Findings Of Fact Dwight S. Cenac, Respondent, holds certificate No. 3639 as a Certified Public Accountant in the State of Florida. On 2 September 1977 he requested an exemption from the continuing education program required of public accountants to retain their certificate (Exhibit 2). Therein he stated he was not practicing public accounting, the exemption was granted and Respondent's registration card has been endorsed with a statement that Respondent's certificate to practice public accounting in Florida is inoperative. Following his graduation from college in 1970 Respondent worked for the accounting firm of Ernst and Ernst for two years and attained his certificate in 1973. He was employed with Blue Cross of Florida from 1973 until 1977 when he was employed by a health care provider in Puerto Rico to help set up their procedures to improve Medicare and Medicaid payments for services they provided. His understanding of the Medicare regulations and procedures acquired while working at Blue Cross, coupled with the conditions he found in Puerto Rico, led Respondent to believe that many health care providers had need for special consulting in conjunction with their financial record keeping. Health Care Management Consulting, Inc. (HCMC) was formed in 1977 with Respondent as the sole shareholder. In order to acquaint providers with the services he proposed, Respondent prepared a proposal (Exhibit 1) which was sent to health care providers. As a certified public accountant he could not do this without violating the laws and regulations proscribing solicitation by Florida practitioners. In order to overcome this potential problem, Respondent, on 2 September 1977, (by Exhibit 2), notified Petitioner that he was no longer performing public accounting. As the owner and principal operator of HCMC, Respondent does not hold himself out as a CPA, such information is not included in his letterhead or business cards, office or telephone directory or in any public place. His certificates as a Certified Public Accountant are hanging on the wall of his office, but none of his clients ever visit his office. In addition to Respondent, HCMC employs two other consultants who previously worked for Blue Cross, as well as a secretary. Neither of the other two consultants is a certified public accountant, but both perform services for clients similar to those services performed by Respondent. They, as well as Respondent, obtained the special expertise they offer to health care providers while working in the intermediary field between the government and the provider. HCMC provides specialized services not provided by public accountants such as setting up books and records for health care providers, preparing cost reports, providing assistance in setting rates and general familiarity with Medicare rules and regulations. Many of the services provided by HCMC, inasmuch as they involve financial records, are the same type services provided by Florida practitioners. Respondent, by submitting the HCMC Proposal to hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers is both advertising and soliciting business. HCMC has submitted copies of its Proposal (Exhibit 1) to over 300 hospitals in Florida, and has obtained business previously performed by Florida practitioners. In the Proposal (Exhibit 1) HCMC offers services on a contingent fee basis. These services offered include reimbursement and recoupment of Medicare funds, and the fee paid HCMC is a percentage of the additional funds obtained as a result of the services provided by HCMC. Many of HCMC's services involve increasing reimbursement to the health care provider from Medicare and Medicaid sources. No audits unrelated to Medicare or Medicaid are performed, and financial statements prepared by HCMC do not refer to generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, nor do they purport to express or disclaim an opinion as to the fairness of the presentation. The work performed by Respondent as an employee of HCMC would not constitute the practice of public accounting if performed by a non-certified person. The other employees of HCMC providing consulting services to health care providers similar to that provided by Respondent, are not in violation of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes.
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 At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Accountancy was the state agency responsible for the certification and licensing of public accountants and the regulation of the public accounting profession in Florida. Respondent, Gerald E. Shaw, was licensed as a certified public accountant, (CPA), in Florida and operated a public accounting practice in Florida as Gerald E. Shaw, P.A. During the period between December 31, 1990 and April 20, 1991, Respondent was retained to audit the financial books and records of High Point of Fort Pierce Condominium Association Section I, Inc. His audit report and allied papers were submitted to the membership of the association by letter dated April 20, 1991. In his letter he indicated he had conducted his audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, (GAAS), and he opined therein that the financial statements he prepared, "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the [Association] as of December 31, 1990 and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles." At some point thereafter, the Department/Board of Accountancy received the financial statements prepared by the Respondent which contained apparent deficiencies on the face, particularly the lack of adequate note disclosure. Thomas F. Reilly, C.P.A., an expert in public accounting and an individual who had, on previous occasions, conducted similar investigations for the Board of Accountancy, was retained to conduct an investigation to ascertain the facts related to the instant financial statements prepared by the Respondent. By letter dated October 4, 1991, the Department notified Respondent that the investigation would