STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD u : FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, QD ps) -YYy Db PL v. CASE NO. 2001500227 2001500416 ELSA G. CARTAYA, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Elsa G. Cartaya (“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 RD0002343 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 2121 SW 83” Avenue, Miami, Florida 33155. FDBPR v. Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS IN CASE NO. 2001500227 4. On or about April 29, 1999, Respondent developed and communicated a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report for the Property commonly known as 1729 NW 18°" Street, Miami, Florida. A copy of the report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. 5. On or about March 18, 2001, David B. C. Yeomans, Jr., A. S. A., and Mark A Cannon, A. S. A., performed a field review of the report. A copy of the review is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. 6. The review revealed that unlike it states in the Report, the subject property’s zoning was not “Legal,” but “legal nonconforming (Grand fathered use).” 7. The review further revealed that Respondent failed to report that if the improvements sustain extensive damage or demolishment or require renovation which exceeds 50% of the depreciated value, it is likely that a variance would be necessary to build a new dwelling. 8. The review further revealed that Respondent failed to report that subject property has two underground gas meters. 9. The review further revealed that unlike Respondent states in Report, subject property’s street has gutters and storm sewers along it. 10. The review further revealed that subject property is a part of a “sub-market” within its own neighborhood due to its construction date of 1925. 11. Respondent applied three comparables built in 1951, 1953, and 1948, respectively, all of which reflect a different market, without adjustment. FDBPR v. Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint 12. Respondent applied comparables which have much larger lots than the subject, which is of a non-conforming, grandfathered use. 13. Respondent failed to adjust for quality of construction even though subject is frame and all three comparables are of concrete block stucco construction. 14. Respondent failed to note on the Report that comparables 1 and 2 had river frontage. 15. Respondent failed to adjust comparables 1 and 2 for river frontage. 16. The review revealed that at the time of the Report there were at least five sales more closely comparable to Subject than those which Respondent applied. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to use reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT II 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 I . Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of culpable negligence in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS IN CASE NO. 2001500416 17. Petitioner realleges counts one through three and further adds: 18. On or about August, 9, 1999, Respondent prepared and communicated a Uniform FDBPR v, Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint Residential Appraisal Report for the Property commonly known as 18032 NW 48" Place, Miami, Florida, 33055. (Report) A copy of the Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3. 19. On the Report, Respondent incorrectly stated that the property is ina FEMA Zone X flood area. In fact, the property is in an AE Zone. 20. In Report, Respondent states: “Above sales were approximately adjusted per market derived value influencing dissimilarities as noted.” 21. Respondent failed to state in Report, that comparables 1 and 3 have in-law quarters. 22. In Report, Respondent represented comparable t had one bath, where in fact it has at least two. 23. In Report, Respondent failed to state that comparable | has two in-law quarters. 24. In Report, Respondent stated that comparable 3 is a two-bath house with an additional bath in the in-law quarters. 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 use reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. FDBPR v. Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of culpable negligence in a 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, 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 61J1-8.002, 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 FDBPR v. Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See § 455.227, Fla. Stat. (1999) and Fla. Admin. Code R. 61J1-8.002. } SIGNED this_(9_ day of_((% ye sat , 2002. Florids Bepartment of Business and Professional Regulation By: Director, Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Nancy P. Campiglia Fla. Bar No. 0164259 FDBPR-Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N308A. Orlando, Florida 32802-1772 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: JB/MC/CK 8/02 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 6 FDBPR v. Elsa G. Cartaya Case No. 2001500227 & 2001500416 Administrative Complaint 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. ' Noah tert ELSA CARTAYA, Raster ts! Report UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT rane A200; Property Cascription - = ee a Froeny Access 1729 NW 18 STREET. Cy VIAMI State oe Up Sede 33425 at 7 PA SM9 County DA Legal Desengign LOT 47 LESS 317FT & LESS NSFT TO CITY FOR § — ~ Assessor's Pace No. 01-3134-013-0380 jaYear_ 1998 HE Texes$ 4 291.58 soe Assesements £0.50 Eorower EVANGELISTA CHEVARRIA Corrent Owner ULYSES GOMEZ Ocguaart (x) QwneT Tenant f | vacant Frovery darts appralsed ——X] Fee Simple |} Leasehold Prolect Tyoe I] PUD [i Corosmninm UGA sey HOA § N/A Ao. Nercndarhood or Project Name BELLEVUE SUB Map Aeterence $3-41-34 Census Tract 30.020 a SalePrice $ 135,00 Date of Sale 4/99 Description and $ amount cl oan chugesicencesswas tp 2 paig by seer UNKNOWN LercerCltent CTX MORTGAGE COMPANY Address 13701 N. KENDALL ORIVE, SUITE 200 MIAML FL 33166. : _ Appraiser, G. CARTAYA, C.R.EA, #0002343 Address STATE CERT RES APPRAISER2121 SW 83RD AVENUE. MIAMI FL aes tacatan BO) Urban 5 Suburban (J Rural Predominant ‘Singetemiyrouseg Present land ues cand vee chatiga Gut up OX) Over 75% 25-75% — ] Under 25% pancy $(000) iyts) | Gne famaty Growth rate (_] Rapid Od supe = 7) stow OY owner 1) BO low 1042-4 tamay Property vaiues Increasing (X) Stabie £7] Dectining Tenant frm S5_Hlgh 7 80] Mut Demand/supply {_] Shortage — [] m balance {—] over suppy | SQ vacart (0-5%) (LE ZA Predampifant FES Commercial gg Marketing time _{') Under 3 mos. () 3-6 mos. [-] Over 6 mas. | [| Vaeatover $%} | 125 45 | vacant Moto: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood ara not apptaisal factors, Nelgnbortaod boundartes and characteristics, _The area is bounded on the North byNW 17 ST. the Scuth by SW 8th ST.,on the East by Miami AVE. the West by 17th AVE., A predominant residentlal neighborhood, Factors that affect the marketablity af tha properties In the neighborhood (pradmity to employment and amenties, employment Stabilty, appeal to market, ete,): Subject is, part of a typical established residential neighborhood consisting of medium to large size homes wihiVergaiti J Hable Dverall market appeal is average with most properties receiving average maintenance. Ailpretarredtamaities arerwani iced oc walking distance. No negative factors found that would adversely affect subiects marketability andior vaiue Project information for PUDs (It applicable) - - ts the develaperfouilder In control ol the Home Owners’ Association (HOA)? tyes CJ No - Approximate total aumber of units in the subject project : Approximate total number 21 unis forsale in the subject project : Oescabe common elements and recreational facilttes: NVA. Olmensions 33.220 X 134 Topography Level at Grade BM Sitearea 4,459 ComerLor [J ¥es OS) No {She 4.451/Typical Specitic zoning classlicalon ang-déserpon _R-2 TWO FAMILY 6000 SQ FT MIN Lot Shape Mostly Rectangular/Typical Ba Zoning compliance (XJ Lega Legal noncantomning (Granatathered use) ( ] Megat (_} No zoning Orainage Adequate Bp -Piahest& best use as improved, AD] Present use [7] Other use (explain) 1 View Typical Uthities Palle ther Ot-stelmprovements Type Punic Private | Landscaping Typical Electricity Q) FPL Steet ASPHALT. ® oO Cnveway Surtace Concrete Curt gutter NONE LC} ©) ooarent easements Typical of Records Sidewalk Concrete 7 (| FEMA Spectat Flood Hazard are Od) ves No Steet lights Electric (J | FEMA Zone AE Mag Qale MARVQ4 Al None May = Comments (apparent adverse easement ‘gal of legal acncontorming toning hysical site inspection of the sul ited to visual factors which none were found that Adalvona features (speclal energy ellicent Rams, et): _CvrdEntey Window ,, open cone/ patio, ceiling fans, concrete waike Wood/Vinyi flooring Laundry/Utlty room with washer/dryer, Condion of the Improvements, depreciation (physical, functonal, and extemal), repairs needed, quality of Construction, remodeling/additions, #lc.: No apparent physical or functional inadequacies noted at the time of inspection. Physica! depreciation attributable to normal wear & tear. Depreciation based on effective age. Quality of construction and conditions appears average. Adverse environmental conditions (such as, but not timited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) present in the Improvements, on the site, of In the tn ' lnvmedlate vcinty t he subject propery: _No adverse conditlons were noted at the tine of the inspection that would negatively affect subject Property’s value and/or marketability. idle Mac Form 70. 93 PAGE 1 GF2 Fannle Mae Form 1004 6/93 Form UA2 — “TOTAL 2000 tor Windows® appralsal soltware by ala made, inc. — 1-800-ALAMOQE , GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION INSULATION No. of Units ONE Foundatan REINF CONC Jsiab NO. |Area Sq.ft NVA Root No, of Stortes ONE Exterior Waits FRAME/STU |crawt Space YES" |% Finished Ceiling 4 Type (Det /At.) DET — |poot sutace SHINGLES [Basement N/A Ceiling Walls G Oestgn (Style) AISTORY Fcutters & Ownspls. NONE Sump Pump N/A Walls, Floor O Existing/Proposed EXIST | Window Type AWNING _|Oampness — None Obsrvd Floor None al Age (Yrs.) 1925 StommvScreens NO/ALUM. | Settlement TYPICAL Outside Entry Unknown, Eltective Age (Yrs) _ 20-25 [Manufactured House N/A, Infestation Nona Obswid I TYPICAL ROOMS. Foyer Lying {Dining Kitchen Den Family Rim. | Rec Rm, { Bedrooms! # sa f Laundry. Other Area Sq. Ft be Basement N/A z Level f 1 4 f 1 4 3 1,485 = Lovet 2 1 st a | Finished area above grade contains: 8 Rooms; A Bedroom(s): 3 Square Feet of Gross Living Area > INTERIOR Matedals/Candiion [HEATING Wis/ite TTGREN EOUP. —TATHG CAR STORAGE oO F ars Wood/Vinyl-Avg Type = sR Retrigerator XJ | None XI |Feptace(s) # NONE [J IWone {&) Off Street oO Vous OnwalVAverage Ful = ELEC |Rangeoven (52) | Stars Palo CVROTILE & | Garage # of cars TdevFintsh = _Wood&StaivAva Condition AVG Disposal (J) Jorop stat =} |Deck “None CD | Attaches ed Bath Floar = _C.Tile/Avg COOUNG Olshwasher (_) | Scutte (_} |Porch “Entry &) | detached Bath Wainscot _C.Tile/Avg Central _None FawHood ——X) | Hoor () Fence “Chnink Fene BO | Buitzin Doors H.C. Wood/Stnd her = W.Units |Microwave (") Heated (J }Poo!