&, ¢ . 4, AX 4, eS STATE OF FLORIDA re, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATIOS: 7, Sy, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD % Lop Gs “hy SE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & “ PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 200180357 SANDRA KAYE SMOCK, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Sandra Kaye Smock (“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 registered real estate appraiser having been issued license RI6070 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part II of the Florida Statutes. 3. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a registered real estate appraiser at Thomas Mays, 1207 Palm Blvd., Port St. Joe, Florida 32456. FDBPR v. Sandra Kaye Smock Case No. 200180357 Administrative Complaint 4. On or about February 21, 2000, Respondent and Thomas G. Mays (Mays), developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for property commonly known as 116 Wescott Circle, Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 (Subject Property) and estimated its value at $71,000 as of February 14, 2000. A copy of the Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. 5. Pursuant to an official investigation, Mays forwarded to Petitioner’s investigator a copy of the entire work file for Subject Property. 6. Information contained within the work file indicated that the client ordered the Report for an insurance update. 7. Respondent failed or refused to include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map number, zone, or map date for Subject Property. 8. Respondent knew or should have known that the FEMA map information was necessary for an insurance update. 9. Ina letter to Petitioner’s investigator, Respondent admitted that she provided the client a less detailed report than that usually provided to other clients. A copy of the letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. 10. In the letter, Respondent admitted that because the client was the only other competing appraiser in the community, she did not want to share with the client any of the company’s “trade secrets,” including boilerplate or general market descriptions. 11. Therefore, Respondent held a bias against the client during the development and communication of the Report. FDBPR v. Sandra Kaye Smock Case No. 200180357 Administrative Complaint 12. Respondent failed to prominently state the type of option used in the Report. 13. In the Report, Respondent erred in indicating the gross living area for comparable sale 14. In the Report, Respondent erred in indicating that comparable sale two did not contain a fireplace, when, in fact, it did. 15. In the Report, Respondent indicated that the actual age of Subject Property was forty years and that the effective age was twenty years. 16. Respondent failed or refused to explain or analyze any renovations to support the difference between the actual age and the effective age. 17. Respondent knew or should have known that such analysis and explanation relating to the age of Subject Property was required to be in the Report. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. COUNT 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 III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable FDBPR v. Sandra Kaye Smock Case No. 200180357 Administrative Complaint diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), 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 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. 4 FDBPR v. Sandra Kaye Smock Case No. 200180357 Administrative Complaint SIGNED this O° Stay of __ > +7 2003. Men prghe. (me Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation mena! ED eee By: _ ™ P sessional Reguidtien Director, Division of Real Estate art of Frorcsswne x f : a of Real Estate eal ofp 3. al ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Fla. Bar No. 182796 Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N802A Orlando, Florida 32802-1772 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: MC/JB/CK 2/03 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 5 FDBPR v. Sandra Kaye Smock Case No. 200180357 Administrative Complaint 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. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT # ee PAGE _L OF __i APPRAISAL REPORT OF , nla 116 Wescott Circle Port St. Joe, FL 32456 AS OF: 2/14/00 PREPARED FOR: W. Dale Borden 116 Wescott Circle Port St. Joe, FL 32456 PREPARED BY: Market*Max Appraisal Group Sandra K. Smock 1207 Palm Blvd. Port St. Joe, FL 32456 ADMINISTRATIVE COME RAIS EXHIBIT +. PAGE _t-____—- or ____/4_ __. ff - Market"Max Appraisal Group UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT _ fie no. 146 Wescott Circle Port St. Joe State, FL Property Description 1999. 