The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jared A. White T/A Jerry White Realty was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0187087 pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with an address of 231 Skiff Pt. 7, Clearwater, Florida 34630. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY The matters at issue began with Respondent's retention as a real estate broker to bid at a foreclosure auction for a beachfront house and lot at 235 Howard Drive in Belleair Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was hired to submit the bid on behalf of Dr. Moshe Kedan and/or his wife, Ella Kedan. Prior to the auction on August 17, 1995, Respondent had no contact with the Kedans. Kathy MacKinnon of Viewpoint International Realty in Clearwater was Respondent’s point of contact with the Kedans. It was Ms. MacKinnon who obtained Respondent's services to bid on behalf of the Kedans, and Ms. MacKinnon who negotiated with Dr. Kedan as to the financial arrangements for both the bid and any ensuing commissions for Respondent. Neither Ms. MacKinnon nor Dr. Kedan was called as a witness in this case. Respondent attended the foreclosure auction and tendered the winning bid on the property. Respondent bid in his own name. Respondent testified that he had bid at several similar sales in the past, and his practice was to bid in the name of the person who would hold title to the property. Respondent did not follow his usual practice here because Ms. MacKinnon failed to instruct him as to whether the property would be titled in the name of Dr. Kedan, Mrs. Kedan, or one of their corporations. Ms. MacKinnon told Respondent she would know on August 18 how the property was to be titled. Respondent's testimony regarding the initial titling of the property is supported by a handwritten note faxed by Ms. MacKinnon to Dr. Kedan on August 17, shortly after the auction. Ms. MacKinnon's note provides instructions regarding payment of the purchase price, indicating that the money must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than 10:30 a.m. on the morning of August 18. The note specifically asks, "Also, whose name do you want the house in?" Respondent testified that on August 18, he went to Atlanta on business, with the understanding that Ms. MacKinnon would handle the payments to the Clerk of the Court and the titling of the property on that date. This testimony is consistent with the handwritten note in which Ms. MacKinnon indicates that she will take the Kedans' checks to the court. The record evidence shows that the payments were made to the Clerk of the Court and that title insurance on the property was timely issued. However, the title and the title insurance policy listed Respondent as owner of the property. Respondent was unaware the property had been titled in his name until he received the certificate of title in the mail, approximately two weeks after the auction. Upon receiving the incorrect certificate of title, he went to the title company and signed a quitclaim deed, effective August 17, 1995, in favor of Ella Kedan. Respondent testified that he had learned from Ms. MacKinnon that the property would be titled in Ella Kedan’s name at sometime during the two-week period after the auction. The quitclaim deed was not notarized until October 9, 1995, and was not recorded until October 10, 1995. However, the face of the deed states that it was made on August 17, 1995. It is plain that the signature line of the notary statement on the quitclaim deed has been altered from August 17, 1995 to October 9, 1995. Respondent had no knowledge of how the quitclaim deed came to be altered. Respondent also had no clear recollection as to why he dated the quitclaim deed August 17, 1995, in light of his testimony that he signed it approximately two weeks after that date. A reasonable inference is that Respondent so dated the quitclaim deed to clarify that Mrs. Kedan's ownership of the property commenced on August 17, the date on which Respondent submitted the winning bid. Respondent also had no knowledge of why the title company failed to record the quitclaim deed at the time he signed it. He testified that on or about October 9, 1995, he checked the Pinellas County computer tax records and discovered that he was still the owner of record. At that time, he returned to the title company to make sure the quitclaim deed was recorded the next day. Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence regarding the events surrounding the titling of the property. Respondent's uncontradicted testimony is credible, consistent with the documentary evidence, and thus credited as an accurate and truthful statement of the events in question. THE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS Shortly after the auction, Respondent began discussing with Dr. Kedan the possibility of Respondent’s performing repairs on the just-purchased property. Because Dr. Kedan did not testify in this proceeding, findings as to the substance of the negotiations between Respondent and Dr. Kedan must be based on the testimony of Respondent, to the extent that testimony is credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. Respondent testified that Ms. MacKinnon approached him after the auction and asked him if he would be interested in fixing up the house for the Kedans. Respondent testified that he was agreeable to contracting for the work because his carpenter was between jobs and could use the money. Respondent thus met with Dr. Kedan at the doctor’s office to discuss the repairs. Dr. Kedan explained to Respondent that his ultimate plan was to demolish the existing house on the property and to build a more elaborate residence. Dr. Kedan wanted to rent out the house for five years before tearing it down, and wanted Respondent to affect such repairs as would make the house rentable for that five-year period. Respondent testified that Dr. Kedan expressly told him he did not want to spend a lot of money on the repairs. Respondent quoted Dr. Kedan a price of $20,000.00, which was the price it would take to pay for the repairs, with no profit built in for Respondent. Respondent testified that he sought no profit on this job. He had made a substantial commission on the purchase of the property, and anticipated doing business with Dr. Kedan in the future, and thus agreed to perform this particular job more or less as a “favor” to Dr. Kedan. After this meeting with Dr. Kedan, Respondent walked through the house with Irene Eastwood, the Kedans’ property manager. Ms. Eastwood testified that she and Respondent went from room to room, and she made notes on what should be done, with Respondent either concurring or disagreeing. Ms. Eastwood typed the notes into the form of a contract and presented it to Respondent the next day. On September 21, 1995, Respondent signed the contract as drafted by Ms. Eastwood. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor in the negotiations preceding the contract. Respondent testified that he never told Dr. Kedan that he was a contractor, and that he affirmatively told Ms. Eastwood that he was not a contractor. Ms. Eastwood testified that she assumed Respondent was a licensed contractor because Dr. Kedan would not have hired a nonlicensed person to perform the contracted work. She denied that Respondent ever told her that he was not a licensed contractor. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent to the extent it is accepted that Respondent never expressly represented himself as a licensed contractor to either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood. However, the weight of the evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that he expressly told either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s subcontractors commenced work immediately upon the signing of the contract. Ms. Eastwood was in charge of working with Respondent to remodel the house, and she visited the site every day, often two or three times. She only saw Respondent on the site once during the last week of September, and not at all during the month of October. She did observe painters and a maintenance man regularly at work on the property during this period. Respondent concurred that he was seldom on the property, but testified that this was pursuant to his agreement with Dr. Kedan that he would generally oversee the work on the property. Respondent testified that he was on the property as often as he felt necessary to perform his oversight duties. Ms. Eastwood testified as to her general dissatisfaction with the quality of the work that was being performed on the property and the qualifications of those performing the work. She conveyed those concerns to the Kedans. Respondent testified that he did not initially obtain any permits to perform the work on the house, believing that permits would not be necessary for the job. On or about October 11, 1995, officials from the City of Belleair Beach shut down Respondent’s job on the Kedans’ property for lack of a construction permit. Respondent made inquiries with the City as to how to obtain the needed permit. City officials told Respondent that a permit could be granted to either a licensed contractor, or to the owner of the property if such property is not for sale or lease. Respondent checked the City’s records and discovered that, despite the fact that he had signed a quitclaim deed on August 17, he was still shown as the owner of the property. Respondent then proceeded to sign a permit application as the homeowner, and obtained a construction permit on October 11, 1995. Respondent testified that because the City’s records showed him as the record owner of the property, he committed no fraud in obtaining a construction permit as the homeowner. This testimony cannot be credited. Whatever the City’s records showed on October 11, 1995, Respondent well knew he was not the true owner of this property. Respondent cannot be credited both with having taken good faith steps to correct the mistaken titling of the property and with later obtaining in good faith a construction permit as the record owner of the property. Respondent testified that in obtaining the construction permit under false pretenses, his main concern was to keep the job going and to finish it in a timely fashion. He testified that there was no financial advantage to him in having the property in his name: he was making no profit on the job, and actually lost money because he had to pay for another title policy in the name of the Kedans. While there may have been no immediate financial advantage to Respondent, he was clearly motivated by the prospect of future profits in projects with Dr. Kedan. The City’s closing down this project jeopardized Respondent’s anticipated continuing relationship with Dr. Kedan, and Respondent took the improper step of obtaining a construction permit as the property owner to maintain that relationship. The Kedans ultimately dismissed Respondent from the job. A claim of lien was filed against the property by the painter hired by Respondent, and the cabinet maker sent the Kedans a lawyer’s letter threatening to file a claim of lien. Mrs. Kedan testified that she paid off both the painter and the cabinetmaker in full. Ms. Eastwood estimated that the Kedans ultimately had to pay an additional $20,000 to $50,000 to complete the repairs to the house, some of which included correctional actions for the improper repairs performed by Respondent’s workers. ALLEGED PRIOR DISCIPLINE Respondent has been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In that prior proceeding, the Division of Real Estate's Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent was guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1995, Respondent and the Division of Real Estate entered into a Stipulation disposing of the Administrative Complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000, and be subject to one year of probation, during which he would complete 30 hours of post-license education for brokers. The Stipulation expressly stated that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation on November 14, 1995. Respondent's broker license was suspended by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 24, 1996. The cause for this suspension was Respondent's failure timely to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the Stipulation. Respondent paid the fine on February 19, 1996, and late renewed his license on April 24, 1997. In the instant proceeding, Respondent testified that by entering into the Stipulation, he had no intention of pleading guilty to any of the allegations, and that he would never have entered into the Stipulation had he known it would be construed in any way as a guilty plea.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts One and Three of the administrative complaint, and finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent’s real estate license for a period of three years and fining Respondent a sum of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 John Bozmoski, Jr., Esquire 600 Bypass Drive, Suite 215 Clearwater, Florida 34624-5075 Jared White White Realty 231 Skiff Point, Suite Seven Clearwater, Florida 34630 Henry M. Solares Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Respondent filed application for registration as a real estate salesman on June 24, 1974 and was issued a license pursuant to this application on October 25, 1974. At the time of the filing of the application and subsequent thereto, Respondent was employed by Florida Savings and Loan Services, Inc. and its predecessor company, Florida Informanagement Services, Inc. in the capacity of a real estate appraiser and head of the appraisal department for said company. On July 26, 1975 Respondent performed appraisal services on behalf of Central Development, Inc. to ascertain the fair market rental appraisal of 5 Pizza Huts. For this service his company, then Florida Informanagement Services, Inc. billed Central Development, Inc. $3,000. Respondent performed other appraisals during the period in question which were not specifically delineated at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard M. Wojnar, is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0372634. The Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Michigan from approximately 1975 until his license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. In the fall of 1980, a Complaint was filed in Michigan against the Respondent. The Respondent appeared at a hearing in Michigan, after which this case was dismissed. On or about February 3, 1981, the Department of Licensing and Regulation in Michigan contacted the Respondent by letter, notifying him of the Department's involvement with the complaint against him. This letter was received by the Respondent. By letter dated February 9, 1981, to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation, the Respondent replied to the February 3, 1981 letter. On or about May 12, 1981, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a formal Complaint against the Respondent, and served it on him on approximately May 13, 1981. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent received service of this Complaint, but based upon the earlier correspondence between the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Respondent, the Respondent was on notice of a proceeding pending against him. On May 22, 1981, the Respondent completed his application for licensure in Florida. Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel in Michigan, the Respondent attended hearings and proceedings in the Michigan action against his real estate license. The Respondent's Michigan license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. When the Respondent applied for his Florida license, he failed to disclose that a proceeding was pending against his license in Michigan, and he answered Question 15a on the Florida application in the negative. This question asks if any proceeding is pending in any state affecting any license to practice a regulated profession. The Respondent contends that the revocation of his license by the Michigan authorities is invalid, and that legal proceedings are pending in Michigan to obtain restoration of his license there. He also contends that he was not aware of any proceeding pending against him when he answered Question 15a on the Florida application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0372642 held by Leonard M. Wojnar be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 21st day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Steven Warm, Esquire 101 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Defendants breached an oral contract with their employer. Whether the Defendants, both of whom were registered salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., conducted themselves in such a manner that the sellers of a certain parcel of real estate suffered a loss of a substantial profit from their property. Whether the licenses