 60,000 Condition GOOD AVERAGEIGD | +75,000| AVG./BEL.AVG +150,000|GOOD Above Grade Total [Bdrms.| Baths | Totat |Bdrms.| Baths Total |Barms.| Baths Total [Bérms.| Baths Room Court 5] 2114] 8] 4 jor ~8,000_ 7 | 4 1H 6,000) 8 | 3 135 -10,000 Gross Living Area 1,818 sqit. 4,282 sgt. ~123,200| 2,515 sqft, -34,850) 3,681 sqft -93,150 Basement & Finished UNF.BASEMNT | NONE +9,180| NONE +9,180)NONE +9,180 Rooms Below Grade UNF. ATTIC __|NONE +9,180| NONE +9,180/ NONE. +9,180. Funetional Util 2 BEDROOM ___|4 BEDROOM. -50,000/4 BEDROOM -50,000|3 BEDROOM -50,000 Heating/Cooling CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL ~_ [CENTRAL Energy Efficient items STANDARD STANDARD. STANDARD STANDARD. al GARAGE-2 [GARAGE -2 GARAGE-2_ | ss [GARAGE -3 -50,000 Bd PorchyPatio/Deck ENT.,CV.PCH_|ENT.,PATIO. +5,000| ENT.,PATIO +5,000| ENT..CV.PCH. Fireplace FP-1 FP-1 FP FP-2 -2,500 4 Pool NONE. NONE POOL -20,000|POOL >20,000 Other BLK,DOCK INFERIOR. +10,000) INFERIOR +7,500| SIMILAR, Net Adjustment (Total) + - |$ 492,840) + -_{$ 68,010 + - |§ 67,290 ‘Adjusted Sale Price Net Ad]. 32.9% Net Adj. 8.0% Net Adj. 6.0%: of Comparables Gross Adj. _47.3%|$___1,007,160/Gross Adj. 34.4%|$ 923,010/Gross Adj. §3.7%|$ 4,056,710 (Bt did _ [J did not research the sale or transter history of the subject property and ot ble sales. If not, explain research