3 W. Dale Borden Occupant Tenant vacant XiFee Simpie | Leasehold Project Type, IPUD Cendominium (HUO/VA only) HOAS. Io, _ Port St. Joe ___Map Reference _ 50D _Census Tract Wa _ “7 Bate ot Sale ra _ Description and $ amour of loan charges/concessions 10 be paid by sel na _____W. Dale Borden Sandra K. Smock ‘Adarens. 116 Wescott Circle, Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Adress 1207 Palm Blvd. Port St. Joe, FL 32456. [Rural * Predominant [Single fail housing Pragent land use % Land use change Under 25% > Beeupancy ‘tooo Age” one family 85 )Not Hkoty __Likoly Siow + [X,Owner 40 low 1 24 family Hin process ‘increasing [__ Stable [Declining |___.Ténant 395. High 50 !Muti-tamity “ower sure | vacant (0.5%) |__| Predominact Commercial. vacantjom su] 85 | 25 Vacant Note: race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are nol appraisal factors. Neighborhood boundaries and characteristics: Inclusive of the of Port St. Joe, bounded on the north by Hwy 71, east by Garcison, Avenue, west by Constitution Prive/Hwy 98 and south by Cabell Drive, a neighborhood predominanlly of single family homes| Factors that affect the marketability of the properties in the neighbothood (proximity to employment and amentties, employment stabilty, appeal to market, etc.) See Comment Addendum — over 6 mos. VooLwOwLO-Mz Mariel ccndtions in the aubjed nelghbomood (including suppor forthe above conclusions related tothe rand of property Values, demand/supply, and mavkcting time ~ such 98 data on competitive properties for sale in the bochoed, description of the prevalence of soles and financing concessions, atc.): Demand and supply are in balance. Marketing time will average six months. Sales and financing concessions are not____ prevalent, 0 a a Project Infarmation for PUDs _(\f applicable) ~ Is the dovetopet/buildar in control of the Home Qwner’s Association (HOA)? t_lyes T to Approximate total number of units in the subject project Approximate total number of units for sala in tha subject project Describe common elements and recreational faciities: Dimensions 75 x 180 x 75 x 180 _ . 7 Topography Level . Steaoa __.13,500sF ~ Comer tot [_i¥as XINo |Size Do. Btae Specific zoning classification and description R-1 Residential _ _ Shape _Rectanqular Zoning compliance [XI Legal [Leos noncontormng (Grandtattered we) ,.]IMags! [_}No Zoning | Drainage Run-off/abisorb. | Highest a nest use as improved [X Present use | __ Other use (explain) —_ . — | view Residential, _ Other Ott-sile Improvements Type Public Private | Landscaping Adequate __ Stet Asphalt [X] Driveway Surface _Conerete Curbiguttor None. td Apparent oasamerts, None, Note _. Sidewalk ___None. . od FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area | |¥os | X'!No _ Street lights ___ Sodium Electric x FEMA Zone 9 MapDate Alley, None [Teen Map No ‘Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, special assessments, slide areas, —— 21 tegal noncontorming zoning use.ete): None noted. GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION ' No. of Units. a: a Slab __| Area Sq. Ft. N/A | Roof No. otStoves Craw Space si _] % Finishes Ceiling wa Led Ee] Type eet att) Detached. Basement _ Celling Wats s Sump Pump | Wolls Floor _ g Dampness _ None noted | Floor _| None | . 4 Settlement None noted | Outside Entry N/A | Unknown IX t Infestation _ None noted FY ROOMS . Foyer Living _ Den. __| Family Ren! Rec. Rm |Bestooms #Bahs Other Aroa Sq. Ft. $i) Sacemert: - oa i . ~ iL LNAL. Ppt aL . : ; 3 1: 1,374 Lovel 2 . . wt... _ _ L _.. a ! Finished area above grade contains: 5 Rooms: 3 __—‘Sedroom(s): 1.00 Bathis): 1.374 Square Feat of Gross Livny Avwa ? BY TERIOR Maleneis:Conowon HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP.; ATTIC «| AMENITIES | CAR STORAGE $4 Fioors | Retigarator ia) | Fireplace(s) # © None | wets _! RangefOven i X|! Stairs |) Patio ee Garage 1 Pot vars EY TrivFinish ___ Disposat Drop stair | || | Deck _ Attached __ BY Bath Floor Dishwashor [Hf Scutie — _X/ | Porch Front _ ‘XJ: Detached _ Yes. Bath Wainscot FanHood —_ X/' Floor _| | Fence Cha ink ©X} — Buit-n a Doors “Int: Hlw Core/Ava Other = Microwave | |! Heated =} | Poot “} carport Ext: Wood/Ava Condtion Avg __ Washer/Dryer Finished | Driveway Yes Additional features (special energy efficient tems, etc. See Camment Addendum Fp Condon othe improvements, depreciation (physical funcional, and etna), sepa nowded, qualty of consiution, emodaingfadsitons, ee: Quality. of PA Adverse environmental condtions (such as, but nat hunted 10, hazarcous wastes, Coxe suOStances, aC.) preswia mi Lng nyrurey immediate vicinity of the subject property: None noted. Freddie Mac Foun 70 6-93 Fannia Mae Foren 1004 (6-9; 15 ‘CueAFORMS Resi Ettate Appreaal Sofware by Bradtotd Technologies (800) 622-8727 Market*Max Appraisal Group Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT _iteno. ESTIMATED SITE VALUE =s “15,000, Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estunte, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST.NEW-OF IMPROVEMENTS, site value, square foot calculation and for HUD, VA and FintiA the Loss Physical 18% Functional External Depreciation 13,768 __ a Depreciated Valua of | improvements =30 04 “As is” Value of Sito Improvernents so 9 Cen Soe INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH =3 . 