take place and the subject matter thereof. Mr. Reilly thereafter met with the Respondent and discussed the financial statements and work papers in issue with him. Though Respondent was initially reluctant to participate in the investigative process unless he was provided, ahead of time, with a list of the reported deficiencies, he later agreed to a review of his work product. When he had completed his investigation, Mr. Reilly prepared a report in which he stated his opinions regarding the sufficiency of the financial statement prepared by Respondent which he determined to be inadequate. His opinion was based on his findings that there were a significant number of departures from the accounting standards called for in Statement of Accounting Standards, (SAS), 58 developed and promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, (AICPA). Mr. Reilly also found there were no references in the Financial Statement prepared by Respondent to footnotes as required by Accounting Principles Board, (APB), Statement 4. There also was no summary of significant accounting policies as required by APB Statement 22. All of this was determined from the hierarchy of accepted auditing principles as found in SAS 5. APB Statement 22 is at the top of the hierarchy and indicates that a failure to follow generally accepted accounting principles is a significant deviation. Among the deviations Mr. Reilly found were included: Cash in reserve funds was incorrectly referred to as a current asset. Reserve funds should not be considered current assets. (See APB Statement 43). Leases should be disclosed and here these were significant. (See FASB 13, Section L-10). Related party disclosures are not mentioned in the notes as they should be. Here there were 3 separate condominium associations and this financial statement related to only one of them. Since the 3 associations were related, however, the statement should have referred to the others within the complex shared by them all. Because of their interrelationship, disclosure was important. There was no allocation of expenses among the three different associations. There were some invoices paid which may have been allocated among the 3 associations and this was not discussed. It could be significant. Rule 7D-23, F.A.C., requires disclosure of common property and the costs of repair thereof. This requires reserves be maintained for future repair, and the method of allocation, or the waiver thereof, should be explained. This can be very significant, and it was not done by Respondent here. Among the work papers submitted some things which should have been shown were not in evidence. These included: A written audit program should have outlined as required by SAS 22 and SAS 41. This is very significant. A client representation letter should have been obtained as called for in SAS 19. Without it, a limitation on the audit is imposed. This is very significant. A review of related party transactions was not shown to have been done as required by SAS 45. Because of the related organi- zations, this was a material deviation. There appeared to be no review of the internal control structure, (policies, pro- ceedings, etc. relating to the accounting practices of the organization). The auditor should look at this and understand it so he can plan his audit, as required by SAS 55. Here, the audit report did not show it was done and this is significant. A preliminary judgement of materiality levels, as required by SAS 47 was not done. There was no showing that planning had been done as required by SAS 22 and 47, or analytical procedures used in planning the nature, timing and extent of other audit procedures, as required by SAS 56. Each of these alone might not be significant, but taken together, they all are significant. There appeared to be no consideration given to applicable assertions in develop- ing audit objectives as required by SAS 31. An attorney's letter was not in the file as required since the books showed an attorney had been used during the year. This is called for by SAS 12 and is used to check on the status of the legal work and any potential liability of the client. No check was made to see if any test- ing had been done to insure the association was in compliance with Rule 7D-23, FAC. No inquiry was made to see if the client was in compliance with the laws and regulations of the state in general, as called for by SAS 63. The work papers contained a lot of unnecessary bills and statements not norm- ally included. These should not have been there in that form without a showing they were used in the audit. (See SAS 41) There was no showing that any tests were done to insure a correct expense all- ocation among the 3 entities. There was no reporting disclosure checklist. While not required, such a list is common practice to insure all required disclosures pertinent to condo associations were made. The failure to do this is, in Reilly's opinion, practice below commonly accepted standards. The checklists are available from many sources readily access- ible to accountants. There is nothing secret or exclusive about them. Accounting competency standards are found in Rule 21A-22.001 - 21A- 22.003, F.A.C. In Mr. Reilly's opinion, based on, among other discrepancies, the matters outlined above, Respondent deviated from these standards to a point below the standard for a reasonably prudent certified public accountant. He defines "generally accepted accounting practices", (GAAP), as a source of knowledge that exists as defined within the parameters of SAS 5. Certified public accountants keep current in literature pertinent to their professional practice by attendance at continuing education courses, conferences, by performing quality and peer reviews, by doing investigations for the Board of Accountancy, and by networking with other CPA's. These are, of course, not the sole methods of maintaining currency but the ones used mostly by active practitioners, to the best of Mr. Reilly's knowledge. In his report of