STATE OF FLORIDA ae, fo pe DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION /. / / FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BO. er. 3 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 9980791 9980192 DANA MARC DISANTO, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Dana Marc Disanto (““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 RD0000872 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 2700 N. 29" Avenue #109, Hollywood, Florida 33020. 4. On or about December 17, 1998, Respondent developed and communicated an FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint appraisal report for property commonly known as 437 Pine Glen Lane in Greenacres, Florida (report #1). A copy of report #1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1A. 5. The Respondent represented that sales #1 and #2 were comparable to the subject property as they were in the same condominium project. A review of the two sales revealed that these two properties were in fact one-story villa units, and not similar two-story condominium units. 6. The Declaration of Condominium for the community identifies the differences between the villa units and the condominium units with respect to the percentage of undivided interest in the common elements. 7. The Palm Beach County Property Appraiser database indicates differences in the purchase prices as well as the assessments. A copy of the pertinent documentation is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1B. 8. Comparable sales #1 and #2 were assessed for $51,600, where report #1 stated that they were assessed for $32,200. At the time report #1 was submitted, sales of condominium units in this project ranged from $37,000 to $47,000, while villa unit sales ranged from $69,000 to a high of $82,500. 9. Comparable sale #3 was located in a project in fair proximity to the subject property. Comparable sale #3 is also a villa unit and not a condominium unit. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable 2 FDBPR v. Dana Mare Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15) of the Florida Statutes. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (1998) in violation of Section 475.624(14) of the Florida Statutes (1997). ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 10. On or about December 1, 1998, Respondent prepared an appraisal report for property located at 3038 North Oakland Forrest Drive, Oakland Park, Florida (“report #2”). A copy of report #2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. 11. Respondent utilized two sales in the Oakland Forrest Condominium Project, a large project, and one sale outside of the project. 12. Sales #1 and #2 were not located in the same building or phase as the subject property. Recent sales of units located in the same building or phase of the subject, which would indicate a more comparable sale, were available at the time report #2 was prepared by Respondent. These units reflected a lower value than report #2 comparable sales. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15) of the Florida Statutes (1997). FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint 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 (1998) in violation of Section 475.624(14) of the Florida Statutes (1997). ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 13. On or about November 27, 1998, Respondent prepared an appraisal report for property located at 1511 Southwest 66" Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida (“report #3”) A copy of report #3 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3A. 14. Two additional sales #4 and #5 were provided in support of the report #3. Additionally, an addendum was provided in response to the review appraiser’s comparable sales. A copy of the documentation is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3B. 15. A review of report #3 revealed that the ISC service listed that each of the comparable sales utilized by the Respondent had prior sales within less than a year where Report #3 stated “no prior sale within one year ISCNET.” 16. Report #3 listed that the comparable sales sold as follows: Sale #1 in July of 1998 for $92,900; Sale #2 for $91,500 in October of 1998; and Sale #3 for $95,000 in March of 1998. 17. The ISC service also listed the following prior sales information for the same comparable sales, which were within one year of the date of the appraisal report: Sale #1 originally sold for $42,400 in January of 1998; Sale #2 originally sold for $57,500 in June of 4 FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint 1998; and Sale #3 originally sold for $80,000 in March of 1998. Report #3 failed to list or discuss these prior sales.. 18. The Respondent failed to analyze the potential impact of the difference between the original sales and subsequent re-sales regarding the condition and effective ages of the comparable sales, and whether this affected the market value of the subject property. 19. The subject property was sold to the borrower listed on report #3 for $78,000 in January of 1999. 20. Petitioner requested that Respondent provide copies of the work files for the above- referenced properties. Respondent provided a copy of the work file for property located at 437 Pine Glen Lane #1, however, he failed to comply with the request for the properties located at 1511 SW 66 Ave. and 3038 N. Oakland Forest Dr. #106. 21. Petitioner utilized an expert witness review in these matters. A copy of the review analysis is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 4. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15) of the Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT VI 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 (1998) in violation of Section 475.624(14) of the Florida Statutes 5 FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint (1997). COUNT VII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of obstructing or hindering in any manner the enforcement of this section or the performance of any lawful duty by any person acting under the authority of this section, in violation of Section 475.626(1)(f) of the 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 of the Florida Statutes and Fla. Admin. Code R. 61J1-8.002. 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 6 FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication; restriction of practice; injunctive or mandamus relief; imposition of a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See § 455.227, Fla. Stat. (1999) and Fla. Admin. Code R. 61J1-8.002. SIGNED this a day of (fn [ , 2001. — Mani ga Ke~bucthon~. of Florida Department of Business and Agr a hy, Professional Regulation By: Sor Director, Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Sunia Y. Marsh Sy Fla. Bar No. 00688 FDBPR-Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1772 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: MC/EC/CW 4/01 FDBPR v. Dana Marc Disanto Case No. 9980791 Administrative Complaint NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PLEASE BE ADVISED that mediation under Section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to this Administrative Complaint you may request, within the time proscribed, a hearing to be conducted in this matter in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes; that you have the right, at your option and expense, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative in this matter; and that you have the right, at your option and expense, to take testimony, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on your behalf if a formal hearing is requested. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that if you do not file an Election of Rights form or some other responsive pleading with the Petitioner within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner will file with the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board a motion requesting an informal hearing and entry of an appropriate Final Order which may result in the suspension or revocation of your real estate license or registration. Please see the enclosed Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form. DiSanto Appraisal Group Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Fite No. 812091 HHEKEEREK INVOICE F8 8k RERX File No.812091 AMERICAN MORTGAGE 2400 E COMMERCIAL BLVD; SUITE 224 FF LAUDERDALE FL Borrower : AMOROSO, ALBERT 437 PINE GLEN LANE, 1A GREENACRES, FL 33467 CONDOMIUM APPRAISAL REPORT .. Amount Due. . Terms: NET 30 DAYS Please Make Check Payable To: 1iSanto Appraisal Group DISANTO APPRAISAL GROUP 12/17/98 -$ 275.00 $ 275.00 2700 N. 29th AVENUE; SUITE 109; HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 2700 N. 29th Avenue, Suite 109, Hollyweust, Hloride 33020 (984) 925-7800; (984) 925-7ROV (FAXD ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ing) EXHIBIT # py PAGE [OF 10 ee as ? B egal iescription See ALL ched_ Ade = Wa=27 vact 5B.03 _ TX) tenant [J vs Occupant: |_| Owner Current Owner AHORO Non Unll Charge $68 . 00. Teeasehotd By sates Paice §N// By iendes/Ciient AMERICAN | RDALE, MM ipoisinay DANA DISANTO, ASA TE 109 HOLLYWOOD, FL_33020 Location T]ihan {x} ban [J rural Fredomingot Predominant Gendominiom housing B tui up (Kl oveersx f Josr5x [_Jundou a5 | nceunaney secupancy tyes BS rosin rate (_} Rapio [XJ stan LV stow {X) owner {X} owner Fe sae [L]iveeasing (A) state [D]petiing | [-} ten emand/aupply (_} Shorlage ——{X] hebstanee (Foor nenty | OX) vaemtio 99 Marketing ime {Under 3mos__ UX] 3° overémoa|_{ )» sol Mo Presentlanduse %: One family 20 mily 10, Aprilments 10 Condorainkun 50. Cornmers iat Land use change (id Nottitely—[] tively (Tin process to Note: Nace and the racial composition of the nelghber oad > Tinighterhaed boundurias and ehetactesisice — RETGHBORHOOD B ORIDA'S TURNPIKE