79,719 Est Rem Econ Lite: 40 ys. Site/Total_ 1% + ents include _paved £4 owelmg 1,374. Sq R@$_ 48.60 =5 __. 66,776 estimated remaining economic tite of the propenyr'Cost estunates By CydPre 42 Sg PLC@S__ 11. AMR er Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook, “average’] '- . _ _ lquality construction, Adjusted for climate, foundation, . FY Garegecarpor _ 473 89.7. @S 9.219 loorcover, warm/coo! air, -3 plumbing futures, 84 [iq Total Estimated Cost New 76,487 R 8 A ¢ i [7 (TEM SSUBJECT. = COMPARABLE NO. 1 t COMPARABLE NO, 2 ‘COMPARABLE NO, 3 116 Wescott Circle 120 Wescott Circle 1805 Garrison Avenue 1302 Palm Bivd Address Port St. Joe _ _. Port St. Joe Port St, Joe . Port St. Joe Proximity to Subject__| — AZ block eee ae Amite, a _1 mile | Sales Price $ a §,500.__ 3 | 3%... 68,000 PrewGrossly Ame $0.00 78 5593. (1s. soa2. Ts 6z.96. Public Records ORB 232/845 & Files ORB 228/027 & Files ORB 232/773 & Files ce: Inspection _.__Extemal_Inspection.._|____Extemal Inspection____}__. External Inspection __ VENTS” DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION fg adpsnen] DESCRIPTION __ +8 Adusimer| DESCRIPTION. =(]s Adusimen None found None found None found Jone ne fom -UIbAN... — Urban, . .. Fee Simple ..Fee Simple. -75x180 | | 75 x.180 - 70 x 150. _ Residential Residential Residential ___ RanchiAva . - _ RanchiAva ae Bungatow/Ava | . Average ~~} Average __ — Average wot § A4Q/Ef 20__ | _A2Q/Ef{ 10 _ _ AADIEH20 __ABO/Eff 30_ ’ uf . Avera: fe Ado fs Average Average . H : es Tomy erm | Ga c cul too 3 1:00 - -5_1. 3.2.00 ° 1374 Sq.Ft 80 Sq rt . . 1,428 Sq.Ft. s na n/a Na & ———— ‘ . Average _ ,_ Average, |} | Average § _. FHAYes FHANes FHASYes, i N ms Standard __._ Standard Standard | Standard. _| A Det. Garage_____Att. Carport _.. Att, Carport ~ None. N Front porch Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch | § No i No_ _ - No - a Now . 8 :_Chn._Lnk fence ! _No. ee a -Yes_ we | NO... _ 5 — -4 se 500 OT 36.650, [| [XJ* Inet: -9% vet: -8% ‘net: 19% cross: 9%. 89,000__[Gross a% $$ _ 66,150__IGross: 11% __'$_78.350 | ‘Comments on Sales Comparison {including the subject property's compatibilty to the neighborhood, etc): See Comment Addendum... _SUBJECT. _ -_ __COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Date, Price and Osta n/a nia nia ola Source, for prior sales Dept. of Dept. of Revenue Dept. of Revenue Dept. of Revenue within year_of appreisal- Revenue a eee -- ‘Analysis of any curenl agreement of sale, oplon, of isting ofthe subject propey and analysts of any pur sales of aubJect and comparables wahin one year ofthe date of appraisal ofa INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH $ 70,009 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH {It Applicable) Estimated Meckat Rent §__s==-- _/Mox Gross Rent Mutiplee === =. a This appraisals made _X*as is" [subject to the ropairs, ateralions, inspections or conditions sted below |_}subject to completion par plans and specifications, Fins! Reconcitation The Sales Comparison Approach is the best guide to value. Giving the Sales Comparison Approach 96%, EXHIBIT # | Hi weight and the Cost Approach 10% weight, a reconciliation yields a final value indication of $71,000, __ _ ¢ = - _- HA The purpose of this appraisal ie to estimate the markat value of the real property that is subject to this report, based on the above conditions and the certification, conuagent ADMIN {is TRAT IVE co Eo and timting condaions. and market value defrition that are stated in the attached Freddie Mac Foten 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised " : t | (WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT tS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF 2114/00, | ES (wich 1S THE OATE OF INSPECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 71,000 T : i N APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER {ONLY IF REAUIRED): os PA 0S sprees ‘Signature_ Signature. ——~"" i Ke gp |S pie (X]o%a Not ‘AGE OF tare xf wee McG spe Pepey seeeteieeene ed iepott Signed February21,2000. Date Repos Signed_Febquary.2}, - State Contiication # _ Stata Certineation #_ 000319) _State__ FL. Or State License # 0906070 St Reg Assist Rea Or State License # Stale. Freddie Mac Form 70 6.33 CCHAFOAMES Real Lenate Appraiea! Someare by Erzotora Tecrnologles (£00) 622.8727 Fannie Mae Foun 1404 (6-93 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAIN i EXHIBIT #___| PAGE 4 OF __ beg | COMMENT ADDENDUM Fite No. Borrower na __ Property Address _116 Wescott Sty Port StJoe_ ___. Lender/Client W. Dale Bord: Ares 116 Wescott NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETABILITY Subject's neighborhood is on the north side of Port St. Joe, close to schools, shopping and church facilities, giving it good appeat in the focal, permanent home market. Employment stability is only fair given the permanent shut down of the Florida Coast Paper mill. While this economic downturn has not yet (after a year and one-half) lead fo a mass of foreclosures, we are now seeing homes being offered for sale by mill workers who are reiocating. However, the current total inventory of homes being offered for sale does not exceed demand. This is mostly because of the fact that there is a countervailing positive trend bringing buyers to Port St. Joe/Gulf County. St. Joe Land and Development Corporation, the owner of 90% of the land in Gulf County, is aggressively planning major residential community development in Gulf County, including development of its beachfront holdings. St. Joe Corp. plans to develop a number of PUDs ranging in size fram 1000 to 5000 residential units priced from $250,000 - $1,500,000, combined with recreational and commercial resources. The prospect of this development is attracting buyers to Gulf County and Puit St. Joe who believe homes are now selling at a discount to future values and that dramatic appreciation in property values is probable. Thus, the overall real estate market in Port St. Jae is actually better than in the recent past when there was an undersupply of homes. ADDITIONAL FEATURES Exterior: Concrete driveway & walkway, tandscaping. interior: Kitchen wiwall oven and range top, dbl porcelain sink, ceramic tile partial wail, wallpaper border; bath with ceramic tite wainscot and floor, wallpaper, carpet and ceiling fans throughout SALES COMPARISONS COMMENTS . Comparable #1 was adjusted -5000 to account for its above average condition and -1500 to account far its attached carpost. Comparable #2 was adjusted -3000 to account for its two baths, -1350, or $25/sf of GLA, to account for its greater GLA and -1500 to account for its attached carport. Comparable #3 was adjusted +7350, or $25/sf of GLA, to account for its lesser GLA. Comparabie #1 is the best guide to value given its proximity to the subject, similar location and site value, room count/baths and GLA. Comparables #2 and #3 are also good guides to vatue given their similar site values, design, condition and room count. Giving Comparable #1 50% weight and Comparables #2 and #3 25% weight each, the Sales Comparison Approach yields a value indication of $69,876 ot $70,000 rounded. (CUCKFORNS Real Estate Apprateal Software by Bradlord Technologies (800) 622-8727 | | | ADMINISTRATIVE Cui eniis| EXHIBIT #_W. —_}_-- + PAGE ___.S_— OF DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably ana assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as a! a specified date and the passing of tite from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller ate ‘yk «ly motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well adyised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest, (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S ‘or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for (we property soid unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions" granted by anyone associated with the sac “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market, these cosls ate readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by @ third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical doliar far dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT ANO LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser wil not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the tite. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvernents ‘and the sketch is incuded only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or impliad, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. appraisal at the property in question, 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate vatuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction wih any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the preset. of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she becarne aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property of adverse environmental conditions {including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarsin the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering of testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist, Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazerds, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties, 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 ‘The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that ts subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmaniike manner 40. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lenderichent specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report {including conclusions about the property vaive, the appraiser's identity and professi:val designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to. anyone other than the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the morigage insurer, consuftants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financiat institution, of any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; excepl that the lender/client may de tiibiute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s} without having to obtain the appraisers prior written consent. The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the apprusal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, pubiic relations, news, sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Fosm 438 (6-93) ‘ChoHFORMS Kea Gatate Appractal Softwate by Bradiond Technologies (800) 822-8727 Fannie Mae Fern 10088 (6-99) cal APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that. 4. Uhave researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to tha subject property for consideration in'the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation. 'f a significant item in a comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, | have made a negative adjustment ta reauce tne adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in @ comparable property is inferior to, or less favoratie than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable, 1 2. Ihave taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal! report. | have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | believe, to the best of my knowledge, that ali statements and information in the appraisal report are true arid correct. 3. | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and kmiting conditions specified in this form 4, | have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and | have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. | did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appreisal report on the race, color, religion, s@x, handicap, familial status, of national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property, 5. {have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my currant or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6 | was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of @ specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. | did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan, 7. performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Soard of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply | acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate | developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report, uniess | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. . 8. | have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all prapraies listed as comparables in the appraisal report. { further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse condiwirs in the subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my anatysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them. | have also commented about the effect of ihe adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. | personaty prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If ! relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, | have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconcitiation section of this appraisal report. | certity that any individuat so named is qualified to perform the tasks. thave not authorized anyone ta make a change to any item in the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made lo the appraisal report, | will take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: if @ supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: | directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the apprarser’s certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibilty for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: a __. 116 Wescott Circle, Port St. Joe, FL_32456 — APPRAISER: Va SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required) A ’ doy py yy, Signature: Zee, Le G SPE Pe. Signature: ‘ Meg . Name __/ Sandra k. Smock Name: _ nas. Mays = Date Signed: __ February 21, 2000_ Date Signet _ February 21,2000 __ __ State Certification# 0003197 St Cert Res Rea__ orStateLicense# oe State: . FL Expiration Date of Certification or License: _—-11/30/00 | _] pia |X) Did Not inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439.6 92 CinAFORMS Real Estate Aporaieal Sofweate by Busofocd Yechnotogies (8060) 822 8727 Fann Maw Form 10048 6-93: ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT #____1 PAGE { OF l 4 Market*Max Appraisal Group USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM , SUBJECT, ita No. Borrower: WW. Dale Borden = __116 Wescott Circle sed_and employed. The. REPORT OF