The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be revoked as set forth in the Notice of Intent to Revoke License.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating yacht salesmen and brokers. Such authority includes the discipline of yacht salesman as set forth in Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a yacht salesman in the State of Florida. Respondent first applied for licensure in June of 1994. This license request was granted and Respondent was issued a license for the two-year period 1994-1996. In June of 1996, Respondent applied to renew the license. This license request was also granted and Respondent was issued a yacht salesman's license for the period 1996-1998. On or about April 28, 1997, Respondent was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a federal violation, and a felony. As a result, Respondent was sentenced and incarcerated. In July of 1998, Respondent applied to the Department to renew the yacht salesman's license. Based upon the information submitted to Petitioner at the time he sought renewal, the Department had no direct information of the felony conviction. In telephone conversations with the Department staff, Respondent did not disclose he had been incarcerated, was living in a halfway house as part of his sentence, and was a convicted felon. In August of 1998, a third party advised the Department that Respondent had the felony conviction. Thereafter, upon such notice, Petitioner took action to seek revocation of Respondent's license. The license renewal for 1998 filed by Respondent was executed on July 7, 1998. Technically, his license expired on June 14, 1998, but he was afforded a grace period within which to process the renewal. To this end the Department attempted to accommodate the renewal applicant. On the license renewal card Respondent submitted conflicting answers. To question (3) which read: Have you been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, since initial licensure? Respondent answered "Y." To question (4) which read: Has any judgment or decree of a court been entered against you or is there now pending any case in this or any other state, in which you were charged with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing? Respondent answered "N." An undated letter from Respondent accompanied the renewal card which referred to a prior correspondence with the Department of June 6, 1996, as the explanation for question (4). As to question (3), the letter stated: "a conviction was made on 4/28/98 in the U.S. District Court Southern Florida." Respondent's answer to question (4) was false. Moreover, the manner in which Respondent answered the two questions did not disclose that Respondent had been convicted of a felony or conspiracy to commit wire fraud. More telling of Respondent's attempt to mislead the Department, however, is his failure to disclose any of the foregoing circumstances during telephone conversations with staff seeking to assist him to renew the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 29th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Nowick, Director Florida Land Sales, Condos, Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Scott K. Edmonds, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire Tracy J. Sumner, P.A. 1330 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent Garrison's license as a real estate broker and Respondent Arbree's license as a broker-salesman should be suspended or revoked, or the licensees otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 475, F.S., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated December 22, 1980. This proceeding commenced with the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation on December 22, 1980 alleging that Respondents Gary D. Garrison and Joseph M. Arbree had violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes in connection with a 1977 real estate transaction wherein Respondents allegedly failed to disclose to the seller that purchaser Respondent Arbree was a licensed broker-salesman and that Respondent Garrison had, or would have a financial interest in the property upon its purchase. The Respondents requested an administrative hearing on the charge and filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that Petitioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed in the cause in that there had been no lawful compliance with the provisions of Section establishment of any fiduciary relationship between the Respondents and the seller of the property in question, and that Petitioner had not complied with the motion was reserved until argument was presented at the final hearing. At that time, the motion was denied for reasons which will be set forth in the Petitioner forwarded the Request for Hearings to this Division on July 1, 1981 and hearing was set for September 17, 1981. On August 27, 1981, Petitioner Oklahoma on September 9, 1981. Respondent filed objections to the said notice, together with a Motion For Protective Order, claiming that the notice period was depositions outside the State for use at trial. Respondent sought either to have the notice "stricken" or that a protective order be entered to require deposition or, alternatively, that the deposition testimony not be allowed in evidence at final hearing. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer on At final hearing on September 17, 1981, Petitioner announced that the deposition of McNickle, an indispensable witness, had not yet been received. deposition as a late-filed exhibit, a continuance was granted until November 23, 1981, to permit receipt of the deposition and to afford Respondents an its taking in Oklahoma. Although the parties were afforded the opportunity to file Proposed herein, no post-hearing submissions have been filed.
Findings Of Fact times material to the complaint was registered as a real estate salesman with Investment Equity Corporation, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Respondent Joseph he was associated with Investment Equity Corporation during the times material to the allegations in the Complaint. (Testimony of Respondents) acre unimproved lots in a development called Palm Beach Country Estates located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The purchase price of each lot was telephoned Respondent Garrison and they thereafter had several telephone conversations which led to the sale of the three lots to Respondent Arbree. The found that Respondent Garrison's version is more credible. In the initial conversation, McNickle advised Garrison of his ownership of the three lots and to inspect the lots and advise him as to the distance to electrical power, the type of roads adjacent to the lots, and whether the lots were corner lots. and that he was interested in trying to get his money back from the company. There was no mention of the value of the lots or of listing the property for sale. Garrison inspected the lots and, in a subsequent telephone conversation with McNickle, informed him that the nearest electrical power was approximately 1-3/4 miles from the lot locations, that they were on a dirt road, and that none were corner lots. He also informed him that the lots were approximately fifty percent under water during the rainy season. During this conversation, Garrison told McNickle that he had an "associate" with Investment Equity who sometimes purchased such lots. McNickle asked him to see if he could obtain an offer on the lots. Garrison then asked Respondent Arbree if he desired to purchase the lots, and the latter agreed if he could obtain financing for the purchase. Arbree asked Garrison if there was a listing on the property and Garrison told him that there was not. The reason for this inquiry was that Arbree had in the past frequently made personal purchases of real estate and had disclosed his status as a real estate salesman on such contracts when the property was listed with a broker. A question had arisen in his office as to when licensed real estate personnel should disclose their status to sellers when buying on their own account. Arbree had resolved this question in his mind some time previously by telephoning the legal office of the Florida Real Estate Commission and receiving information from someone there that it was not necessary to make such disclosure if the property was not listed with a real estate office. (Testimony of Respondents, McNickle (Deposition-Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Petitioner's Exhibit 4-1, Respondents' Exhibits 1-4) On February 28, 1977, Respondent Arbree executed a deposit receipt contract whereby he agreed to pay McNickle $15,000.00 for the three lots. The contract originally provided for a $500.00 deposit evidenced by Arbree's promissory note to be held in trust by the Investment Equity Corporation, but this was later deleted by the parties at the request of McNickle, and a $500.00 check as deposit was placed in the Investment Equity Corporation Trust Account on March 10, 1977. The check was drawn on the account of J. V. Company and signed by both Respondents. J. V. Company was simply a bank account established by Arbree and Garrison sometime prior to the McNickle transaction to serve as a depository for funds which were generated through sales for their private account. Both signatures were required for issuance of checks. Originally, the funds in the account were exclusively those of Arbree and these were the funds used for the deposit and subsequent mortgage payments to McNickle. (Testimony of Respondents, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4-5, 4-9, 5) The deposit receipt contract was executed by Melvin F. McNickle and his wife on March 10, 1977. The contract provided that "The buyer hereby recognizes Investment Equity Corporation by separate agreement as the broker in this transaction". This provision made reference to the fact that in cases where associates of Investment Equity Corporation purchased property in their own name which was not listed with the firm, the firm broker did not require payment of any commission. On the other hand, if an associate sold his own property, whether or not listed with Investment Equity Corporation, office policy required that he pay the firm a three percent commission for overhead, escrow maintenance, and the like. The commission was payable directly to the company and not