of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Defendants Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, husband and wife, were registered real estate salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, with offices located at 2341 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Defendants were employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, under an oral employment agreement whereby real estate transactions entered into by them or either of them as registered salesmen or personally or jointly for their own account were to be handled through said broker's office; that all details of any such real estate transaction were to be available in open files in said office; that they were to identify themselves as salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc. On or about December 20, 1973, Defendant Victor Hugo Hernandez individually and for the benefit of himself and his wife jointly contracted to buy the residence at 526 E. 44th Street, Hialeah, Florida, from Frank J. Crawford, Jr., and Alexis Jo Crawford, his wife, for the sum of approximately $27,000. The transaction closed on or about January 3, 1974, and conveyance by warranty deed was made by the Crawford to Paul G. Block, Trustee. The property was soon resold. The Real Estate Commission contends: That the Defendants represented themselves as individuals desiring to purchase the home from the Crawfords for their son; That the Defendants had no intention of purchasing said property for the son and in fact, soon thereafter resold the property at a substantial profit to themselves; The Defendants through their misrepresentation defrauded the Crawfords of a substantial profit; They did not inform the Crawfords that they were in fact salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants violated the oral agreement they had with the employer, Rivas Realty, Inc., when they failed to process the purchase and the resale of the Crawford property through the Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants are guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; That the registrations of Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez should be suspended or revoked. The Defendants contend: That at the time of the sale and the purchase of the home from the Crawfords they had secured permission from the Rivas Realty, Inc. to purchase a home for their son; That the employer, Mr. Anthony Rivas, had given permission to the Defendants, as long time and effective salesmen, to purchase the property inasmuch as it was for the benefit of the son; That the son did not want the property after it was bought and therefore the property was immediately placed for sale; That the Defendants shortly after the purchase and sale of the property in question did in fact buy for their son a home in another location; That they in no way planned to trick the Crawfords into the sale of their home by not representing themselves as real estate agents; That in fact they did so represent themselves as real estate agents and placed the sign of Rivas Realty, Inc. in front of the Crawford home before the resale; That it was generally understood by the owners and among the long time employees of Rivas Realty, Inc. that they could at times buy and sale for their own personal benefit properties that members of their family might desire without processing the sale through the business office of Rivas Realty, Inc. or dividing the profit with the corporation. That they did not breach the oral contract between themselves and the employer. The Hearing Officer finds: That the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, bought the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford under circumstances which tended to deceive the purchasers but without actual misrepresentation; That there was no showing of an actual loss by the Crawfords; That the oral agreement between the Defendant salesmen and the employer, the Rivas Realty, Inc., was at times waived by the owner, Mr. Rivas or his brother, as special favors to their salesmen; That the Defendants acted under a waiver of the oral agreement between themselves and the Rivas Realty, Inc. when they purchased and resold the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, or their acts were approved or condoned by the employer; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not show that the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, breached the fiduciary relationship with their employer, Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not prove the Defendants to have been guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, schemes or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R.T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(2), 475.624(14), and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Sigmond is now and was, at all times material to this proceeding, a state-certified residential real estate appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 2479 in 1994. Mr. Sigmond has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against him. On January 2, 2006, Rels Valuation, an appraisal management company for Wells Fargo Bank, ordered an appraisal from Mr. Sigmond of a condominium unit located at 2740 Cypress Trace Circle, Unit 2715, Naples, Florida (Subject Property). The client for the appraisal was Wells Fargo Bank. The purpose of the appraisal was for mortgage lending. On or about January 6, 2006, Mr. Sigmond developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) on the Subject Property valuing the Subject Property at $375,000. The Subject Property is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit with 1,171 square feet of gross living area. The unit is located on the first floor of the building and has a carport. At the time of the Report, the Subject Property was one year old. The unit was freshly painted, had ceramic floor tile in the foyer, living room, kitchen, and dining areas. The bedrooms were carpeted. The foyer, living room, dining, and kitchen areas had crown molding. The Subject Property was appraised as unfurnished and listed for sale as unfurnished; however, some furniture was left in the unit. Mr. Sigmond stated in his report: As stated in contract: “Property is being sold ‘turnkey.’ Furnishings have little or no value and are being left as a convenience to the seller.” Also buyer agrees to pay $1,500 for kitchen set at closing. The Subject Property was sold prior to the issuance of the Report. The first sale was a preconstruction purchase on December 2, 2004, for a purchase price of $213,900. The Subject Property was listed on September 27, 2005, for $342,900, and the Subject Property was under contract for sale by October 10, 2005. The second sale was closed on December 13, 2005, and the sale price was $335,000. The buyers in the second sale entered into a sale and purchase contract with John Schrenkel on December 20, 2005, to sell the Subject Property for $375,000. After the sale of the Subject Property on December 13, 2005, the buyers put crown molding in the unit, painted all the walls of the unit, put in ceiling fans, and upgraded some electrical fixtures. Mr. Sigmond valued the Subject Property for $40,000 more than the Subject Property sold on December 13, 2005. He considered the upgrades that were made to the Subject Property after the December 13, 2005, sale, and the amount of time that had elapsed from the listing of the Subject Property in September 2005 for the sale that closed on December 13, 2005, and the date of the appraisal. Mr. Sigmond testified that he did not know the actual execution date of the sales contract for the December 13, 2005, sale. However, in his response to the Department dated July 16, 2008, he acknowledged that the pending date for the December 13 sale was October 10, 2005. He did not include the pending sale date in his Report. Mr. Sigmond did not adequately explain in his Report the $40,000 difference in valuation from the last sale of the Subject Property and his appraisal valuation. He admitted in his letter dated July 16, 2008, to the Department’s investigator that that he did not include an analysis of the December 13 sale in his Report. He stated: The prior sales of the subject property were identified in the addendum to the appraisal, however, the analysis of the 12/13/05 sale was inadvertently omitted from the addendum. The following comment was originally in the appraisal report: “At the time of the inspection, the subject property had been renovated since