_None (J) | carport “Teantin CHAVAVG |WasherOryer_[] | Finished {| {strge Shed Onveway No AUDEN ae #8 NORMA UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Fileho. 389950 TX =$ sauation Sect mane VALUE 45,000 |Comments or Cost Approach (such #8, scsce of cost esimate, sie vue ESTIMATED REPROOUCTION COST. NEW-OF IMPROVEMENTS squaretoc ton and for HUD, VA and FmHA, the # remariang dwelling 1,485 Sq.Ft @S_ 51.00 = § 79,725 sconomic ile ol te property}, SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Sq.FL @S = Subject's iand to value ratio is cammon for properties in sudvect EXTRAS LUMP SUM/Patios,Porches elo = 19,000 market avea and does not adversiy affect markelabiltyivaive GaragerCarpoa SQA @s = 1 Total Estimated Cost New = 85,735 Cost estimated ihrough the Marshall & Swift valuation service Less Physical Funcuonat Externas &/or focal builder cost information, ‘Deprectatton 20,002 = 20,002 | $q.Fl of Comparables has been adjusted lo segregate garages, BM Cepreciated Valze of Improvements teececetiuti ue, a§ 65,733 | carpéns, paudsiparches, elc. ’AS-Is* Value ot Site Improvements Lads/DrwyiF ence. .2 8, 00f Estimmated cepa economic life is approximately INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH es 118,733 {40-50 years TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 7 COMPARABLE NO. 2 I COMPARABLE NO 1729 NW 18 STREET 1950 NW 13 STREET 2012 NW 13 STREET 3340 IW 10 TERRACE Address MIAMI MIAMI x“ MIAMI MIAMI Proximity 19 Sublect Sua 7 BLKS SW BLKS SW 16 BLKS SW . om Sales Price $ 435,000 Bae $ 125,000 eels ay A 124,700 | BM Price/Gross Living Area|$ 90.91 As 110.91 © Bed § 101,66 DLA $ 107.69 © Oata and/or Pub Records Public Records, Isw/PRC Public Records, Isc/PRC Public Records, Is/PRC MF Ver'licazion Source Inspection Exterior Viewing _ Exterior Viewing Exterior Viewing y Sules of Alnancing ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION" +{-J8 aqua OESCHIPTICN +(-]5 Agua QESCRIPTION "+ (=)$ Aust nd CONV MTG : CONV MTG : FHA MTG oy Concessions $118,000 : $128,260 4: $124,421 Date ol SaleTime wn] MARS 77 SEP/98 FE@/99 BM Location Res/Avg Res/Avg + Res/Avg : Res/ayg * LeaseholdFee Simple | FEE FEE FEE : FEE Site 4,451 6,780 1 NO ADIT 7,620 : -1,000 15,400 1 NO ADJ View Typical Typical H Typical : Tt ypicar 40d Appeal 1STORY 1STORY ‘ 1STORY : STORY. Qualty of Construction | FRAMEAVG CBS/AVG . i CBSAVG + CBSIAVG « Age 1925 1951 : Tr9s3 : 1948 Condition AVERAGE [AVERAGE : AVERAGE ‘ ~TAVERAGE Above Grade Total ;Gdrms: Baths | Total ‘Bdrms | Bains * Total Sorms * Batns * Total Borms: Baths ! [fatal Borms | Baths ° Room Count Bi 4:3 ,6:37 4 +2,000[ 6 2 3 7 9 1,000; 6° 3° 4 7 +2,000 Gross Living Area 1,485 Sq. Fe To 1127 So, Ft! 5,700 1,328 $9. Ft! +2,500 1,158 Sq Ft $200 Basement & Finished N/A N/A NIA aw NIA qt . Rooms felow Grade Wo b iv . 3 |e Functional Utilty AQEQUATE ADEQUATE : ADEQUATE H ADEQUATE Heating/Coallag WUNITS/AVG | SIMILAR SIMILAR : SIMILAR Eneeay Elticlent items — | Insul wads lnsul wads, Insul wads Garaqe/Carport None/Off Street None/Off Street" 4. CAR ALMCRP. Porch, Patio, Deck, PorchyPat/None SIMILAR : SIMILAR : SIMILAR Fiteplace(s), etc, NONE (FIREPLACE! : lnsul wads Adjusted Sales Price ot Comparable S ~ Comments on Sales Compartson including fepresent recent sales of propertie: {ha same jocatlonat influences wit Comp 2 with least adjustments fo COMPARABLE NO, 2 COMPARABLE NO 31 AUGIS8 MAY/72 $115,000 $26,500 ; ASV$90,599 : ASV$ 59,795 Analysis ahany curent agreement of sa Or listing of subject Property and anatysis of any PROF sales of Subject and Comparables within one year of the ate of appraisal: ~ Subject isunder tontemcta give value trend indicator, Prior sales for Subject & comp? appears to be : investors transactions for quick resale ather Comps prlot sales occurred over a year ago, ASVS'96 Tolar Assmnt Value noted. 1 . 'WOICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Sr nnen INDICATEQ VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH 9 This appraisal is made Si LJ Condidons of Apprutat _ineufficlent data foach, This ls ¢ summa 2-2(b Conditions & Exp le was based on conclusions derived from bath the market and income a roach which reflects Gurrent sellers of income Producing properties. Cost Approach is a supportive indicator of value ‘ ‘market vatue of the real property that is the subject of this Jeport, based on the above Condilons and the ceititicalion, contingent : ution that are stated In the attached Freddle Mac Form AIQFNMA form 10048, (Revised 6/93 _—, N AND THE EFFECTIVE OATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 136 000 ~ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRE): Signature Signature C) oid TF pis tor Hamee-G, CARTATA CREA, Name Inspect Property ' Oate Aeport Slones-” 4729/99 Date Report Slaned Slate Ceclilcatloh # 0002343 Stale_ FL State Cestitication # State { Sjate Ucense #_ST.CERT RES, APPRAISER Staie Fl Gr State License # Slate iale Mac Form 70 G99 PAGE 2 OF 2 . Fannie Mae Form 1004 6-93 Form UA2 — TOTAL 2000 for ‘Windows® appraisal soltware by a la ‘moda, Inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE Sout tana we at bashed 1729 NW 18 Street _ ui Lot a7 loss E 178 8N 5 t fo city lor Street, Boreyue Sundivisi Auarey Fee Simple i Moteur Bi forse (iy of Bnginal Appraesal and bie Rowiny Apr 29. 1999/March 17, 260% louie Evangelista Chavarria Apgar David B.C Yeomans, Je, ASA ‘sates Ss Rey 9400 So Dadeiand Blvd. PH-1, Mian. FL 33156 fk weer {305} 670-0001 ieleerone, Instructions: the review appramer irund pevaneclly ni tient af the comparagles; fe bond at the « and) ib nthe saga appro ake eoserved ITE Tin cmaees app ap nist euqail appeusal lepad, Week) Mie isiasorent micas, mab netie ot tial 0H uypy OND tal. eae ren a they suber ah Ihe ceampatebless te val fegnt abd 1 r wher dig for ay Ube erate! a eh iy the fi Saaesiers [Qn aM spasan about the apprgrarensss of Her ed arnt gaat res 07 5 10 the space provid, ate an adslom pape al we MArS. cad cI Ain rssary bhp aes oP tfageeument {yr rp eet ers 1 Provide a sales ang refinance bistory fer the sucject property for ig last bree yoies (bis (easaratsy parubie the tall wath i that ther ftvigee toteable} Conveyance Salis Price Asking Pricg Mortgage AniL Ciarhe.Gr antes Roeer satien Dake August, 1999 $135,000 Not listed $128,250 | Ulises Gomez/Evangetista Chavarria FARES July, 1998, $115,000 Not Listed $103.500 | Yolanda Parra/Uises Gomez FARES @ bhi appairers ovoai descrphost of tee eeighborhuged comlere ind accurate (loralion, qeueral markel curdibe es (He plant elgsings, Crap gues. We) property vahwes, Acting! supply. matkubny hind, Generak appearance of properties, appeal io matte el]? fMey pM ale aeons The subject's neighborhood is bordered by NV 20th Street to the north, Northwest 17th Avenue to the east, West Flagler Street to the south. and Northwest 27th Avenue to the west, The subject is located within an area mixed with single family homes, 2-4 family buildings and low to Inidnise apartments, Much of the area is zoned R-2 and R-3, which allows for multi-family dwellings Access to the area is from either NW 20th Street, or NW 17th Avenue, both main roads, with public transportation and shopping facilities. The area is fully developed with no “Land Use" change as that pertains to zoning changes {he fhe apart overall desenpunn uf thi site Cnipeie and accurate (coniey CORMpIINCS, Appaleu dyer a: Coeukoes, epparent unvrocmentil hyeauds, see heed Sacand ate J? 1) ves ] No Eno. explain.) The subject's site has only 33.2 front feet and a total of 4,451 square leet, according to the City of Miami Zoning the minimum lot width for R-1_and R-2 zoning was 50 feet and a minimum lot size of $.000 square feet With this in consideration, the subject's “Zoning compliance” should have been "legal nonconforming (Grandfathered use)". The appraiser should have also disclosed that if the structure was extensively damaged or demolished or the cost of renovations exceed 50% of the depreciated value of the improvements, a new dwelling may not be allowed unless a variance was approved +f This appearver’s aver descrplion of tie iprovenierty Caniplele and accurate (property cescaphion, depen ighow, GaNKHunA, appArCEL eEYMOMELAT hag anh ete | Ldyes (]No (fee, oxplani) Based on a physical inspection as of March 17, 2001 it appears that the site has two underground gas Meters and there were gutters and storm sewers along the subject's street, . : 8 Ave tthe desiqi and appeal, quality of constiction, and side of Ihe subject property siomlar to others nites area? — Le] Yes LJ No no, hyve rs the sutyoet chlfecent?) i) She subject is a detached single family home butll in 1925 and was similar in quality and construction as other homes within the general area & Are the compatibles used in the itnalysis truly comparable to the subyect property, represeatative of the subyect niwket, and were they the best ones avarlably a of the effective date of the apprarsal? [J Yes DX) No (no, explany and provide an agjustmont gad val the ajypropriaty Comparables and adjustments oo an addendum.) The subject was built in 1925, an era when the area was initially began to be developed. Homes built in the 1920's were judged to reflect their own “sub-market" and comparable sales from this era should only be considered, The appraiser has utilized sales of homes built in 1951, 1953, and 1948, alt which reflect a different market and located on much larger tots. The review appraiser researched the subject's direct and general area arid was able to find several additional sales of homes built in the 1920's through the early 1930's which should have been considered which the Review Appraiser included in adjustment grid of this review. Comparable sales number one and two were located within a small subdivision known as Durham Park, an area of river front and ary lot homes, | with direct access to the Miami River and Biscayne Bay. Both these homes were located on the South Fork Miami River and reftect.a different market. Comparable number three is a newer updated home with a large rear family room addition. This home was also located over one mile west 7 (a) Can the date of sale (contract date and/or closing/setllement date}, sales price. and sales or finanang conces:xars lor the comparabhys be contemed Theouyh tse Gata oulee fat the appraror adicad?