THE PRIOR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Is the subject property currently listed? Yes XNo Uist Price $ Has the property sold during the prior year? L_ Yes. iX No yes, describe below: What is your estimating time for the subject period? six months __ Based on_an analysis of historical sales data. ‘Does the transaction involve the transfer of personal property, fixtures, oF intangibles that are not real proparty? tyes, provide description and valuation below: ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION STATEMENTS OR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. — —, WA , “hy Ud. ‘ a Mb pe 2121400 hy on a. _..212 ee el ee i Sandra K. Smock, _ _ Thomas G. Mays, St. Cent. Res. Rea_ Aoprast(RBaMAssist. Rea #0006070 Review Appraiser(s) Bangs 197 (CictT ORUS Real Eatate Appramal Sofwaie by Brecford Yechnotogws {000} 622.6727 Borrower n/a SKETCH ADDENDUM Property Address _116 Wescott Circle City Port St. Joe County Gulf “state FL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT # yr PAGE OF —Y __— SEE ATTACHED SKETCH ‘TheRFOAMS tenat Extale Aaprarsa! Satwaie by Buadtord Technologies (900) 872.8777 Aadress 116 Wescott Circle, Port St. Joe, FL 32456 SKETCH ADDENDUM BorewevCiont Wi. Dave Boepcnl Property Address {Ilo Wwesegtt Cieous - a oty Qrer Sr see, County Gove State FL Zip Cove FAS (p Lender nwo = a —— — ee 6 ~ f i i vt tk ue ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ~ EXHIBIT # — OF PAGE 4 —f+—— ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT #___ ee PAGE (0. OF —!¢__— SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM Borrower Ma Property Address _ 116 Wescott Circle_ File No. City. Port St. Joe County, Gulf _ Zip Code324, Lender/Ctent W. Dale Borden ‘address 116 Wescott Circ! ChcAFORMS Rew! Estate Apprastal Soltware by Sreatond Technologies (800) 622-2727 . Port St. Joe, FL 32456, FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Address 116 Wescott Circle Port St. Joe Appraisal Data 2/44/00 Appraisal Vaive 71,000 Site 75 x 180 View Residential DesigvAppea = Ranch/Ava Const. Quality Average Age AAO/IEff 20 ‘Square Feet 1,374 Total Rooms = 5 Bedrooms 3 Bathrooms 4.00 Basement ola Garage Det. Garage Fireplace No REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT #___|_ >_> PAGE ____4_ _ OF File No. ok Borrower Wa a __ — — a _ a . Property Address_116 Wescott Circle _ _ a - _ — a a Cay Port St_J County Gulf... State FL__.. _..2ip Code 32456 _ Lender/Client W. CICHFORMS Real Eatave Appransat Software by Braciord Tectoiogian (800) 827-8727 - Adsiess 116 Wescott Circle, Port St, Joe, FL 32456 COMPARABLE SALE #1 Address 120 Wescott Circle Port St. Joe Sale Date 9/29/99 Sale Price == 75,500 Site 75 x 180 View Residentinl DesigwAppea Ranch/Ava Const. Quality Average Age A20/Eff 10 Square Feet 1,350 Total Rooms 5 Bedrooms 3 Bathrooms == 1.00 Basement na Garage Att. Carport Fireplace NO COMPARABLE SALE #2 Address 1805 Garrison Avenue Port St. Joe Sale Date Sale Price Site View Design/Appeal Const sQuatity Age Square Feet Tota! Rooms Bedrooms Bathrooms Basement Garage Fireplace 6/15/99 72,000 75 x 180 Residential Ranch/Avq Average AAOIEF 20 1,428 5 3 2.00 nia Att. Carport No COMPARABLE SALE #3 Address 4302 Palm Blvd Port St. Joe Sale Dato Sale Price Oesign/Appeat Const. Quality Age Sauare Feet Total Rooms Bedrooms Bathrooms Basement Garage Fireptace 10/5/99 68,000 70x 150 Residential Bunqalow/Avq Average AGO/EFf 30 1,080 5 3 4.00 nla None No ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 4 - a PAGE (2. OF —Y LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM File No. Borrower_n/a Property Address _ 116 Wesco! City Port St. . _ LenderrClient W. Dale Borden. \ | i | i i SEE ATTACHED MAPS Click FORMS Resi Estate Appraisal Sofware by Braatord Technologies (800) 622-5727 GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP GULF COUNTY. FLORIDA = ADMINISIRALive Gur Lary s EXHIBIT # PAGE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT #.__f PAGE ____/ OF — ; — Market'Max Appraisal Group 1207 Patm Blvd Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Phone 850-229-2428 Fax 830-227-2181 February 24, 2001 Mr. Benjamin F. Clanton Investigation Specialist {I Division of Real Estate 7944 Front Beach Road Panama City Beach, FL 32407 Dear Mr. Clanton, Thank you for writing us to ask for copies of our work file. We appreciate the consideration. We wish to note that the appraisal was requested by W. Dale Borden (St. Cert. Res. Rea. #002909) immediately after he had performed an appraisal on our home at 1207 Palm Bivd, Port St. Joe, which we were refinancing at the time. Mr. Borden was the only available appraiser and our selection of him was based upon that fact. Mr. Borden told us he needed an appraisal to “update his insurance coverage.” He was explicit about this (see appraisal order form dated 2/11/00). While we used the URAR to provide a complete appraisal in summary format, our appraisal reflected three facts: . 