its previous sale on 12/13/05. The subject improvements were: Custom crown molding throughout, updated/additional electrical repairs and/or replacement throughout the subject unit; the interior had been completely repainted; replaced and/or upgraded light fixtures and ceiling fans. The subject has been well maintained and is considered to be in good physical condition with no functional inadequacies noted. No external inadequacies were noted in the subject’s immediate area.” That comment should not have been omitted from the appraisal, however, it did not materially affect the reporting standards or the opinion of the market value as the condition of the subject was referred to as good throughout the report. The Subject Property is part of a condominium complex known as Terrace IV at Cypress Trace. Terrace IV consists of 60 units. Cypress Trace is a conglomerate of individual condominium projects that have banded together through an agreement to share certain common amenities. The total number of condominiums in the conglomerate is 799. There are three methods for valuing all forms of real estate: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach. Mr. Sigmond used the sales comparison approach, which is the appropriate method for valuating condominium units such as the Subject Property. The goal of a sales comparison approach is to find a set of comparable sales as similar as possible to the property being appraised. Mr. Sigmond selected and listed three properties in his Report, which he considered to be comparable to the Subject Property. The first property listed as a comparable sale was located at Veranda III at Cypress Trace (Comparable Sale 1), less than .01 mile northwest of the Subject Property. It is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit with 1,414 square feet of gross living area located on the second floor of the building. The unit has a detached garage. At the time of the Report, Comparable Sale 1 was two years old. A contract for sale was entered into on July 5, 2005, for $399,000. The sale of Comparable Sale 1, which included furniture, was closed on September 23, 2005. Mr. Sigmond adjusted the value of Comparable Sale 1 downward by $15,000 for the detached garage and by $17,000 for the additional square footage. He also made a positive time adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 of $15,900. A time adjustment is an adjustment for the amount of time that has elapsed since the property last sold. In a market which is climbing, an upward adjustment for appreciation would be appropriate, but, if the market has peaked and is declining, a positive adjustment would not be appropriate. Mr. Sigmond made time adjustments from the time that the contracts for sale were entered for the properties used as comparables. The time adjustments were 1 percent per month from the date of the pending sale. The second property listed as a comparable sale was located at Terrace II at Cypress Trace (Comparable Sale 2), approximately .35 miles northeast of the Subject Property. Comparable Sale 2 is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit consisting of 1,194 square feet of gross living area located on the third floor of the building. The unit was two years old at the time of the report. Comparable Sale 2 has a carport. Comparable Sale 2 was sold furnished in November 2005. The multiple listing for Comparable Sale 2 described the furnishings as follows: “This 3rd floor condo has over $20,000.00 in furnishings including Tommy Bahama style furniture and drapes.” Mr. Sigmond or his assistant contacted the listing agent for Comparable Sale 2 and was told that the value of the furniture was nominal. Mr. Dennis J. Black, expert for the Department, contacted the owner of Comparable Sale 2, who advised Mr. Black that one of the selling points of the unit was the furnishings. A contract for sale for Comparable Sale 2 was pending on October 3, 2005, and the sale closed on November 16, 2005, for $355,000. Mr. Sigmond made a $15,000 positive adjustment to Comparable Sale 2 for options and upgrades and a positive time adjustment of $7,100. Mr. Sigmond made no adjustments for differences in floor locations, feeling that the floor location is typically a personal preference of the buyer. He also made no adjustments for the furniture that was sold with the unit. Comparable Sale 2 was the most current sale of a basic unit exactly like the Subject Property; however, Comparable Sale 2 did not have crown molding, was not freshly painted, and had carpet as opposed to ceramic tile in the living areas. The multiple listing for Comparable Sale 2 did indicate that the unit had some ceramic tile, but did not specify in what areas the tile was located. The third property listed as a comparable sale was located at Carrington at Stonebridge (Comparable Sale 3), approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the Subject Property. Comparable Sale 3 is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit consisting of 1,184 square feet of gross living area located on the first floor of the building. The unit has a carport and, at the time of the Report, was nine years old. A contract for sale of Comparable Sale 3, unfurnished, was entered into on June 22, 2005, and the sale was closed on July 13, 2005, for $350,000. Mr. Sigmond chose Comparable Sale 1 to bracket the sale price in order to meet an underwriting guideline of Wells Fargo Bank, which requires that a similar unit be listed which has a value that is more than what the appraiser may value the property being appraised. Bracketing is a common and accepted appraisal practice in the Collier County area when doing appraisals for mortgage lenders. He felt that Comparable Sale 2 was the most recent similar sale in the project. He went out of the project for Comparable Sale 3, because he felt that the banks wanted to have a comparable sale out of the project. Mr. Sigmond’s Report contained a description of the general market conditions as follows: There are no loan discounts, interest buy downs or concessions noted in the marketplace at this time. Conventional financing is readily available and interest rates are at competitive levels. Demand outweighs supply at this time, and market values have been increasing. The marketing time for condominium[s] in this area has ranged from one to three months and is considered to be typical. Mr. Sigmond also discussed the increasing market in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Supplemental Addendum of the Report. Time adjustments were necessary due to a market in which demands [sic] exceeds supply, and properties are commonly sold within 60 days of their listing. These adjustments were calculated at a conservative 1% per month from “pending” date. A 25%-40% increase in the Naples Real Estate market over the last 12 months has been well documented by MLS and local print media. Based on the overall evidence, the real estate market was not declining at the time the appraisal was done. There were other units which Mr. Sigmond considered, but did not use as a comparable sale. One such unit was located at Terrace IV at Cypress Trace, Unit 2738. Built in 2005, this unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms and is located on the third floor of the building. The living area of the unit is 1,232 square feet. The freshly painted unit has crown molding and ceramic tile throughout the unit. Unit 2738 was a new listing on August 5, 2005, for $339,900. A pending sale on August 16, 2005, showed a selling price of $335,000. The sale was closed on October 4, 2005. Another unit which Mr. Sigmond considered but did not use as a comparable sale was located at 2730 Cypress Trace Circle, Unit 2813. This condominium is a first-floor two- bedroom, two-bath unit, which was built in 2004. It has ceramic tile and carpeting. The living area is 1,194 square feet. Unit 2813 was listed on August 18, 2005, for $339,000. On September 7, 2005, a sale was pending for $320,000. The sale closed on November 30, 2005. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Sigmond intentionally crafted his Report so that his valuation of the Subject Property would equal the contract price of the Subject Property. In his Report, Mr. Sigmond certified the following: I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) (2005), which were in effect at the time the Report was developed and communicated, provide the following: Standards Rule 1-1 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal. not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. Standards Rule 1-2 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: * * * (e) identify the characteristics of the property that are relevant to the type and definition of value and intended use of the appraisal, including: * * * (iii) any personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property but are included in the appraisal; * * * Standards Rule 1-4 (This Standards Rule contains specific requirements from which departure is permitted. See the DEPARTURE RULE.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information applicable to the appraisal problem, given the scope of the work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f). (a) When a sales comparison approach is applicable, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. * * * Standards Rule 1-5 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, when the value opinion to be developed is market value, an appraiser must, if such information is available to the appraiser in the normal course of business: analyze all agreements of sale, options, or listings of the subject property current as of the effective date of the appraisal; and analyze all sales of the subject property that occurred within the last three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal. * * * Standards Rule 2-1 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; * * * Standards Rule 2-2 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used: Self-Contained Appraisal Report, Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report. * * * (b) The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * (iii) summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate involved in the appraisal, including the physical and economic property characteristics relevant to the assignment. * * * clearly and conspicuously: state all extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions; and state that their use might have affected the assignment results; * * * Standards Rule 2-3 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written real property appraisal report must contain a signed certification that is similar in content to the following form: I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: --the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. --the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. --I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no (or specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. --I 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 for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. --my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. --I have (or have not) made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. (If more than one person signs this certification, the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make a personal inspection of the appraised property.) --no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. (If there are exceptions, the name of each individual providing significant real property appraisal assistance must be stated.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Sigmond violated Subsections 475.624(2) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes; dismissing Counts Three through Ten; issuing a public reprimand; and imposing a $5,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. At the same time, Respondent, Thomas Twitty, Jr. was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, operating under license number 0090569, and was broker for the Respondent, Twitty and Company, Ltd., which operates under license number 0211681 at 13090 B. Starkey Road, Largo, Florida. Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, was a licensed real estate salesman under license number 0442127. On March 12, 1985, while employed as a salesman with Twitty & Company, Ltd., Fitton solicited and obtained from James L. Schneider a sales listing for Schneider's house located at 1316 Kennywood, Largo, Florida. The listed sales price was $129,500.00. Mr. Schneider had purchased the property, along with another individual no longer involved, Mr. Daly, from Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association in December, 1984 for $50,000.00 in a distress sale. The property had been occupied but was abandoned, and Pioneer, which had held the mortgage on it, gained title in a foreclosure action. When Schneider purchased the house, it was in poor condition. The walls and cement slabs on which it rested were severely cracked in numerous places. The foundation, pool decking, and decorative block walls were severely cracked, and it was determined that this condition was due to an abnormal settling and subsidence of the ground on which the house had been constructed. This settling caused and continues to cause door and window frames to fall out of square resulting in a poor fit and, in many cases, large gaps and along the window and door parameters. After Mr. Schneider purchased the property, Fitton, along with Fitton's father, both of whom resided next door to the property in question, assisted Mr. Schneider in making repairs to the property. Cracks were filled in with cement, plaster and caulking, and the property was painted which covered up the filled in cracks and gaps which had existed. When the repairs were completed, the property was put on the market with Fitton securing the listing. There is little evidence as to how the repairs were made to the property other than that the cracks were filled and painted. No effort was made to correct the soil conditions which underlay the problem. No evidence was produced to indicate whether the corrective actions taken by Mr. Schneider, along with the Fittons, was appropriate to correct problem causing the cracks or if filling was the appropriate method of correction. Also, it was not clearly established how much and of what nature the work was accomplished by Respondent, Fitton. Whereas he indicates his participation was limited to only carrying away trash and debris, Ms. Renshaw indicates he was actively engaged in actual repair work. Whatever the actual work involvement, it is clear that he knew of the condition of the house and was familiar with the steps taken to correct the deficiencies. In May, 1985, Yvonne L. and Lorraine Renshaw, sisters, were shown the property by Diane Y. Palcelli (Booth), a salesperson employed by a different realty company. The Renshaws made an initial offer of $96,000.00, and Ms. Palcelli transmitted the offer, through Fitton, (and Twitty & Co.), to Mr. Schneider who resided out of state. A series of proposals by both sides followed and ultimately, on June 1, 1985, the parties agreed upon a sales price of $106,000.00. After the sales price had been agreed upon and the contract for sale signed, during the interim period leading up to closing, which was held in late July, 1985, the Renshaws, along with their agent and friends, visited the property on numerous occasions even going so far as to commence decorative work to fix it up to their tastes. Also during this period, Fitton, who had done some work on the repairs to the property, advised his broker, Twitty, that there had been defects in the property and asked if it was necessary to disclose this. Mr. Twitty, who himself had, at this point, not seen the property, asked if the defects had been corrected, and when told that they had been, advised Fitton it was not necessary to make any further disclosure. During the course of their repeated visits to the property, the Renshaws noted some minor cracking which they brought to Fitton's and Daly's attention. Fitton mentioned this to Twitty who suggested they have someone out to look at them. Someone was called, reportedly an engineer, who looked at the cracks and agreed to fix them. Daly indicated insurance would cover the repairs and agreed to have the cracks repaired. They were. Ms. Palcelli, (Booth), also advised the Renshaws to have the property examined by their own expert to insure it was structurally sound. The Renshaws did not do this. The sale was closed on July 23, 1985 for the $106,000.00 purchase price and both Fitton and Twitty & Co. received their respective shares of the commission. Several months after the closing, the Renshaws noticed cracks beginning to open in the walls of the house and between the pool deck and the house wall. They contacted Ms. Palcelli, (Booth) who examined the property and then tried to contact Fitton. Both Fitton and Twitty disclaimed any responsibility for the