— EXE Yes |] No (no, explana) The three comparable sales had closed for their indicated price and dates indicated, comparable number one had a new conventional mortgage of $118,750 : +———| (L) Were the Comparaiyes actual Closed oF settied sales as of the elfective date of the eriginal apprarsal? > Paes. 22 No Uno, explain) Based on Public Records the information the comparable sales appear to have been closed. Le freddie Mac Fora 1032 11/89 Page tof 2 Faerie Mae Form 2600 11464) 1-4 Fanuly Properties 1-4 Family Properties Appraisal and Real Esiate Economics Associates, Inc Form FRY — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 1-300-ALAMODE JP AME af Pedic tidy SE ot . See eee sion and have fy sant Comparabie sates numbor one and two were 1:caled_n the seport_ According io the locai MLS, comparable num wide dock, central air conditioner, and tile flooring Comparable number two was net ‘isted int the improvements as a 2 bedrooms/1 bathroom home, although a large side addition was ¢ three has 3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms. a large family room, te flooring, central air conditioner, an: footage indicated was noted as being greater than what was indicated in the pubtis records MES arthough public records indicates ding to MLS comparable number ely updated The livable square ned A retsonabie nd supported (lini, focatiat!, desig : SOP Sy ane ren sales of , 7 1 ho (i no, explain} The agjustrents made arpear to be subjective and lack market support The appraiser has adjusted the comparable sales at $18.00 per square ‘cet, which acogars ‘ow fori this maraet. Market extrackon should have been used to derive at the contributory vatue of the utility of the excess livable area_Also no lot adwisiment was mace for comparanie sales number one and three and a minimal adjustment of comparable sale number two As indicated the subiect's ste has only 53 0 feet of frontage and may require a variance for the improvements to be remodeled of may not he able to be rebulll if damaged. The \iplaser has also indicated that the subject and all comparable sales were in average condition gos not commenton the large age eaces which may warrant an adjustment for depreciation etal ond expense UStr accurate id 0 pepe 1 3 reasorage? |! vey | all Fesideral Vcore property (24 et) of a Sige fanuly investment ise TWA {if no, nxpyain } U1 Thine sedyect property rs an indiadual ein ata condormaum oF PUD project, cs the project descrplion caplet abd acennthe® Tyes FT No 0] WA (If ro, explain.) 12 i ihe estunale of marker vale for Ihe subyect property seasonable as of they nifective date of rhe apprarsal? 1 "tes, oan (IF 0, provide an approprate extane fUanatket value for the subject properly and slate he assumplian fextenar nope. bin only, property doscptean weds oseehtea ete | MAL Me cpio es subse A] Comparable sales number one and two were homes with frontage along a portion of the Miami River and should have not been included in the nprarsal report, Comparable sale number three could have been considered, although a condition/age adustment was warranted. The ‘ppraiser has noted the “date and/or verification” sources as public records, ISC/PRC, and Extenor Viewing, therefore may not have had the Mui ple Listing Service. The appraiser should have noticed that comparable sales had water frontage and considered an age adjustinent The soview appraiser has included additional sales of similar age homes from the subject's general area and adjusted for the differences The _Leview appraiser has algo inspected the interior of the home on March 18, 2001. On this date the home was not secured and had been partially vandalized, the interior of the home also appears to have some recent interior renovations consisting of tile flooring and newer kitchen cabinets, "he original report indicated wood and viny! flooring. The home also has been divided into at east four (4) units with separate “illegal” interior power sub-meters. The floor plan of the original report was different from the current flogr plan and this appears to have been changed after heing sold, See attached floor plan and comparables. 1, Has there brent a substantial change in the base economy i the area since the ulfectve date of the appraisal? L_J yes] to. (it yes, please explyin.) ee 14. if the subject property is a Cooperative unit, the review appraiser must address the completeness and aecuracy al the Qnginal appraiser's description and analysis af the Cooperative project and specifically comment on the accuracy of: (a) the number of shares attributable to the ws, (b) the pro-rata share of the blacket morlgage paymeris and (¢) the treatmont of the inonthily assessments of the comparable sales. The subject is a detached single family residence. etuly tal. 40 the best oF my knowledge and bebe, the facts and data used hte! are true and Comect, hat | per sunully mepected the edetsg 4 (he subECt procerty and the compatibles used un he feprit thal ihe iepaned analyses, opinwans, and COnKlWiONS ae IMMed cHly by she reported wumpHON', ane) HenEre] COMMS. OE URE Any PH-Ont ugased prOfeseaGna atalyes, purr, and Conclusions, that | Have nV PreVenE OF prowLclve interes in the property alas the sulyect nf thes repCr ee Ea (4 jae Lp es pares ver, (hal my COrpeMsation 15 AOC COHLNGENt ON aly ACTION OF overt resuMlNKg ror ne Analyses, OPINIONS, OF CoNKClUIEr PeMTGH CES OF DISS, 4 runs cope, and abt ry any pian aud Dine March 18, 2001 ile Df Ralpa ppg Ciient Use Only deview Underwriter’ Comments, SN Set -—- eddie Mac Form 1032 11/89 2 Page 2 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 2000 11/89 -4 Family Properties 1.4 Fasnity Properties Form FRY — "TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by alt miode. inc. — 1-80G-ALAMODE er eae of eon OS athohwriton, 7 ” Date ee cE precernies an ast si RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL FIELD REVIEW REPORT MARKET DATA ANALYSIS aA APG erOxublale 1d Subjecs and hawt been sci wh pose dems nf sai variation Gefwers the supiect art Comparable prep FECL papery. wa iins Ee) adygrameatis inace, as reece 3h minnie veable an fhe cubes oper 2 pint ef aeaMTOr rs secs, Hea ere ney iif SUB ICT COMPARABLENG 4 2 BARASLE I 3 1729 NW 18 Street 1836 NW 19 Terrace 425 NW 24 Avenue’ 3030 NW 22 Court Aitinss Mrami Miami Miame Miami Progemly to Subjer 0.14 miles 0.87 miles 0.96 miles a $ NIA 4 82,000 114,000 is 99.900 Lai Area [8 L$ 65 557 3 76.00 3 325 7 inspections FARES FARES. MLS FARES. MLS Review Appraisal | Extenor inspection _| Exterior tsp: Exteror inspecton % VEGCRP GN DES EPIC eS al | Sanaa) faut | 4 boca soles OF Fede FHA Conventional Conventional Convey $63,231 -2,500 {3108 300 Amount Unknown ‘ie gf Sales Lurie 81998, 4.1999 2-1999 *ueitign Near Commer Average No Adj | Average __ No Adi_| Average No Ag neidfine Sutple [Fee Simpie Fee Simple Fee Simpte Fee Simple 4.451 sq feet 3,759 sq feet +2,100 | 6,435 sq feet -5,900 | 5.400 sq feet 2.900 Avg/Residential__| Avg/Residential Avg/Residential AvgiResidential a tt Ra Rambler/Average | Rambler/Average + Rambler/Average Rambler/Average Qualty uf Cungtucuce {| Average Average Average Average faye 1925 1925 1925 1926 Cancion Average Average Average/Goou =15,000 | Averaqe/Good -12,000 Atiove Grade Total fdrms' Baths | Total :Berms' Baths Toth Bidens b Rowinn Os oU 104 5 4 Si 25 2: +5,000 2 +5,000 3 +5,000 Gross Leng Ata 1,480 Sq ft 1,251 Sq. FI +8,000 4,800 Sy ft 0 1.200%) Fr +9.800 J Gavernent & Fawshed | None None None None Rooms Below Grade Noted Noted Noted Noted Luni tonisl Unity InAdequate Adequate 1,500 | InAdequate Adequate -1,500 Heating/Cooling Wall Units Wall Units Central/Central -2,000 | Central/Centrat -2,000 wey Uficent tems | Standard Standard Standard Standard Harage/Carport None None. None None 1 ii, Pao, Beck, Front Porch Entry Porch : Front Porch Front Porch Jireplace(s), etc Decorative None : No Ad. | Fireplace No Adj_| Fireplace No Ady fence, Pool, ite Full Fences Full Gate 2 Full Gate Rear Chain 7 i. Ayu Sod Sales Price of Cumparables 3 96.300 Dale, Price and Data July, 1998 NA Nit June, 1993 Hance for poor sales — | $115,000 $59.500 wilh year of apponsid | Public Records} Public Records Public Records Pubhe Records Comments, Comparable number one is a smaller 2 bedroom home located near the subject. This home was not listed in the local Multiple Listing Service but has updated windows, security grills and the exterior was in average condition The home is also located on a slightly smalier tot Comparable number two was built as a smaller 2 bedroom home but has a large rear addition which created an additional bedroom and ‘ throom. The roof height of the rear addition was finished lower than the orginal home and may have originally been a porch. The MLS noted the home as completely renovated with tile Nooring and central air conditioner. Comparable number three is a smaller home which also has a rear addition which appears to have been an attached “in-law” quarters. The. home was updated, has a large front porch, updated windows, securily grills, and central air conditioner. Comparable number four is a smaller 2 bedroom home with a den which could be a thud bedroom. The home has a new roof tile Rooring, | enclosed front porch, inferior jalousie windows, and security grills Comparable number five is a slightly smalier 3 bedroom home located on a slightly smaller lot. The interior has updated electric and plumbing small front entry porch, a small rear addition, and the lot is located just south of State Road 836, a main highway, and some noise was noted. it appears a age adjustment is warranted but without preparing a Cost Approach the rate of depreciation could not be supported. RECONCILIATION The estimated land vatue along with the contributory value of the porches and patios were extracted from each comparable. The remainder was then divided by their square footage to arrive at a price paid for living area. Comparable sales number two and three were described as being pletely renovated, warranting an adjustment. Comparable sales number two and three also have additions which were not reflected in the public records, therefore the square footage of these two sales were adjusted by the additional rooms described by the MLS and also from the ouservations of the appraiser Based on the sales used in the report of similar age homes ocated on smaller and larger lots. the market appears to be recognizing a premium for lot sizes. therefore a lot adjustment was warranted. According to_the public records, the subject was originally built as 2 bedroom, 1 bathroumn dwelling The home appears to origmaily had a front _porch which was converted into a bedroom and bathroom. Another bathroom was created by a rear addition and a third bathroom and bedroom was built and finished below grade at the rear of the home. Two of these bathrooms have poor locations, therefore minimal consideration*was warranted in the market approach r On the date of inspection the subject appears to have been converted into at least four (4) living units with electric sub-meters which were not approved by the local building codes. The dining raom has a closet and the rear addition or conversion has a ceiling height of 6 feet 8 inches. There is another rear addition which can only be entered fram the exiting the main home, this could be cured by creating a new doorway, which was considered minimal. Overall the home has room conversions, additions, two Hitchens. and a floor plan which was aot typical af the original hame. On the date of inspection the floor plan would only be useful for multi-tenants, although it does not appear to be a legal conversion. Items such as the sub meters, second kitchen, and low ceiling height in the rear of the building do not appear to conform to current zoning restrictions ket Lalta Analysis 6-93 Forma FRV.