shared with any of the associates. McNickle did not enter into a listing contract with the firm nor did he pay a real estate commission on the sale. The real estate transaction closed on August 1, 1977. Warranty deeds, dated July 26, 1977, for each of the three lots were issued by McNickle to Arbree. (Testimony of Respondents, Brown, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4-3, 4-4, 4- 5) Garden lots and is familiar with the selling price places the top value on choice lots of $8,000.00 in 1977, and $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 if fill was Shortly after Arbree had contracted with McNickle for the sale of the lots, Arbree told Garrison that if the lots could be resold at a profit, he McNickle contract had been entered into, another associate at Investment Equity Corporation told Garrison that he had a prospect looking for vacant land, and prospect, Carl Doty, was contacted by Garrison and, on March 17, 1977, a contract for sale and purchase was entered into between Arbree and Doty for the Investment Equity Corporation as the broker and agreed to pay a commission of three percent of the gross sales price to the firm. This was in accordance with minimum commission for processing a sale of property owned by the associate. Garrison did not receive a commission on the sale, but did receive one half of Arbree. Warranty deeds were issued to Doty by Arbree on August 24, 1977. The proceeds of the sale were placed in the J. V. Company bank account. (Testimony This case was originally docketed in the Florida Real Estate Commission in September, 1978, but was not investigated until December, 1979. A prior to comply with the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Stephens) Petitioner's proposed disciplinary action against both Respondents is predicated upon their alleged failure to disclose to the seller of the lots in Petitioner, and that Respondent Garrison had or would have a financial interest in the said property upon its purchase. The said nondisclosure is alleged to trick or device, breach of trust", and that thereby each Respondent "has aided, assisted or conspired with another in furtherance thereof, all in violation of subsequently reenacted and renumbered (Subsection 475.25(1)(b), F.S. (1981)), the provisions of the cited ground for disciplinary action have remained the penalties. The evidence in this case falls short of the standard required under (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), i.e., that in a proceeding which "may result in the loss of a valuable business or professional license, the critical matters at issue must Here, the fact that the real property in question was not the subject of a listing contract with Respondents' firm, Investment Equity Corporation, raises commission was paid to Respondent Garrison or to the firm by the seller, nor was any expected. Respondents and their broker treated the transaction as a private Respondents misled McNickle in any respect. Garrison made it clear at the outset that Arbree was his associate in the firm and was acting in his own behalf. The circumstances demonstrate that Garrison was acting as a gratuitous "middle man" for the benefit of both parties. The offer of Arbree, which was accepted by McNickle, was not unreasonable in the light of the location of the lots and other relevant considerations bearing on market value. The evidence shows that the McNickle lots were purchased solely with Arbree's funds, even though the checks issued for the deposit and several mortgage payments were drawn on the "J. V. Company" account which had been used in a limited fashion in the past by both Respondents in real estate ventures. No competent evidence was presented to show that Respondent Garrison had acquired a financial interest in the Arbree-McNickle transaction. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that subsequent purchaser Doty was made known to Garrison as a prospective purchaser of the lots only after the purchase contract between Arbree and McNickle had been executed, and that Respondents had not agreed to split any profits in a resale until that time. It is undoubtedly true that if Investment Equity Corporation had had a broker-principal fiduciary relationship with McNickle, the duties resulting therefrom would have also been imposed upon Garrison as a salesman, and he would have been obliged to disclose to McNickle the circumstances concerning his subsequent interest in the resale to Doty. This was not the case, however, and no such duty can be found in the light of the existing circumstances. Although it is recognized that a registrant can violate Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. (1977) for dishonest conduct in a business transaction for his own account, as well as for such conduct in which his only interest is as a broker (or salesman) Sellars v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 380 So.2d, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the evidence here is insufficient to so characterize Respondents' conduct. It is therefore concluded that Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(a), F.S. as alleged. Although the foregoing conclusion renders it unnecessary to deal with Respondents' various claims concerning Petitioner's failure to accord them procedural rights in the prehearing process, it is considered that the amendment to Section 120.60(6), F.S. by Chapter 81-180, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1981, renders any defense based on the prior Section 120.60(6)(1979) no longer available. Additionally, Respondents' contentions that this proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to criminal prosecutions or by statutory laches are not well founded. Finally, Respondents did not establish any failure of Petitioner to comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, in processing this case.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Real Estate dismiss the allegations against Respondents Gary D. Garrison and Joseph M. Arbree. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1982. Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 611 North Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Executive Director Florida Board of Real Estate Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the application of Ronald J. Palamara (“Palamara”) for licensure as a yacht and ship broker under Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was previously a licensed yacht and ship broker in Florida, holding Yacht Broker License No.324. On April 28, 1999, the Petitioner’s prior license expired. The Petitioner reapplied for a Yacht Broker license on February 24, 2000. Robert Badger (Badger), at that time an investigator with the Division, investigated the application for form pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, and found that there were no problems with the form of the application. Badger also reviewed the application for moral character of the applicant pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(3), Florida Administrative Code. On the application, the Petitioner indicated that he had a criminal background, but failed to disclose the nature of the criminal background on the application. In a letter from the Division addressed to the Petitioner, additional information was requested regarding his criminal background. The Petitioner replied in a letter that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor for resisting an officer without violence. The Petitioner also disclosed on the application that he had a civil Final Judgment against him in the matter of Chinnock Marine, Inc. v. Barthelemy & Palamara, Case No. 98- 19512 (Fla. 17th Cir. 1999). He did not fully disclose the details relating to events that led to the judgment. Instead, he stated on the application that the claims were “unfounded” and that Chinnock Marine “misled the court.” The subject application is dated February 22, 2000. On that application, the Petitioner was specifically required to disclose any “pending” civil suits involving a yacht. At the time of his application, another civil matter was pending against the Petitioner in World Class Yachts v. Palamara, Case No. 99-12923 (Fla. 17th Cir. 2001), which was filed on July 22, 1999. The Petitioner failed to disclose the pending World Class Yachts civil suit.2 Subsequent to the filing of the subject application, a non-final order was entered against the Petitioner finding that he was in default and rendering judgment for World Class Yachts in the amount of $157,500. The Petitioner took an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court’s non-final order of default to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order of default. Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Case No. 4D01-3260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Petitioner admits that the World Class Yachts case relates to a yacht. Although the circuit court had not entered a Final Judgment against the Petitioner in the amount of $157,500.00 at the time of the hearing in this case, the World Class Yachts civil litigation involving a yacht should have been disclosed on the application pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(3)(a)6, Florida Administrative Code. In both Chinnock Marine and World Class Yachts, the Petitioner has moved to vacate the default judgments, alleging that he was not properly served. The Petitioner has worked in the yacht brokerage business in South Florida for many years. He has never had any disciplinary action taken against his license. In the community in which he lives and works he enjoys a reputation for being a person of integrity, honesty, and good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case granting the license sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of September, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether ten applications filed by Petitioner, Normandy Shores, LLC, for an exemption from Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) requirements to construct and install ten docks to serve eighteen private boat slips and a letter of consent to use sovereign submerged lands in Indian Creek, within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (Preserve), Miami Beach, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background The Department is the agency responsible for administering the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 regarding activities in surface waters of the State that may or may not require an ERP. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3) authorizes the Department to approve exemptions from ERP requirements for the construction of certain docking facilities and boat ramps. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on Petitioner's requests for proprietary authorizations. Petitioner is a developer of residential and commercial properties. It owns waterfront land on the eastern side of Normandy Isle at 25-135 North Shore Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Normandy Isle is surrounded by water, lies just west of Miami Beach, and is accessed by the John F. Kennedy Causeway (also known as 71st Street or State Road 934), which runs between the Cities of Miami and Miami Beach. Normandy Waterway runs in an east-west direction through the center of Normandy Isle, while Indian Creek appears to generally run in a northwest-southeast direction between Normandy Isle and Miami Beach. (Petitioner's property is on the northern half of the island.) Both of these waterbodies are in the northern portion of the Preserve, a Class III and Outstanding Florida Water. The Preserve is a body of water that stretches the length of Miami-Dade County, essentially from Broward County to Monroe County. The property adjoins Indian Creek to the east (the long side of the parcel) and Normandy Waterway to the south (the short side of the parcel) and is situated at the intersection of those two waterways. Petitioner is currently developing the property as Privata Townhomes (Privata), a luxury townhome community. Petitioner holds title to the property and a portion of submerged lands of Indian Creek and Normandy Waterway. The boundaries of the privately-owned submerged lands are accurately depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 12. The Privata development comprises a total of forty- three, single-family townhomes in seven buildings. Eighteen townhomes are being constructed as waterfront homes along Indian Creek (buildings 1, 2, and 3). Seven are being constructed as waterfront homes along Normandy Waterway (building 4), while the remaining eighteen townhomes (buildings 5, 6, and 7) are not situated on waterfront property. Each waterfront parcel is approximately eighteen linear feet wide and consists of both upland and private submerged lands. The private submerged lands facing Indian Creek run the entire length of the property and extend approximately ten feet from the shoreline. On October 1, 2007, Petitioner filed with the Department ten applications for an exemption and letter of consent to construct ten docks (docks 1 through 10) and eighteen boat slips. The proposed docks will be located on the shoreline extending into Indian Creek and the Preserve. Docks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 will serve two slips each, or a total of sixteen slips, while docks 3 and 7 will project outward from one single- family parcel each and will be wholly-owned by that respective single-family parcel owner. All of the docks will be spaced less than sixty-five feet from one another. According to Petitioner, the Department has already given Petitioner authorization to construct three docks for the units in Building 4 facing Normandy Waterway to the south, and they are not in issue here. The basis for that authorization, and the distinction between those docks and the ones in dispute here, are not of record. Each of the docks will be built using four pilings with forty square feet of decking. Therefore, each dock will be less than five hundred square feet of surface area over the surface waters. Associated with the docks are eighteen boat slips that will include an additional pile installed approximately thirty feet from the shoreline. The slips and docks are exclusively for the private use of, and will be owned by, the waterfront townhome owners. The eighteen non-water townhome parcel owners will not have any rights to submerged lands owned in fee simple by the purchasers of the waterfront townhomes or the right to use any slip or dock. This is confirmed by Article II, Section 1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements for Privata Town Homes at Miami Beach (Declaration of Covenants). There have been docks and vessel moorings at the project site for at least forty years. However, the docks do not qualify for automatic grandfathering because a grandfather structure application was never submitted to the Department, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.0081. After reviewing the applications, the Department issued its Notice of Intent on December 13, 2007, as later amended on September 13, 2008, denying all ten applications. Citing Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b), the Department asserted that "the proposed docks are part of a multi-family living complex and therefore must be a minimum of 65-ft. apart in order to qualify for the exemption." As to the letter of consent, the Department asserted that based upon the upland development at the site, the proposed docks constituted a private residential multi-family dock or pier, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(44). In addition, the Notice of Intent stated that the proposed docks fell within the definition of a "commercial/industrial dock," as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-18.004(7), and therefore they required a lease (rather than a letter of consent) in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18- 18.006(3)(c). Thus, the Department takes the position that an ERP and a lease are required before the docks may be constructed. The parties have raised no issues regarding riparian rights. By an amendment to its Notice of Intent issued on September 13, 2008, the Department added as a reason for denying the letter of consent that the docks will cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the Preserve within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-18.008. The Development Each townhome occupies three stories of vertical, independent space. No unit is situated over any other unit. Each townhome has a separate entrance through its own front door, and each has its own garage. The townhomes in each building share a single wall. Petitioner stated that this was done because if the units were constructed with a narrow space between them, it would create safety, fire, water moisture, and mold issues. However, there is no cross-access between the units, and there is no penetration (such as common plumbing, fire sprinklers, or electrical conduits) through the load-bearing walls. Even so, the units have various common structural elements such as bearings, bearing walls, columns or walls necessary to support the roof structure, and siding, finish, trim, exterior sheatings (coverings), and other exterior materials. There is a common area that runs the entire length of shoreline between the buildings and the water. Within the common area there is a seawall, sidewalk, pool, and grassy area that are accessible by any member of the Privata Homeowners' Association (Association). According to the Declaration of Covenants, the Association is responsible for painting the exteriors of the buildings, including the walls, doors, and windows; maintaining and repairing the docks and seawalls; and maintaining the common areas. Members who own docks will pay a higher fee to the Association than non-waterfront owners to offset the additional costs associated with maintaining and repairing the docks. Eighteen of the waterfront townhome parcels are currently under purchase and sale agreements. The boat slips were one of the main selling features of the waterfront townhomes. In fact, the sales are contingent on the docks being constructed, and Petitioner concedes that if the docks are not built, the buyers will not be required to close on their contracts. In its Privata marketing brochures, Petitioner refers to "private boat docks" and owners having "a private boat slip right in their own backyard" that is "[a]ble to accommodate vessels up to 40 feet." It is fair to infer from the evidence that the docks were used as a major inducement for customers to purchase the waterfront parcels. Exemption from an ERP Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b)4. provides in relevant part that no permit shall be required for (b) The construction of private docks of . . . 500 square feet or less of surface area over wetlands or other surface waters for docks which are located in Outstanding Florida Waters. . . . To qualify for this exemption, any such structure: * * * 4. Shall be the sole dock constructed pursuant to this exemption as measured along the shoreline for a minimum distance of 65 feet, unless the parcel of land or individual lot as platted is less than 65 feet in length along the shoreline, in which case there may be one exempt dock per parcel or lot. For the purposes of this paragraph, multi-family living complexes and other types of complexes or facilities associated with the proposed private dock shall be treated as one parcel of property regardless of the legal division of ownership or control of the associated property. . . . (Emphasis added) Under the rule, an applicant will not qualify for an exemption from permitting requirements if the upland structure of a project site is a multi-family complex or facility. In those cases, the owner of the project site is allowed to construct one dock per sixty-five feet of shoreline (assuming the size of the dock comports with the rule). The rule specifically provides that the legal division of ownership or control of the property is not relevant in making this determination. The underscored language in the rule is at the heart of this dispute. The parties sharply disagree over whether the Privata development consists of single-family units or whether it is a multi-family living complex. Although the term "multi- family living complexes and other types of complexes or facilities" is not further defined by the rule, the Department has consistently (with one exception cited below) interpreted this provision to include buildings with so-called "attached townhomes." Because the Privata townhomes share a wall with a neighbor, as well as other common facilities, the Department considers