The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be granted even though, in 2003, NASD imposed discipline against Petitioner pursuant to a settlement agreement wherein Petitioner neither admitted nor denied allegations that he had been involved in improper trading activities.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Florida Real Estate Commission ("FREC") is the agency responsible for licensing real estate brokers and salespersons in the State of Florida. In September 2005, Petitioner Michael Silverstein ("Silverstein") applied for licensure as a real estate sales associate. In his application, Silverstein disclosed that in 2003, NASD——a private-sector securities regulator——had imposed discipline against him, pursuant to a settlement agreement known formally as a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC"), for allegedly having engaged in improper trading activities. The disciplinary matter had arisen out of certain bids that Silverstein had made to buy shares, for his own account, in Chromatic Color Sciences International, Inc. ("CCSI"), a company whose fortunes (and stock price), Silverstein had believed, were due to rise. The bids in question——of which there were 29——had taken place over a two-month period between December 31, 1999, and February 29, 2000. At that time, Silverstein and a partner had owned a brokerage firm called Your Discount Broker, Inc. ("YDB"). Each of the 29 bids had been placed within 30 seconds or so of the close of the trading day on which the bid was made. Each bid had exceeded the day's previous highest bid for CCSI, by an amount ranging from about three cents to 20 cents per share. NASD had alleged that the bids were not bona fide offers to purchase (five had resulted in a consummated sale) but rather artifices made in furtherance of a "manipulative, deceptive, and/or fraudulent" scheme undertaken to artificially inflate the value (on paper, at least) of Silverstein's investment in CCSI.1 NASD had accused Silverstein, his partner, and YDB of violating NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2120.2 Ultimately, in June 2003, Silverstein and the two other respondents had entered into the aforementioned AWC, wherein, "without admitting or denying the allegations, and solely for the purposes of [the then-pending] proceeding and any other proceeding [that might later be] brought by or on behalf of NASD, or to which NASD [might be] a party," they had agreed to the imposition of specified penalties. The stipulated sanctions against Silverstein were a fine of $75,000, which he had paid, and a "suspension from association with any member firm for a period of two months," which Silverstein had served, as agreed, from July 7, 2003, through September 6, 2003. After Silverstein had served his suspension, NASD had reinstated his registrations, allowing Silverstein once again to engage in securities transactions under NASD's oversight. Later, the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") had granted Silverstein a license. As of the final hearing in this case, Silverstein still held his securities licenses, although he was not then active in the industry. Placing a bid near the close of the trading day was not, of itself, a violation of any NASD rule.3 Likewise, merely offering to pay more for a particular company's shares than any other investor previously had offered on a given day was not a disciplinable act under any NASD rule. Silverstein's conduct in relation to the 29 bids for which NASD disciplined him was wrongful, therefore, only if undertaken with bad intent. At hearing in this case, Silverstein denied any intent to manipulate the value of CCSI's shares. The only evidence opposing Silverstein's testimony is the AWC, which is, to be sure, some proof of wrongdoing, because Silverstein agreed therein to be punished. On the other hand, in entering into the AWC, Silverstein was not required expressly to admit wrongdoing, and he did not do so. Further, the undersigned credits Silverstein's unrebutted testimony that he agreed to accept punishment, not because he believed he was guilty of violating NASD rules, but because, at the time, YDB was being acquired by another company, and the deal could not be completed until the NASD matter had been resolved. In addition, there was no evidence about the volume of trading that typically occurred, during the relevant time period, within minutes or seconds of the trading day's close. The undersigned therefore cannot make any rational determination, based on the evidence in the record, as to whether Silverstein's 29 last-minute bids were highly unusual (and hence especially suspicious), relatively routine, or something in-between. There was, as well, no evidence concerning either the volume of trading that was then occurring in connection with CCSI shares, or the prices at which that company's shares were trading during the relevant period, making it impossible for the undersigned reasonably to draw any inferences from the dollar-amounts of Silverstein's bids. In short, there is no persuasive circumstantial evidence (besides the AWC itself) from which the undersigned might infer that Silverstein acted with fraudulent or dishonest intent when he made the 29 bids. At bottom, the evidence in the instant record is simply insufficient to persuade the undersigned that Silverstein's conduct in relation to the 29 bids for which NASD disciplined him was, in fact, manipulative, deceptive, or fraudulent. The undersigned is convinced, however, that, apart from the AWC, Silverstein's past (so far as the evidence shows) is spotless. He has maintained a reputation in his community for truth and honesty, which NASD's disciplinary action failed to sully. Silverstein's conduct after February 29, 2000 (when he stopped making last-minute bids) has been good, even exemplary. Indeed, FREC itself concedes (and the undersigned finds) that Silverstein "is a well-respected member of his community." Resp. Prop. Rec. Order at 4. In view of Silverstein's good conduct and reputation; the facts that NASD and the NYSE presently consider him fit to work in the securities industry; and the fact the that last allegedly improper bid was placed more than six years ago, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that granting Silverstein a license to work as a real estate sales associate will not likely endanger the public generally or investors specifically.