(AC) — "TOTAL 2000 for Windows® appraisal software by a le mode, inc — 1-800-ALAMODE RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL FIELD REVIEW REPORT MARKET DATA ANALYSIS Thine ee ul npr ee Ws aT Talhah (e-1 vehneve denn, al ipede and ek eee Es LIU Speedy att sen rs shanke tbe 0° KE DEOpEIE Spt Oey ada stinetl is madi. thus were TT a : a pI ocd eden Mal SUGKET I SBAPARABL Sa’ ieee 5 a oS 1729 NW 18 Street | 2746 NW 16 Street 876 NW 19 Avante hss Miami Miami Miami Prorurnly to Subject ttt miles 0 90 mres Sales Price $ N/A 3 109,500 Li: $5,000 3 55 Living Ares _[$ Als 87.8810: 3 6723 3 and/or Inspection/ FARES, MLS FARES, MLS dieation Saurres, Review Appraisal VALUE ADJUSTMENTS. P TION DESCRIPTION tele |S Adit si His Sdlesl Sales or Finascing. sf, EA, FHA Concessinns Ne | $109,458 : -3,300 | $94,222 -2,800 lite of SatefTime 10-98. i 7-98. salon Near Commer. Near Commer. Near Expressway Equal LeinigholdFee Simple | Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Sie 4,451 sq feet 6,500 sq feet i -6,200 | 3,600 sq feet +2,600 Min Avg/Residential Avg/Residential Avg/Residential Hecigs and Appeal Rambler/Average | Rambler/Average Rambler/Average ig ol Consiucson | Average Average : Average a Net Ait! (total Adquyted Sales Price of Comparable Oinle, Price and Data July, 1998 April, 1998 NA Suuree for prior sales | $115,000 $89,900 wath year nf appraisal | Public Records | Public Records Public Records Conmnents: After adjustments the value range was from $93,000 to $112,000(rd), on the date of inspection the subject was in below average ndition since it appears to have been vandalized. This is a "Retrospective" appraisal and valuation and was based on the home being in werage overall condition and having a similar floor plan. The home appears to have some recent flooring and kitchen cabinets, although the appliances were removed, The interior Noor plan and layout appears to have been for the owners specific purpose, mainly as a fourplex type building. Prior sales of the subject were August, 1999 for $135,000 and July, 1998 for $115,000, neither of these sales were listed in the local 3 100.600 | * Aue 1925 1930 1954 See Commet Congiton Average Average : Average Abnave Grade fold {Bodine Bats | bated Balan: Baths! Tout {Reims 2 yr Toral “Busey Batts hog Count 10 4 A 6 B41 +7,500 | 6 3 2 +5,000 Cross Living Aina, 1,480 Sa. FL 1,246 Sy ft +8200 1,413 3) fi +2,300 Sa ft is) Biante & Finished None None None Roos Below Grade, Noted Noted Noted Fumetanal Utdity, InAdequate Adequate : +1,500 | Adequate -1,500 Heat Cogling, Wall Units. Central/Centrat 2,000 | Wail Units. Trongy Efhewntiioms | Standard Standard Standard port None None None Porth, Patio, Deck, Front Porch Entry Patio Entry Porch . Liteacets), ete Decorative Fireplace : No Adj. | None : No Ad, Sonce, Pool, pte Full Fences Full Gate : Rear Chain : MLS. Based on the subject's floor plan, assuming the home was in average overall condition and the lot size, the lower range of adjusted sales were. considered. Itis the Review Appraisers opinion that the value as of April 29, 1999 ranged from $95,000 to $105,000 with the opinion conctusion 3 395,000. This is also being subject to the improvements. being Jegal with the proper permits and no hidden defects or damage i Data Analysis 6-93 4 Form FRV.(AC) — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, wc —~ 1-800-ALAMODE DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: hak oy ve Mend 8 Woke AG a Sat salle, the buyer aed year 4 wee semua chs SAMMUT Is Me CUTSUMAAKON BE a ult . by GY bayer as lypically motivated, (2) bot partes are eeeil fen Cirhtest (3) a tasonatl for e@xgasuee an ihe open market, (4) payment 5 rade at terms of rast rants conpuragia there Cty Soke aifectrd by AE Mi Seen eared hy ar Aepeesents Re sooat consideration ‘or the Ihe Saie the pyr. a ros Sen gts fo GE seed ages a. fon aed api yrossonnl, foun an spinien SCOPE OF REVIEW: = ihe scope of thes review ss Leded ty tu anlar SUSUNENS 3a Me Gata 2. ippropea rales, opiiens, get san in an felovance of Ihe data and. ihe propainty nf any f asa Ind techmaues used ard deveincp der veasuns (or a AAPG MEUeL me ade AMpropHate ard reasamiGie, and deveteg "e reas rsaKreener int any CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS Vy IGE] Leet al, fo the best oF iter kn CERTIFICATION: ihe revert countes and ag roost an Used WE The es oo M0 (fue J Guitest 1 INe facts a data teported hy ane hee fuiens. 5 Wied 2 Me a ciily by He aysunplinns sid kanes) AweUly petunia, ublarsed paler rca analy, pmewCA il Orel Hrs, OPINIONS, asl LONCHSIGHS a chi rove cept ar 3 Th ated nisewtiote, | hue ea preyenh or prospiy. tie niergut the POET EST rhe ae chs pet ed Elawe ro parca ment orp HepeCE ta the parties involved 4 My Compensalion iS Ot ConlW:GeHt GF aR ikGtiON OF OVEN Fe (Aron the analyses, upinies, CF Cuncluniar aa, oF she as Gl IMS teviewe Apart ahe Lever Srandaress of Professional Apypetcal Prachcr 5. My analysts, opions, and conclusions were developed au ths ove port was prepared cna 6. Unless stated elsewhere in this report, | did nat personally inspect the exterior sulyect property 7 No one providid significant profossiarial assisaance tu the person Sager HS ToMeNy tapi CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: Ihr cerficiuon of die Reviewer APPA A Ne Teer fepOT AS subyect tty Faller .ordibans HE 10 SUCH ather specifie: and lining Coadinons a te sel font by die Reviewer In Thy rovHWe fej OtT . 1 The Rewiewwr assumes to tesponwbilty for mations of a legal nature AMecung: the prepany hie nee subIece OF In reviews OF the uke ahoreta rae dies the Reviewer rander any opunion is tu the te, which os assimned 40 bx! yond aad markolatle 2 The Rewrewer #5 not required to ive testinany oF appear in cour because of Javing made the ceview, unless arrangements have been previously made therefor property, Subsiil, Gr sttuctures, which would tender i more or less. valuable $ The Rewewer assunie's thi There ate no bidder or uEapparent cordltigns af tl ihe Reviewor assumes no resporsibility for suct conditions, oF for engineenng which might be cequied to drscover such factors. 4. taformavion, estimates, and opmions furmshed (a tte Reviewer. and cottsined i (he review report, were oblawicd foi sources considered rehable and heheved to be true and correct However, no responsibilty for accuracy of such teins fuanished the Reviewor can be assumed by the Reviewer. 9. Disclosure of the contents of the report is governed by the Undorin Stauidatds of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the Reviewer is associated. 6. Neither all, mor any part of the content of the review Feport, of copy thereof (including the conclusions of tke review, the identity of the Reviewer, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the fmm with which the Review is comected), shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client specified in the review (eporl, MS Successors and assigns. jrofessionyl appraisal organizations, any stale or federally approved us atthe “amincii insttuton, ary dopartarerd, agency, ar insarurieutalty af the United States or any state ot the Distt of Columtya, without the pe Consent and approval of the Reviewer. fF ONo change of any iter an the rewew report shall be amide by dayone olor than the Reviewer ard the Rewewer shall have ao Tesponsiildy for any such unauthorized cliange { N Reviewer's sae bd? Reviewer's Signature: 77’ Roviewer's Name: _David 8.C. Yeomans, Reviewer's Name’ Mark A Cannon, ASA Date of Review. — March 18, 2001 Date of Review: March 18, 2001 Appraisal and Reat Estate Economics Associates, tn. Form RUC — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows’ appraisal software by a la mot, inc. ~~ 1.800-ALAMODE SPACE THISNW Summary Appraisal Report UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT om ba : duncert Prsaerty Access. 48032 NW 48 PLACE BI MIAMI sate FL Legat Oesengoon LOT. 7, BLK 92, PB 65-93, CAROL CITY 320 ACON County OADE Assessor's Parcet Na. 39-2107-003-2030 Trim 1958 Af faes$ 1200.25 Sonu sucess g60 _t Borower ELS! TAMAYO. current Qwnet ROLANCEO CRUCE Ceevoact: PX) Cnet eae Vaca Procerty nents agarisea ix] fee Semple Li Leasenot Srmect Type | PO T 1 Gongemenaam UGA gy) AS PUA v9 Nelghdornaod of Protect Name CAROL CITY Sap Arterence 52-41-07 Conus fact 120 050 Sue Pace § 128,000 Date of Sate N/A Sescrigton and § ghourt a tpan cal esyamng 10 be paid 1 UNKNOWN, { ‘enaerfclen SUNWEST MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT scdiess 300 OCUGLAS ROAD, SUITE 360, CORAL GARLES, fl. 33134 | Apgeatser E.G. CARTAYA_C RE A, #0007343 syeress STATE CERT RES APPRAISER2I21 SW BIRD AVENUE, MIAMI FL IDES Locadon To Urban juan [_) Aural " Frsdomvaat | igesamat nosing | Presanlanduee ® | and use cnange i Bulk up over 75%) 25-75% [i] under 25% | oecupancy $90) SE [ne taméy Draw (jue | Grown ate =) Aaa sane = (Lj Siow 2} owner 4190 bow 5. laa Lamy St a oKacess Property vanes: snereasing 6) sue (Lj Cecuning i F) tenant [60 High 35 J Muthlamdy 15 Te Demanasuonty Lo Shonage —<) Inatance C_] Over sup | 2 vaca oot LS Predammart oe} Commercial St Marxeing ume [1 under 3 mos, P<] 3-6 mos. FL over 6mos_ 1! | vx soversty | 130 138i : . Wate: Race aad the inclal compesition of ie aaighuoraod ar Pet enpraual (actors. Nelghberhood ooundanes and characteristics Area boundartes on ine Noah by NW 181 ST., ine South by NW 160 ST. , tne East by 471h AVE 1 ‘and ine West oy S7tn AVE. A predominant average Fesroantial Neighborhood j Factors drat aftect (he markelatnity of the grooerties ia he nexnboriaad (pcaumuty t0 employed and amendles, eercioyment saotity, appeal ta marnel, 26.) | Sublect rs located In an established resxdential neighborhood which 1S Primaniy composen of a murture of single {amuy ores of different ages 3 bol sizes, Commerciat use along the major arteries do not affect marketatnity ‘of proverty Transpoctation and recieauion facihes are located maarby but do no intrude on residential areas. AK market preferred amenities are in close proximly, Subject enjoys averane. appeal 1 marketabiity to area buyers, No unfavorable concktions acted, Markel cona@ans ni the subject pelghborhood (Inciuding Lupport Tor the agove conclusions reisied to the wend of procerty Talues, demand/supnty, and marceang ume 1 a= such as data on comoetune properties for sala In the netghoorhood, deseriouar ol Che presatance Of Sales And finaneng concessions, ¢.): \ Generai market conditons are stable wth supply and demand factors w oalance, Loan dscounts, rterest buy downs and concessions cy. eatles ara noc uncommon, All forms of typical financing are avauable wv the area, However typcal scjusiments to sale price ale oct dottar for i dolar. Markel time (or competing propertiae wre Iymically "VS Months, Neighocmood moc land use has no adverse effect on suoject’s vatue &/of is markgtatutty Project Tntormavon for PUOE tl appdcabte) - «Is the ‘devdoper/Dunder mi contict of the Home Cwners’ Associauar (HOA)? votes (Ne Aporonmate total numer of unas a hu sudiect project Apgranamate total umber of unds for sale it the subyect prcvect Deseride common elements and recreatoral facies: Not Apoucable to subject nexghdorhood Dimensions 80 x 100 ~TTopogeagny LEVEL AT GRACE. Ske arta 8,000 Comerta LJ ves O¢xo }sxe 80 X 100 Specitic zoning classification and Gescrtpoon RU-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ‘Shape MOSTLY. RECTANGULAR i Loring commpiiancn CX) Leqat [J Leqat nancontorring (Granatamered use) (J itegar (_) Ho r0rng [os APPEARS ADEQUATE | honest & bes! vse as umpamt Be] Prusend use [| Omer use jexpann) View “RESIAVG Utiitien Putnle her Oti-enelmprovement —Ty9e Pubic Prvate |Lanascaping “TYPICAL Blectncky (5 FPL Skeet ASPHALT DSL] | omeway Surtaca CONG ORIVEWAY. Gas iam Curtygumter NONE ‘| | Agparent easements NONE OBSERVED Plea Spectal Rood Haru Area) Ye UA) 80 ——__ NONE. Water Siiewalk CONCRETE w O x 4 & sanary sews Od FEMA Zone x Vag Dale _MARB4 J —_—_——. 