each building on the uplands to "house multiple families." Put another way, multiple families will live in each structure (building). On the other hand, if the units were detached and free-standing, even by a few inches, the Department agrees they would probably fall within the category of "individual, detached, single-family homes." The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the upland project is a multi-family living complex. This is because the project has the attributes of a multi-family complex, such as units sharing a common wall, multiple families living in each building, and common areas accessible for each member of the project. While Petitioner points out that each townhome owner has fee simple title to his or her upland parcel and the ten feet of adjoining submerged lands, the rule specifically provides that the division of ownership and control of the property is immaterial to the ultimate determination of whether the property qualifies for an exemption. Given these considerations, it is found that the project does not meet the requirements for an exemption from ERP requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b)4.3 Letter of Consent A letter of consent is a form of authorization, but does not by itself determine whether a project is approvable or not.4 In order to qualify for a letter of consent, the docks would first have to be exempt from ERP requirements. As noted in finding of fact 20, they are not. The "18 series rules [in the Florida Administrative Code] are proprietary, essentially, real estate rules" that apply to the use of state owned, submerged lands. (Transcript, page 370). General guidance or "overarching" submerged lands rules are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21, while rules specific to the Preserve are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-18. Both sets of rules apply here. The dispute over the letter of consent centers on whether the dock is a "private dock" or a "commercial/industrial dock," as those terms are defined by the rules. The former does not require a lease, while the latter does. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.006 (3)(c)("A commercial/industrial dock on sovereignty lands shall require a lease. Private docks to be constructed and operated on sovereignty lands shall not require a lease of those lands.") A private dock is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-18.004(18) as a dock located on or over submerged lands, which is used for private leisure purposes for a single family dwelling unit and does not produce income. On the other hand, a commercial/industrial dock is defined in subsection (7) of the same rule as a dock which is located on or over submerged lands and which is used to produce income, or which serves as an inducement to renting, purchasing, or using accompanying facilities including without limitation multi-family residential facilities. This term shall be construed to include any dock not a private dock. Therefore, a dock may constitute a commercial/ industrial dock if it is associated with a multi-family facility; if it is used as an inducement to rent, purchase, or use accompanying facilities; or if the dock does not constitute a private dock, which is used for a single-family upland facility. The more persuasive evidence here shows that the docks are associated with a multi-family facility; they are used as an inducement to purchase the units; and they are not used for a single-family upland facility. For any one of these reasons, then, the docks must be categorized as commercial/ industrial docks. Although the term "multi-family residential facilities" is not specifically defined in Chapter 18-18, another proprietary rule provides clarification of that term. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(44). That rule defines the term "private residential multi-family dock or pier" as a dock or pier on a common riparian parcel or area that is intended to be used for private recreational or leisure purposes by persons or groups of persons with real property interest in a multi-family residential dwelling such as a duplex, a condominium, or attached single-family residences or a residential development such as a residential or mobile home subdivision. (emphasis added) As noted earlier, both Chapters 18-18 and 18-21 should be read in conjunction with each other. When doing so, it is found that the proposed docks are associated with "attached single-family residences" (by virtue of sharing a common wall) and fall within the definition of a commercial/industrial dock. Therefore, they do not qualify for a letter of consent. Cumulative Impacts The waterbody in issue here is an Aquatic Preserve, that is, "an exceptional area of submerged lands and its associated waters set aside for being maintained essentially in its natural or existing condition." § 258.37(1), Fla. Stat. The Legislature intended for the submerged lands and associated waters to be maintained "in an essentially natural condition so that its biological and aesthetic values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations." § 258.397(1), Fla. Stat. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.001(1). "Essentially natural condition" is defined as "those conditions which support the continued existence or encourage the restoration of the diverse population of indigenous life forms and habitats to the extent they existed prior to the significant development adjacent to and within the preserve." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.004(10). In determining whether a letter of consent for new docks and piers in the Preserve should be approved, Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-18.008 requires that the Department consider the cumulative impacts of those projects. The burden rests on the applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not cause adverse cumulative impacts upon the natural systems. In meeting this stringent test, the rule recognizes that "while a particular alteration of the preserve may constitute a minor change, the cumulative effect of numerous such changes often results in major impairments to the resources of the preserve." The rule goes on to identify five factors that the Department must consider as a part of its cumulative impact evaluation. In this case, the Department considered "the number and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which have previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve"; the "similar activities within the preserve which are currently under consideration by the Department"; and the "[d]irect and indirect effects upon the preserve which may reasonably be expected to result from the activity." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.008(1), (2), and (3). The fact that the Department discussed only the first three considerations, rather than all five, in its Amended Notice of Intent does not render its evaluation improper or incomplete, as suggested by Petitioner.5 If authorized, the project will allow eighteen boats to dock at Privata along Indian Creek. Although the marketing brochures indicate that boats up to forty feet in length will use the slips, the evidence at hearing indicates that they will be no more than twenty-five feet in length. The project adheres to best management practices. Also, the number of docks was limited by means of dock-sharing for eight of the ten docks. The docks are designed so that boats will be moored parallel to the shoreline rather than horizontal to the seawall; the docks will be over six feet above mean high water; and the docks will be constructed from materials designed to minimize environmental impacts. As noted above, the Preserve extends from Broward County to Monroe County. Within the Preserve, there are literally thousands of docks, including single docks, multifamily docks, and commercial and industrial marinas. Closer to the Privata project, there are docks, boat lifts, cranes, davits (small cranes used for boats, anchors, or cargo), and marinas located on both sides of Indian Creek. The development along Indian Creek and Normandy Waterway includes commercial, multifamily, and single-family docks. Due to heavy boat traffic and extensive development around Indian Creek, it is fair to say that the project is in a high turbidity area. Besides the applications here, there are "several" other applications now pending before the Department for docks, piers, and slips within the Preserve. Two in-water environmental resource surveys by the Department revealed that resources such as paddle grass, Johnson's grass (a threatened species), shoal grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, soft coral, sponge, oysters, and sea urchins are present in the immediate area. However, it is fair to infer that these marine resources have adapted to the existing conditions and are able to withstand the stress created by the heavy usage. The evidence is sharply in dispute over whether the project is reasonably expected to have direct or indirect adverse impacts on the natural systems of the Preserve. Petitioner contends that because a small number of docks and slips are being proposed, best management practices will be used in constructing the docks and slips, the area around Indian Creek is already heavily developed, and the natural resources in Indian Creek appear to have adapted to the stress created by the other activities, the effect on the Preserve's natural systems will be de minimus. There are literally thousands of similar activities and human actions that have already affected the Preserve and are reasonably expected to continue in the future. Other applications to engage in similar activities are now pending, and it is reasonable to assume that others will be filed. The natural resources in the immediate area are diverse, as described by the Department witnesses, including at least one threatened species. There will be direct and indirect impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the docks and mooring areas such as increased shading and decreased water quality. When the impacts of the Privata project are viewed in isolation, they can be considered "a minor change." However, the cumulative effect of this and other changes can result in adverse impacts to the natural systems. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 18.008. The more credible evidence supports a finding that the proposed activities will cause direct and indirect adverse impacts on the Preserve's natural systems, so that the submerged lands and associated waters will not be maintained "essentially in [their] natural or existing condition." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.001(1). Therefore, in this respect, the requirement of the rule has not been met. Other Projects in the Preserve Petitioner points out that in June 2001, as later modified in April 2002, another project in the Preserve known as Aqua at Allison Island was given an exemption to construct fifteen single-family docks, nine of which were intended for private use and six to serve as shared structures for adjacent property owners. See Petitioner's Exhibits 28 and 29. The project site lies just south of Normandy Isle on Allison Island, which adjoins Indian Creek and involved a similar upland development of attached townhomes. While the Department concedes that this action occurred, no other project of this nature has ever been granted an exemption or letter of consent to construct docks and use state-owned submerged lands within the Preserve. The Department further explained that it "made an error" when it granted an exemption for the project at Aqua at Allison Island, and that with this single exception, it has consistently denied all similar applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's ten applications for an exemption from ERP requirements and a letter of consent to use sovereign submerged lands to construct ten docks and associated slips on Indian Creek in Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of March, 2009.
Conclusions Petitioner, Floxida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DBPR), and Respondent, Garald W. Rowley, hereby stipulate and agree that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (FREAB) issue a Final order adopting and incoxporating the provisiona of this Stipulation as final agency action in this cauge. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent ig and was, at all times material herein, a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RZ 967 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license the State issued Respondent was ag a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 2. Respondent admits being subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 478, Florida statutes, the Rules promulgated thereto and, therefore, to the jurisdiction of DBPR and the FREAB, 8090/2008 1¥837 340 OSZL21EL0b X¥4 PS.O1 S002/50/50 800/200 4 377 “SIddOH ONY NY¥YH440H 2ObE OB LSS X¥4 Bt OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 3. Respondent admita that DBPR served Reepondent with the Adminiatrative Complaint, charging Respondent with violation(s) of certain provigions of Chapters 455 and/or 475, Florida Statutes, and/or the Rules promulgated thereto. A copy of the Administrative Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in Counts Iz, IV, V, VII, and vitt of the Administrative Complaint, but ecenaeants to the Board's impesition of discipline on those counts and that such allegations constitute violations of the counts. 5. Respondent shall not in the futuxe violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the Rules promilgated thereto. 6. This Stipulation shall become effective immediately upon filing of the Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date"). All dates referenced herein shall commence to Yun on the Effective Date, unless otherwise specified herein. STIPULATED DISPOSITION 7. Fetitioner shall dismiss Counts I, III, VI, and IX of the Administrative Complaint. a. Respondent shall pay a fine of $1000 and $561 in costs. Respondent shall pay the fine and costs by saparate ¢hecks payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division 800/600 B 1v837 340 OSZ2LLEL0R XS PS .OL Bo00z/S0/50 800/600 B 377 ‘SISYOH ONY N¥YWS40H LOPE OF8 LSS X¥4 BL OL B00Z/20/50 DEPR vs. Geraid W. Rawley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation of Real Estate, within one (1) year from the Effective Date herein. 9, Suspension of Respondent’s real estate appraisal license shall be for a period of six (6) months, effective thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order. Reinstatement requires submission of proper forms. , 10, Respondent shall begin probation for a period of ane (1) year, beginning on the Effective Date herein, and shall have no trainees during the probationary period. During this time period, Respondent shall attend one (1) two-day FREAB general meeting, from the noticed time of the meeting te the duration of the meeting, not to exceed five o’cleck p.m. During this time period Respondent shall alse provide original evidence of satisfactory completion of continuing education appraisal courses totaling 45 hours, The education herein ig in addition to any requirement for Respondent to maintain his or her real estate appraisal license. Should Respondent completa tha above-listed requirement (s) beficre conclusion of the probationary period and previde satisfactory proof thereof, probation shall terminate. 11. Noncompliance with the terms of this Stipulation shall , xyeault in the suspension of Respondent’s appraisal license until Respondent submits satisfactory proof of compliance to DSPR; the period of suspeneaion shall not exceed ten (10) years. B00/ P00 8 V¥84a7 34o OSZLLLELOP X¥I GS.OL B002/G0/50 800/p00 A 317 ‘SI8HOH ONY N¥H4IOH 20PE OB LIS X¥4 BL-OL 6002/20/50 PAPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley Stipulation DRPR Case No. 2007013479 Reinstatement shall be effective ag of the date DBPR receives said Satisfactory proof of compliance, accompanied by the proper reinstatement forms. L2. Action of la. The FREAB Newe and Report shall publish a Summary of Final Order, as follows: (Delray Beach]: Gerald W. Rowley, Licenaa No. RZ 967; Violation: Failure to retain records for 5 years in violation of Sections 475.629 and 475.624(4), Florida Statutes relating to two appraisal reports in 2005 on a Subject Property in Wellington, Florida; violation of USPAP Standards Rule l-l(a), (b), and (c) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, relating to an incorrect sales history of the Subject Property, discrepancies between data sources on Comparable Sales, and aupport for adjustments; violation of USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(a) and Section 475.624(14), relating to selaction of Comparable Sales for said appraisal reports; violation of UBPAP Standarda Rule 2-1(a) and (b) and Section 475.624(14) relating to said appraisal reports; and violation of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b) (viii) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes relating to said appraisal reports. Penalty: $1000 fine plug costs, 6 months license suspension, no trainees during the one year probation, attendance at one 2-day FREAB meeting and completion of 45 houra of education in addition to that required for licensure. The parties understand that this Stipulation 4s subject to the approval of DBPR and of the FREAB, and that in the event of its disapproval, 800/500 800/500 & 1837 Jyd OS2LLLELOP 377 “SIYYON ONY N¥N440H LOPE OB L9G the game gahall have no further force and effect. X¥4d GS OL BoO02/G0/50 X¥4 BL OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Garald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 14. Respondent executes this Stipulation to avoid further administrative action with respect to this cause. Respondent authorizes the FREAB to review and examine all DBPR investigative materiale priexr to or in conjunction with consideration of this Stipulation. Further, in the event the FREAB disapproves this Stipulation, Respondent agrees that examination of any documente or records related thereto shall mot be deemed to have unfairly prejudiced DBPR, the FREAB or any of ita members, nor ehall such action disqualify any of them from further participation in the resolution of this cause. 15. Reapendent agrees that Petitioner may conduct further investigation at any time subsequent to the FREAB’s acceptance of this Stipulation, including, but not limited to, audits of Respondent's filee. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner shall have any and all rights and authority the law provides to insure Reaapondent’s compliance with Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the Rules promulgated therete. Respondent further agrees that DBPR and the FREAB may consider this Stipulation in connection with any future disciplinary proceeding. 16. The parties understand that this Stipulation and any final order adopting and incorporating its terms shall not preclude or deter DBPR or the FREAB from other diaciplinary proceedings g00/9008 WweAT add OSZAL1ELOb X¥4 9S.01 BOO*/S0/50 800/900 A 317 “STYYOW ONY N¥H4IOH 40bE OPB LIS X¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPRvs Gerald W Rowlay DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation against the Respondent for acts or omissions unrelated to those set forth in the Administrativa Complaint herein. 17. Respondent hereby waivas all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review or to othexwise challenge or conteat the validity or enforcement of the terms of this Stipulation and/or of any resulting final order of the FREAB adopting and incorporating game, 18. All parties hereto shall otherwise bear any and all attorney's fees and costs they may have incurred in connection with this cause. 19. Should Respondent withdraw from or in any Way Or manner cancel, annul, alter, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation prior to presentation or consideration by the FREAB, Respondent agrees to waive any rights to seek attorney's fees and costs Respondent may have incurred as the result of the disciplinary proceeding, up to and including the date of withdrawal from the settlement Stipulation or attempt to alter, change, annul, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation. 20. The FREAB HAS NOT taken prior disciplinary actiom against Respondent. 