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FREC enter a final order granting Silverstein's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 26th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Bruce D. Robertson ("Respondent") was a licensed real estate broker, license #0343680, operating as a president and qualifying broker for IDC Properties ("IDC") At all times material to this case, IDC was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, license #0234614, located at 17980 San Carlos Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. By agreement dated January 16, 1990, the Respondent agreed to pay to salesperson Randy Thibault a commission of $10,362.50 upon the closing of the sale of property at "Old Pelican Bay, Inc.," to Paula E. Brown, hereinafter referred to as the "Brown transaction". On July 5, 1990, the Brown transaction closed. The Respondent received the commission funds related to the sale of the property. The Respondent subsequently issued a check in the amount of $10,362.50 payable to Mr. Thibault. When Mr. Thibault attempted to negotiate the check, he was informed that the Respondent had issued a stop payment order on the check. Mr. Thibault thereafter filed a civil complaint against the Respondent in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida Case No. 90-5851-CA. The matter was heard in a bench trial. On October 3, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $11, 817.42 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest. On October 28, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $14,551.31 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. On November 4, 1991, the Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the matter in the Second District Court of Appeal but subsequently abandoned the appeal. At hearing, the Respondent asserted that Mr. Thibault received his commission share at the closing. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent also asserted that Mr. Thibault misled the Respondent as to Mr. Thibault's role in the sale of other unrelated property and that the Respondent intends to take legal action against him. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent admitted that the Final Judgement obtained by Mr. Thibault remains unsatisfied and stated that stated that he will not pay the judgement pending resolution of the unrelated matter alleged above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Bruce D. Robertson and IDC Properties, Inc., guilty of the violations set forth herein and revoking the licenses identified herein. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6308 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. The Respondent did not submit a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Bruce D. Robertson IDC Properties, Inc. 17980 San Carlos Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33931
The Issue Has Mr. Juliano demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (1981)?
Findings Of Fact On February 12, 1981, Mr. Juliano filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Florida Board of Real Estate. By a letter dated April 28, 1981, the Board denied Mr. Juliano's application. As stated by the letter, "the specific reasons for the Board's action is based on your answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." Question #6 of the application asks: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Mr. Juliano responded "Yes" he had. The question further requested the details in full concerning any arrests. In response Mr. Juliano answered: Arrested for possession of canibus, [sic] pleaded guilty, placed on probation for 30 months. I am not on probation now. On May 31, 1977, the Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida, in Case No. 77-171-CFA, State of Florida v. Frank Arthur Juliano, entered judgment whereby Mr. Juliano who entered a plea of guilty to possession of controlled substances was placed on probation for a period of 30 months with adjudication of guilt withheld. Mr. Juliano successfully completed the terms of his probation which expired on November 30, 1979. There was some confusion about the nature of the judgment entered by the Seminole County Circuit Court referenced above. Upon the receipt of Mr. Juliano's application for licensure the Board staff, as it customarily does, wrote a letter to him dated March 4, 1981 in which it requested additional information about the arrest mentioned in his answer to Question #6 on the application. In response to that inquiry Mr. Juliano obtained and sent to the Board a report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement which indicates that Mr. Juliano was arrested on March 7, 1977 for the sale and delivery of controlled drugs. The report further indicates that adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation for 30 months. A cursory reading of the report might cause the reader to believe that judgment was entered on a charge of sale and delivery. Such a reading would not be correct. Mr. Juliano did not enter a plea to the sale and delivery of controlled substances, but pled only to the charge of possession of controlled substances, a less serious crime. This fact is reflected in the actual Order of Judgment entered by the Seminole County Circuit Court. Since his arrest and probation on the possession charge Mr. Juliano has not been arrested for or charged with any other criminal acts. He has subsequently led a law-abiding life and conducted himself in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Real Estate enter a Final Order finding Petitioner qualified pursuant to Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes (1981) to take the licensing examination provided for in Section 475.17(5), Florida Statutes (1981), to be licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 26th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact By an application received by the Board on March 21, 1979, Petitioner Carole Leigh McGraw applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 of the application form inquired about past arrests or charges for violation of law. Ms. McGraw indicated that she had been arrested and as an explanation attached a separate sheet of paper on which she disclosed that she was arrested in July, 1973 for various criminal charges pending before the Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. She referred the Board for further details to her attorney, James N. Perry, Esquire of Cincinnati, Ohio. No attempt was made by the applicant to conceal any of the facts relating to her outstanding charges. Subsequent to the receipt of her application the Board requested on April 10, 1979, that Ms. McGraw furnish a copy of the indictment and advise the Board of the present status of the indictment. That information was provided by James N. Perry, Esquire who indicated in his letter of April 23, 1979, that counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the twenty count indictment had been dismissed. The dismissal was on appeal and probably would be decided eventually by the Ohio Supreme Court as the issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the organized crime status of Ohio. On July 7, 1978, in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio, the applicant, Carole Leigh McGraw, was indicted by Grand Jury on four counts of engaging in organized crime, six counts of forgery, one count of theft in office and one count of felony theft. None of these charges has been brought to trial. Except for the foregoing indictment the applicant has never been charged with any violation of law or with being dishonest or immoral in any way.