GU 47> STATE OF FLORIDA 4 ty DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION (4 A FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD ly *& F204, OY Q FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 9983083 9983084 JAMES F. EDWARDS AND ROBERT J. EDWARDS, Respondents. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against James F. Edwards and Robert J. Edwards (“Respondents”), 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 James F. Edwards is currently a Florida state-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license RD0003344 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part II of the Florida Statutes. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state-certified residential real estate appraiser at 637 Lyndhurst Strect, Dunedin, Florida 34698. At all times material hereto, FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 Administrative Complaint Respondent James F. Edwards was a state-registered assistant real estate appraiser. 3. Respondent Robert J. Edwards is currently a Florida state-certified general real estate appraiser having been issued license RZ0001677 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part II of the Florida Statutes. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state-certified general real estate appraiser at 1424 Hickory Moss Place, New Port Richey, Florida 34655. 4. On or about January 25, 1999, Respondents developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for property commonly known as 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida. A copy of the Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. 5. The Report estimated the market value as $220,000, as of January 25, 1999. 6. Petitioner obtained a volunteer expert review of the Report. A copy of the Review is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. 7. Comparable sales numbered one and two are located in Saddlebrook, a golf and tennis resort. 8. Comparable sale number three is located in Lake Bernadette, a golf course development. 9. These neighborhoods or market areas are distinctly different from the subject property, with no common area elements or amenities. 10. Comparable sale number one has a golf view, which is not identified or adjusted for in the Report. 11. Comparable sale number two has a golf and water view, which are not identified or adjusted for in the Report. 12. Comparable sale number three has a lake view, which is not identified or adjusted for 2 FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 Administrative Complaint in the Report. 13. The Report adjusted comparable sales one and two by -$15,000 for “location,” which is an inadequate and improper adjustment. 14. The Report represented that “the appraiser’s research shows no sales of similar homes in this subdivision within the past two years” and that “the comparables chosen were the best available at the time of the inspection.” 15. Four sales occurred between September 1998 and December 1998 in the subject neighborhood. The Respondents failed to analyze or use these sales. 16. The sales the Respondents utilized in the Report were not comparable sales. 17. The Report failed to analyze and use the proper methodology to value the subject site, which resulted in an overstated land value estimate. 18. Therefore, the Report concluded an overstated, misleading and erroneous estimated market value. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent James F. Edwards 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 (1999) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent Robert J. Edwards has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform 3 FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 Administrative Complaint Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (1999) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent James F. Edwards is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent Robert J. Edwards is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent James F. Edwards is guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (1997). COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent Robert J. Edwards is guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (1997). 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 FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 Administrative Complaint 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. FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 Administrative Complaint SIGNED this_/5 day of Fu Bede , 2002. ay Paes oa) Professional Regulation By: Director, Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Sunia Y. Marsh, Senior Attorne Fla. Bar No. 0068896 FDBPR-Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1772 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: EC/DG/MC 1/7/02 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 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 FDBPR v. James F. Edwards Case No. 9983083 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. File No. URARS696] Page #2 APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 4209 REDCOAT DR. FOX RIDGE PHASE 2 UNIT 4 PB 18 PGS 61-64 LOT 11 BLK 13 OR 3763 PG 1568 ZEPHYRHILLS, FL 33543 FOR: NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. 6721 NORWOOD AVE. JACKSONVILLE, FL 32208 AS OF: JAN. 25, 1999 BY: JAMES F. EDWARDS, ST REG REA #RI 0004450 ROBERT J. EOWARDS, ST CERT GEN REA #RZ0001677 2561 NURSERY RD; STE B CLEARWATER, FL 33764 (727) 530 1789 FAX (727) 530-0748 “CC paced for Form GA3 — “TOTAL 2000 for Wiedows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc, — 1-800-ALAMODE 7 ag 3 5 a SALES PRICE 5 OESCRIPTIO! APPRAISER VALUE SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES Subject Address 4209 REDCOAT DR. Legal Description FOX RIDGE PHASE 2 UNIT 4 PB 18 PGS 61-64 LOT 11 BLK 13 OR 3763 PG 1568 City ZEPHYRHILLS County PASCO State FL Zip Code 33543 Census Tract 321.01 Map Reference $15/T26S/R20E Sale Price $.N/A Date of Sale N/A Borrower / Client THOMAS WESTER Lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC, Size (Square Feet) 2,682 Price per Squate Foot $ N/A Location FOX RIDGE Age 1 YR/O-1 EFF Condition EXCELLENT Total Rooms 8 Bedrooms 3 Baths 3 Appraiser . JAMES F. EDWARDS, ST REG REA #R10004450 Date of Appraised Value JAN. 25, 1999 Final Estimate of Value $ 220,000 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 4 . PAGE _ 2 or ___/S EXHIBIT 6 Pacile® of Farm SSD — "TOTAL 2000 for Windows* appraisal software by a la mode, Inc. — 1-B00-ALAMODE a a SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT Edwards Appraisal Service (727)530-1789 File No. URAR3696] Page #4] > Description UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT FieNo, URAR3696 Property Address 4209 REDCOAT OR. Cty ZEPHYRHILLS State FL. Zip Code 33543. Legal Description FOX RIOGE PHASE 2 UNIT 1 PB 18 PGS 61-64 LOT 11 BLK 13 OR 3763 PG 1568 County PASCO Assessor's ParcelNo, 15 26 20 002A 01300 0110 Tax Yea 1997 _ RE. Taes $ 683.46 Special Assessments $ NONE. Borrower THOMAS WESTER Curent Owner THOMAS. WESTER Occupa Owner | Tenant Vacant Property ints appraised Oc] Fee Simple _ |_| Leasehold Project Type [ [PUD FAX Neighborhood of Project Name__ FOX. RIDGE Map Reference $15/T26S/R20E Census Tract 321.01 e S fee] 5 a s Sale Price $ N/A Date of Sale N/A. Description and § amount of loan charges/concessions to be aid by selier N/A Lendey/Client_ NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Adaess 6721, NORWOOD AVE., JACKSONVILLE, FL 32208 Appraiser___JAMES F, EDWARDS Addhess 2561 NURSERY RD., STE. B, CLEARWATER, FL 33764 Location _} Urban &) sububan (_| Rural Predominant ange family omnes Present land use Land use change Bult up «Sh Over 75% Fj 25-75% (Under 25% | seeuPaney S009) fo5 lone tamiy 100 | (3) not ey [_] Ukely Growth rate [_} Rapid (stake ([] Siow (<1 Owner 95% |__ 70 tow NEW |2-4tamiy __O (1 in process Property values (_} Increasing OX Stabile — {_] Declining Tenant 300 Hin 25 _|Multttamily O_o: N/A Demand’supply [_] Shortage [XJ In balance (1 over supply | vacant (0-5%} [Predominant | Commercid___O- | Marketing time _(__| Under 3 mos. <] 3-6 mos. _{_| Over 6 mos. vae.