120266080 J The appraiser's s vaiue Sor Al NONE OBSERVED ctrmerts, special assessments, skde a/tas, Wega! oF Tegal nencordormrany zarung use, eke}: qatwely altect Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroa ion of (he sud, property is Hmiled to visual factors which none were found that would BASEMENT jNSULATION . Fovedation Area Sat. N/A 13001 Ho, of Stones QNE,__ |Esterior Wats CBSMROCK _| Craw Soace NIA (% Anished N/A ‘neting im Type (Ma /an) OET ool Surtace SHINGLE __ [Basement NONE Ceding N/A Aas Design (Ste) RANIVST |Guters & Dwnsols. 4QDEQ.OVHNG | Sumo P.np N/A wads NIA feo ExisuogPropased EXISTING [Window Type AWNING, __(Gamoness IONE OBSRVO [Moor NIA ‘None Foy Age (yeas 1958 |Swmvscrens _NONE/ALUM |sevlemex ONE OBSRVO JOxside Entry N/A "pacar Bo] cticctve Age (fre) 10-15 _|Marulaenred House NIA \Wiertnon IONE OBSRVD “)_TYPICAL 1 ROOMS foyer — +E Desf ‘ache | Oen] arly Rm, Alec. Arn sos] Faans | lamoy | coer mea Sq A 2 Basement_| { NA = | {— 1 f (ee 1 3 1 x 4 1,864 6 ear} | an a $ { { | ] Le \ Fy firisned acta above qiade cons: 7 Rooms: 3 dedroomis), 4 ams! 1,664 Souate Fee of Grass Ley aed Brg TERIOR MaseralsCandoon HEATING WRIT [AISCHEN CLAP ATTIC AMENITIES. TCAA STORAGE: ADEQ FF Rows. TILE/GOQOD, Type _CHAJAVG | Relrigeraton OR} | None 5d |Fweplace(s) # NONE (7) fume = (2 Wats ORWLUGOOO. Fuel ELECT _}Range/Oven Shaws [Patio CVRO/PAT (2) | Garage fotcars. Tamvtiisn ~=—_ WOOD/STANOARO._|Condifion AVERAG |Osposa {XJ | Oroo Str {_} |Oecx {L) | Atacnea Bam fox —_C. TILE/GQOO. COOUNG CENTRE [Cisnwasner Ee) | Scutte [_) jPorch CVROIPORE FX) | Cetached Bath Wansct C.TILEAGQOO Cem YES Favoos «51 | Roor F] jtence CBSARON tt | Buutda oars WOODH,C/STNO Other C.FANS [Microwave {3 |Meated {_] |Pool NONE ‘oy | Carport SECURITY GRILL GUAROS london AEG _|Wasnerryer Dd [Finished 17] [AU STRG SHED _)X) |Oneway 2CARICON Aciaoonal tealres (special every aicenk ams. te), _LErlry Porch, “Weedon quads, Coin Fans, Bnck Walls, C.TAe Floonng, Wichen & Bath have been recently upgraded emodeled. Trrclronal and extarnalrepav's eeoed, quany of consrucaod, rmadeing aacinons. OF « No apparent Condmion ot the mmoravemants, depreciation (piysica, physical or functional wedequacies noted. Physical depieca’ eftectve age. Quarry of construction and conditions appears average. non attributable lo normal wear & tear Oeprecraton based on improvements, on ihe tne, oF 11 the ‘Adverse envisonmenty condivons (such as, bul nol limited to, hazardous wastes, toac substances, ec.) present mt nN conditions noted that would negatvety affect the Inmediale recnity of Ihe suo{ect property There are no known of aoparer adverse, environmental Freddie Mac Form 70. 6/92 PaGe 1 OF 2 Fanme Mae Form 1004 6/93 Form UA2 —» “TOTAL 2000 for Werdaws" anprusat satware by 4 fa made, in, = 1-800-ALAMOGE , Is rere noes RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL acritr matin 3 8299SNW. a STMMATED SITE YALE : =3 Bey ESTIMATED REPRCCUC Tt COST-NEW-OF S@PROVEMEHTS: | ree} By Om sting Te AD | TS 2 COG ADOTEICN |RUCT AS, source Cl Cast enim, sé vane ‘ avon aad for HUD. VA and Fonria, the estimated remasrang 16545439 @S_4900_ «8 79,872 timer ste wine provety SEE ATTACHED SKETCH mart $ ana lo emue ratio 3 common for properties «0 subject 2A eS © 5 APPLNCSIEXTRAS LUMP. SUM. 5 10,000 | mareet eres acd does not adversity affect marketabitynvawe. = GwageCarpat 289___ Se. A gs__ 30 = 2,304 i Fag Total Estimated Cost New <3 92,176 [east estmmategd through Ihe Marshad & Swafl vawahon sence. Fe] ess Prvsicat F ancora Cerna [or tocar bunder cost miormavon | Depreciasan 15,366) | a8 15,366 | “ | Oepeeciated Value of Imecovemerts Es 76,810 | Eslimaled remaining econome iife 13 soproxmatery 40-50, i ‘hy it Value of $42 irgravernerts, LNOS/FENCE/DRWPote § 15,000 | years j WNOICATEO VALUE BY COST APPROACH 28 126.610! TEM SuBseCT | ____COMPRAABLE HO t TP RABLE NO? 1 COMPARABLE WO. 3 18032 NW 48 PLACE 48201 NW 57 AVENUE [6365 NW 182 STREET +47011 NW 53 COURT tot 7 B actress MIAMI MIAMI LZ MIAMI va Pronenty to Sutlect frase BM Sales Price ‘S$ PricesGrass Liang area | 8 7 38 oe i if Data andior Public Records, Is/PR i Venficanon Source | Exterior Viewing | By VALUE ADUSTMENTS. Tet -}S AGUS | DESCRIPTION (IS Adust_| ‘Sales of Fruncang joan CONV MTG Concessions, 1 $148,550 $108,000 Oate at SateTime ! MAYES JUS. | Location, | ResvAvg | RewAvg } Lesschadfee Simple [Fee simole 1 Fee simple i Sie NO ADJ | 7,800 SE NO AOS | 9,125 NO ADJ I Yow RES/AVG _|RES/AVG Deslgn ard Ange | RAN/ST. RANIIST. RANAST RAN/ST. : | COuaity of Corstnucyon_ | COS/AYY CBSIAWG TCasvAve Lcasvava Ag 1960 : 1959 oe i i Coniion ‘Average Taverege [Average : Above Grade Total 'Berms- Baths (Tord :Bdems. Baths: Toil “Barns; Baths * Fa Room Count 6.4: 1: 72,4 C73 FT Gross veg Area 1,390 $4. AL +5,000 | 1374 $9. Ft 5,000 1893 $9. +1300 < Basement & finished NIA 5 j WA NIA : Rooms Below Grade NA : ‘NIA : N/A 2 Functionat Ubity TT adequate [Adequate Adequate EA Hexing Cooley CHA/AYg : TCHA/AW CHAVA _ Fo] Energy Etticlent Hems insul WAds, insul Was, : lsut WSS. : . Fel GaraguCarpot ‘Strmbar, ; 14 Cae Carport 2,000 | 1 Car Carport. =2,000 Fe Porch, Patio, Deck. open palo } open patio . open patio . Preplace(s), ac NONE : ! MONE. NONE Fence, Poot, ac. Choink FencesNo_: +4000 | Similar : Choink Fence/No_: $1,000, SecGoGuards : of Co ad) Adjusted Sates Price Commends an Sales Comgarison (rchading the sublect property's comostibl fecent sales of properties most sknitar to the subject propery Above sates were approoniately adjust dissimilarities 83 noted, All tales ore wiltun subject's ghbornood andor one mile aces, therelore S47 fed values of the above comparables ject property. Jorn vatue range with sunject property felting mic for an esthmated market valve of $178, oo pave eer All comparable sales, used in Ints teport_represent ed per markel dertved value Infiuencina to same locational Infivence, The accurately bracket ihe estimated market. vatye for the subjen 9) Above sales f 6 narrow TEM T SUBJECT COMPARASLE HO. 1 I COMPARABLE NO. 2 { COMPARABLE NO. 3 Oate, Price and Osta NIA NIA TNA Source, la¢ prior sales | wa $ ASV$60,.156 TAX ROLLS. L TAX ROLLS JAX ROLLS within year of appraisal ‘satysia any current aceemart of se, Se ean wie ORY nd aN otek # ect ates wa oe ea fe eS AT ed market yatve 1s consistent with above sales analy Sutyect’s& Comes sokd over a year agoA SVS="96County Assetment Subject estimat value qoted 9 INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH dee cites een . do tertense darecenetns ne IHOICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH ft Appacable)_Esimated Market Rest $__M/A_ (Ma, x Gross Rent Mutiobet 3 valua trend indicator, Subject fs not currently under contract, listmg, of Cpuon wae 8 128,000 i =3 This aoorarsa is made (% “ss” uiject Whe Topas, akeratons, mspectons or conctions kod below LJ Concitions of Angrasat Valve estimate ' subject to completion pax plans & sptcilicatons, subject to the attached timing condtrons eddendum and al addendums attached. t 4 | Final Reconciiation; Final Vaive of typecal buyers end setters. Cost approach '9 a spprosch which reflects current market actions rey homes are owner occupied. qalinaty was based on conclusions derived (rom the marnet dats supportive indicator of value, Income approach c/a aa typical 8 PECONCHIATION Fac praia ws wore eae mace vate Bre propery as esha o and Imiing cendittons, ang marnat vat, {(WE] ESTIMATE THE MARKET VA AS, (WHICH IS THE DATE OF INS APPRASER: Signature Tad report based on fhe above condions and the certticatton, cont gent { that are sated nthe edached Predcte Mac Form 439/°HMA form 10048 (Revised 693 OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPOAT, AS OF 8909 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 128,000 SUPERVISORT APPRAISER (ONLY # REQUIRECI: Sigg : oe (ll cana Eu dame inspect Praerty { Hame €.G. CARTAYA, CREA Date Report Seaned, i DurRepat Sat State Carttication #0092343 Or Sta tkense # £1 CERT.RES. APPRAISER Sate PLS State Lense # “ Fancre Maa Form 1004 6-53 ej 8 Slate FL State Cortheton #, State, Slate PAGE 2 OF 2 Freddie Mac Form 70 995 Form UA2 — “TOTAL 2000 for Window's? apo asa software oy 312 mode, Fx, —~ 1-800-ALAMOOE / $a MULTI-PURPOSE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM FOR FEDERALLY RELATED TRANSACTIONS ELSA CARTATA, CREA OCT 4 Borawerciert ELSt TAMAYO Prooenty Agcress_ 18032, NW 48 PLACE | Cty MIAMI cuaty DADE Site Fe Ta Goce 33055 nade SUNWEST MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT ; via the agocases won a conventert way (0 comeny with Ove Curent Thus Muki-Purpase Supplemental Adgendum (or Fedetay Related Transachons was desigtied (3 2: ), The Ctlice of That apommsal Stancards and requirements of Uva Federal Cenast insurance Carporapat (FDIC), the Chace of the Comouoter of Carrency (OCS! supervision OTS), he Sesolsion Tous Corparanan (RTC), 3d the Federal Reserve. The Multl-Parpora Supplemental Addenda is for ese witb Say appraisal. Qaty those tn eaech hare deoe ebackad hy ihe aporairer apply 10 ihe Prosent weing 47 ret value of ihe sublect proverty as defines here, The function of he zopralsal 19 assist the above-faned ‘The purpose of the apprarsal Is to excarate Whe Mui purpaser, This it a Feceraty (etuted pansacton., Lender in erauating fe lect property for endung press ANRC SIOAIN a & se amd m ne wen yer 4 100 HS, ae ne EN A OT rennoorond, and pleco of comowae ses wilt Me SUE MaAh EA, Thre ovignal sauce of te comgarates fs shown the Gala Source secon i te evar goed tong wah due source condition, H VaR. The original source 's presented Wt, The wources and o2ta ave considered (ERIN when contacang Hlormaaen was provided, he source deemed mast relabte nas Desh used. (ata beled [0 be unvekable ws fo cated in Re (e004 Na sed as a Daset lor the value CONAEHON. in] The Reoroducon Cast based on MARSHALL & SWIFT COST VALUATION SERVICE ANO/OR LOCAL BUILDERS. eoovemarted Dy the appraiser's nowiedge oF the focal market & Prpacal epreciton is based on the etiated electve age ole aed UP Fnctdonat avifar exer deprectzvon t presen, is speciBicay addressed in the appraisal report af CNET rodenda, Soe ng he st vive, fe mgrales Ns reel on prs Iron oe ca rake Ths krawledge 18 Gated On O10 arK¥Or current anarysis of ste sales ancior adstracgon of we vahies trom sares of improved prooerbes. iv] The susyect property 6 focated in an area o prarty unr accuses sgl nay eens and De cae ABSA fe ae De MAA For this reason. Wie income ADOTONCA wa5 1h vse, a Fe Re acne le nee NA al eae oe De SO The rental knowledge Is based on prot