damage. Thereafter, the Renshaws filed suit against Schneider, Daly, Fitton, Twitty and Twitty & Company in Circuit Court in Pinellas County alleging one Count of fraud and one Count of grand theft. On February 22, 1991, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants', (Respondents') Motion to Dismiss the Count alleging grand theft, but denied a similar motion relating to the fraud Count. That same date, the Court entered a Final Judgement concluding that the knowing representation the property was in "excellent" condition when they knew it was not, in an anticipation of making a profit on the sale, constituted fraud. Twitty was faulted for not having inquired of Fitton, his "novice employee", more thoroughly before advising him no disclosure to the buyers was necessary. Fitton is faulted by the Court for having: ... intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the [Renshaws] the high quality, excellent condition and good value of the property, intending that the [Renshaws] would rely on those representations; [they] hid the true condition of the property from the [Renshaws] and induced them to make the purchase, believing that they were purchasing a quality property worth the price being asked. The Court also concluded that the [Respondents] were obligated to disclose to the [Renshaws] the information and knowledge which they had regarding the cracking and repairs. Fitton has moved for a rehearing on the basis that the property was described as excellent on the listing sheet by Mr. Schneider, not by him. However, he was obviously aware of the condition of the property from his frequent visits to the site while it was being readied for sale. In addition, the Judgement has now been appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals by Twitty and Twitty & Company, Ltd..
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered herein providing that: The salesman's license of Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, be reprimanded, and he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of two years, and The licenses of Respondents, Thomas J. Twitty, Jr. and Twitty & Co., Ltd., be reprimanded and they be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1608 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. First, second and fourth sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence modified to reflect that Fitton concealed but Twitty was culpably negligent in failing to disclose. FOR RESPONDENT, TWITTY AND TWITTY & CO. LTD.: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. 9. Accepted, but Twitty's agent, Respondent, Fitton, worked on and was familiar with the condition of the property prior to sale. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, FITTON: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted except for the assertion that the individual who viewed the cracks was an engineer. There was no proof of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North, Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Daniel J. Grieco, Esquire 19139 Gulf Blvd. Indian Shores, Florida 34635 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether either Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts I through VIII of their respective Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board is the state agency charged with regulating real estate appraisers who are, or want to become, licensed to render appraisal services in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent, Ms. Green was licensed as a certified residential real estate appraiser. Ms. Green held license number 3236 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Moody was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser. Ms Moody held license number 16667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. In October 2008, Ms. Moody received a license as a certified residential appraiser, license number RD 7444. On March 8, 2007, Ms. Moody signed an appraisal of real property located at 11735 Chanticleer Drive, Lot 16, Block B Grand Lagoon, in Pensacola, Florida. She signed as appraiser. Ms. Green signed the report as supervisory appraiser. The listed borrower was James W. Cobb, and the lender was Premier Mortgage Capital. Respondents developed, signed, and communicated this report. Subsequently, the borrower, Mr. Cobb, who was also the buyer, complained to the Division with regard to the appraisal on the property, and the Division investigated the matter. The investigation resulted in an investigative report dated December 21, 2007. According to the appraisal, the property was listed for $1,030,000 in the multiple listing service, and the contract price was $790,000. The appraisal report valued the property using both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach. Both approaches resulted in a value of $1,030,000. These facts were reported in a six-page Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. At the time of the hearing, the property was the subject of a foreclosure action. The USPAP provides guidance to those involved in the business of conducting real estate appraisals. Real estate appraisers typically use both a "sales comparison approach" and a "cost approach" in attempting to arrive at a value. A "sales comparison approach" uses data obtained from sales of similar properties and adjusts for differences. A "cost approach" starts with the cost of an empty building site and adds to that the cost of building an identical structure and adjusts for enhancements and depreciation. Both approaches were used by Respondents and were reported on the Form 1004. The Division's expert witness, Sylvia G. Storm, reviewed the Form 1004 and all of the available supporting data. She did not make an appraisal herself and did not visit the property in question. Ms. Storm was accepted as an expert as provided by Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, because she had "specialized knowledge" regarding real estate appraisals. This was the first time that Ms. Storm testified as an expert witness in a case involving appraisals. The same was true in the case of the expert witness presented by Respondents, Victor Harrison. It is noted that these experts were only minimally qualified, and their testimony is given little weight. Ms. Storm commented on the fact that the property was called "new" in the improvements section yet on the following sales comparison approach it was listed under actual age, "27/E New-2." This suggests the property with improvements is 27 years old, but has an effective age of new to two years. In fact, in the improvements section it was noted that the property has been completely reconstructed. It is clear from the Form 1004, and the hearing record, that the property was essentially destroyed during Hurricane Ivan and was rebuilt above the surviving foundation. It is found that the house was essentially new at the time of the appraisal. Ms. Storm believes some of the deficiencies she noted in the Form 1004, discussed in more detail below, and the supporting documentation contained in the work file, affect the credibility of the report. She believes that some of these deficiencies amounted to a violation of USPAP. Ms. Storm stated that an appraiser should do a complete analysis of the contract and that if it is not done the appraiser is not being reasonably diligent. She also testified that an appraiser, who failed to discuss the large difference between the contract price and appraised value, and who failed to document the analysis, is not being reasonably diligent. Mr. Harrison, on the other hand, testified that after his analysis of the report he found no indication at all of a lack of reasonable diligence. Ms. Storm opined that two or more appraisers, appraising the same property may arrive at two or more numbers and that there is nothing unusual when that occurs. Ms. Moody testified under oath that the supporting information contained in the work file was adequate and that references to other documents, such as public records, were plentiful and complied with the requirements of USPAP. This testimony was adopted by Ms. Green. In order to provide clarity, actual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints will be discussed in seriatim. As will be addressed more fully in the Conclusions of Law, the Division must prove its factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, that standard will be used below. The factual allegations will be presented in bold face type, and the discussion of the