(over 5%} | 185-230 3-20 Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhaed ars not appraisal factors. Neighborhood boundaries and characteristics; 9 _THE SUBJECT. NEIGHBORHOOD IS LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 54; NORTH OF THE PASCO/HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LINE; EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 75; AND WEST OF HANDCART RO. Factors that aftect the marketabllty of the properties in the neighborhood (proximity to employment and ‘amenities, employment stablity, appeal to market, eft.): THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTS OF A MIXTURE OF AVERAGE TO EXCELLENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 1S COMPATISLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1S CONVENIENT TO SHOPPING AND SPECIALTY RETAIL CENTERS. THE AREA 1S CONVENIENT TO NEARBY SCHOOLS AND. HOSPITALS. IT IS CONVENIENT TO RECREATIONAL SUPPORT FACILITIES AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including support for the above conclusions related to the trend of property values, demand/supply, and marketing time - such as data on competitive properties for sale in the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions, etc.): MARKETING CONDITIONS ARE GOOD AND PROPERTY VALUES ARE STABLE. MARKETING TIME IS BETWEEN 3 AND 6 MONTHS, AVERAGE SALES TO MARKETING PRICE RATIO 1S APPROXIMATELY 5%. CONVENTIONAL, FHA AND VA FINANCING IS AVAILABLE. FINANCING CONCESSIONS AND BUY-DOWNS ARE NOT PREVALENT. NEIGHBORHOOD o Project information for PUDs (Hf applicable) - - Is the developer/builder in control of the Home Owners’ Association (HOA)? LJ Yes No N/A FA Approximate total number of unis in the subject project N/A Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project N/A MB Describe common elements and tecreational facilities: N/A Oimensions 167 x 287 x 143 x 288 Site wea _44,607,0 SQ. FT. MOL Comertot {_} Yes OX No Specific zoning classification and description RES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Toning compliance ([) Legal [7] Legal nonconforming (Grandiatheted use) (J Wega {_) Ne zoning Highest & best use as improved: Present use [| Other use (explain Utilities Public Other Off-she improvements Typ: Public Private Pam Electricity [XJ ABOVE GROUND _| Steet ASPHALT ® Oo an Gas Curbygutter oOo Q waer ‘ (J) PRIVATE WELL __| Sidewalk Oo O santay sewer (| PRIVATE SEPTIC | Steet ights : Oo dg Storm sewer __ |_| CULVERT Alley fj Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, special assessments, side areas, idegal or egal nonconforming zoning use, etc.): AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION NO APPARENT ADVERSE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OR SLIDE AREAS. WERE NOTED. PRIVATE WELLS & SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE TYPICAL FOR THE AREA AND HAVE NO AFFECT ON VALUE. GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION No. of Units Foundation CONT. WALL _|Stab CONCRETE No, of Stories Exterior Walls CB/STUCCO _ }Crawl Space NONE Root Surface COMP. SHING |Basement NONE ‘Gutters & Dwnspts. FULL ALUM Sump Pump NONE Window Type ALUMINUM Dampress NONE NOTED Floor StornyScreens SCREENS Settlement NONE NOTED _ |Outside Entry N/A Manufactured House _NO infestation NONE NOTED {NO BASEMENT —% ing Kitchen Den Famiy Rm, | Rec. Rm. |Beckooms!_# Baths Laundry Other Area Sa. Ft, Design (Sty'e) Existing/Proposed Age (Vrs.) BRKFST 2,682 ase Feet of Gross Living Area, HEATING HT PMP [KITCHEN EQUIP. Floors CARPET/TILE Type = FWA |Retiigerator Wals - _ORYWALL Fuel = ELEC _|RangyOven OQ Trimfinish ~=©_WOOD/PAINT Condition GOOD _| Disposal Bah foot _TILE COOLING Dishwasher Bath Wainscot TILE Centra YES FaryHood x Doors HOLLOW CORE Other NONE __}Microwave ALL IN LIKE-NEW CONDITION {Condition GOOD __|Washey/Oryet t Additonal featwes (special enegy efficient tems, etc): _246 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH IN. FRONT, 928 SQ. FT. CONCRETE PATIO; 5-TON HEAT PUMP; UPGRADED INTERIOR TRIM; FIREPLACE IN MASTER BEDROOM: PREMIUM SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS Condition of the improvements, depreciation (physical, functional, and external), repairs needed, quality of construction, temodeling/additions, etc.: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION THERE WERE NO FUNCTIONAL, PHYSICAL OR EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES NOTED. THE SUBJECT IMPROVEMENT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1997, AND IS IN LIKE-NEW CONDITION, Freplace(s) #_2 W/B Pao CONCRETE [XJ CORMENTS Aoi ‘Adverse environmental conditions (such as, Dut act imited to, hazardous wastes, Toxke substances, etc.) present in the improvements, on the ste, of inthe _ , immediate vicinity of the subject property.: THERE WERE NO VISIBLY HAZARDOUS MA’ RIALS NOTED AT THE TIME. Oe ae INSPECTION. IF THERE IS ANY BELIEF OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A PHAS: Freddie Mac Form 70 6/93 ‘PAGE 4 OF 2 12 File No. URAR3696] Page #5) UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Fie No. URAR3696 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE voc cceteetesestisccsitnteereeee® § 50,000 |Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate, site value, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW-OF IMPROVEMENTS: square foot calculation and for HUD, VA and FmHA, the estimated remaining Dwelling 2,682 Sa ft. @$ 62.10 =§ 166,552 HEATED [economic ife at the property): REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES 928 Sq.ft @$ __ 3.97 3,684 PATIO CALCULATED WITH DATA FROM MARSHALL & SWIFT COST EVALUATION SERVICE, APPRAISER RECORDS AND INFORMATION GAINED FROM BUILDERS ANO Garage/Carport 246 Sq.ft. @$ __ 17.04 4,192 PORCH COST APPROACH Total Estimated Cost NOW ooo essere S 174,428 DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA. SITE VALUE CALCULATED Less Physical Functional External VIA ABSTRACTION. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE Depreciation 2,686] = 2,686 [WELL & PUMP AND LANDSCAPING. Depreciated Value of Improvements... 171,742 ‘As-is* Value of Site Improvements 2,500 | EST REMAINING ECONOMIC LIFE = 65 YEARS INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH 224,242 | PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FLOOR PLAN ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 4209 REDCOAT OR. 5344 BLUE HERON LN. 5332 SAND CRANE CT. 5326 CAMBERLEA AVE. Address ZEPHYRHILLS, FL ZEPHYRHILLS, FL \ ZEPHYRHILLS, FL ZEPHYRHILLS. Proximity to Subject WITHIN 2.5 MILES WEST. WITHIN 2.5 MILES WEST. WITHIN 3.2 MILES NE Sales Price $ N/A {s 230,000 ls 237,500 Is 227,500 Price/Gross LWving Atea__|$ as 109.37 4] S$. 100,81 S| $ 83.92 | Data and/or PUBLIC RECS. {PUBLIC RECORDS PUBLIC RECORDS PUBLIC RECORDS Verification Source INSPECTION | PR DOC #4031-0248 PR DOC #3893-0750 PR DOC #3877-0544 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION OESCRIPTION 1 +(-}$ Adjust DESCRIPTION 1 £LO)S Adjust, DESCRIPTION t_+{o}S Adjust, Sales of Financing CNV $172,500 | CNV $180,000 : CNV $182,000 ! Concessions NONE KNOWN! NONE KNOWN} NONE KNOWN Date of Sale/Time 10/28/98 : 03/09/98 02/06/98 <_ Location FOX RIDGE FAIRWAY VILL; -15,000 [FAIRWAY VILL; _-15,000 [EPPING FORST ;___-7,500 Leasehokf/Fee Simple —{ Fee SIMPLE [FEE SIMPLE} at SIMPLE _! FEE SIMPLE Site 44,607 SQFT_| 25,072 SQFT_! 9483SQFT_: _ +8,70011,708SQFT_: _+8,200 Vew _]RESIDENTIAL [RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL _' RESIDENTIAL! Design and Appeal RANCH / GD | CONTEMP/ GD ! CONTEMP / GD : CONTEMP/GD Qualty of Constuction_ | GD/BLK-STUCC | GD/BLK-STUCC : GD/BLK-STUCC ! GD/BLK-STUCC ! AQ 1YR/O-1 EFF_ [10 YRS/4 EFF | +3,000/14YRS/SEFF + _+4,000 Condition EXCELLENT |ABOVEAVG. | ABOVE AVG, Above Grade Totat :Bdims' Baths | Total :Béms' Baths ; Total ‘Bars ‘Baths * Frag Room Count Bi 3; 317 2 #1,500| 7: 3: 3° 8:4: 3 ' Bal Gross Living Atea 2,682 Sq.Ft. LA! +11,690 2,356 Saft. _+6,500 aA: 0 Fa basement & Finished | NO BASEMENT |NO BASEMENT : NO BASEMENT ; F24 Rooms Below Grade __| N/A N/A i N/A : N/A 1 Fa Functional Ut AVERAGE AVERAGE : [aveRAGE : —-~—S«diAQVERAGE i} FS Heating/Cooling | CENTRAL H/A [CENTRAL H/A_} CENTRAL H/A Fe creiay Eficiert tems [HEAT PUMP [UNKNOWN TUNKNOWN 2 Fa Garage/Caport NONE 3-CARGAR,: __-$,500 EI Porch, Pato, Deck, PORCH/PATIO | ENTRY : +1,500 }ENTRY/PATIO : +1,000 {OPEN PORCH Fuegtace(s), etc. 2) WB FIREPL_| WB FIREPLACE : WB FIREPLACE : 1) WBFIREPL | +1,500 lence, Pool. ete. | WO/CL_ FENCE _| FENCE : [FENCE __: J ENCINGRNDPOOL ;-8,000 | Kitchen Appliances RIOIHDYOSPIOWIRF_| UNKNOWN. : UNKNOWN ‘ Net Adi. (total) Ci+ &d- is 2,900 + 300 ‘Adjusted Sales Price Ne 1.3 % Na 01 % af Comparable Gross_ 16.6 % 227,100 Gross_17.1 %1$ 237,200 . Comments on Sales Compalison (including the subject property's compatibilty to the neighborhood, ete.): IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS ALL OF THE COMPARABLE PROPERTIES WERE GIVEN WEIGHTED CONSIDERATION. THEY ARE RECENT SALES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT AND ARE SIMILAR IN DESIGN AND APPEAL. ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIFFERENCE IN SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA ARE CALCULATED AT $20 PER SQUARE FOOT. ADJUSTMENTS FOR AGE AND CONDITION ARE COMBINED AND. CALCULATED AT $1,000 PER YEAR OF THE DIFFERENCE INN EFFECTIVE AGE. ADJUSTMENTS ARE WITHIN 15% NET AND. 25% GROSS. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED ADDENOUM FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Oate, Price and Data NO PRIOR NO PRIOR SALE RECORDED | NO PRIOR SALE RECORDED | NO PRIOR SALE RECORDED Souree, for prior sales | SALE RECOR- | WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THIS | WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THIS | WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THIS within year of appraisa | OED W/T 1 YR. APPRAISAL. APPRAISAL. APPRAISAL. Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, of listing of subject property and analysis of any ptiar sales of subject and comparables within one yeat of the date of appraisal: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION. OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN LISTED FOR SALE FOR THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS. INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ooo... 2.-csce cece cece ce ee es ecceetseereeeer ntti ecttey INDICATEO VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH (i Applicable} Estimated Market Rent N/A fMo. x Gross = This appraisal is made D< ‘as is* — [_] subject to the repairs, aterations, inspections or conditions fsted below [J subject to completion per plans & specifications. Conditions of Apprasa: THE SALES DATE IS INCLUDED UNDER CATE OF SALE AS REQUIRED BY FNMA/FHLMC GUIDELINES. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS, Final Reconciliation: THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH REFLECTS THE MOST CURRENT MARKET VALUE AND IS THE MOST ACCURATE INDICATOR OF VALUE. THE COST APPROACH ADDS SUPPORT. THE INCOME APPROACH WAS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE AS RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA ARE NOT SOLD FOR THEIR INCOME VALUE. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the seal property that is the subject uf this report, based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value definition that are stated in the atlached Freddie Mac Form 439TNMA form 1004B (Revised 6/93 . 1 (WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF JAN. 25, 1999 (WHICH IS THE DATR OF '€ DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $5 220,900 $ 220,000 N/A RECONCILIATION __. Sate Name JAMES F. r #RIO004450 _.. Name ROBERT J. EOWA Date Report Sned JAN. 25, 1999 Date Report Signed JANS25, 1999 TIVE State Certification # State Slate Certification # ST CERT GEN REA #RZ0001677 OF State License # ST REG REA #RI0004450 State FL Or State License # i Freddie Mac Form 70. 6/93 * PAGE 2 OF 2 Form UA2 — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — sear pacrb2-ne ee NANT Fie No. URARS606] Page #6 Generai Text Addendum Fie No, _URAR3696 Bonower/them THOMAS WESTER Property Address 4209 REDCOAT DR. City ZEPHYRHILLS: County PASCO State FL Tip Code_33543 Lender _ NATIONS FINANCIAL INC. * SALES COMPARISON APPROACH : CHOICE OF COMPARABLE SALES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FOX RIDGE SUBDIVISION. THE APPRAISER’S RESEARCH SHOWS NO SALES OF SIMILAR HOMES IN THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. THE COMPARABLES USED IN THIS REPORT ARE SIMILAR HOMES IN NEARBY SUBDIVISIONS. EVERY ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO LOCATED SUBDIVISIONS OF SIMILAR MARKET APPEAL, AND THE COMPARABLES CHOSEN WERE THE BEST AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION. IT WAS NECESSARY TO EXCEED TYPICAL GUIDELINES WITH REGARDS TO DATE OF SALE FOR COMPARABLES #2 & #3; THE MARKET IS STEADY AND IN BALANCE, AND THE DATE/TIME OF SALE OF THESE COMPARABLES HAS NO AFFECT ON THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT WAS NECESSARY TO EXCEED TYPICAL GUIDELINES WITH REGARDS TO PROXIMITY OF COMPARABLES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; THIS AREA OF PASCO COUNTY IS NOT FULLY DEVELOPED, AND SUBDIVISIONS OF SIMILAR APPEAL MAY BE SEVERAL MILES FROM EACH OTHER. THE COMPARABLE PROPERTIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE SAME MARKET AREA AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. COMPARABLES #1 & #2 ARE LOCATED IN FAIRWAY VILLAGE, A GOLF COMMUNITY WHICH IS PART OF. SADDLEBROOK GOLF AND TENNIS RESORT 2.5 MILES WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. FAIRWAY VILLAGE HAS COMMON SUBDIVISION AMENITIES SUCH AS CURBS, SIDEWALKS AND STREETUGHTS. APPROPRIATE LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE TO COMPARABLES #1 & #2 BASED ON TYPICAL PREMIUMS PAID BY HOMEBUYERS IN THIS MARKET AREA. COMPARABLE #3 IS LOCATED IN EPPING FOREST AT LAKE BERNADETTE SUBDIVISION NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT. THIS SUBDIVISION HAS SIMILAR SUBDIVISION AMENITIES AS FOUND IN FAIRWAY VILLAGE BUT IS NOT PART OF A RESORT COMMUNITY. A SMALLER LOCATION ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE TO COMPARABLE #3. ADJUSTMENTS TO COMPARABLES #2 & #3 FOR SITE SIZE ARE CALCULATED AT $.25 PER SQUARE FOOT. VE COMPLAINT ADL ESTRATS EX q PaaS a : “er AGE ) of __/2.--——- GE ee ences oF__ Form TADD — ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by a 4a mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMOOE Building Sketch File No. URAR3696] Page #7] BoroweyCient THOMAS WESTER Property Addiess_ 4209 REDCOAT DR. City ZEPHYRHILLS County PASCO Staz FL. Zp Code 33543 Lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Dining Master Area Bedroom Living Room Dining Room Foyer SKETCH CALCULATIONS = A1:84,7xX 2948 A2: 240x680" First Floor Total Living Area AZ: 440x608 Porch Totai Porch Area AA 36Sx115= AS: 84.7x60= _| Patio Total PatioDeck Area Form SKT.BLOSKI — “TOTAL 2000 for Windows? appraisal software by a la mode, inc, — 1-800-ALAMODE ‘ : beech TE ern Ex! SIGE _ pac of __ L Vive COMPLAINT of fo Fie No, URAR3696] Page #8) ’ . Subject Photo Page BarroweyChent_ THOMAS WESTER Property Address_ 4209 REDCOAT OR. City ZEPHYRHILLS Courty PASCO State PL Zip Code_ 33543 lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Subject Front 4209 REDCOAT BR. Sales Price N/A Gross LivingArea = 2,682 Total Rooms 8 Total Bedrooms 3 Total Bathrooms 3 Location FOX RIDGE View RESIDENTIAL She 44,607 SQ FT Quality GD/BLK-STUCC Age 1 YR/O-1 EFF Subject Rear Subject Street cq ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT CEXHIBIT 4. ween |_ TofS 1 : Form PICPIC.SR — ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows” appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE br = TTT Comparable Photo Page [Fie No. URAR3§95: Page #9) BorroweyClent_ THOMAS WESTER Property Adkkess_ 4209 REDCOAT DR. City ZEPHYRHILLS County PASCO State Tip Code_33543 Lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. 1 ’ Form PICPI.CR — ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows® anpralsal software by ala mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE Comparable 1 5344 BLUE HERON UN. Prox. to Subject. «= WITHIN Sale Price 230,000 Gross Living Area © 2,103 Total Rooms 7 Total Sediooms 3 Tota Bathrooms = 2 Location FAIRWAY VILL View RESIDENTIAL Ste 25,072 SQ FT Quality GD/BLK-STUCC Age 10 YRS/4 EFF Comparable 2 5332 SAND CRANE CT. Prox. ta Sudject WITHIN Sale Price 237,500 Gross Living Area © 2,356 Total Rooms 7 Tota Bediooms = 3 Total Bathrooms = 3 Location FAIRWAY VILL View RESIDENTIAL ‘Ske 9,483 SQ FT Quality =1 Age 14 YRS/S EFF Comparable 3 5326 CAMBERLEA AVE. Prox. to Subject WITHIN 2 MILES NE Sale Price 227,500 Gross Living Area 2,711 ‘Total Rooms: 8 Total Bedrooms 4 Total Bathrooms 3 ~ Location EPPING FORST View RESIDENTIAL Ste 11,708 SQ FT Quality GD/BLK-STUCC Age 5 YRS/2 EFF powdisSTRATIVE COMPLAINT exinsir 4_L _ - Zz ~ = PAGE or 2 . i | EANIGIT pact b6or__ File Wo. URAR 36961 Page #10} Plat Map Borrowel/Clet_ THOMAS WESTER Property Addiess_ 4209 REDCOAT DR. County PASCO State FL Tip Code_33543 City ZEPHYRHILLS Lender_NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Form MAP.PLAT — "TOTAL 2000 SPLAINT EXHIBIT ' —— ‘ . PAGE, 7 OF for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 4-B00-ALAMODE ~~ File No, URAR3696] Page #11 Comparable Sales Map BoroweyClent_ THOMAS WESTER Property Address 4209 REOCOAT OR. City ZEPHYRHILLS County PASCO State FL Tip Code 33543 Lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Comparable #2 \ i i 7 5332 SAND CRANE CT. | { i LL. Comparable #3 5326 CAMBERLEA AVE. Comparable #1 $344 BLUE HERON LN, ADMINIST#ATIVE COMPLAINT g EXHISIT #4 3 PAGE CF ae i : i908 Mcinity Corp, Bak Inc - : EXHIBIT Form MAP.Comp — ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE eacelf or__ File No. URAR36S6] Page #1 DEFINITION OF MARKEY VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions tequisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus, Implicit in this defintion is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of ttle from seller to buyes under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are wel informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a ceasonabee time is alowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dolars or in terms of francial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price feptesemts the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale, * Adustments to the comparables must be made for special of creative financing of sales concessions. No adjustments ae necessary for those costs which are normally paid by selets as a result of traiion or lw in a maket area; these costs ate realy ‘identifiable since the seller pays these costs in vistualy all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the Comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a thid partly insttutonal lender that is not abeady involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be cakulated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing of concession but the dollar amourt of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgement, STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraser’s certéication 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 i. The appraiser assumes that the tite is good and marketable and, therefore, wil not render any opinions about the tite. ‘The property is appraised on the basis of being under responsible ‘Ownership, 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is inchided only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of ts size, a The appraiser has examined the avalable food 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 Hazad Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes No guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination, 4, The appraiser will nat give testimony or appear in court because he or she rnade an appraisal of the property in question, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand, ’ 5. ‘The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at is highest and best use and the improvements at their contibutory value, These Separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any othes appraisal and ae iad K they we so used 8. ‘The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse condtions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic Substances, etc.) observed duting the inspection of the subject Property or that he or she became 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 of unapparent conditions of the property or adverse enviionmental conditions (Including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there ae no such conditions and makes no guarantees ot warranties, express or implied, regarding the condtion of the property, The appraiser wil not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist ot for ‘amy enginesting of testing that might be iequied to discover whether such conditions exist, Because the appraiser is not an expert in the fied of environmental hazards, 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 tellable and bejeves them to be true’ and conect. The appraiser does not assume responsibilty for the accuracy of such items that were fumished by other patties, & The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniorm Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conchsion for an appraisa that is subject to satisfactory completion, lepairs, of aterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements wil be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10, ‘The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender/client Specified in the appraisal report can distibute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations, and references to any piofessional appraisal Organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is assocized) to anyone othe: than the borrower; the mortgagee or Bs successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer, consultarts; professional appaisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, oF instrumentally Of the United States or any state ot the District of Columbia; except that the lendeyclient may distrbute the property description section of the report only to datz Collection of reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent. The appraiser's written and—approval_mi be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, |news, sales, or other media. TRATIVE COMPLAINT ee - Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 ! Page 1 of 2 Fane Macform! MB 6:93 Edwards Appraisad Service (727}530-1789 File No. URARSESE] Page #13) APPRAISER’S GERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agiees that: 1. [have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of thvee recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to teflect the market reaction to those dems cf significant variation, If a significant Rem in a comparable property is supelior to, or mote favorable than, the subject property, | have made a negalive adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price o! the comparable and, i a significant item in a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, | have made @ positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. 1 have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal repost. | have not knowingly withheld any significant information trom the appraisal report and | believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and 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 limiting conditions specified in this form. 4. I have no present of prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and { have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with fespect to the participants in the transaction. | did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report ‘on the race, color, ‘eligion, sex, handicap, familat status, or national origin of either the prospective owners of occupants of the subject property o of the present Owners of occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property, 5. {have no present of contemplated future interest in the subject peoperty, and neither my current of future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal ls contingent on the appraised value of the property, 6. | was not iequired to report a predetermined vakie of Grection in value that favors the cause of the client ot any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific resuft, of the occurence of a subsequent event in order to receive ‘my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. 1 did not base the appraisal report on a fequested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, of the need to apprave a specific mortgage loan. 7. | pestormed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniorm Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board 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 nat 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, unless t have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. | have personaly inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the extesios of all properties isted as comparables in the appraisal report. | further ceitity that } have noted any apparent of known adverse conditions in the subject improvements, ‘on the subject ste, or on any ste within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which 1 am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that J had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. 1 personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the teal estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If | reed on signficant professional assistance ftom any individual or individuals in the performance at the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, | have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specitic tasks performed by them in the teconcilation section of this appialsal report. | ceutity that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. | have not authorized anyone to make a change to any tem in the report; therefore, fan unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, will take no responsibility for i. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION: i a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he of she certfies and ages that: | diectly superise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conchsions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 though 7 above, and am taking full responsibilty for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 4209 REDCOAT DR. ZEPHYRHILLS, FL 33543 APPRAISER? Signature: : Name: JAMES F. a #RI0004450 Date Signed: JAN. 25, 1999 . State Certification #: State Cestiication #: ST CERT GEN REA #RZ0001677 4 State License #: ST REG REA #R10004450 or State License #: State: FL State: FL. Expiration Date of Certification ot License: _1 1/30/2000 __— Expiration Date of Certification of License: 11/30/2000 Dod — Dit Not inspect Property, moe nn | AD ANISTRATIVE COMPLAINT cower a! _ — es ne] r pace} Or — 0 oa Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 » Page 2 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6-93 ! Form ACR — ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows? appraisal software by a la mode, inc. —~ t-800-ALAMODE [File No URAR3696] Page #14) MULTI-PURPOSE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM FOR FEDERALLY RELATED TRANSACTIONS Edwards Appraisal Service (727)530-1789 Borrower/Clent_ THOMAS WESTER Property Address 4209 REDCOAT DR. City ZEPHYRHILLS County PASCO Lender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. Zip Code_33543 This Multi-Purpose Supplemental Addendum {ot Faderally Related Transactions was designed to provide the appraiser with a convenient way to comply with the current appraisal standards and requirements of the Federal Depost Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptolier of Curtency (OCC), The Office of Tit Supervision (OTS), the Resolution rust Corporation (ATC), and the Federal Reserve. This Multi-Purpose Supplemental Addendum is tor use with any appraisal. Only those statements which have heen checked by the appraiser apply to the property being appraised. (3 PURPOSE & FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the masket value of the subject propeity as defined herein. The function of the appraisal is to assist the above-named Lendet in evaluating the subject property for lending purposes, This is a Federally related transaction. 6 EXTENT OF APPRAISAL PROCESS {84} The appraisal is based on ‘the information gathered by the appraise from public records, ather identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales within the subject market area. The otiginal source of the comparables is shown in the Oata Source section of the market grid along with the source cf confumation, # available. The original source is presented first. The sources and data are considered reliable. When corflicting information was provided, the source deemed most reliable has been used. Data Deleved to be unreliable was not included in the feport nor used as a basis for the value conclusion. {The Reproduction Cost is based on MARSHALL & SWIFT COST EVALUATION MANUAL supplemerted by the appraiser's knowledge of the local market. DQ Physica depreciation is based on the estimated effective age of the subject property. Functional and/or external depreciation, if present, {s specifically addressed in the appraisal report or other addenda, In estimating the ste value, the appraiser has refed on personal knowledge of the local market. This knowledge is based on prior and/or cuttent analysis of site sales and/or abstraction of site values from sales of improved properties, (4) The subject property is located in an atea of primarily owner-occupied single family sesidences and the income Approach is not considered to be meaningful. For this reason, the Income Approach was not used. {C1 The Estimated Market Rect and Gross Rent Mutipies utiized in the incorne Approach afe based on the appraiser's knowledge of the subject market area. “The rental knowledge is based on prior and/or current tental rate surveys of residential properties. The Gross Rent Multiplier is based on priot and/or current analysis of prices and market tates for residential properties. For income producing properties, actual (ents, vacancies and expenses have been reported and analyzed, They have been used to project future rents, vacancies and expenses. (Q' SUBJECT PROPERTY OFFERING INFORMATION Accordingto INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE APPRAISER the subject property: 52) has. oot heen attered for sale in the past 30 days. LJ is.cuurentty offered for sale for $ : was offered tor sae within the past 30 days for $ Offering information was considered In the final reconciliation of value. {] Offering information was.not considered in the final reconciliation of value. (Offering information was not available. The reasons for unavailability and the steps taken by the appraiser are exptained lates in this addendum. {SALES HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY According to _INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE APPRAISER the subject property: DQ) has not transteied in the past twelve months. bas. transferred in the past twelve months. AS prior sales which have occured in the past twelve months are listed below and reconciled to the appraised value, ether in the body of the report of in the addenda. Sais Price Document # © FEMA FLOOD HAZARD DATA" DG subject property is nok located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. (Z Subject property is ocated in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. FEMA Map/Panet # Map Date ZONE X 120430 0450E oO The community does not participate in ‘the National Flood insurance Program. 04 The community does paiticipate in the National Hood Insurance Prozram. : DX) tis covered by a regular program. . (C) ths covered by an emergency progtar. Fee | EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 2 Form MPA— ‘TOTAL 2000 for Windows" appraisal software by ala mode, inc, — 1-B00-ALAMODE pace If oF__ File No. URAR3696] Page #15) 62 CURRENT SALES CONTRACT (2) The subject propery is curently not under contact The contract and/or escrow instuctions were not available for review. The unavadabilty of the contract is explained later in the addenda section. [] The contract and/or escrow instructions wele reviewed. The following surmasizes the contact: Contract Date Amendment Date Contract Price Seiler The contract Indicated that personal property was oot included in the sale. F] The contract indicated that personal property wias included. it consisted of Tsimaedcommbuyvaues$ (2) Personal property was not inchided in ‘the final vaiue estimate. Personai property was inchided in the final value estimate. (The contract indicated no financing concessions or other incentives. (} The contact indicated the following concessions or incentives: if concessions or incentives exist, the comparables were Checked for simiar concessions and appropriate adjustments were made, if applicable, so that the final value conclusion is in compliance with the Market Value defined herein. { MARKET OVERVIEW Include an explanation of current market conditions and trends, 3-6 months is considered a reasonable masketing period for the subject property basedon _SALES OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S MARKET AREA. 02 ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: (1) The analyses, opinions ‘and conclusions were developed, and this report was prepared, in conformity with the Unitorm Standaids of Professional Appraisal Practice (‘USPAP), except that the Departure Provision of the USPAP does nat apply. (2). Ther compensation is nat contingent upon the reporting of predetermined value or daection in value the favors the cause of the cent, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurence of a subsequent event. (3) This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, ‘ot the approval of a loan. {ADDITIONAL (ENVIRONMENTAL) LIMITING CONDITIONS The value estimated is based on the assumption that the property is not negitively aflected by the existence of hazardous substances ot detimental environmental conditions uniess otherwise stated in this teport. ‘The appraiser is not an expert in the identification of hazardous substances or detimental envivonmental conditions, The appraiser's routine inspection of and inquities about the subject property did nat develop any information that indicated any apparent significant hazardous substances or detrimental ertvsonmental condkions which would affect the property negatively uniess otherwise stated in this report. ft is possible that tests and inspections made by a qualified hazardous substance and environmental expert would reveal the existence of hazardous substances or detiimental environmental condaions on or around the property thal would negatively affect as value. {& ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PHOTOS USED AS EXHIBITS IN THIS REPORT WERE ACQUIRED WITH A DIGITAL CAMERA; THESE PHOTOS WERE NOT ENHANCED OR ALTERED BEFORE PRINTING, Appraiser’s Signature Elective Date