investigation, Mr. Reilly notes that Respondent is not a member of either the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and does not participate in the peer review or quality review programs of either organization. His continuing professional education, as reported by him, consisted mainly of self study programs published by Accounting Publications, Inc., and though his practice is related, to a substantial degree to condominium associations, he has not attended any recognized continuing professional education course in that area. Mr. Felsing, also a CPA, heard Mr. Reilly's testimony at the hearing and reviewed his report of investigation. He agrees with Mr. Reilly concerning Respondent's report and he also considers Respondent's departure from generally accepted accounting standards to be significant. He notes that the Respondent here expressed a "clean" opinion regarding the status of the association which he should not have done because of the deficiencies in his work. Mr. Felsing did not review Respondent's work papers, but based on his understanding of Reilly's testimony, he identified what he considers to be significant departures from standard. These include: There should have been a work program developed as required by SAS 22. This is very significant. There should have been a client representation letter as required by SAS 19. This is significant because the failure to have it requires a qualification of the report. SAS 45 requires a review of all related parties and this was not done here even though related parties existed. Respondent's failure to document his thought processes on understanding on internal control standards is indicative of Respondent's attitude toward those standards. Felsing generally concurs with the opinions given by Mr. Reilly right down the line. He concludes that the Respondent's demonstrated lack of planning raises a question as to the effectiveness of the audit since one cannot determine if all required tasks were done. Generally accepted accounting standards require the use of analytical procedures as a valuable tool. Failure to use them would be a significant departure from accepted standards since they all relate to the planning of the engagement and without documentation, a reviewer of the audit report cannot tell if the required tasks were performed. The mere inclusion of client documents in the work papers is not acceptable proof that the work was done. The significance of the disclosure checklist lies in the fact that it is the only way to insure that all required items are included in the financial statement. After a review of all the evidence available to him, Mr. Felsing concluded that Respondent failed to use due diligence as a CPA in this audit. In the aggregate, the information available shows Respondent was either not aware of or chose to disregard the applicable professional standards pertinent here. In his defense against the charge of failing to conform to generally accepting accounting standards, Respondent refers to SAS 5 and AU 411.02 and 411.05. These authorities basically outline the standards against which accounting practice is measured. He notes that the term, "generally accepted accounting practices" includes not only pronouncements but also concept statements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board and "broad conventions and rules" which are not pronouncements. Respondent urges that a practitioner has to follow generally accepted accounting practices when performing an audit. There are two subgroups of these practices which pertain to (1) profit and nonprofit organizations, and (2) governmental entities. According to the AICPA interpretation of Conduct Rule #3, there are reasons to depart from GAAP when appropriate. One is the evolution of a new form of business transaction and another is new legislation requiring a departure. In either case, a certified public accountant might legitimately deviate from GAAP. Since, he claims, GAAP is somewhat fluid in application, the auditor has the responsibility and the right not to act as a robot but to see that the audit properly serves the purpose of the entity being audited so as to promote decision making and to identify net income and net worth. Respondent asserts that GAAP are not an end in themselves but a tool in making business decisions. The usefulness of the financial information should be the primary quality to be sought. Usefulness deals with relevance and reliability. In the instant case, Respondent claims that the concept of condominium ownership of realty is so new and so different, and governed by such new legislation that GAAP which have been in use over the past 10 or 15 years and developed to deal with the condominium association are not pertinent. Here, he claims, he had to modify. His position, however, is not well taken. The audit report in issue was to be read by the condominium owners who are interested in the stewardship of the condominium board and the net worth of the association. Respondent contends they are not interested in profit or tradable net worth. A condominium association has a clear and stated purpose which is the management and maintenance of the condominium property. Therefore, an accountant who goes into an audit of a condominium association without having these concepts in his mind is, in his opinion, not doing a good job. Turning to the specifics of the allegations made by Petitioner's witnesses and in the report of investigation, while he accepts some of the comments as valid so far as they allege a particular action, he also claims, in those cases, that the alleged inadequacy has no significant effect on the financial statements. For example, on page C-1 of Mr. Reilly's report, under the heading, Financial Statements, he refers to audits (plural) when only one year is reported on. On the other hand, Respondent disagrees with Reilly's comments regarding an "unorthodox" practice of presenting separate operating statements for the general and reserve funds. Respondent claims