proof will be in regular type: Respondent made the following errors and omission in the Report:"Failure to discuss or explain why the Subject Property was listed for sale for $1,030,000 and the contract price was $790,000." Ms. Storm opined that the discussion of the contract price did not go into the details as to the history of the property, or list price history, or who the contracting parties were or any fees to be paid by either party. She believes the Form 1004 should have reported when the property was listed and how many days it had been on the market. She believes that USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the contract completely. She believes the Form 1004 should have commented on the large difference between the sales price and the appraised price. The Form 1004 states, "I did analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction." Ms. Moody testified under oath that they analyzed the difference between the appraisal price and the selling price. She stated that there was no requirement to discuss it in the Form 1004. Ms. Green adopted this testimony. Ms. Moody also stated that the contract price of a piece of property does not affect the value of the property as reported in the Form 1004. This factual allegation was not proven. "Use of an outdated FEMA map for the Subject Property." Respondents used a FEMA flood map that was outdated. This occurred because the computer program Respondents were using, InterFlood.com, presented an out-of-date map. The map used in the appraisal was dated February 23, 2000, but the most current edition of the map available at the time of the appraisal was dated September 26, 2006. The later map was no different from the map Respondents used. The Form 1004 notes, with regard to the flood status, "It appears to be located in FEMA Flood Zones X and AE. A survey would be needed to confirm flood zones." In sum, there is nothing incorrect or misleading with regard to flooding potential. The Division's expert witness, Ms. Storm, concluded that Respondents did not err with regard to the FEMA flood map. This factual allegation was not proven. "Misstatement of PUD Homeowner's Association Fees for the Subject Property." Respondents asserted the homeowner's association fee to be $100 annually. The by-laws of the Grande Lagoon Community Association, Inc., in effect during all times pertinent, state unequivocally that annual dues of the Association are $100. The Division's investigator stated that he learned through a telephone call with a "Mr. Broome," who was possibly an officer in the homeowner's association, that at the time of the appraisal there was an annual assessment by the homeowner's association of $250 for canal maintenance, and that this amount was to increase to $500 annually in 2008. Information about this assessment was not readily available to Respondents. An assessment is different from a homeowner's fee. The Division's expert witness stated that if there is a homeowner's fee it should be stated on the Form 1004, but that it is not a USPAP requirement. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to differentiate view of Subject Property and comparable sale 2, when the Subject Property is located on a canal and the comparable had an open water location." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a small, lagoon- like body of water with access to Pensacola Bay, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note financial assistance in the sales contract, where seller was to pay all closing costs." The agreement whereby seller would pay $20,000 in closing costs was not made until March 28, 2007, 20 days after the appraisal was completed. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note consulting fee to Investor's Rehab in the sales contract." This allegation is true in that the consulting fee was not mentioned. Ms. Storm opined that it should be analyzed in the appraisal report. She asserted that persons who were not privy to the contract might make decisions in reliance upon the appraisal report and, therefore, the Form 1004 should mention the consulting fee. However, Ms. Moody pointed out that the consulting fee had no effect on the value of the property and stated that it was intentionally omitted. This factual allegation was proven to the extent that the consulting fee was not mentioned, but this omission did not affect the accuracy or credibility of the appraisal report. "Failure to explain range of effective age dates for the Subject Property and comparable sale 1." As discussed in Finding of Fact 8, the subject property was essentially new at the time it was appraised. As pointed out by Mr. Harrison, the effective age was new. Effective age is an estimate of the physical condition of a building. The actual age of the building may be shorter or longer than the effective age. The determination of effective age is largely a matter of judgment. In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5 years. The Form 1004, therefore, presented a one year error as to actual age, which is insignificant. The allegation is that Respondents failed to explain the range of effective age dates. However, it is found that the Form 1004 adequately informs anyone reading it. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its effective age difference." No evidence supporting this allegation was presented. The unrebutted testimony of Ms. Moody, adopted by Ms. Green, was that there was no market data suggesting that there was a need for adjustment. There was no evidence that an explanation for no adjustment was required. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Incorrect site size adjustment for comparable sale 1; the $17,000 should be in the positive direction." The site size adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 is in the amount of $40,000. It appears that the intentions of the Administrative Complaints were to allege an error in gross living area. The result is that the record provides no proof of this allegation. "Adjustment for both the room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 1." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 1." In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5. The Form 1004 therefore presented a one-year error. This error is insignificant. "Failure to explain inconsistent site size adjustments made to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The subject property was located on a site (or lot) that was .3 acres. Comparable Sale 1 was located on a site that was .52 acres. Respondents subtracted $40,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 1. Comparable Sale 2 was located on a site that was .7 acres. Respondents subtracted $60,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 2. Comparable Sale 3 was located on a site that was .44 acres. Respondents added $25,000 to the sale price of Comparable Sale 3. It is the appraiser's duty to value a comparable in such a way that differences between the comparable and the subject property are accounted so that a common denominator may be found. For example, Comparable Sale 1 was approximately .2 of an acre larger than the subject property and thus more valuable solely because it is on a larger site. To equalize the situation, the price of Comparable Sale 1 must be reduced, and it was. Comparable Sale 2 also was reduced, but Comparable Sale 3 that was on a larger lot than the subject property, was credited with a $25,000 addition to its price. Nothing in Respondents' work file provides how the figures for the comparables were found. Moreover, if two of the comparables experienced a downward adjustment because of a larger lot size, then the third comparable, having a larger lot size, should have been adjusted downward also. Therefore, there were inconsistencies requiring explanation, and no explanation was found in the file. "Failure to note that comparable sale 1 has a fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." Comparable Sale 2 was built in 1990. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 17 years old. It last sold November 2006. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of five years on the Form 1004. This is both incorrect and insignificant. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 2." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." This allegation repeats that stated in "O" above. "Failure to not [sic] that comparable sale 2 has three fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its multiple fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its lake view." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a lagoon-like body of water with access to open water, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age of comparable sale 3." Comparable Sale 3 was built in 1989. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 18 years old. It last sold in August of 2005. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of 10 years on the Form 1004. This age was reported incorrectly. "Use of comparable sale 3 which sold 19 months prior to the Report." The Form 1004 noted that finding comparables was difficult due to market disruption caused by Hurricane Ivan. As noted by Ms. Storm, the change in the real estate market during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, have been profound everywhere. Primarily, market prices have declined during those years. She was of the opinion that the August 18, 2005, sale date of Comparable Sale 3 was too remote. She stated, correctly, that a market condition adjustment should have been made to the price reported for Comparable Sale 3. Ms. Storm found in the work file analyst listings of the comparables that were utilized, and pages from the Marshall and Swift, but did not see any actual paired sale analyses for any of the adjustments that were used in the report. She could not determine from where they obtained these sales and the adjustments for differences. She opined that this made the report less credible. According to Ms. Storm, the insufficient analysis runs afoul of USPAP. The opinion of Ms. Storm, however, fails to take into account the insufficient data in the Pensacola area that resulted from hurricane-induced market disruption and the consequent lack of sales. Because of the lack of viable alternatives, using this property as a comparable was necessary. This factual allegation was not proven. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to calculate and list the net adjustment and gross adjustment totals for comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to utilize current Marshall & Swift information for the Cost Approach section of the Report." Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information in the cost approach analysis. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides "local multipliers" for the cost per square foot for construction. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the Form 1004 issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue after February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. "Failure to complete the PUD information section of the Report, when Subject Property, as noted by Respondent in Report, is located in a PUD." The Division acknowledged during the hearing that there was no support for this allegation, and withdrew it. AA) "Failure to date when Respondent inspected the Subject Property and comparable sales listed in the Report." (This allegation was made in the case of Ms. Green, but not in the case of Ms. Moody.) In the blocks on the Form 1004, below the Supervisory Appraiser's signature, Ms. Green signed statements indicating that she inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property and that she inspected the exterior of the comparable sales properties. She did not date either of these statements. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $40,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 1. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $60,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $25,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $50,000 "view" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Comparable Sale 1 is on Big River. The Form 1004 notes that Big River is similar to Big Lagoon. A $50,000 downward adjustment was made in the "view" category. Ms. Storm stated that she had searched for documentation and did not find it. The work file does not have documentary support for the adjustments. Respondents and Ms. Storm agreed that the lack of sales in the area made such adjustments like this problematic. As Ms. Storm said, "I know there haven't been that many sales of waterfronts so it's really difficult to arrive at that data." Nevertheless, the lack of any information in the work file to support the adjustment means that this factual allegation is proven. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $5,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $3,000 "triple garage" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $3,000 was made to Comparable Sale 3 because of its triple garage. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, includes Marshall and Swift data for garages. Although exactly how the $3,000 adjustment was calculated is not clear, the Marshall and Swift information was in the file and provided a method for making the calculation. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "dock/pier" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $10,000 was made to Comparable Sale 1 because of the presence of a "dock/pier." No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $15,000 "pool" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $15,000 was made to Comparable Sale 2 because of the presence of a pool on the property. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $39/square foot adjustment for gross living area made tocomparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. The Division has not directed the attention of the Administrative Law Judge to any reference in the record to a "$39/square foot adjustment for gross living area." An independent search of Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, did not reveal documentation for this adjustment or any documentation mentioning it. Accordingly, this allegation is not proven. The work file lacks current Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Reports were completed, as well as any local builder information, to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section of the Report. Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information for use in the cost approach. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides information used to calculate the construction cost per square foot. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the report issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue subsequent to February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $30,000 As-Is Value of Site Improvements adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report. As-is value of site improvements adjustment, in the cost approach section, is a positive value of $30,000. There is no explanation in the record as to what an "as-is value of site improvements adjustment" is or from what source came the $30,000 value. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $60,000 Porches/Appliances adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, contains Marshall and Swift information for porches and appliances. Thus, documentation is present.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board find Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to document adjustments made to comparable sales and reprimand Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Brady, Esquire 3250 Navy Boulevard, Suite 204 Post Office Box 12584 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2584 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank K. Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds real estate broker license no. 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. However, he did not act in his licensed capacity in any of the transactions discussed herein. Respondent was involved in a corporate business venture with Donald M. and Darlene Pifalo. He believed the Pifalos had improperly diverted funds from the corporation and filed suit accordingly. In December, 1980, while this suit was pending, Respondent filed a notice of lis pendens against various properties owned by the Pifalos. This action encumbered property in which the Pifalos' equity greatly exceeded Respondent's alleged loss in the business venture. There was no evidence that the Pifalos were planning to leave the jurisdiction or would be unable to make any court ordered restitution. Further, the encumbered property was not at issue in this litigation. Finally, Respondent filed the notice of lis pendens on his own volition and not on the advice of counsel. The notice was subsequently dismissed.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982.