1) the purpose of the appraisal, 2) the fact that the reader of the appraisal was a State Certified appraiser living in the dwelling we appraised and intimately familiar with the market, and 3) this appraiser, W. Dale Borden, was, and is, our immediate competitor: in this regard, we did not wish to share with him any of our “boilerplate, i.e., general market descriptions, etc., language and methodology we use to indicate support for adjustments and analysis, and, in general, our appraisal “trade secrets.” Nonetheless, we were sure to provide him with an appraisal adequate for his purposes. Finally, in order for you to understand and analyze our comments and explanations below in regard to Mr. Borden's complaint, we believe you should first know (if you do riot already know) about the quality of the information provided by the Gulf County Property Appraiser’s Office. The information which is available on the “computer” is notoriously inaccurate. You may confirm this fact by consulting with the following appraisers: Wendell Brown (St Cert Res Rea), Walt Abbott (MAI), Vicki Chandler (St Cert Res Rea), all of Panama City, and Demetris James (Field Specialist - Franklin County Property Appraiser Office, Apalachicola). Especially inaccurate are the property appraiser’s calculations for GLA, number of baths, AYB/EYB and heating and cooling details. The problem is further componded by the fact that Gulf County’s Board of Realtors and MLS system was only organized in late 1998 and, not until recently, were all the realtors in Gulf County members of the MLS. Thus, MLS information at the time of this appraisal was very sketchy as well. Given the above, as appraisers, we have come to rely upon our own analysis of each comparable and, in most cases, we find we must disregard the Property Appraiser’s information, or, at the very least, use it as a guide only. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT # 2 PAGE —__{- OF 4 page 2 i In regard to W. Dale Borden’s complaint, we provide the following explanations and information. (The following numbers coincide with the numbers of the complaint.) 1. Typographical error 2. When providing an appraisal for insurance purposes, we do not provide census tract, FEMA zone/map number/map date, but state whether the subject is in fact in a flood zone; subject was in flood zone “C.” 3. The Property Appraiser’s office states the subject’s CLA as 1154sf - we measured the home with Mr. Borden present and we stand by our measurements (see file copy of measurements). 4. The subject has no rear “entry porch.” Rather, the subject has a concrete walkway/stoop. We included this in site improvements under “walkway.” See appraisal comments on the Cost Approach (page 2 of the URAR). 5. The Property Appraiser’s office states that Comparable #] has 1150sf. This is incorrect, in our opinion, per visual inspection from the street and measurement by line of sight of the front of the dwelling from the driveway’s edge which aligns with the dwelling’s northwesterly corner along a line extending to the dwelling’s linerally opposite (northeasterly) corner: §0x27=1350sf. 6. The Property Appraiser’s office states that Comparable #3’s GLA is 1280sf. An analysis of the Property Appraiser’s own building sketch, coupled with a visual inspection from the street, indicates the Property Appraiser’s sketch is inaccurate (see copy of sketch from file and GLA calculations). We had information from Hannon Realty’s files that indicated the actual GLA of the home was 1080 (see enclosed sketch from Hannon Realty’s files). Shaded area in the rear is an unheated/uncooled laundry room; the shaded area on the sides are window bump-outs. 7. W. Dale Borden is wrong. Comparables #1 and #2 do have carports. Our training indicates to us that a carport is composed of the following: a) a graded site for the carport, b) a concrete slab sufficient to support a vehicle, c) a doorway/entrance to the home providing ingress/egress directly to the carport/home, and may optionally include d) a super structure sufficient to support a roof and e) a roof. Comparables #1 and #2 each have carports featuring the minimal requirements of a graded site, concrete slab and direct ingress/egress. We should note, for your understanding and analysis, that the overwhelming majority of hornes in Port St. Joe have carports; said carports being functionally integrated with the design of the home - providing access from the carport into the kitchen/laundry room area of the home. This feature is preferred by the average buyer and the buyer attaches value to it. As a rule of thumb, market data shows that buyers will pay between a minimum of 75% to a maximum of 100% of the cost of constructing a carport (including the necessary doorway/access to the home). Thus, in analyzing ‘Comparables #1 and #2, we made a -1500 