andyor current renval rate surveys of resxtendal properties, The Grass Ret iMuthouer Is Based on prior and/or current anaysts af prices and market rates lor resderdial propernes. (0 Fer income producing properties, aca! ees, vracancles and expenses nave bean regorted and anahzed. They have ren used ta project tuturw rents, According to The subject pro} 13 not under contract for sake i the oast 30 days, ' 5 \ccutenmy oteed for sielor $ 128000 (5 ax teen fo sie won te past 30 ys for $ ’ i Ollering information was consatetd in the inal reconcilaton of value. (2 Ottertng Inormation wasootarafans. The reasons tor navadatuity ard the seas taken Dy (he sDpracser ase explained later in ths addendum. FSUBIECT PROPERTY Ro evga Pang annie County Tax Rols the subbect property (52) has.octsanstezind In the past cwetve monks, pasbansisoed nthe past trelve mores. Q ee oes ae te prs ebm ew Se EAE in the addenda. Gate Tate Pelee ‘oecument Faller Borer "71 NA NIA NIA N/A & Subject property Una. ittated a FEMA Speclal Flood Hazard Ae aa] Subtect property cuca Ina FEM Special Hood Hazard Area. {tone FEMA Map/Panal # Wan Onte Wane of Community am] Lx + 120756080 _J MAR/Q4 Dade County/Subject to Survey _ ‘The commundy dees ost paticioals in the National Flood Insurance Program. ts covered by a cemudal program. QO iva] Tha corrrumty (nes partite nt KacanitFlaod surance Progr & gO Wis covered by an emmemenay program. Pagel a? Fart MPA = “TOTAL 2000 for Winaows aonratsal software ty ala mode, i, — 1-800-ALAMODE t The sutact property is CamTaaty pot soner sacra} Ex) The conmract ancvor escrow wisiuctions ween aot zyalanee oC ponte The onavauabay of he contact is cazamed later in Cie addenda secon 1) The contract and/or escrow Instructions wom iramwed. The lodowng summartes tre conmract | Conttact Gate Amandment Date Contract Price hailer A Curent N/A 128000. Owner_of Records ! | (7) The conwract inaicated thal personal prooery mas not iccicd in me sale. } 1) The contact incicated that personal poverty was miclated. ‘I congsied ot N/A Sscmated cantbutory varue Is § 77) Personar property wad not included 1 he foal valve esarrate (_] Personat oroperty wort incuted In te Anat vate escirate (The conact molested na Snancing concessions of other meeruves. (Ly The contract Inavcated the ‘ofwina concessans or mc entives: Cogy cf the current contract was not crovided to Ines appraiser. a The Aporaiser cortlles and agrees nt {1 The anatyses, opinions and concustons were developed, and fas reoar was prepared, contormay with the Uniform Standart of Professor! Aoprarsal Practice CUSPAP*), exceat that tne Ceparture Pronsion of the USPAP does nat 2p, (2) Thar compensation Is not contingent pon the reporting of predetermined value oF cvecton fh vakie dat Qrors the causa ‘of he client, the amount ai the vane estimate, the attarunent of a stputared resut, oF the occurence of 2 suosequerd ever, (3) This aporaisal assagument was nok based on a requested minarixm vaturion, 4 specric Yakahon, oO Iporaval ot 4 loan GHMENTAL) GUMITING COMDINGNS The value estimated is based on the assumobon that the property 6 not negauveay aftected by Me extstence of hazardous substances of deipmench eanaormnental conditions uniess otherwise sted mths ceport, The aoovatser Is not an expert nthe Menatkcation of haxaidous Budstances of aanmental environmental conditians, The appraiser's routine insnecuon of and Inquiries about the suctect property hd net deveton any mnfarmanan that ndcated any apparent significant hazardous substances oF desimental environmental conditions which wauld alfect the property nejaively uivess orberwise stated TINS report, A's possible Guat Lests and laspecitons made Oy a qualifed hazardous suostance and environmental expert would reveal the exstence of round the property that would negatively atect s value. ment Se tae SER i : Sales tecited_are the very bes! and most comparabie found, Other sales wete analyzed and consxtered, bil were ies S wncncative of market value than those recdod. Eltective Date @/2/99. RTAYA, CREA Qe) Ceruteason # 0002343 TNR O The co-sgning moras bas. pecotalrspected he sect prover, Doth nie and ou. and fas made an exlanornspecton of 38 eonour let sted In the seport, Tha report was prepaied by the aopeatser under olrect SuperrtvOn of Ihe GO saniNg apDTISe!, ‘The Go sagaing aporarser acc eOts: respomsibdity for the contents ef the report cluding the vane Concarsons and the lending conditions, aid Contims that L 2 cotilkeavons apply tuly to the co-sigrang appraiser, The Co: eign) vopraaser bas ook par saoatLrspected (he invertor of the subject oroperty and: bascook insaecied te exert ofthe subfect property and all cormowabie sales Fsled a the report, taLinsnccied ir otertor of the sutlect property ano all comparable saies fisted atthe (eport (C]_ The report was preaaved by fe appvaises under direct supervision ol the co- signing appraiser. The co-signing aoprasser accepts resparsicrity 10" tre Contents of the report, Inchadeng the value conchysions 2nd ve ‘nung conditions, and coniems that the certdications apmy tufly 19 Me > wgring appraiser wah Tha exception af the cervlicabon regarang physica inspectors. The above descnoes whe level al inspection pertocmed Oy He coe signing appeatser. () The co- agning appraiser's leved af Inspechon, lavotvernent in the aporatsal process and ceriication ate covered elsewhere in the aodenda sechon of IN appraisal, Petar HATURE Biiainer setae howasert Signaace Etlectve Oale Ca Signwig Anpralser’s Name (p71) sue (1 ueense Ly) Centticavon # Page 2 of 2 Form MPA — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows” appraisal soitware by a mode. inc, — 1-B800-ALAMODE Q s 6) This appraisal uses “ACTUAL- LI¥ING AREA" in the marxet analysis both for the subject and compararie saie properties. Tne living area used for the sales data nas been abstracted from the PUBLIC RECORS/TAX ROLLS - a service provided by ISC &/or PRC an accepted appraisal practice. However, it may have been further modified by the field appraiser's cbservation and information obtainable through one or more of the following methods: a yrroperty survey, fi i measurements, constructions glans, previcus appraisal recoras including other reliable data records available. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN DADE COUNTY, TAX ROLLS LIST BUILDING SIZES IN ADJUSTED SQUARE FEET. THIS ADJUSTED LIVING AREA IS THE SUM OF THE BASE AREA PLUS A PERCENTAGE OF OTHER BUILDING AREAS. ALL PATIO AREAS AROUND THE POOL (EVEN IF SCREENED) HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED &/OR CONSIDERED IN THE ADJUSTED LIVING AREA. COMPARABLE SALES USED IN THE "SALES COMPARISON GRID" HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. *......MARKET ANALYSIS SCTION/COMPARABLE SALES COMMENTS : ~~ 7) Every effort has been made to secure comparable sales which closed within the last (6) months priod mediately preceding the date of valuation. However, utilization of sales which ocurred beyond the optimum period but within prior (12) months, an acceptable FNMA guideline, will indicate that analysis of current sales in the area of most similarity to the subject were unavailable or that those recent gales available would require larger adjustments than those chosen. Therefore, comparable sales used will reflect the selection of those properties deemed most representative of the subject property with gimilar utility characteristics and considered the best indicators of value. This is a common and necessary appraisal practice in this area. In most instances and Locations, market derived indicators reveals no significant difference to support an adjustment for in dollar value within the one year period in the area. Therefore, unless t no time adjustment have been made time, meagurable analysis of comparable sales otherwise specified in the repor accordingly. Typically, the marketplace will indicate a stable condition with no aignificant measurable increase or decrease of value in the subject's immediate are neighborhood. * FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: 8) The information given on this report refers to the location/(or not) of the subject property in a “FEMA* or HUD indentified special FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM), issued by the National Flood Insurance Program (NIFP) of the Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA). and subject to a current property survey. ing on this report does not The Flood Zone information appear Flood Insurance is directly address the question of whether or not required on the property. Prom time to timea subject property will lie on or near a zone boundary line and it may be difficult to determine which zone(s) is indicated....im euch cases the appraisal form will indicate the most hazardous zone....Final determination 0 verified against a property engineering survey indicating flood elevations. report. disposal and typical in the neaghborhoed. sgEpTiO TANK” is undicated om fhe s it ds noted that this igs an accepcacic Unless otherwise noted in the comment gection in the SITZ area of the observed at the time of the inspection. and the existence of a septic tank would have no adverse effect on the aubject property estimate of valus and/or its marketability. . report or by seperate addendum, no visible problem was FINAL ESTIMATE CF VALUE CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED IN RECONCILIATION *Interior and exterior inspection of the subject property. *Exterior inspection of numerous comparables in immediate area of which (3) are used in the report. *analysis of all the area comparable galea history considered, wheather chosen or not. tAnalysia of County Agasesment Records of all area comparable gales history considered, whether chogen oF not. *Bvident maintenance and re-inveatment dn the subject property and comparable sales noted and considered. *Analysia of marketing time for aubject property and comparable sales considered will imply: The property will be actively axposed and aggresively marketed through commonly used channels by sellers of aimilar properties. ,List price offering reflects most probably markup over market value typically usad by sellers of gimilar type properties in the area. .A gale ta consummated under the terms and conditions definition of market value required by the regulations. 4 RECONCILIATION OF APPROACHES TO VALUE cree The aubjact property will be valued uaing the Cost Approach, Direct Sales Comparison Approach anf the Income Approach according to the Uniform Standards of Proffesional App the recognized appraisal methods are explained below and a reference comment« (N/A] will be made in the report valuation analysis accordingly. raisal Practices/July Ist 1987. However, any omission of . Typically the Cost approach is considered a supportive indicator of value when the subject property ia a fairly new construction and/or has been recently renovated/upgraded most major components to-date of valuation. Then, both the Markat and Cost approach may be given equal consideration in the final estimate of value, properties where sufficient rental immediate subject's markat area to rent multiplier, be given equal cons coming to & final estimate of va subject property in oa mark the Income Approach is conel as noted, (N/A) in the appra for Income produc reflects the actbitu property market aroa Ww exists for mostly multi Approach current similar comparable 6a reflecta buyera and sellers Approach will be considered for residential The raenere ot data is available in the develop an accurate groso ao noted in the appraisal report. and it may ideration to appiicable approachos when lue for subject property: te rental data ie unavailable for & et area if mostly opwner occupancy, dered inappropriate and omitted. 