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Carole Leigh McGraw for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carole Leigh McGraw 4180 South West 52nd Court Apartment #1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc. are licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0187380 and 0223391, respectively. From approximately July 28, 1983, to approximately August 11, 1983, the Respondent, Ernest Page, knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, certain personal property, including typewriters, copy machines, a television receiver, and a stereo receiver, each of which was valued at $100.00 or more, which was the property of Stewart Hudson or Michael Bethea, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owners thereof, and to appropriate this property to their own use. The Respondent, Ernest Page, had received and was in possession of property that he knew or had reason to know was stolen. The Administrative Complaint tracked the charging language of the information filed against the Respondent, Ernest Page, in the Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was found guilty of six counts of grand theft second degree by a jury on January 31, 1984. He was adjudicated guilty by judgment dated March 28, 1984, of six counts of grand theft second degree, which crimes are punishable as third degree felonies. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was sentenced on March 28, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that real estate broker's license numbered 0187380 and 0223391, held by the Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc., respectively, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James K. Hart (Hart), was at all times material hereto licensed as a real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0302051. On November 26, 1986, in the Criminal Court of Washington County, Tennessee, Hart entered a voluntary plea of nolo contendere to the felony charge of attempt to commit a felony (conspiracy to distribute cocaine in excess of 30 grams). On October 6, 1987, the court found Hart guilty, and he was sentenced to three years confinement and ordered to pay a fine of $75,000. Hart did not notify petitioner within thirty days of having pled nolo contendere or having been convicted of such felony. Hart served 10 months and 27 days of his sentence in the county jail at Johnson City, Tennessee, and then, on August 27, 1988, was released to serve a two-year term of probation. Currently, Hart is serving his two-year term of probation, and reporting to authorities in Broward County, Florida. Hart is currently 50 years of age, and employed to sell kitchen cabinets. From such employment he grosses an income of $25,000 a year. At hearing, Hart offered proof that, as a consequence of his conviction, he owed approximately $220,000 to members of his family and his attorneys. According to Hart, absent the ability to practice as a real estate salesman, his chosen profession, he has no expectations of paying such debts or of providing for his retirement years. While the offense for which he was convicted involved a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, he avers that he has never used drugs, but committed the offense solely because of greed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the real estate broker-salesman's license of respondent, James K. Hart, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of June 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Not relevant. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: STEVEN W. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 400 WEST ROBINSON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 KENNETH G. STEVENS, ESQUIRE 412 NE 4TH STREET FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301 DARLENE F. KELLER, DIVISION DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 400 WEST ROBINSON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since March 25, 2004, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD 4405. She has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. From 1998 until becoming certified as a residential real estate appraiser, Respondent was a Florida-registered trainee appraiser. At all times material to the instant case, the Subject Property was a single-family residential property, owned by Pablo Perez, housing the residents of an assisted living facility (ALF) operated by South Florida Home Services, Inc., pursuant to a license issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). At all times material the instant case, the Subject Property was zoned by the City of Miami for residential use. The ALF that operated on the premises of the Subject Property was inspected by Miami-Dade County Health Department Code Inspector Manuel Alzugaray on April 6, 2007. This was the only Miami-Dade County Health Department inspection of the premises conducted in April 2007. The "results" of Mr. Alzugaray's April 6, 2007, inspection were "unsatisfactory." The written "inspection report" that Mr. Alzugaray completed following the inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair wall in the 2nd stall of the restroom across from Rm. #5. Repair all holes throughout the facility & floor tiles also. Maintain restrooms & facilities clean. Provide screen for kitchen restroom. Evidence of rodents in the kitchen. Evidence of termites in restroom across from Rm. 5. Mr. Alzugaray noted, during his inspection, that the doors of the residents' bedrooms had removable numbers displayed on them and that the "restroom across from Rm. #5" had two toilets separated by a "divider." Mr. Alzugaray returned to the Subject Property to conduct a follow-up inspection on May 17, 2007. The "results" of Mr. Alzugaray's May 17, 2007, inspection were "unsatisfactory." The written "inspection report" that Mr. Alzugaray completed following this May 17, 2007, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Evidence of rodent droppings in the kitchen. Provide screen for window in the kitchen bathroom. Remove mold & mildew from shower in the kitchen restroom. Repair restroom in the 2nd floor (toilet doesn't flush). During both the April 6, 2007, and May 17, 2007, inspections, there were, by Mr. Alzugaray's count, 14 ALF residents present on the premises. (The facility had a licensed capacity of 14 residents.) Mr. Alzugaray conducted two additional inspections of the ALF in 2007, one on September 12, 2007, and the other on November 2, 2007, with the former yielding "unsatisfactory" "results" (due to "drawers in [the] kitchen [not being] clean" and there being "evidence of roach droppings in the kitchen area") and the latter yielding "satisfactory" "results." In April 