there is no definition of "unorthodoxy" for a condominium association and, as evidenced by the 1990 budget of the association, there were more than one reserve account indicated on the financial statement. In his opinion, the accountant should honor that segregation of funds. Respondent agrees that his financial statements do not contain a general reference to the accompanying notes, but he cannot see where any damage was done to a reader of those statements because the footnotes were there without a separate reference. He disagrees that it is generally accepted to record changes in financial position as a basic part of the financial statement when dealing with condominium associations. They are "new animals" and as the accountant, he has the right, he claims, to decide if that information is necessary to the reader of the financial statement. Here, he concluded it was not and, in fact, could be a source of confusion. Respondent also disagrees the Reilly's comment regarding the information regarding reserve funds. He believes that if the financial reporter feels there is a need for segregation of funds, he has to present that segregation in detail. In this case, Respondent believes there is no orthodoxy for condominium reporting and it would be useful to the reader of the statement to see total assessments from all sources so as to determine the justification for his monthly assessment. He also disagrees with Reilly's conclusion that the financial statements do not contain a summary of significant accounting policies. There are, he claims, no alternatives to the way he presented them. Respondent has difficulty responding to Reilly's seventh assertion which is to the effect that cash in reserve funds was inappropriately reflected as a current asset since the reserves are long term. Mr. Shaw believes that if the cash is there, it is available to the board whether it is used or not. This appears to be a matter of semantics and not an issue particularly related to the accounting for condominium associations. While it is true the reserve asset is current and available, it is a dedicated asset and the better accepted accounting practice, as indicated by both experts, is to treat it more as a long term asset. It is so found. Respondent also disagrees with Reilly's conclusion that his terminology in Sections 2 and 3 of the balance sheet is unorthodox. He asserts that those sections do not have to be defined anywhere in the financial statements and are not related to Section 1. He contends that any reader of the audit report would know what is what and be able to understand it. With regard to the "missing" note disclosures, he disagrees with all allegations. He claims that disclosures under FASB #13 and #96 clearly do not apply to condominium associations but relate to investor owned leaseholds. Review of the pertinent bulletin does not necessarily support Respondent's position. He also claims that since there are no related parties none need be disclosed as regards the property management company or the other Sections. The same, he contends, relates to disclosure of potential allocation of expense between the three associations in the same complex. He also does not accept the need to disclose the allocation of interest income between funds utilized by the association. As to disclosures related to reserves and the funding for major repairs and replacements, he contends there is no GAAP that requires this disclosure. Only the state requires it. If a practice is called for in either a statute or rule governing a business activity, whether the profession agrees or not, that requirement must be met and one who fails to do so omits at his peril. In general, those things omitted from his audit, such as a cash flow statement, were not requested by the client, he claims. Had he been asked for them, he would have provided them. Respondent also seeks to rebut some of Mr. Reilly's comments regarding his work papers. He has no complaint with the first two which are not critical of his audit, and he admits he may be in violation of GAAP with regard to Reilly's finding that certain required documentation was not included therewith. However, if, as he alleged, the financial statement conforms to GAAP, there is no harm done when the supporting work papers are not exactly as they should be. He contends, as well, that several, such as SAS #22 which refers to assistants, do not apply. Admitting to a violation of SAS #19 which calls for a client representation letter, he claims to have cured that defect by subsequently getting one and thereafter saw no reason to change the financial statement. Again, as with his response to the complaints regarding the financial statement, he claims any alleged failure regarding related parties is invalid since, he asserts, there are none. With regard to the remaining alleged defects in the supporting documentation to the work papers, he claims there was a search for unrecorded liabilities but because there was no mention made of it, Reilly could not tell this from the documents. Admitting there was no documentation regarding understanding of the internal control structure, as required by SAS #55, Respondent claims he understood it. He alleges he did accomplish an assessment of control risk as required by SAS #55 but admits there is no record of it in the work papers. The preliminary judgement of materiality levels, planning, and analytical procedures in planning the nature, timing and extent of other audit procedures, as required by SAS #'s 22,47 and 56 were all accomplished, he claims, but admits they were not included in the work papers. He also admits he did not get an attorney's letter and that this is a violation. However, he claims he did test to determine if the association was in compliance with pertinent statutes and rules, but it was not written down in the work papers, and he claims that confirmation of accounts receivable was not necessary because there were none except from Sections 2 and 3, which he did verify. In this latter assertion, it appears he was correct. Mr. Shaw refers to allegations 4 - 6 regarding work papers as mere statements of fact with which he takes no issue. A closer look at the report, however, reveals that numerous omissions were noted here as well. He admits that a financial statement reporting checklist was not in evidence but relates he deemed it not necessary. Mr. Reilly disagreed and his opinion is more supportable. There is little to disagree with in Mr. Reilly's item 8 under work papers when he asserts that the omission of an overall index of the work papers made them difficult to review and void of audit methodology. Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that Respondent's audit did not sufficiently conform to GAAP and was less than required under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case placing Respondent, Gerald E. Shaw's, license as a certified public accountant in Florida on probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions relating to practice and continuing education as are deemed appropriate by the Board of Accountancy. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1992, 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 12th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3420 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: Accepted and incorporated herein except as they relate to the treatment of reserve accounts as long term assets. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gerald E. Shaw 10780 South US 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Martha Willis Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Accountancy Suite 16 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606
Findings Of Fact Edward J. Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida. Tooze's certificate is currently under suspension pursuant to order of the State Board of Accountancy entered under to authority of Section 473.111(5), Florida Statutes. Tooze, although under suspension, is subject to the authority of the Florida State Board of Accountancy for violations of Chapter 473 and the rules contained in Chapter 21A, Florida Administrative Code. Tooze undertook to provide an audited and an unaudited financial statement for Gull-Aire Corporation on September 30, 1976. Said audited and unaudited financial statements were received into evidence as Composite Exhibit #1. Financial statements are representations made by management, and the fairness of a representation of unaudited statements is solely the responsibility of management. See Section 516.01 of Statements on Auditing Standards, No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as SAS) The auditor's report dated October 4, 1976, prepared by Tooze, states as follows: In accordance with your instructions, we submit herewith the balance sheet of Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976. This statement was prepared without audit, and accordingly we do not express an opinion thereon. Each page of the unaudited statement bears the language, "Prepared without audit from books of account and information provided by management." Paragraph 516.04 of SAS provides an example of a disclaimer of opinion as follows: The accompanying balance of x company as of December 31, l9XX, and the related statements of income and retained earnings and changes in financial position for the year then ended were not audited by us and accordingly we do not express an opinion on them. (Signature and date) The form of the disclaimer used by Tooze in the financial statement of Gull-Aire quoted in Paragraph 6 is not identical to the example given in Section 516.04, SAS, No. 1. However, Tooze's statement does reflect that the financial statement was not audited and that Tooze did not express any opinion on it. The notes to the audited financial statement of Gull-Aire Corporation do not include a summary of significant accounting policies used by Tooze in the preparation of the financial statement. While only a balance sheet is shown in both of the Gull-Aire financial statements, retained earnings were reported which were the result of the sale of a parcel of real property. No notes were made on either of the reports explaining this sale, and its treatment, although this was a major business transaction and source of income to the corporation for the period covered. Tooze did not disclose the treatment of income taxes in both the financial statements of Gull-Aire, particularly the tax treatment of the retained earnings in the amount of $45,499.64 from the sale of the real property. Although Tooze issued two financial statements for Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976, one audited and one unaudited, he did not state on the second financial statement the reason for its preparation and explain the accounting decisions which resulted in the change of various entries on the second statement. Tooze stated to the Board's investigator that he did not obtain a representation letter from the management of Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze further stated that he did not prepare a written audit program nor obtain and report what internal controls existed within Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze also prepared a financial report dated April 30, 1977, for Jack Carlson Company, Inc., which was received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The disclaimer prepared by Tooze in the Jack Carlson financial statement contained in the letter to the Board of Directors of the company dated September 15, 1977, stated as follows: We submit herewith our report on the examination of the books and records of Jack Carlson Company, Inc., for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977, and the following exhibits: (delete) The terms of our engagement did not include those standard auditing procedures instant to the rendition of an opinion by an independent Certified Public Accountant. The limited scope of our examination precludes our expression of an