4eal report accordingly. However, where accura ach to value Most reliance ie placed in the Income Appr for the best ing residential properties | de of typical invescors here eufficient available rental data ple family rosidential properties. Finally, moat reliance is placed in the Direct Market to value when sufficient quantity &o attitudes within the local residential market. .., Unless otherwise epecifie d this appraisal report is made pased on the "as Is" condition of the subject property being appraised at the time ef tha appraisal report. sew JS Cartaya, C.R-E.A.- #0002343 STATE CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER ne ase 0 unig: apgraisal. ‘le aypraisal review must address ail factua. 3 ‘mets 7ae qualty review. «tis not intended to be used as a cew 3 duress 17932 NW 48 Place crplion Lot 2, Block 92; Carol City 3rd Aden | 5 resiaisal a technigue sha covy of te 0 Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Chent Reterance Nurrer FNMA Loan #16734739111 fec'eve Date of Crgnal Appraisal and Field Review Avigust 9. !999/May 2, 2001 Borrower Elsy Tamayo ww Appraiser Frank L. Marmin . zamoany Name aA, tess_ 9400 So. Oadeland Bivd., PH-1, Miams 156 _ Telephone timber 1305) 670-0001 Soe See, or Tact Tay iO #59-1729352 . Insttuctions: The seview appraiser must personally spect iy, at iaast, urvamg bv ‘Fe exterior ol the sunyect aronerty used in the analysis, Protogracns ase the front of the comparables: the front of the subject: and a street scene of sme subject piopeny Acditonal encs suggested st any adverse conditions that were not ‘f the orginal appraisat are observed, (NOTE: The re Joviaiser is not resuired to inspect inteitor Ot ine suciect crocerty. The revew aopralser should verify the data “anginal appraisal renon, using the assessment records, :eal estate ticker, ct anv other data sources that he or ane liable and ‘easonably avaiable.| Based on th n ol the suuiect and the comparables, a thorough desk review of tre avcrarsal repott, ard a teview of ‘he market area, tespond ta the Questions, form an epinion about the appropriateness of the anpraisal metneds ana techniques thal were used, and emt {giving reasons tor Co aut “mit your resuicnses ta the space pravided: attach an addendum, i necessary diferences: +, Provide a sales and retinance history tor the subject property tor the last three vears (tf itis feasonatly available fro a data source tnat the review appraiser considers ta be fellaple.) Canveyance Safes Price i Asking Price Mortgage Amt, J Grantor ivantee Sata Source Racorlation Date | i . | AOSIOL 118,000 419,900 | 112,100) FNMA/Douglas & Marilu Prastny “FARES 128,009 | 115,000 | 121,500 | Isabel CrucevElsy Tamavo | FARES © IS te appraiser § cvesall description uf the neighborhood conwlete and accurate Gocation, general market conuitiuns ire plant closings, crop failures, al.), property values, cemandsupply, marketing time, general appearance of Braperties, appeal to market, etc.]? Yes No nf no, explaia.) The price range stated in the Original appraisal is not correct and misleading, Properties in tris neighborhood (as of the effective date of the original appraisal) range in price between $40,000 for REO Properties and properties in poor conaition to $130,000 for larger lake front homes in good condition. The areas predominant value is in the $80,000 to $90,000 range, The appraiser has alsa failed to indicate the “Location” of th 2 neighborhood which is considered suburban. Concessions are also typical for this market as sellers have been paying closing costs and/or ha ve at closing, FHA, VA and conventional financing is typical for the market 5. Is the appraiser's averall descnption of the site complete and accurate (zoning compliance, apparent adverse concn. nS, apparent environmental hazards, size, llood hazard, etc.y? Yes x No (It'no, explain.) The subject's site description appears to be accurate based on the reviewer's knowledge of to. FEMA Map number 126035, panel 0090 sulfx J the property 1s located in zone "AE" a flood hazard area. A certificate provided by a this area and relevant data from public records, Tha flocd zone was incorrectly slated as being in zone "X", not a flood hazard area. According _ Insurance agent is suggested. Yes SNo iit no, explain The apprarser's overall description of the subject propert is inconsistent as the original appraiser S p! indicates the interior as being in good condition but considers the overalh condition as “average”, As noted on the appraisal report, the flooring, __ | vols, bathroom floors were in good condition and the kitchen and bathrooms hava been “upqraded/remodeled” however, since no interior ipecuon of the subject property was made by the review appraiser, (he condition was. considered as average and the repairs may have been “stated. 5, Are the design and aopeal, Quality of construction, and size of the subject Property similar to olhers in this area? OS Yes . No (if'no, how is the subject diferent?) The overall design and appeal, quality of construction and size are similar to other properties in the subject's neighborhood. 4. Is the appraiser's overall description of the improvements Complete and accurate (praperty description, depreciation, conditign, apparent environmental hazards, etc.)? | Ara the comoar abla voed In the anaiyala truly comparabie to the subject propel effective date of the appraisal? Yes x No (if-n0, explain and provide an adjustment grid with the appropriate comparables and adjustments on an addendum. ) The comparable sales salactad by the appraiser appear to have been selected to Support a predetermined vatue instead of comparability with “isibly noted from an exterior inspection of this property, Since thase homes have In-Law apartments, the Utility differs from _a typical single amily home, they ara not viewed as comparable progertias as compared to the Subject, the revi vi is lon ar, li ‘ales comparison grid. (a) Cam the date i saie (contract aaie ancvor closing settlement date), sales price, and sales or hnancing concessions tor the comparables be confirmed through the data Source that the aapraiser indicated? aa Yes No tf no, exotain.) The sale dates ard prices could be verified through the data source 2S Wi¢ated in the original report. It should be noted however, that sales CONCessions are typical in this neighborhood with sellers contributing up. to points for buyers closing costs. These costs are sometimes factored into the negotiated sale price. i.e.a property listed at $115,000 may be ontracted at $121.900 since the seller is paying 6 points for buyer's closing costs. Comparapie sale no. 3 was sted for $115,000 and expired 1en Fe listed at $119,000 and sold with a Feponed orice of $120,000. It appears some concessions were included in the sale,although due to,the ge of the sale integra/AREEA was unable to verity the amount. {) “vere the comparaotes actual closed or settled sales as cf the etfective date of the original apprarsal? |.” ‘Yes "la (Wf no, explain.) ica Mac Form 1032 11/89 Page 1 ot2 Fannfg Maa Form 2000 11/89 Family Properties a 1-4 Family Proparties ‘apratsal and Real Estate Economics Associates. Inc Form FRV — “T7AL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by aa mode, nc — 1-300-ALAMODE yr RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL FIELD REVIEW REPORT 1 90." and 3 hay aratie salenz 3 aisois a: ne snteror layout ¢f co: enclosures made io thé nO, explain. two ta paiadle no. 15 Croom two sath home with awa arable sale no. 2, however it appear that _. erty. i gopears ‘nat the size of this home with 2 In-Law apartments me aw apa:ment, The integra: AREEA could not ven may have an In-Law apartment due to some large acaitions and n understated based on an exterior inspection. 4 {hat comparable sate no, 11s located 99 a well travelled + ances were made by the appraiser, ad ang adjacent ‘9 a gas 3. Are ine incvergual adjustments io the comparables teascnable wassians, 0)? vas XN sorted lime. locatiaa. cesign and appeal, quality of canssruction ag2, CONAIL:ON, siz, gates or Heng. axaiaina Since relevant data as to the specifics of eacn comoarable sale wére adjustments mace meaningless. Comparable sale no. 1 is 'ocated cn a traffic sireet arc comparable sale no. 3 was an mvestor ily refurbished 3 bedragm 2 bath home with a 2 bedroom 7 bath In Laws quarters. The saies orice was noted ‘c be higher than ‘re 2nd carcessions could not be verified The appraisers adjustments aprear to be sucective ar Sale of ai ister lack an appraisal techniques. 19. Ifthe « reas ye-4amily mvescment prcoerty, are the comparat'e fantal and expense data accurate and No 1+) NA tt no, expiain.| the suvject propesty is an individual unit in a condominium of PUD arg; ect. 18 the proyect Gescription complete and accurate? ‘Yes fas) N/A (ino, explain.) 2. Is the estimate ot market value for the Subject property reasonaole as of the elfective date ol the appraisal? Yes “. No {it no, provide an appropnate estimate ptions (exterior inspection only, roperty description and conattion, etc.) that the Opinion is sudject to } Nn actual alternative gales as compared comparison grid 0 the subject which were readily availabia to the original appraiser. Please refer to the attached sales _ |. Has there been a substantial change in the base economy in the area since the eifective date of the appraisal? Yes 1+. No (I yes, please explain.) _|"’—n-—-—-—— It the subject property is a Cooperative umit, the review appraiser must address the completeness and accuracy of the Original apprasser's description and analysts of the Cooperative project and specifically comment on the accuracy of: (a) the number of shares attributable to the unit; (b) the pro-rata share of the blanket mortgage payments; and (¢) the treatment of the monthly assessments of the comparable sales, A tity that, to the best of my knowledge and belt, the facts and data used h lerein are true and correct; that | personally Inspected the extertar of the subject property and the comparables used in} * sport: Ihat the regarted analyeas, opinions, and conclusions are limited aniy by the resorted aotumetions and limiting conditions, und are my personel, unblaued professional analyses, OPS. and conclusions. that | have no present or prospective Interest in the otoverty that is the Subject of this report, and | have na personal interest mar bias with cespect to the ames ved; that my Compensation is nct contingent en any action or evenLtesuiting from the analyses, opinions, or Conclusions in, of the use of, this report; and that my analyses, opinions ang ons were developed, and this tebart was prepared, in cantosmity path the Uniform Standards of Protesstonal Appraisal Practice, ature ot Review Appraiser kL. Marmin/ Mark A. Ca tise Only ew Underweiter's Cemments ' Bt oS sale Registaed Real Estate Appraiser #0891609 —— Slave Conilied ReGd@Atigl ADDYANE? AROOUOTI99 ture of Review Underwriter “ Date e Mac Form 1032 11/89 2of2 mily Pronertes Fannie Mae Form 2000 11/89 1-4 Family Proverues “orm FAV — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows” avoralsal software by ala mode, inc. — RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL FIELD REVIEW REPORT MARKET DATA ANALYSIS Ailes a Broverties are most simular ano Oroximate ta subject and have Deen Consigered in Ne Talal @ n to thase rams cf srcnrficant variation between the subject and comparable preemies. :f 4 siqnehcant than, the subbect cronery. a rmius i+! aciustment is made, hus feducing the indicated vaiue ot 1 favorabre than, the sublect pronercy a cius (+1 agvustmant is made. thus mereasinn ‘re indicated vai? v s_ [n@ cescnotion includes a dollar aquusiment. rellescarg in the compagable sranary #5 supetior t0, or more #4 signiscant item in m2 comparatie Is interior to, of fess TEM BAECT i COMPARABLE NO 1 SCMPARSSLE HO. 2 SCMPARABLE NO. 3 18032 NW 48 Place 17240 NW 47 Court 3901 NW 177 Street 3474 NW 172 Drive Address Miamt (Unine.) | Miarm (Uninc.) Miami Uninc, Miami (Uning.