JAN. 25, 1999 Date Prepared JAN. 25, 1999 Appraiser’s Name (print) rot REA #RI0004450 Phone # _ (727) 530 1789 state FL LL) License (1) Certification # ST REG REA #RI 0004450 Taxi # { GO-SIGNING APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION 4) The co-signing appraise has personally inspected the subject property, both inside and out, and has made an exterior inspection of all comparable sales listed in the teport. The report was prepared by the appraiser under direct supervision ot the co-signing appraiser. The co-Signing appraiser accepts responsibilty for the contents of the report including the value conclusions and the Emiting conditions, and confirms that the certifications apply fully to the co-signing appraiser. The co-signing apptaiser bas not personally inspected the interior of the subject property and: ~ has not inspected the exterior of the subject property and all comparable sales listed in the report. "gs inspected the exterior ofthe subject property and all comparable sales fisted in the report. nr . [J The report was prepared by the appraiser under direct supervision of the co-signing appraiser. The co-signing appraise: accepts responsibilty for the! | ES TR, contents of the report, including the value conclusions and the limiting conditions, and confirms that the certifications apply fully tothe co-signing appraiser with the exception af the certification regarding physical inspections. The above describes the level of inspection performed by the 8 '3ET ff co-signing appraiser. i “The co- signing appraiser's level of inspection, imvolernet in the appraisal process and certicalion are coveted elsewhere in the addenda sseton E. oS Fopraeers Sinate Leffectve Date JAN. 25, 1999 Dae Prepared _JAN. 25, 1999 Co-Signing Appraiser's Name (print) OBERT J. EDWARDS Phone #__ (727) 530 1789 y State FL (C1 License 1B Certicaion # ST.CERTGENREA#RZ 0001677 Taxi # f CONSIT 6 ee pace] 20F__ , Page 2of2 Form MPA —~ TOTAL 2000 for Windows! appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 4-B00-ALAMODE Aseuel Page # 16) File No. URAR3696 Property Address 4209 REDCOAT DR. City, ZEPHYRHILLS: County PASCO State FL Tig Code_ 33543 [es THOMAS WESTER ender NATIONS FINANCIAL, INC. [Lender NATIONS FINAN APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions: BQ Complete Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, of an estimate of value, performed without invoking the Departure Provision. [] Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting trom invoking the Departure Provision. This Report is one of the follawing types: Self Contained Report A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete of limited appraisal performed under Standard 1. Bq Summary Report ‘A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or limited appraisal pertormed under Standard 1. CO Reswicted Report ‘A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1. Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-related Issues requiring disclosure: NO DEPARTURES FROM STANDARDS RULES 1-2, 1-3 AND 1-4 OR ANY USPAP-RELATED. ISSUES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE USED AS EXHIBITS IN THIS REPORT, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE NOT ENHANCED OR ALTERED BY THE APPRAISER. DIGITAL SIGNATURES WITH PASSWORD PROTECTION WERE USED IN THIS REPORT. THESE SIGNATURES CONFORM WITH GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE APPRAISALS STANDARDS BOARD. : Edwards Apiraisal Service (727}530-1789 G Form 101 — ‘TOTAL 2000 far Window's* appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE 7 pac 7? of __ REED APPRAISAL COMPANY REAL PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 100 SOUTH KENTUCKY AVENUE #230 * P.O. BOX 1643 © LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33802-1645 OFFICE: (863) 688-6718 * FAX: (863) 688-5993 * EMAIL: REEDAPPRAISAL@AOL.COM REPORT OF APPRAISAL REVIEW CERI Ye Ate eee ee TO: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Senior Attorney, Real Estate Department of Business & Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 FROM: Stanley B. Reed, MAI DATE: December 5, 2001 SUBJECT: DBPR v. Robert J. Edwards DBPR Case No. 99-83083, 99-83084 Review of Appraisal — 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida Prepared by James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards Report dated January 25, 1999 Value Conclusion - $220,000 In Client: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire, Senior Attomey, Real Estate, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, State of Florida. Intended Users: Client and parties related to the cited case. Intended Use of Opinions & Conclusions: Evaluation of Complaint against Edwards Appraisal Services (James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards) concerning appraisal of 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida, submitted by Diane Samuels, Alternative Mortgage Funding. Purpose of Assignment: Review the subject appraisal report for violations of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP, 1996 edition; review of 2000 edition for prior changes). Subject of Appraisal Review: Appraisal report prepared by James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards of property at 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida, report dated January 25, 1999, value conclusion of $220,000. Date of Review: December 5, 2001 Property Interest Appraised: Fee simple Date of Work & Date of Opinion of Work Under Review: January 25, 1999 Appraisers Who Completed Work Under Review: ApER EBAY Role Bivards EXHIBIT # PAGE _ OF (3 Scope of Review Work: As requested by the client. consists of- > examination of appraisal report and material related to the case as provided oy the client > drive-by field inspection of subject property and comparable sales used in Edwards appraisal report and in other appraisal or review reports related to the case as provided by the client + provide opinion as to violations of USPAP Opinion as to Completeness of Material Under Review: Material is complete. Opinion as to Adequacy & Relevance of Data and Propriety of Adjustments to Data: Considered to be inadequate. irrelevant and improper. as follows: > Edwards’ comparable sales are located in Saddlebrook, an excellent quality golf & tennis resort, and in Lake Bernadette, a good quality goif course development. These neighborhoods or market areas are totally different from Country Crossings & Fox Ridge, the subject location, which has no common area elements or amenities. % Edwards’ comparable sales have prices of $227,500 to $230,000. Two of these properties have direct view of golf course and/or water, one is located on a golf course. These features are not identified in Edwards’ report. No adjustments are made for ‘view’. Adjustments for ‘location’ of -$15,000 are made for Saddlebrook and -$7,500 for Lake Bemadette. These adjustments are considered inadequate and improper. Vv From the material provided for this review, five comparable sales in the subject neighborhood range in price from $129,900 to $169,900. Four of these sales occurred between 9/98 and 12/98; however, Edwards states in the appraisal report that “the appraiser’s research shows no sales of similar homes in this subdivision in the past two years”. His statement that “the comparables chosen were the best available at the time of inspection” is not credible. Vv Edwards’ statement that “the comparable properties are considered to be in the same market area” indicates that he does not understand the difference between or importance of geographic market area (physical proximity) and economic market area (demographics, property price levels, principle of substitution, etc.). The sales of the properties in Saddlebrook and Lake Bernadette are irrelevant to a proper valuation of the subject property at 4209 Redcoat Drive. Vv See photograph exhibits. ~ Opinion as to the Appropriateness of Appraisal Methods & Techniques: Considered to be appropriate. Edwards used the Sales Comparison Approach and Cost Approach to value the 1 = year- old residence property. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHIBIT #4 ¢ REED APPRAISAL COMPANY nee Opinion as to Whether the Analyses, Opinions & Conclusions are Appropriate & Reasonable: Considered to be inappropriate and not reasonable. as follows: Vv Na dwards failed to recognize the ‘Iccation’ or market area difference between the subject neighborhood and the golf course development locations of his comparable sales. In addition, he failed to account for the ‘view’ difference for the two sales over looking the Saddlebrook golf course and water body and the direct golf course frontage of the sale in Lake Bernadette. In fact, Edwards made a ~ adjustment to two of these sales for ‘site’ value. Edwards’ analysis and conclusions are considered to be inappropriate and unreasonable on these points. Edwards values the subject site at $50,000. His explanation in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, illustrates extracting the land contribution from an improved sale in the subject neighborhood (4110 Maiden Run Lane, $140,000, 11/4/98). He also states that the subject site was purchased 6/97 for $22,000. Concerns — (1) he deducts the “undepreciated value of the improvement” from the sale price, which would distort the land value allocation unless the improvements were ‘new’ and/or had no form of depreciation or obsolescence, (2) which is more reliable, this extraction, or the actual purchase of the subject site 1% years prior to the appraisal, when the conclusion at $50,000 is over twice the recent price paid, and (3) why wasn't the recent Maiden Run Lane sale at $140,000 used in the sales comparison approach. Edwards makes the statement in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, that “based on information gained from Marshall & Swift data, the subject property improvement alone is valued at $171,742.00". This statement indicates that Edwards does not properly understand the difference between cost and value. It appears that Edwards may have been overly influenced by his ‘cost’ number, possibly overstated by the high land value estimate, which fit in with the sales prices in the substantially superior Saddlebrook and Lake Bernadette neighborhoods. The important component of the cost approach overlooked is external or locational obsolescence. This error would not have occurred if Edwards had properly considered the sales in the subject neighborhood. Also in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, Edwards makes reference to “USPAP guidelines” for adjustments. USPAP does not include such guidelines. Even with such guidelines as imposed by FNMA, or other lender-related entities, it is not reasonable and appropriate for an appraiser to violate common sense in the selection of comparable sales or to fail to recognize the need for or the appropriate amount of adjustments necessary to produce a reliable and credible appraisal. This is an additional indication that Edwards’ analysis and conclusions are not reasonable and appropriate. Edwards’ apparent disregard for the property sales in the immediate subject neighborhood and the conclusion drawn from the sales data presented indicates incompetence, negligence or fraud. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Conclusions: Violation of USPAP, as follows: SR Rule 1-1 (b) & (c) [development of appraisal with substantial error that significantly affects the appraisal and series of errors that cause the appraisal to be misleading; related to selection of and adjustment of comparable sales] SR Rule 2-1 (a) & (b) [appraisal report set forth ina misleading manner, content enabling users to understand properly; related to issue of comparable sales and adjustments] Certificate of Review Appraiser: I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: > the facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct. > the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. > Lhave no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. > [have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. > my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. > my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I did not personally inspect the subject property of the work under review (exterior only, from street). > no one provided significant real or personal property appraisal or appraisal review assistance to the person signing this certification. Vv Vv Stanley B. Reed, MAL State-Certified General Appraiser Certificate # 0000071 _BlSs/2e]/ Date Signed . Note: This report contains a total of 13 pages. Attachments: Photographs to assist the user of this review report in visualizing the subject property and comparable sales, including the entrances to the neighborhoods of the subject property and the comparable sales and the views from the rear of the comparable sales used by Edwards. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY The photographs of the entrances to the neighborhoods and the views from the rear of the comparable sales used by Edwards demonstrate the significant differences between the subject location and market area and those of the comparable sales used by Edwards. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY REED APPRAISAL COMPANY REAL PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 100 SOUTH KENTUCKY AVENUE #230 ® P.O. BOX 1645 * LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33802-1645 OFFICE: (863) 688-6713 * FAX: (863) 688-5993 * EMAIL: REEDAPPRAISAL@AOL.COM REPORT OF APPRAISAL REVIEW Jo: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Senior Attorney, Real Estate Department of Business & Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 FROM: Stanley B. Reed, MAI DATE: December 5, 2001 SUBJECT: DBPR v. Robert J. Edwards DBPR Case No. 99-83083, 99-83084 Review of Appraisal - 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida Prepared by James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards Report dated January 25, 1999 Value Conclusion - $220,000 av anal Client: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Real Estate, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, State of Florida. Intended Users: Client and parties related to the cited case. Intended Use of Opinions & Conclusions: Evaluation of Complaint against Edwards Appraisal Services (James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards) concerning appraisal of 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida, submitted by Diane Samuels, Alternative Mortgage Funding. Purpose of Assignment: Review the subject appraisal report for violations of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP, 1996 edition; review of 2000 edition for prior changes). Subject of Appraisal Review: Appraisal report prepared by James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards of property at 4209 Redcoat Drive, Zephyrhills, Florida, report dated January 25, 1999, value conclusion of $220,000. Date of Review: December 5, 2001 Property Interest Appraised: Fee simple Date of Work & Date of Opinion of Work Under Review: January 25, 1999 Appraisers Who Completed Work Under Review: James F. Edwards & Robert J. Edwards Scope of Review Work: As requested by the client, consists of — 7 examination of appraisal report and material related to the case as provided by the client ~ drive-by field inspection of subject property and comparable sales used in Edwards appraisal report and in other appraisal or review reports related to the case as provided by the client » provide opinion as to violations of USPAP Opinion as to Completeness of Material Under Review: Material is complete. Opinion as to Adequacy & Relevance of Data and Propriety of Adjustments to Data: Considered to be inadequate, irrelevant and improper, as follows: Edwards’ comparable sales are located in Saddlebrook. an excellent quality golf & tennis resort, and in Lake Bernadette, a good quality golf course development. These neighborhoods or market areas are totally different from Country Crossings & Fox Ridge, the subject location, which has no common area elements or amenities. WV Edwards’ comparable sales have prices of $227,500 to $230,000. Two of these properties have direct view of golf course and/or water, one is located on a golf course, These features are not identified in Edwards’ report. No adjustments are made for ‘view’. Adjustments for ‘location’ of -$15,000 are made for Saddlebrook and -$7,500 for Lake Bernadette. These adjustments are considered inadequate and improper. Vv » From the material provided for this review, five comparable sales in the subject neighborhood range in price from $129,900 to $169,900. Four of these sales occurred between 9/98 and 12/98; however, Edwards states in the appraisal report that “the appraiser’s research shows no sales of similar homes in this subdivision in the past two years’. His statement that “the comparables chosen were the best available at the time of inspection” is not credible. Edwards’ statement that “the comparable properties are considered to be in the same market area” indicates that he does not understand the difference between or importance of geographic market area (physical proximity) and economic market area (demographics, property price levels, principle of substitution, etc.). Vv » The sales of the properties in Saddlebrook and Lake Bernadette are irrelevant to a proper valuation of the subject property at 4209 Redcoat Drive. See photograph exhibits. Opinion as to the Appropriateness of Appraisal Methods & Techniques: Considered to be appropriate. Edwards used the Sales Comparison Approach and Cost Approach to value the 1 + year- old residence property. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Opiniog as fo Whether the Analyses, Opinions & Conclusions are Appropriate & Reasonable: Considefed fo be inappropriate and not reasonable, as follows: - Vv Vv Edwards failed to recognize the ‘Igcation’ or market area difference between the subject neighborhood and the golf course development locations of his comparable sales. In addition, he failed to account for the ‘view? difference for the two sales over looking the Saddlebrook golf course and water body and the direct golf course frontage of the sale in Lake Bemadette. In fact, Edwards made a + adjustment to two of these sales for ‘site’ value. Edwards’ analysis and conclusions are considered to be inappropriate and unreasonable on these points. Edwards values the subject site at $50,000. His explanation in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, illustrates extracting the land contribution from an improved sale in the subject neighborhood (4110 Maiden Run Lane, $140,000, 11/4/98). He also states that the subject site was purchased 6/97 for $22,000. Concerns ~ (1) he deducts the “undepreciated value of the improvement” from the sale price, which would distort the land value allocation unless the improvements were ‘new’ and/or had no form of depreciation or obsolescence, (2) which is more reliable, this extraction, or the actual purchase of the subject site 1% years prior to the appraisal, when the conclusion at $50,000 is over twice the recent price paid, and (3) why wasn’t the recent Maiden Run Lane sale at $140,000 used in the sales comparison approach. ; Edwards makes the statement in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, that “based on information gained from Marshall & Swift data, the subject property improvement alone is valued at $171,742.00". This statement indicates that Edwards does not properly understand the difference between cost and value. It appears that Edwards may have been overly influenced by his ‘cost’ number, possibly overstated by the high land value estimate, which fit in with the sales prices in the substantially superior Saddlebrook and Lake Bernadette neighborhoods. The important component of the cost approach overlooked is external or locational obsolescence. This error would not have occurred if Edwards had properly considered the sales in the subject neighborhood. ‘Also in the document “Our Appraisal Report” submitted in response to the Complaint, Edwards makes reference to “USPAP guidelines” for adjustments. USPAP does not include such guidelines. Even with such guidelines as imposed by FNMA, or other lender-related entities, it is not reasonable and appropriate for an appraiser to violate common sense in the selection of comparable sales or to fail to recognize the need for or the appropriate amount of adjustments necessary to produce a reliable and credible appraisal. This is an additional indication that Edwards’ analysis and conclusions are not reasonable and appropriate. Edwards’ apparent disregard for the property sales in the immediate subject neighborhood and the conclusion drawn from the sales data presented indicates incompetence, negligence or fraud. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Conclusious: Violation of USPAP, as follows: SR Rule {-1 (b) & (c) [development of appraisal with substantial error that significantly affects the appraisal and series of errors that cause the appraisal to be misleading; related to selection of and adjustment of comparable sales] SR Rule 2-1 (a) & (b) [appraisal report set forth in a misleading manner, content enabling users to understand properly; related to issue of comparable sales and adjustments] Certificate of Review Appraiser: I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: » the facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct. » the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. ~ Ihave no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. ~ Ihave no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 7 my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. » my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. » my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. ~ {did not personally inspect the subject property of the work under review (exterior only, from street). » no one provided significant real or personal property appraisal or appraisal review assistance to the person signing this certification. Se Llta/ Stanley B. Reed, MV State-Certified General Appraiser Certificate # 0000071 /2{35/2e2/ Date Signed . Note: This report contains a total of 13 pages. Attachments: Photographs to assist the user of this review report in visualizing the subject property and comparable sales, including the entrances to the neighborhoods of the subject property and the comparable sales and the views from the rear of the comparable sales used by Edwards. REED APPRAISAL COMPANY The photographs of the entrances to the neighborhoods and the views from the rear of the comparable sales used by Edwards demonstrate the significant differences between the subject location and market area and those of the comparable sales used by Edwards. hte s West Entrance to Subject Neighborhood REED APPRAISAL COMPANY bject Neighborhoo East Entrance to Su zy y — 4209 Redcoat Drive © $270,000 Valuation 1/99 Subject Propert 6 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY rE nth Entrance to Ne Subject Property — 4209 Redcoat Drive ee AR ny ‘ehborhood of Edw ards’ Comparable Sales 1 & 2 REED APPRAISAL COMP: N parable Sale 1 — 5344 Blue Heron Lane REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Mer so ha S| ete e Bee Edwards’ Com ee ee SoS parable Sale 2 — 5332 Sand Crane Ct - $237,500 Sale 3/98 {sale is left unit of two unit building] View from Rear of Edwards’ Comparable Sale 2 - 5332 Sand Crane Ct REED APPRAISAL COMPANY PIG cna Entrance to Neighborhood of Ed: wards” Comparable Sale 3 10 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY 11 " “365 eS subject neighborhood) Appraisal, Sale 4 in Review Appraisal REED APPRAISAL COMPANY 4110 Meadow Run Lane (in subject neighborhood) $144,000 Sale 11/98; Sale 2 in Relocation Appraisal aa tn By = pas eees 4205 Chase Drive (in subject neighborhood) $137,900 Sale 12/98; Sale 3 in Relocation Appraisal 12 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Se RAD RSA A A 3001 Foxwood Bivd (in subject neighborhood) $129,900 Sale 9/98; Sale 5 in Review Appraisal 4150 Foxwood Blvd (in subject neighborhood) $129,900 Sale 11/98; Sale 6 in Review Appraisal review-edwards 13 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY East Entrance to Subject Neighborhood es, % % ap SOS AES ot : tty — 4209 Redcoat Drive - Aas tsi Subject Prope EXHIE at R EXHIBIT #OAL.. REED. APPRAISAL COMPANY PAGE Lo Subject Property - 4209 Redcoat Drive ots} a Pare. xk SPO Be: Entrance to Neighborhood of parable Sales 1 & 2 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY Edwards’ Comparable Sale | — 5344 Blue Heron Lane - $230,000 Sale 10/98 ble Sale 1 — 5344 Blue Heron Lane oa View from Rear of Edwards’ Comparal Auld ii biveci ne ie Qe eee ee ted EXHIBIT #22 REED APPRAISAL COMPANY PAGE BO OOF Edwards’ Comparable Sale 2 - 5332 Sand Crane Ct - $237,500 Sale 3/98 [sale is left unit of two unit building hal View from Rear of Edwards’ Comparable Sale 2 — 5332 Sand Crane Ct SASL SENT ADMRIS ER n 2 EXHIEIT hee Seen PAGE a, REED APPRAISAL COMPANY ye NS Entrance to Neighborhood of Edwards’ Comparable Sale 3 eee + Edwards’ Comparable Sale 3 - 5326 Camberlea - $227,500 Sale 2/98 ADMINIS HRATIVE EXHIBIT 4 PAGE __ af REED APPRAISAL COMPANY 4546 Foxwood Blvd (in subject neighborhood) $169,900 Sale 3/99; Sale 1 in Relocation Appraisal, Sale 4 in Review Appraisal Ga Bia ADAHNISTRAT 11 _. EXHIBIT #. . ee REED APPRAISAL COMPANY oe PAGE 4110 Meadow Run Lane (in subject neighborhood) $144,000 Sale 11/98; Sale 2 in Relocation Appraisal * amt "4205 Chase Drive (in subject neighborhood) $137,900 Sale 12/98; Sale 3 in Relocation Appraisal ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT exHiBiT ¢ A222 PAGE _ 1s £57 OF See + REED APPRAISAL COMPANY 3001 Foxwood Blvd (in subject neighborhood) $129,900 Sale 9/98; Sale 5 in Review Appraisal 4150 Foxwood Blvd (in ‘subject neighborhood) review-edwards $129,900 Sale 11/98; Sale 6 in Review Appraisal ADMIN STRaAt RAT - COMPLAINT REED APPRAISAL COMPANY EXHIBIT ge FASE 7 > op - - ee

Docket for Case No: 04-001975