adjustment (see file notes): at the time of the appraisal we debated whether or not to show this adjustment in the “design/appeal” category rather than “carport” because the average buyer attaches value to it as a matter of design /appeal as well as the cost involved. But, for clarity’s sake, we decided to put the adjustment under “carport” to juxapose the adjustment with the subject’s lack of a carport and inferior design/appeal in this respect. Note: The subject previously had a carport/attached garage with access to subject’s laundry room that was enclosed in its GLA; thus creating a deficiency in design/appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 4 y PAGE a an page 3 8. W. Dale Borden is wrong. Comparable #3 has a wood shed at the rear of its property accessed from the street by an ancient divided/parallel “concrete” drive. The width of the opening/doors to said shed, when closed, is a mere 7’9” wide. This would be reduced to approximately 7’ when opened. Given the average width of modern automobiles /trucks, said shed cannot provide “car storage.’ (Rather, it may be suitable for a motorcycle, or perhaps a buggy - or maybe a small horse). But certainly, the average buyer would not attach value to it as it may relate to “car storage.” 9. In regard to fences and outbuildings in general, in our opinion and, in the opinion of other appraisers who know the market in Port St. Joe, market data does not show that buyers attach value to aged, functionally obselete outbuildings. Nor does market data show that buyers attach value to aged, outmoded fencing. Given this fact, we noted the presence of these in our file but did not choose to confuse the issue by noting them in the sales comparison approach portion of the summary report. Moreover, given the above and the nature of the subject’s “detached garage” and the fact that market data does not show that buyers attach value to it, an analysis relating to subject’s “detached garage” to various outbuildings /fences present among the comparables, was moot. 10. W. Dale Borden must be a swammy - or maybe “Carnack the Great.” First, given the unreliability of the Property Appraiser’s information, we are always reluctant to “assume” their information is correct. So, we always rely on visual verification when possible per USPAP. No visual verification of Comparable #2’s so-called finished screened porch was possible. Nor could we reach the sellers or buyers by phone. An analysis of the Property Appraiser’s sketch (see copy) did not show the depth of said screened porch. One intrepretation of the sketch would be that it had a depth of 4’ (see Property Appraiser's sketch: dimensions 24+14=38; 42-38 =4) (?). An analysis of the Property Appraiser’s stated heated GLA indicated! to us that this porch has probably been enclosed. Otherwise, the Property Appraiser’s 1428sf CLA calculation would be in excess of the dimensions shown on the Property Appraiser’s sketch (see our notes on the sketch). Thus, we reasonably presumed this “screened porch” area was part of the home's GLA. W. Dale Borden is correct - Comparable #2 does have a fireplace. In this case, our appraisal may have been misleading, but not intentionally so. Market data of sales of homes with and without fireplaces in Port St. Joe, and in off-beach locations like Seashores, Gulfaire and Unit 14 of Mexico Beach, does not show that buyers will pay a premium for a fireplace. This is supported again and again by paired sales analyses. We should note that just the opposite is true for gulf front/homes close to waterfront (i.e. 1st through 3rd tier) - evidently being a function of cooler temperatures and/or design/appeal. Thus, because the subject had no fireplace, our notation of “no” on the appraisal actually meant “n/a” or no analysis. If we had noted the fireplace, then an explanation would have been in order and, as noted above, because Mr. Borden is a competitor, we were reluctant to inform him/give him the fruits of our analysis in regard to fireplaces: Given our above information and explanation, we do not believe that the typographical error (re map 50D instead of map 50A) and/or the omission of a notation and explanation regarding Comparable #2’s fireplace are errors/omissions creates an appraisal that is misleading. Finally, had we relied solely on the Property Appraiser’s information in regard to the analysis of these comparables, we believe it is evident that our appraisal would indeed have ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT #___ = PAGE ___<3__ OF 4 page 4 baen misleading - the final value indication would have been significantly different from the estimate of market value provided by our appraisal as performed. Sincerely, Thomas G. Mays, St Cert Res Rea (#0003197) Lely Iga andra K. Smock, St Reg Assist Rea (#0006070) ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT # 43

Docket for Case No: 03-003935PL