} ' i Proxuminy 19 Subject 0.47 mites . 0.98 mies 2.61 mu : Sales Price 5 ooof 3% TERE] ¢ 102,000 ° in 105.000 | 7." PriceyGrass Living Area] 592 1:{8 sa70h woes 68.67 GRE oH 33.06 __f EGE Data and‘or Ext, Inspection, First American RE Solutions, First American RE Solutions, First American RE Solutions, Verdieaton Sources Prior Appraisal__| MLS. MLS MLS VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +18 Adjust DESCRIPTION ri niSAdust ZESCRIPTION = (1S Adjust Sales or Financing F.HA. Conventional | LHA. Concessions $101,472 73,100 | $89,250 * | $90,256 2,700 |_Date of Sale/Time May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 beeanon Average Average _| Average Average LeasenoldFee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simote Site 8,000sf/Average _| 7, 800sf/Average 8,927sfiAverage 7,950st/Average View Residential/Avg,_| Residential/Avg Residential/Ava Residential/Avg Oesiqn and Appeal Ranch/Average Ranch/Average Ranch/Average Ranch/Average Quality of Construction | Average Average Average Average Age. 1958 1958 1954 1958 _ | Gonditian Above Average _| Average +9,500 } Above Average Average +7,200 Abaya yy to Tolal_Sdtms Baths _| Total Bdims Baths Total Sdrms_ Baths Total_@drms Baths foum Count Z 3 1 8 3 2 -2,500{_ 7. 3 2,500 |_ 7 4 3 5,000 Liross tiving Area * 664 Sq.Ft 1,899 Sq. Ft. -4,700 1,529 Sq ft +2,700 1.443 Sq. ft +4400 Basement & Finished None None None None Rooms Below Grade Noted Noted Noted Noted Functional Utility Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate _HeatngCooling Central Central | Central Walt Units +2,500 | Energy Efficient items | Standard Standard Standard Standard Barage: Carport Open Parking Open Parking 1 Carport 2,500 | Open Parking Porch, Patio, Deck, Porch, Patio Entry Porch Entry Porch Porch, Patio Fooolacess), ete, No Fireolace No Fireplace { No Fireplace No Fireplace Fence, Pool, ate Wall, Gate Rear C/L Fence +1,000 | Wall, Gate Cit. Fence: +1,000 Mat Ag. ane Adjusted Sates Price TITS 10/79 Source for prior sales | $16,800 N/A $34,000 $38,000 within year of apprarsal_| Public Records | Public Records Public Records Public Records Comments: No interior inspection of the subject property was made by Integra/AREEA, Data regarding size, room count, number of bedrooms -and bathrooms, condition and amenities were from the ap, praisal under review. Integra/AREEA has felied upon this information as being true _ and accurate id upon the appraiser's comments in the original appraisal, the subject appears to have been in above average condition {09t average) since it was noted that the kitchen and bathrooms have been “recently upgraded/remodeled” and that the interior condition was Ated a$ 999d, Details with regards to the specific uegrades/remodeling was limited and the costa and time frame of the renovations should have been addressed. itis assumed by /ntegra/AREEA that these upgrades/remodeling wera existing at the time of the original appraisal and ware of some significance The adgitiona! comparable sales selected were th Adjustments made to the comparable sales were derived throu contributed to the buyer for “closing costs". Comparable sale no. 1 is shightly larger than the subject property and was noted as having an enclosed garage and a large rear family room addition. This property was in overall average condition at the time of sale although it was noted to have had a “remodeled” kitchen. This home nas undergone some renovations since the time of sale. comparable sale no. 2 is a similar size three bedroom, two bath home with a front CBS wall and iron gate, The property was noted as having a Tow nulchen, new le floors and a large rear family room addition, zomparable sale no. 315 a sightly smaller tcur bedroom, three bath home in average concition. This home Was noled as having alder outdated alousie windows and wall ave units. _In addition, the garage or Carport was converted into an additional bedroom with a full bain. It may be assidle for this conversion to be utilized as an In-Law apartment. “he adjusted sale prices of the comparable sales range between $98,000 {RD) and $103,000 (RO). Based on the supject p: ibove average aondition, a value estimated at $100,000 would be considered reasonabia as of August 9, 1999. This is a “retrospective” rayiaw Ad appraisal ang s subject to no hidden detects as stated In hg limiting conditions. ~Apgralsal ang Is subject t “SIS aS stated iq thg limiting condi OL roperty being in Data Analysis 6-93 a Som FRVAC) — ZOTAL 2000 for Windows" anpratsal sottware bv a la mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE $ ®@ and open market under ail conditions. d ny undue stimulus, lriicit in this ‘ner conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seiler are interest, (3} a reasonable time is aiiowed nis comparable there's; and ($] the orice 28 concessions granted by anyone asseciated with DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: ast probe buyer and sever, each acing prucent'y. kncwiedgeab'y ind assumag che 3: eebas1 gf ummation Gi a sa® as of a saeciied date and the passing af ttle trom seller to b. ‘yorca-y Motivates. 12: both parties aie weil sntormed or well advised and each acting in what ‘ney consider: for exposure in ‘2 pen market; (4) Rayment is mace in i Of cash i U.S. doffars ar in terms of tena: reaesents the xcrmal consideration for the property sa: unatfected by special cr creative ‘irarcing or sale. which 3p rot at eons"? to a al aaoraiser. ‘orm an opinion as to the apparent adeau; Tie acpreeriateness of the appraisal metnots wn the SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scone of this review : ard relevance cf he gata and the graoriety of any ane niques used and develop the ‘aasons ‘or 120071 uncer revew are agpropriate and reasanaple, ang develun the reason miied to the information being proviced cy sne arin: sciusiments to the data; form ars. opinen ia ine analyses, cpimions, and conciusi ¥ Cisagreement: form an opinion as ia whe: ‘or any disagreement CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS CERTIFICATION: — The reviewer ceriies and agrees thal, to the best of his/her knowleage and teliet 1 The facts ans gata reported by the Reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct, 2, The analyses, esinions, and conclusions i this review fegon are itnited only oy the assumpvons anc muting corsitions stated in this review report, and are my dersanal, unbiased professional analyses, opimon, and conclusions. st or bias vith 3. Uness stated sisewhere. | have no present Of fYoSpective witerest in the Droperty that 1s in2 suniect cf t's report and | have na personal int respect ‘a the gartias involved. My compensation 1s nut contingent on an action or event ‘egutung from the analyses, opinions, o¢ sanctusions ia, of she use ol, ‘his rediew regart ‘dy analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was Brepared in contornuty with sxe Uniform Standards of Protessignal Appraisal Practice a Unless stated elsewhere in this report, 4 did not Personatiy inspect the exterior subject oroperty 7. No ane provided significant professional assistance to the persan signing this review report. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: ite cectitication of the Rewtewer appearing in the review tepurt is subject to the fcllowing conditions 4n0 (0 Such other soecitic and limiting conditions as are set torth by the Reviewer in the review report . 1, The Reviewer assumes no Fesponsibility tor matters of a fegat nature alfecting the property which 1s ine Subject of this review ar the tite thereto. nor does the Reviewer render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be goud and marketable. 2, The Rewewer is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the review, unless arrangements have been previously mace therefor 3, The Reviewer assumes that there are no hidden or unavparent conditions of the Property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more of less valuable The Reviewer assumes no sesponsibibly tur such conditions, of tor engineering which might be required to discover such factors, 4. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Reviewer, and contained in the review report, were obtained trom Sources considered reliable and Daheved to ba true and correct. Howaver, no fasponsibilty tor accuracy of such items furnished tha Raviawer can 08 assumad by the Raviawar, . 5. Disclosure of the contents of the Teport is governed by the Unitorm Standards of Professional ApWaisal Practice and the Bylaws and Regulations of the prolessional appraisal organizations with which the Reviewer is associated. ‘ 6 Neither al, nor any part of the content of the review report, or copy thereot (including the conclusions of the review, the identity of the Reviewer, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Reviewer is connected), shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client specified in the review feport, ils successors and assigns, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution. any department, agency, OF instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous writen consent and approval al the Reviewer. 7, No change ot any item in (he review report shall be made by anyone other than tha Reviewer and the Reviewer shatl have no fesponsibitity for any such ’ unauthorized change Reviewer's Signature: Reviewsl Reviewer's Name: Frank Reviewer's Name: Mark A. Cannon, ASA Dale of Review tay 2, 2001 Oate of Review: May 2, 2001 Slate Certified Residential Appraiser #0001799 Sooraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc Form RLC — "TOTAL 2000 tor Windows" appraisal software by aia made. inc. — 1.800-ALAMODE CAEN CGISN ed Rog ot 1g

Docket for Case No: 02-004426PL