opinion as to the fairness of the over-all representations herein. The attached statements were made the basis for the preparation of the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977. Essentially the same statement is contained in the statements for Albeni Corporation and Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc. No statement of changes in financial position was contained in the financial statement prepared for Jack Carlson Company, Inc. Section 516.08, SAS, No. 1 provides in pertinent part as follows: When financial statement's are issued proporting to present fairly financial position, changes in financial position, the results of operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity should be reported as an integral part of the financial statement. (Emphasis supplied) Tooze prepared financial statements for Albeni Corporation which were received as Exhibit #3, and financial statements for Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., which were received as Exhibit #4. The financial statements of Carlson, Georgetown and Albeni were all unaudited. Tooze did not provide an explanation or note to the financial statements describing significant accounting policies which he applied in preparing the statements. In the financial statement of Albeni Corporation, Tooze indicated that "these interim financial statements are intended primarily for internal management use." The fixed assets in the financial statement of Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., constitute $301,642 out of $345,000 of the company's assets. Depreciation and accumulated depreciation are reported as $103,641. The method of computing depreciation was not indicated on the financial statement. In the unaudited financial statements prepared for Carlson and Albeni, the basis of stating inventories and the methods used to determine inventory costs were not disclosed, although inventories constitute a significant percentage of both companys' assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Bearing Officer recommends that the Board of Accountancy take no action on the violation of Rule 21A-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 473.251, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director State Board of Accountancy Post Office Box 13475 Gainesville, Florida 32604 Samuel Hankin, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mr. Edward J. Tooze 464 Patricia Avenue Dunedin, Florida 33528
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Chapter 473 and rules promulgated thereunder as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Order. His license should be suspended for one year with probation thereafter for a period of two years. He should also be required to take such additional continuing education courses as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1986.
The Issue Should the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (the Board) take action against Respondent, a licensed real estate appraiser (appraiser), for violations set forth in Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (1995)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent is a state-licensed appraiser. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent, Fred Catchpole, and Rhonda Guy developed and communicated an appraisal report for property commonly known as 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida 32819. In developing the subject property appraisal report, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach were utilized. Additional Facts: Eventually the circumstances concerning the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (the Report) at the 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida, property (the Property) came to Petitioner's attention upon a complaint. On February 13, 2001, the complaint was made. The complaint was made by Daniel Alvin Ryland, a Florida-licensed appraiser who has provided appraisal services in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in Florida. The investigation of the complaint covered the period February 20, 2001, through December 26, 2001. Benjamin F. Clanton was the principal investigator. At present, he is an investigator supervisor for Petitioner. He has held that position since 2002. Mr. Clanton started investigating appraisal cases in 1995, when he retired from the Birmingham Police Department in Birmingham, Alabama. In that year, he was employed by the Alabama Real Estate Appraisal Board. While there, he took three courses: the Appraisal of Real Estate, a 45-hour course; the Basic How to Appraise, a 25-hour course; and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP), a 16-hour course. He took an update in USPAP in 1997, a four-hour course. Mr. Clanton continued with Appraisal Institute courses or courses involving appraisal principles and procedures, basic income capitalization, residential case studies and a national USPAP course and other updates. As part of the investigation, Mr. Clanton interviewed Respondent Harrison. Mr. Clanton sought documentation from the Respondent in the interest of the recreation of the Cost Approach in the Report. Mr. Clanton asked for the work files supporting the Report. Respondent provided work files. Discrete information concerning recreation of the Cost Approach was not received by Mr. Clanton. From his observations related to the Cost Approach within the Report, Mr. Clanton describes problems with the calculations of the Cost Approach where the stated effective age in the comments on the Cost Approach was 25 years. That calculated to be significantly different, in his understanding, than the number used in the depreciation in the Cost Approach. The Report reflected a remaining economic life of 35 years and a total life expectancy of 60 years. He refers to the Report's statement of the effective age of the Property as 15 years. In his testimony, Mr. Clanton describes the age life depreciation method leading to establishment of the effective age but