2007, Respondent was working as a residential real estate appraiser for Atlantic Appraisal Consultants Corporation, when she received an assignment to conduct a residential appraisal of the Subject Property for Affordable Finance Group (Affordable). Affordable was in the business of making residential mortgage loans, and only residential mortgage loans. It did not make commercial mortgage loans. Affordable had received an application from Adolfina Ortega for a residential mortgage loan to purchase the Subject Property from its owner, Mr. Perez. The purpose of the appraisal was to determine whether the market value of this single-family residential property justified Affordable's making the loan. Affordable had telephoned Respondent's secretary on April 10, 2007, to order the appraisal. Respondent's secretary inputted the information she had received from Affordable "in the [office] computer" and generated a printed appraisal order (Order), which she gave to Respondent. The Order indicated that Affordable was requesting an "SFA" (a shorthand reference to a "single family appraisal") of the Subject Property in connection with a mortgage loan sought by Ms. Ortega. This was an appraisal Respondent was competent and qualified to perform by herself as a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The same day the appraisal was requested (April 10, 2007), Respondent telephoned Affordable and discussed the appraisal assignment with an Affordable representative. During this telephone conversation, Respondent was told that the Subject Property was owner-occupied and that its sale was "pending contract." She was also given the name of the owner/seller, Mr. Perez, and his telephone number. Nothing was said to Respondent to suggest that she was expected to perform anything other than the "SFA" indicated on the Order. No mention was made of any business that was part of the sale. Later in the day on April 10, 2007, Respondent telephoned Mr. Perez and made arrangements to visit the Subject Property on the morning of April 12, 2007, as part of the appraisal process. Before her visit, to find out more information about the Subject Property and to obtain possible "comparable sales" properties, Respondent performed internet-based research using generally accepted data sources (MLS, FARES, and RealQuest) that Florida-certified residential real estate appraisers typically employ for such purposes. According to the data her research uncovered, the Subject Property was a one-story, single-family residence, with three bedrooms and two bathrooms, that was owned by Mr. Perez and had R-4 zoning. There was nothing in any of the data sources that she used to indicate that an ALF or any other business was operating on the premises of the Subject Property. Respondent visited the Subject Property the morning of April 12, 2007, as scheduled. When she arrived (somewhere between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m.), she was greeted by a "gentleman."4 Respondent and this "gentleman" were the only persons present at the Subject Property during the entire time Respondent was there. After measuring the exterior of the structure, Respondent asked for and was granted permission to go inside to do a "very basic" "walk[] through," the purpose of which was to note the number and location of the rooms and the general condition of the residence. Respondent's "walk[] through" took approximately ten minutes, which was an adequate amount of time for her to accomplish what she needed to. As part of the "walk[] through," she "peek[ed] in" the bathrooms. The last thing that Respondent did during her visit was to take photographs outside the residence.5 Respondent witnessed nothing during her visit to suggest that the Subject Property was anything other than a single-family residential property. She had no reason to believe, based on the observations she made,6 that the property was being used as an ALF or to conduct any other business activity. She did discover, however, as a result of the observations she made during her visit, that the on-line information she had obtained about the Subject Property was inaccurate to the extent that it indicated that the Subject Property was a one-story structure with three bedrooms, not a two-story structure with five bedrooms. Appropriately, in completing her appraisal, she relied, not on this erroneous information, but on what she had actually observed during her visit. On her way back from the Subject Property, Respondent drove to, and parked on the street outside of, each of the three possible "comparable sales" properties she had selected before setting out that morning (all of which were located within 1.28 miles of the Subject Property). She looked at and took exterior photographs of each property, but did not go inside any of them. On the Order, which she had taken with her, she wrote notes recording her observations about each property. Thereafter, Respondent sought to verify the information she had gleaned from her internet-based research about these three "comparable sales" properties (as she was professionally required to do, if she wanted to use them for her appraisal). She did so, appropriately, by contacting individuals who had been involved in these "comparable sales" transactions (realtors, in the case of two of the transactions, and the purchasers, in the case of the other). Where there was a conflict between what her research had revealed and what she was told by these individuals, she, again appropriately, relied on the latter in completing her appraisal. Using a pre-printed Fannie Mae form, Respondent completed a Summary Appraisal Report (Report), dated April 30, 2007, containing her opinion that the market value of the Subject Property as of April 25, 2007 (the date Respondent started preparing the Report) was $590,000.00 (which was price Ms. Ortega had agreed to pay Mr. Perez for the Subject Property). Respondent arrived at her opinion by conducting a sales comparison analysis. (She conducted neither a cost analysis nor an income analysis.) As she indicated in the Report, Respondent, appropriately, appraised the Subject Property as a single-family residential property, as she had been asked to do by Affordable. The first page of Respondent's Report contained five sections: "Subject," "Contract," "Neighborhood," "Site," and "Improvements." The "Subject" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: Property Address: 140 NW 9 AVENUE City: MIAMI State: FL Zip Code: 33128 County: MIAMI DADE Borrower: ORTEGA Owner of Public Record: PEREZ Neighborhood Name: RIVERVIEW * * * Occupant: X Owner _ Tenant _ Vacant * * * Property Rights Appraised: X Fee Simple _ Leasehold _ Other (Describe) * * * Assignment Type: X Purchase Transaction _ Refinance Transaction _ Other (describe) Lender/Client: AFFORDABLE FINANCIAL GROUP . . . . . Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s): PUBLIC RECORDS, MLS TAX ROLLS, REALQUEST The "Contract" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: I _ did X did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. SALE PRICE IS $590,000 AND 4/2007 CONTRACT DATE PER SALES CONTRACT. Contract Price: $590,000 Date of Contract: 4/2007 Is the property seller the owner of public record: X Yes _ No Data Sources: PUBLIC RECORDS Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or down payment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? X Yes _ No If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid: 20,000 SELLER TO PAY $20,000 TOWARDS BUYER[']S CLOSING COST[s]. Respondent did not "analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction" because she was not in possession of a written contract at the time she prepared her Report. She had merely been told (by the Affordable representative) of the purported existence of such a contract and of its salient terms. It was not unreasonable, however, for her to have relied on these oral representations and included in the Report the information with she had been provided, as she did. Following the development and communication of the Report, Respondent received a copy of a written contract, dated May 11, 2007, signed by Mr. Perez, as the seller of the Subject Property, and Ms. Ortega, as the buyer. Respondent maintained this written contract in her work file.7 The contract was a "standard purchase and sale contract for the sale of a residential home." Consistent with the information contained in the "Contract" section of the Report, the "contract price" was $590,000.00, and provision was made in the contract for a $20,000.00 "seller contribution toward closing costs." The contract made clear that what was being purchased and sold was the Subject Property, "together with all improvements and attached items," as well as "all appliances in working condition[]," and nothing else (including any business enterprise that might have been operating on the premises or any items associated therewith).8 In the "Neighborhood" section of the Report, Respondent identified the boundaries of what she considered, in her judgment, to be the "neighborhood" in which the Subject Property was located. She identified these boundaries as follows: "US-1 TO THE SOUTH, I-95 TO THE EAST, SR 836 TO THE NORTH, AND SW 17TH AVENUE TO THE WEST." She then provided the following "Neighborhood Description" and "Market Conditions": Neighborhood Description: Subject is located in a typical neighborhood. Typical neighborhood amenities such as schools, shopping, parks, houses of worship and transportation are within a reasonable distance of the subject but do not intrude on residential areas. No unfavorable factors affect marketability. Subject is convenient to employment centers and is stable at present time. The predominate price for the area does not appear to [sic]. Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions): Property values are stable along with supply and demand. Competitive listings are selling within 3-6 months. Typical sales are at 93-95% of listing price. Sellers need not negotiate financing related concessions as most sales are conventional or FHA/VA financed. Identifying the precise boundaries of a property's "neighborhood" is largely a subjective exercise.9 While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Spool, may have drawn different, narrower "neighborhood" boundaries had he been the one doing the appraisal (as he testified he would have at hearing), it cannot be clearly said that the boundaries identified by Respondent in her Report were "incorrect," as alleged in numbered paragraph 13A. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact." Where the boundaries of the Subject Property's "neighborhood" lie is a matter of judgment about which reasonable people may disagree. The "Site" section of the Report read, in part, as follows: * * * View: RESIDENTIAL Specific Zoning Classification: R-4 (AS PER TAX ROLL). Zoning Description: MULTI-FAMILY HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Zoning Compliance: X Legal _ Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) _ No Zoning _ Illegal (describe) Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use? X Yes _ No If no, describe. * * * In the "Improvements" section of the Report, Respondent indicated, among other things, that the Subject Property was a one-unit structure built in 1920, with an "effective age" of 30 years. Next to "# of stories," Respondent inadvertently entered, "One," but next to "Design (Style)," she put, "2 Story" (which, as the "Subject Front" photograph appended to the Report plainly showed, was, of these two conflicting entries, the correct one). Other information provided in this section included the following: Finished area above grade contains: 8 Rooms, 5 Bedrooms, 2 Bath(s) 1,971 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade. Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.) THE SUBJECT HAS A COVERED ENTRY, TILE/WOOD FLOORS, CENTRAL AND UNIT A/C, CHAIN LINK FENCE, OPEN PARKING, ALUM. PATIO, AND GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovation, remodeling, etc.). NORMAL PHYSICAL DEPRECIATION FOR AGE. THE SUBJECT APPEARS TO BE IN OVERALL AVERAGE CONDITION. Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)? X Yes _ No If No, describe The second page of Respondent's Report contained two sections: "Sales Comparison Approach" and "Reconciliation." In the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report, Respondent identified the three "comparable sales" properties ("comparables") that she initially examined to estimate (using a sales comparison analysis) the market value of the Subject Property, and she provided information about these "comparables," as well as the Subject Property. The following were the three "comparables" Respondent selected for her sales comparison analysis: Comparable Sale 1, located at 2805 Southwest 4th Avenue in Miami (1.28 miles from the Subject Property); Comparable Sale 2, located at 460 Southwest 18th Terrace in Miami (.92 miles from the Subject Property); and Comparable Sale 3, located at 1285 Southwest 16th Street in Miami (1.18 miles from the Subject Property). It is alleged in numbered paragraph 13D. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact" that Respondent erred in using these "comparables" because none of them were "located in the Subject Property's defined market area."10 It is not at all clear from a review of the evidentiary record, however, what constituted the "Subject Property's defined market area," as that phrase is used in the Administrative Complaint,"11 and it therefore cannot be said, without hesitation, that any of these "comparables" were located outside of this "market area." The Report accurately reflected that the "comparables," as well as the Subject Property, were "Residential" properties. Contrary to the assertion made in numbered paragraph 13E. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact," "Respondent's use of single family Comparable Sales was [not] inappropriate," given that the Subject Property was a single-family residential property (that, according to the information Respondent had obtained from the client, Affordable, was being sold to an individual seeking a mortgage loan from Affordable to finance the purchase transaction), and Affordable had requested, and Respondent was performing, appropriately, an "SFA" to determine the value of this single-family residential property. That an ALF (which was not part of the purchase transaction) was operating on the premises of this single-family residential property did not render "Respondent's use of single family Comparable Sales . . . inappropriate." Comparative information relating to the three "comparables" chosen by Respondent and the Subject Property was set forth in a grid (Sales Comparison Grid) in the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report. On the "Design (Style)" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent indicated that the Subject Property was a "2 Story" structure. On the "Above Grade Room Count" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following with respect to the Subject Property and the three "comparables": Subject Property: 8 (Total); 5 (bdrms.); (Baths). Comparable Sale 1: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); (Baths). Comparable Sale 2: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); 1 (Bath). Comparable Sale 3: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). The following "Adjusted Sale Price[s]" for the three "comparables" were set forth on the last line of the Sales Comparison Grid: Comparable Sale 1: $595,800.00; Comparable Sale 2: $571,400.00; and Comparable Sale 3: $628,700.00. At the end of the "Sales Comparison Approach" section (beneath the grid) was the following "Summary of Sales Comparison Approach" and "Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach": Summary of Sales Comparison Approach: SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SIMILAR TO ALL THREE COMPARABLE CLOSED SALES WHICH WERE CAREFULLY SELECTED AFTER AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH IN AND OUT OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS SEARCH CONSISTED OF ANALYZING NUMEROUS CLOSED SALES AND NARROWING THIS LIST DOWN TO THE THREE MOST SIMILAR. AFTER CLOSE EVALUATION OF THE THREE COMPARABLE SALES UTILIZED, ADJUSTMENTS TO ALL COMPARABLES[S] WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $590,000. In the first part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report, Respondent reiterated that $590,000.00 was the "Indicated Value by [the] Sales Comparison Approach," and she added that she used this approach in valuing the Subject Property because it "best reflect[ed] [the] action of buyers and sellers in the market place." The second and final part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read, in part, as follows: This appraisal is made x "as is," . . . . . Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and appraiser's certification, my (our) opinion of the market value, as defined, of the real property that is the subject of this report is $590,000, as of APRIL 25, 2007, which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal. The "date of inspection" was actually April 12, 2007, not April 25, 2007. On the third page of the Report, Respondent indicated that the "income approach [was] not applied [to determine the Subject Property's value] due to lack of rental data." The fourth page of the Report contained pre-printed boilerplate, including the following: This report form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property . . . . The appraisal report is subject to the following scope of work, intended use, definition of market value, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. Modifications, additions, or deletions to the intended use, intended user, definition of market value, or assumptions and limiting conditions are not permitted. The appraiser may expand the scope of work to include any additional research or analysis necessary, based on the complexity of this appraisal assignment. Modifications or deletions to the certifications are also not permitted. However additional certifications that do not constitute material alterations to this appraisal report, such as those required by law or those related to the appraiser's continuing education or membership in an appraisal organization, are permitted. SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the reporting requirements of this appraisal report form, including the following definition of market value, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. The appraiser must, at a minimum: perform a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the comparable sales from at least the street, research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or privates sources, and report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report. INTENDED USE: The intended use of this appraisal report is for the lender/client to evaluate the property that is the subject of this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he or she considers his or her own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. * * * STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it, except for information that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing this appraisal. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and will not render any opinions about the title. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements. The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. * * * The fifth and sixth pages of the Report contained additional pre-printed boilerplate in the form of an "Appraiser's Certification," wherein "the Appraiser [Respondent] certifie[d] and agree[d] that": I have, at a minimum, developed and reported this appraisal in accordance with the scope of work requirements stated in this appraisal report. I performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property. I reported the condition of the improvements in factual, specific terms. I identified and reported the physical deficiencies that could affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity of the property. 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. I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value. I have adequate comparable market data to develop a reliable sales comparison approach for this appraisal assignment. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value but did not develop them, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on any current agreement for sale for the subject property, any offering for sale of the subject property in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal, and the prior sales of the subject property for a minimum of three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the prior sales of the comparable sales for a minimum of one year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale, unless otherwise indicated in the report. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property. I have not used comparable sales that were the result of combining a land sale with the contract purchase price of a home that has been built or will be built on the land. I have reported adjustments to the comparable sales that reflect the market's reaction to the differences between the subject property and the comparable sales. I verified, from a disinterested source, all information in this report that was provided by parties who have a financial interest in the sale or financing of the subject property. I have knowledge and experience in appraising this type of property in this market area. I am aware of, and have access to, the necessary and appropriate public and private data sources, such as multiple listing services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct. I have taken into consideration factors that have an impact on value with respect to the subject neighborhood, subject property, and the proximity of the subject property to adverse influences in the development of my opinion of market value. I have noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that I became aware of during research involved in performing this appraisal. I have considered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value, and have reported on the effect of the conditions on the value and marketability of the subject property. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from this appraisal and, to the best of my knowledge, all statements and information in this appraisal report are true and correct. I stated in this appraisal report my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appraisal report. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in this appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owner or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property or on any other basis prohibited by law. My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report (or present analysis supporting) a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report.[12] I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. I identified the lender/client in this appraisal report who is the individual, organization, or agent for the organization that ordered and will receive this appraisal report. The lender/client may disclose or distribute this appraisal to the borrower; another lender at the request of the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; mortgage insurers; government sponsored enterprises; other secondary market participants; data collection or reporting services; professional appraisal organizations; any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States; and any state, the District of Columbia, or other jurisdictions; without having to obtain the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's (if applicable) consent. Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party, including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. I am aware that any disclosure or distribution of this appraisal report by me or the lender/client may be subject to certain laws and regulations. Further, I am also subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that pertain to disclosure or distribution by me. The borrower, another lender at the request of the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, government sponsored enterprises, and other secondary market participants may rely on this appraisal report as part of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties. If this appraisal was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws. Directly beneath the foregoing boilerplate was Respondent's signature. Appended to the Report was a "Supplemental Addendum," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: ALL SALES WERE CLOSED SALES AND CONSIDERED STRONG MARKET VALUE INDICATORS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THEY ARE RELATIVELY SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT IN TERMS OF LOCATION, QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION, RELATIVE SIZE, ROOM COUNT AND MARKET APPEAL. THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE AREA AND ALL SHARE THE SAME IF NOT SIMILAR NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES. ADJUSTMENTS WERE REQUIRED FOR SITE CONDITION, BATH, GLA, CARPORT AND POOL. AFTER EXTENSIVE RESEARCH, THE THREE SALES USED WERE DEEMED GOOD INDICATORS OF MARKET VALUE. EQUAL EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON ALL THREE SALES. * * * SCOPE OF APPRAISAL The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales within the market area. The original source of the comparables is shown in the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source of confirmation, if available. The original source is presented first. The sources and data are considered reliable. When conflicting information was provided, the source deemed most reliable has been used. Data believed to be unbelievable was not included in this report nor was used as a basis for the value conclusion. * * * HIGHEST AND BEST USE The Highest and Best Use of a site is that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. For improvements to represent[] the highest and best use of a site, they must be legally permitted, be financially feasible, be physically possible and provide[] more profit than any other use of the site would generate. SITE The improvements on the property are legal and conform to current zoning regulations. In the event of a loss by fire [] all improvements could be rebuilt without obtaining a zoning variance. The opinion of zoning compliance requirements expressed in this appraisal is based on the appraiser's inspections of the subject property and comparison to the appropriate zoning ordinance. This opinion does not represent a certification which can only be obtained from the proper jurisdictional authority. * * * ROOM LISTS The number of rooms, bedrooms, baths and lavatories is typical of houses in this neighborhood. Foyers, laundry rooms and all rooms below grade are excluded from the total room count. * * * CONDITION OF COMPONENTS Any opinion expressed in this appraisal pertaining to the condition of the appraised property's, or comparable property's components, is based on observation[s] made at the time of inspection. They rely on visual indicators as well as reasonable expectations as to adequacy and dictated by neighborhood standards relative to marketability. These observations do not constitute certification of condition, including roof or termite problems, which may exist. If certification is required, a properly licensed or qualified individual should be consulted. * * * DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on the comparison of the subject with sales of similar type properties. Adjustments are made to these sales for differences with the subject. [T]his is generally considered the best indicator of value. * * * CONDITIONS OF APPRAISAL PERSONAL PROPERTY/INTANGIBLE/NON-REALTY ITEMS Items of personal property and other non- realty items have not been included in the appraisal o[f] the subject property. The indicated Market Value for the subject property does not include items o[f] personal property or other non-realty property. * * * Via the "Supplemental Addendum," Respondent advised the reader of the Report that, where she had "conflicting information," she included in the Report only the data that was, in her view, "most reliable." While she did not, anywhere in the Report, specify or describe how this included data differed from the less reliable data she excluded, she was under no professional obligation to do so (contrary to the allegation made in numbered paragraph 13C. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact"). Appended to the Report, in addition to the "Subject Front" photograph referenced above, were five other photographs: two additional photographs Respondent took when she was at the Subject Property on April 12, 2007 (a "Subject Rear" photograph and a "Subject Street" photograph); and an exterior photograph of each of the three "comparables." Also appended to the Report was a sketch of the Subject Property, showing it to be a two-story, five-bedroom, two-bath structure. Approximately two months after Respondent had developed and communicated the Report, Affordable asked her to examine two "additional comparables to support [the determination of] value" she had made. Respondent complied with this request. The two "additional comparables" she selected were Comparable Sale 4, located at 330 Southwest 29th Road in Miami (1.02 miles from the Subject Property), and Comparable Sale 5, located at 441 Southwest 29th Road in Miami (1.29 miles from the Subject Property). According to Respondent's calculations, Comparable Sale 4 had an "Adjusted Sale Price" of $603,800.00, and Comparable Sale 5 had an "Adjusted Sale Price" of $599,200.00. She further determined, and on or about June 25, 2007, reported to Affordable, that her analysis of these two additional comparables "support[ed] [her prior determination of] market value."13
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order finding the record evidence insufficient to support a finding of Respondent's guilt of any of the counts of the Administrative Complaint and, based upon such finding, dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times relevant hereto, respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0204657 which license was inactive and scheduled to expire on March 31, 1983. Respondent's license was renewed on April 1, 1983. On or about May 13, 1983, on Information filed by the office of the State Attorney of the 12th Judicial Circuit in the State of Florida, respondent was charged with the commission of prostitution, lewdness or assignation; contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. Thereafter, on December 19, 1983, respondent made her appearance in the County Court of Sarasota County, Florida, before the Honorable Robert Stahlschmidt, County Court Judge, and entered a plea of no1o contendere to the charge of prostitution. On the same day, Judge Stahlschmidt, withheld adjudication; sentenced respondent to sixty (60) days in the county jail which was suspended; fined respondent $340, including court costs; placed respondent on supervised probation for a period of one (1) year under the supervision of the Salvation Army Correction Division upon the condition that she serve 50 hours of community services and not be involved in any acts of prostitution.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the respondent be found guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, 1983. For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of REPRIMAND to the respondent. Respectively submitted and entered this 17th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gerald C. Surfus, Esquire 150 East Avenue South Sarasota, Florida 33577 Sharla Speakman Post Office Box 4202 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license should be denied on the ground that he fails to meet the requirement that an applicant be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. "
Findings Of Fact In March, 1981, petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. (Joint Exhibit 1.) Question No. 6 of the application and petitioner's answer (underlined below) were as follows: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal vio- lations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes. If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Arrested in Savannah, Georgia 1974 for Sales and Possession of Marijuana--Case Dropped- Beaufort, South Carolina 1974 Simple Posses sion of Marijuana--fined $100.00--1978 following to [sic] close--Sarasota, FL $31.00 fine. (Joint Exhibit 1.) At hearing, petitioner confirms his answer to Question No. 6. In 1974, he was in the U.S. Marine Corps and stationed at Beaufort, South Carolina. He was arrested twice on criminal charges. On August 14, 1974, he was arrested in Savannah, Georgia, on charges of possession and sale of marijuana. The present state of the charges is uncertain. At hearing, petitioner invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to questions concerning the circumstances surrounding that arrest. His second arrest occurred in Beaufort, South Carolina; on November 7, 1974, he pleaded guilty to the criminal charge of simple possession of marijuana and paid a $100 fine. Other than a subsequent arrest in Port Charlotte, Florida, arising out of a marriage dissolution (the charge of withholding means of support was ultimately dropped) , petitioner has not been arrested or convicted of any crime since 1974. (Testimony of R. Kiebler; Joint Exhibits 2, 3.) During the last five years, petitioner has been employed by various glass and window companies in southwest Florida. Since February, 1981, he has worked as a salesman for Bill's Custom Glass and Mirror Company in Naples, Florida. In that capacity, he called on contractors, read prints, submitted bids, and signed contracts. He performed his work well; his employer considers him to be a very honest and reliable individual. (Testimony of Reagan, R. Kiebler; Joint Exhibit 1.) Since moving to Naples in February, 1980, petitioner has earned a reputation for truthfulness, honesty, and fair dealing in business affairs. (Testimony of S. Kiebler.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Ronald Leroy Kiebler for a Florida real estate salesman's license be GRANTED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Burns, Esquire 945 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32789