he was never qualified as an expert to allow consideration of the testimony on the age life depreciation method or other issues related to the Cost Approach. Therefore, no further facts are found on that topic. When interviewed by Mr. Clanton, Respondent Catchpole in DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL acknowledged that there were errors in the Cost Approach formulations attributed to Respondent Harrison. The nature of any errors was not explained. Without that explanation they become inconsequential. More particularly, the Property neighborhood is slightly north of Interstate 10 in Pensacola, Florida, west of Pine Forrest Road, to the west side of Highway 29, and south of Alternate 90. The Property is located in what is referred to as the Ensley area. The Property is one of the largest residences in the Ensley area, in particular in Ensley Gardens. Immediately off of Highway 29 are rows of commercial buildings. Behind those rows is a railroad track. The Property is about 200 feet from the railroad track. An Escambia County utilities substation, pumping station, is located north of the Property. The Escambia County public utilities facility is about 200 feet from the Property. The Property is located north of Broad Street. The Property is on a large lot. Homes across from the Property on Broad Street are located on smaller lots. The property is not in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The area of the subject property is not homogenous, in that the homes vary widely in quality, design, age and size. By choice of the appraiser, the Sales Comparison Approach was used in determining the appraisal for the Property. There were three comparable sales. At the time the Report was written the Property was 27 years old. Comparable sale one was two years old. Comparable sale two was 12 years old. Comparable sale three was 9 years old. The Property site was 120 feet by 260 feet according to the Report. This was larger than the comparable sales sites. Respondent, in providing information from the work file related to the Report, included information from a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for January 1997 from the Pensacola Association of Realtors. In reference to comparable sale one, the MLS refers to the location as Creekside Oaks Subdivision, a luxury home under construction and a Parade Home entry. It refers to a sprinkler system, pantry, cathedral ceilings, security alarm, two+ closets in the master bedroom, separate shower in the master bedroom, an open patio, laundry/utility room, on a golf course, with a two-car garage. It has a whirlpool for the master bedroom bath. It has double pane glass. In relation to comparable sale two, the MLS refers to soaring cathedral ceilings with a fireplace in living room and screen porch, a hot tub and gorgeous yard with pool. The pool is described as an in-ground pool. There is a reference to a unique atrium, an inside laundry, walk-in closets, sprinkler systems, laundry/utility room and security alarm. The MLS pertaining to comparable sale three refers to the Kings Road Subdivision in Cantonment, whereas the Report refers to the location as Pensacola. In relation to comparable sale three on Kings Road in Cantonment, that neighborhood has deed restrictions limiting the type of homes and the size of homes. It has a public sewer. It has underground utilities. It has a concrete curb and gutter. The house is described as having a fireplace, sprinkler system, screen porch, high ceilings, security alarm, two-car garage, with a garden tub in the master bath. It refers to a laundry inside. There is a pool. The Report in the section under the Comparable Sales Approach, under the sales comparison analysis that refers to design and appeal described the Property and the comparables as ranch/average. The Property and the comparable sales properties were all described as suburban-average as to location. The sites were described as average for the Property and inferior for the comparables with a $3000 positive adjustment in each comparable sale to compensate for the difference. The Property did not have a pool. Two of the comparable sales had pools. Mr. Clanton asked the Respondent to provide him with a second appraisal report on the Property. Respondent agreed to provide it and mailed it to Mr. Clanton. A second appraisal report was not received by Mr. Clanton. Nothing more is known about a second appraisal report. In the appraiser certification signed by Respondent as appraiser and signed by Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06- 3389PL, as supervisory appraiser, under item 8 it was stated: "I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property . . . ." Within item 8 to the appraisers certification, it went on to say that there was a personal inspection of " . . . the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report " Respondent in this case did not inspect the interior of the Property as part of the appraisal, by contrast to an awareness of the exterior. Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, served as the supervisory appraiser and as such did not inspect the Property in any respect. Respondent Fred R. Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, reviewed comparable property data in relation to the sales comparison analysis but was not involved in the selection process in choosing comparable sales. The form used in preparing the Report is referred to variously as Freddie Mac Form 70 6/93 and Fannie Mae Form 1004 6/93. In the Report in the section involving subject matter, Fred and Juanita Hicks were listed as borrowers and the current owner of the Property. The property rights being appraised were under the heading "fee simple." There was a reference to a lender/client as Home Star Mortgage Lending. The results of the Report did not lead to any direct harm to a consumer, in particular, the listed borrowers, Fred and Juanita Hicks.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 30th day of May, 2007.