8900/1008 1W¥837 aud OSZLALELOD =X¥5 SS OL 8002/50/50 800/100 8 377 ‘SIYYON ONY NVH440H ZOE OB LOS Xv¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs, Gerald W. Rowlay ‘ ‘ DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation DBPR ATTORNEY EXECUTION EXECUTED this i 1 day of VV 1, 2009. Denna Christine Linda Senior Attorney On behalf of the DBPR, DRE RESPONDENT EXECUTION EXECUTED this 7 day of { , 2009, Gerald W. Rowley BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, a, Ss J day of J , 2009 personally appeared wha is pais . known to me or who hag produced Cif n 1 L€eefcas identification and who ewore and subscribed to egoing. ms A the for NOTARY PUBLIC State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: \s 2". YENTIFER GOME bpcu MY COMMISS*UN « 9D756024 ey: CXPIRED Febuary 00, 2012 tamertcriaty Fl ream Unsecuot Aue Co 7 g090/800R} 1WO37 340 O8SLLLELOH Xd 2G-0L GO02/G0/S0 800/800 4 311 ‘SISYOW ONY N¥N440H 2OPE OPS 19S X¥4 LZ OL 6007/20/50 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ~ FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 2007013479 GERALD W. ROWLEY, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Gerald W. Rowley (“Respondent"), and alleges: ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475 of the Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. 2. Respondent is currently a Florida state certified general real estate appraiser having been issued license 967 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part I of the Florida Statutes. 3. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state certified general real estate appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 4. On or about April 23, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report FDBPR vy. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administratrve Complaint (Report 1) on a property commonly known as 10766 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida 33487 (Subject Property). A copy of Report 1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. Report 1, prepared for purposes of refinancing by a private - lender, valued the Subject Property at $1.53 million. 5. On or about November 18, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated a second appraisal report (Report 2) on the same Subject Property. A copy of Report 2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. Report 2, prepared for purposes of refinancing at the request of the client WCS Lending, LLC, valued the Subject Property at $2.2 million. 6. Petitioner received a complaint concerning Reports 1 and 2 from the private lender, Oriel Tsvi (Tsvi). Tsvi complained that Respondent failed to use more suitable, available, and proximate Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood, the Comparable Sales relied on by Respondent were superior to the Subject Property, and their use resulted in overvaluation of the Subject Property. 7. Through investigation, the following errors were noted in Report 1: A) In Report 1, Respondent used Comparable Sales 1 and 2 in the Subject Property’s neighborhood, but the remaining two Comparable Sales relied upon were from other subdivisions; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2, 3, and 4 were all in excess of a mile distant from the Subject Property; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint D) In the comments to the Sales Comparison Analysis section of Report 1, Respondent directed the reader to a sales (sic: subject) history addendum that recited a prior sale of the Subject Property within the previous one year period from Nathan & Yoldie Vincent to Lorraine Smith Brooks and John Kibler in May 2004 for $226,000, when no such sale had occurred; E) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sales 1,2, and 4 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sale 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records, but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Comparable Sales 1 and 2 had different dates of construction; 2) Palm Beach County records showed Comparable Sale 1 to have 5 bedrooms, 6 baths and 2 half-baths, while Respondent reported 3 bedrooms and 2 baths; 3) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 1 had 5,570 square feet of Gross Living Area, while the Palm Beach Count Property Appraiser reported 7,544 square feet; 4) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 2 to have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, while Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records reflected 5 bedrooms and 5 % baths; 5) Respondent showed the gross living area for Comparable Sale 2 as 5,670 square feet, while the county records showed 6,542 square feet; 6) Respondent reported 6,715 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 4, while county records showed 5,568 square feet. 8. Respondent committed the following errors or omissions in Report 2: FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint A) Respondent utilized Comparable Sales 2 and 3, which were from different communities than the Subject Property; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2 and 3 were over a mile distant from the Subject Property; D) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 1 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sales 2 and 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; E) Respondent made significant upward adjustments in the Cost Approach Section of Report 2 over the previous values stated in Report 1 for site value increasing it from $575,000 to $1,150,000 in under 7 months, per square foot reproduction cost of the gross living area of the Subject Property increasing from $155 per square foot to $175 per square foot resulting in an overall increase in value of $113,985, and an increase for appliances without adequate explanation or analysis; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records (and MLS in the case of Comparable Sales 2 and 3), but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Respondent listed the site size of Comparable Sale 1 as 14,473 square feet when the Property Appraiser’s Office shows .28 acres, equivalent to 12,196 square feet; 2) The public records show Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 instead of 2005; 3) County records show 6,307 square feet for Gross Living Area for Comparable Sale 1 as opposed to the 5,708 square feet reported by Respondent; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint 4) Respondents sole supporting documentation to support listed features of Comparable Sale 1 is a printout captioned “Competitive Market Analysis” (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3) dated 01/20/06, ( after the effective date of Report 2), which reported only the number of bedrooms, baths, living area square footage, date and amount of sale, lot size, dollars per square foot and year built; 5) The Competitive Market Analysis document reflects that Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 and not 2005 as stated, that Comparable Sale 1 had 6,959 square feet of gross living area and not 5,708 as reported by Respondent, and that Comparable Sale 1 was sold in November 2005 for $2,418,000 and not in October 2005 for $2,400,000 as stated by Respondent; 6) Respondent reported 6,101 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 2, but ISC records in Respondent’s work file show 6,261 square feet, MLS records in the work file report 6,101 square feet, and Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records show 7,504 square feet; 7) Respondent reported 4,438 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 3, while ISC records in Respondent’s work file showed 5,213 square feet and Property Appraiser’s records show 4,389 square feet. 9. Respondent was interviewed concerning the Cost Approach discrepancies between the two reports and stated that an unknown sales agent for the builder advised Respondent his per square foot reproduction cost was too low, that the site value increased with the increase in sales in the new development, and the $10,000 increase under “appliances” was for commencement of pool construction by the Subject Property’s owner. 10. Respondent acknowledged in the interview that the error in Report | regarding a non- 5 FDBPR v. Gerald W Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint existent prior sale was due to a “cloning” error from an earlier, unrelated report. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of failure to retain records for at least five years of any contracts engaging the appraiser’s services, appraisal reports, and supporting data assembled and formulated by the appraiser in preparing appraisal reports in violation of Section 475.629, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Record Keeping Section of the Ethics Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-1(a), (b), and (c), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or 6 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-6(a), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-1(a) and (b),or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VIII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-2(b)(viii), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IX Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-3, or other provision of the 7 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as may be appropriate, to issue a Final Order as final agency action finding the Respondent(s) guilty as charged. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication, or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 475.624, Florida Statutes and Rule 61J1-8.002, Florida Administrative Code. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 455 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration, or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication; restriction of practice; injunctive or mandamus relief: imposition of a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 455.227, Fla. Statutes and FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-8.002. SIGNED this 4 day of \ ( Lone , 2008. Florida Department of Business ak Professional Regulation Thomas O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER not 3 3 i; ~* % Sas : tonar Ces Ssionai SORE ae J dreviont of Profe Division af F Real Esiate D. C. Lindamood, Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 273694 Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: JH/PA 3/08 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PLEASE BE ADVISED that mediation under Section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to this Administrative Complaint you may request, within the time allowed by law, a hearing to be conducted in this matter in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes; that you have the right, at your option and expense, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative in this matter; and that you have the right, at your option and expense, to take testimony, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoena and subpoena duces FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint tecum issued on your behalf if a formal hearing is requested. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that if you do not file an Election of Rights form or some other responsive pleading with the Petitioner within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner will file with the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board a motion requesting an informal hearing and entry of an appropriate Final Order which may result in the suspension or revocation of your real estate license or registration. Please see the enclosed Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form. 10 APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL As Of: APRIL 23, 2005 Prepared For: Private Lender Private Lender Prepared By: SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 DMINIST RAI WE COWwPLAINT \AV exHiait #4 a a loAGe [OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, EXHIBIT # AGE vo SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-0448-05 Descnption UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No i Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City. WELLINGTON State FL _ ZipCode 33467 | Legal Description LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Ra_Assessors Parcol No_73-41-44-24-05-000-2840 ASSD $667,273 TaxYear__2004 _RE Taxes$_ 15,067 23 Special Assessments $ NIA Borrower sENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner_[ [tenant T [vacant Property nghts epprased _[X]Fee Simple _{ |Leasehotd Project Type |X ]PUD_[_[Condominum (HUDIVA only) OAS 358 00 tMo Neighborhood of Project Name VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference: 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 SalePrce_$§ REFINANCE _ Date ol Sale NIA Description and $ amount of loan charges/concessions to be paid by seller N/A Lender/Clent_Private Lender Addiess Private Lender @ Aopraser Gerald Rowley Address 1901 SW 5 AVE , MIAMI, FL 33129 Location Urban Rural Predominant [Single faruly housing [Prost ind we % Land use change _ Bult up K]Over75% (_]25-75% lUnder 25% | Occupancy S00) tet [One famty 95. lotlkely [_]ukely Growth rate Rapid Slow XJ Owner 245 low 5 | 2-4 family G In process: Property values [increasing [Dechnng 375 High 35 _| Mutt farmly To Demand/supply [__}Shortage Over supply 82] Predommant ['S5e| Commercial 5 Markeung tme_[ [Under 3 mos Over 6 mos 260-345| 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appratsal factors Nexghborhood boundaries and charactensties. FOREST HILL BLVO (NORTH) JOG ROAD (EAST), HYPOLUXO RD (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS & TOWNHOUSES, Factors that affect the marketability of the properties the nexghborhood (proxmty to employment and amenites employment stabaity, appeal (o market etc } THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 S MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD 70 EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. G Market conditions in the subject newghborhood (including suppart for the above conclusions refated to the trend of property values, demand/supply and marketing ume ~- such as data on competiive properties for sale in the neighborhood description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions etc) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE _TYPICAL a FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS. NEIGHBORHOOD Project Information for PUDs {ll applicable ~ Is the developerfbullder wn control ofthe Home Owners Association (HOA)? [X]¥es L_]No A Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13 E Describe common elements and recreational faciltes COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_MANNEO GUARO GATE, COMMON AREAS Dimensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography CEVEL Sileaea 42,632 SF Comer tot | ]¥es [XJNo | Sve TYPICAL OF AREA Spectfic zoning classification and descnpton PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [X] Legal gies nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [__}llegal [_]No Zonng | Drainage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as improved [X [Present use_[ ]Other use fexplan) View LAKEPRESID Utlites, Public Other Off ste Improvements: Type Public Private | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Electricity Keer Street ASPHALT Onveway Surface PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutter CONCRETE/GUTTER, Apparent easements UTILITY Water Py CITY Sidewalk CONCRETE FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (_|¥es [X]No Santary sewer [X Seetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES FEMA Zone B__MapDate_ 02/01/1979 H Storm sewer [X] Alley NONE, [|_[FEMa Map No 120192 01708 Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments slide areas, legal or legal nonconforming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE @ THOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION | FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION A No of Units ONE _| Foundation Reinf Cnc_j Slab MONOLITHIC) Area Sq Ft it} Roof CODE No of Stones TWO _] Extenor Walls C Blk Stucco) Craw Space NONE % Fimshed NIA Ceting CODE Type {Det/Att) DETACHED] Root Surtaces Conc Tite | Basement NONE | Ceiling NiA | Walls CODE Design (Style) 2STY__|Guiters & Dwnspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump. NONE Wat's BSEMNTS] Moor _CODE ExistingProposed EXISTING | Window Type SIN_HUNG]| Dampness NONE NOTEQ Floor ARE NOT | None Fe) 4 2 PY Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Storm/Screens SCREENS | Settiemen. NONE NOTEG Outside Entry TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN FRY ctlecwve Age (vis) EFF 1 | ManufaciwedHouse NO. Infestation NONE NOTE, OF SO FLORIDA fe] Rooms | Foyer | twno | Onng | chen [den [FamiyRm| Rec Rin [Bedrooms | # Bats | Laundry | Oiner | avea Sa FL 4 Basement 0 EFA Level § x 1 i 1 1__|srtinc| 2 350 4 STUDY 3,848 Fa} Level 2 > 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 Zz 0 FS] Finshedarea above qradecontans 10 Rooms, §__—Betrooms), «6. 50 Baths) 5,708 Square Feet of Gross Lng Area FY WTERIOR — Matenals/Conditon HEATING [ wTcHen aur | Aric AMENITIES CAR STORAGE Foor MarbieWWad /CamptiGU Type Rev Cyc| Reingerator None Fueplace(s)# NONE {_]} None Hq Walls ORYWALL/GOOD | Fuel _ELECT | RangefOven [X]} Stars Patio REAR. Garage 3 Hof cars fe} TamFinsh ~WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Disposal X]} Drop Star Deck NONE Altached _3CAR al BathFlor MARBLE/GOOD | COOLING Oishwasher |X} Scuttle XJ | Porch REAR Detached Bath Wamsoot MARBLE/GOOD __| Cenirat __A/C_} FanHood Floor Fence _ NONE Buit in ‘Doors SOLID WD _CORE EXT] Other N/A__| Microwave Heated Pool NONE Carport HOLLOW WD CORE INT/GD | Condition GOOD | WashertOryer [XI] Fished CVRO ENTRY [X]l Dwveway _ PAVERS ‘Addiwonal features (special energy effixentitems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM Condition ofthe improvements, depreciation (physical functional and external), cepars needed, quakiy of construction remodelngadéitons, etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT {S EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION ‘Adverse environmental conditions {such as, bul not imited to hazardous wastes, toxic substances, ele } present inthe improvements, on the site or m the immediate. if ; of the subject propery NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE. IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY Freddie Mac Form 70.6 93 ClckF ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT al 7 SERVICE APPRAISALS File No UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No ‘Valuation Section RF-0448-05 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE By ESTIMATED REPRCQUCTION COST OF Dwelling §,708__ Sq FL@$ _ 155 00 ne 575,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as source of cost estimate, site value, square foot caleulation and for HUD VA and FmHA the estimated remaining economec ife of the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & FS] Bsmt 0 sqr@s [ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Ped KIT APPL SIPATIOIPORCH/CVRO ENTRY OF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE & GaragelCarport 714 Sq Ft @3_ 4550 = IASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Fd Total Estimated CostNew = |AND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & Pr Less Physical 1 $4 Functional External ISWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe} Depreciaton 14,518, fy 14,519NO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE FFA Depreciated Value of improvements. = - 928, 209ATTRIBUTABLE TEL =65 YEARS “Asis” Value of Site improvements _ _ 35,00 Bid INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = 1,538,209 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. a TEM. I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3524 TURENNE WAY 3521 MABILLON WAY 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, Fl. WELLINGTON, FL See 0.94 MI NNW 13 MLNW 28MIN i $_REFINANCE [GSES 1,340,106 if Genes 1,500,000 Bi ProelGrosslw Area [$000 (ig 24059 aa 28176 767 66 E Data andlor PUB RECORDS Verifcation Souce | PERS INSPECT | __ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _|_1SC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS Ry VALUE ADJUSTMEN: S| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +4)$ Adustment| DESCRIPTION __+{ )$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION _+{ }$ Adjustment Sales or Financing i A) CONVENTIONAL} CONVENTIONAL CASH TO Concessions i MTG $800,000 MTG $1,000 000, SELLER Date of Sale/Time PARES | OFC 2004 NOV 2004 APRIL 2005 Location EXCL/RESID | EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID Leasehold! Fee Simple | _ FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 20,473 SF ~15,700__ 17,859 SE 10,500 31,363 SF -37,500| View LAKE/RESID | CANAURESID +5,000_ LAKE/RESID POND/RESID +10,000] ‘Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL_|_2 STY/EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Qualty of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Ba Age 2003(2)a/EFF_1e| 1997 INF_EFF +5,000_1997 INF EFF +5,00d 1989 SIM EFF +5,000 FEY Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT GOOD 45,000 Ed Above Grade. Total_|@drms} Baths | Totall Bdems} Baths: Total{Bdrms|_ Baths Total] Bdrms|_ Baths Be] Room Count io | 5 +650} 9] 3 {| 200 +31,50d_9 | 3 [200 +31,500 9 | 4 [550 +7,000 EA Gross Living Area 5,708 Sqfi| 5570 Sq fi +7,600 5,670 __Sq FL +2,104" 5,121 sq Ft]___ +32,300] = Basement & Finished NIA NIA N/A N/A Fe] Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA NIA NIA FF Funcuonal Buty AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE _| Fad HeaungCootng CENTRAL A/C _| CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Fl Enorgy Eficent toms_| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAY NONE SPECIAL a NONE SPECIAL Fe Garane/Carport 3. CAR GARAGE |2 CAR GARAGE +5 oda CAR GARAGE -5,000 2 CAR GARAGE! +5,000 ia] Porch, Patio Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prck R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch BE] Frepiaces), etc CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY CVRD ENTRY Pr Fence, Pool ete NONE POOL -12,00 POOL -12,00 POOL =42,000} EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |PT UPGRADES] +50,00d_ upGRaDES INF UPGRADES] __+25,000} Mepemeeeed (X|+ | |- $ 76.400 | (x]+ | |- s 11,100 {xi+ [T- s "39,800 let INet=1% Net=3% 1,416,506 _|Gross=4% 6 _1,608,692_|Gross=9% 1,539,800 Comments on Sates Companson (iscuding the ‘subject property s compatibikly fo the neghborhood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM. SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Date, Pace and Data SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN. Source, for por sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS walhin year of appears | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS. ISC/PUB RECORDS Analysis of any current agreement of Sale option oF Isting of the subject propery and analysis of any prot sales of subject and comparables within one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT. @ INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH INDICATED VALUE BY I OME APPROACH {i Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ NA {Ma x Gross Rent Muluptier “ =3 NIA 1,530,000 This apprassal is made s [_Jsubject to the repairs, alterations mspectons or conditons listed below —[__]subject to completion per plans and spectications Conditons of Apprasal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES OF THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT. Final Reconckaton *"INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF, QUALITY RENTAL DATA_THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS: RECONCILIATION 5: ‘The purpose of this appraisal 1s to estimate the market value of the real property that is subject to this report based on the above conditions and the cerhfication, contingent and himutmg condibons, and market value defintuon that are stated m the attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 UWE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF (WHICH IS THE DATE OF NSE TION ANO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ _ APRIL 23, 2005 1,530,000 SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) ‘Signature Od [_Jou Not acatdh ff Name inspect Property t Date Report Signed APRIL 23, 2005. Date Report Signed Slale Cenfication# _ RZ967 State FL State Certification # Slate Go Or State License # Slate Or Stale License # Stale Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6.93) Page 2 of 16 ADM mete 5 INISTRATIVE COMPLAINT tal 4. SERVICE APPRAISALS EXTRA COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City, WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiClient Private Lender Address Private Lender than the subject property a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reduct subject property, a plus (+) adjustments made, thus ncreasing the indicated value af the subject These recent sales of properties are most similar and proximate lo subject and have been considered in the market analysis The description includes a dollar adjustment saflacting ‘market reaction to those Hems of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties If a signiticant lem in the comparable property #s superior lo or more favorabley the mated vale of subject 112 Sgnicant stom m the comparable 1s enor Lo o ess favorable tan the TEM {suaJect COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 10765 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3540 AMBASSADOR OR Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proxmuly to Subject 8 Sales Price eS PaceiGross Liv Area aay Af Data andior PUB RECORDS Verficaton Sowce | PERS INSPECT | 1SC PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS ee VALUE ADJUSTMENTS| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION _[+{}$Adustment| DESCRIPTION | «{)$ Adusimeni| DESCRIPTION | +{.}$ Adjustment Kal Sales of Financing in oh CASH TO. Concessions SELLER Date of Sale/Time JUNE 2004 Locabon EXCL /RESID FH Leasehold/Fee Simple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE Bd Sue 42,632 SF 22,650 SF 20,000 oa View LAKE/RESID | LAKE/RESIO -| 4 Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL__{ RANCH/EXCL ‘Quality of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL | Ace 2003(2)a/EFF te] 2003 SIM EFF Condon EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT Above Grade Total [Bdrm Gaths | Total] Bdrmd Baths Total] Béimd_ Baths Totall Bdrmd_Baths Rooin Count jo | 5 [esol 9 | 4 | 550 +7,00 Gross Lung Avea 5708 Sq Ea 6,715 _ Sq Ft -55,401 Sq Ft Sq Fl Basement & Finished NIA NIA Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA Functional Unity AVERAGE AVERAGE | Heatna/Cootng CENTRAL AIC | CENTRAL A/C Energy Efficent tems | NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL| GarageiCarport 3 CAR GARAGE | 3 CAR GARAGE] # Porch, Pato Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s), etc CVRD ENTRY | PCOUSPA -15,000 Fence, Poo, ele NONE FNCD REAR -2,000, | EQUIPMENT UPGRADES | UPGRADES Net Ad) {total -85,400 Mt Ls oO x = $ 0 Adjusted Sales Price let= 0% - let=0% | ‘of Comparable 4,564,600 _|Gross=0% _ |s 0 ross= 0% fs 0 Comments on Comparables TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 Date, Pree and Daia | SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS vattin year of appraisal | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS . COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Ciy_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL ZipCode 33467 LenderChent__Private Lender Address Private Lender ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardward throughout, lake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42" wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and pati area, tray ceiling and sitting room in master bedroom sutte, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The house exterior 1s painted concrete block stucqo There ts a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room ~The house has central air conditioning The subject is considered to be in excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the ‘subject's area High land to value ratio 1s typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington This factor does not adversely affect the marketability of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subyect's location, site area, site/view, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amensties The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information Two of the comparables are located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #3 and #4 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, lot size, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently attached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ALMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPI SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower__LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderClient Private Lender Address Private Lender 25 1 5 BATH ' 1 1 Family . 120 140 ROOM fot a Kitchen 3 Dining Bedroom ROOM ROOM , 2 FE Bedroom Study wic Laundry Foyer Bath as ” aad First Floor ‘Staten of Aver w™ Carers . AREA CALCULATIONS SUVIVARY LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN | Code Description Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals GAL First Flooe 3047 60 ea? 60 Furst Floor PrP Porch 120 00 25% 125 325 Patso au a onan osx 32% 32 $06 car Garage ne 15 na is 32% 255 Cee 40 x 27 11473 ox 25 360 00 Sx 370 795 89 05% 00% 090 910 0 x 542 2004 73 33x as 70 95 wsx 195 243 15, - 190 x 140 149 00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 41 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 a4 ClickFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 ADMINIST RATIVE COMPLAINT i SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address_Private Lender Open to 160° Recreation ROOM oe Open ta Bedroom 4 Below 520° Bath Home 16S Theater Bath 270° Bedroom oS Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Comets, . ‘AREA CALCULATIONS. SUVIVARY” LUMING AREA BREAKDOWN Code Description : Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals Graz ‘Second Floor 1859 69 1859 69 ‘Second Floor 120 x 260 ani a2 O5x 120 x 107 64 38 05x 35 x 35 625 3S x 90 273 TO x 125 @7 89 25 x 277 6a 66 SOx 135 oa , 17x 4s 2a 53 aS x 56 19 7% O5x 81x 81 33 06 OSx 28% 28 400 20% 28 193 160 x 400 640 00 O5x 25% 25 306 a2 x 60 25 46 O5x 42x 42 9 00 OSx 42% 42 300 165% 270 4a5 50 TOTAL UVABLE (rounded) 1860 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1860 10 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ _LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL 2ip Code 33467 LenderiCkent__ Private Lender Address_ Private Lender a HAVERHILL OVAL PaLw agacy FLVING COW RANCH FOR FLsHONy 1a [HINVY ARROWHEAD on tu0 THE TOW Raney Lal | x HYPOLUXO HAGEN Raney = o 2 Ww oe iy) > VE COMPLAINT cy aro earl ess ae HAGEN RANCH Scale aP(C)i984-2001 TELE ATLAS NA INC ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON. Property Address‘ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Lender/Cient__ Private Lender Address _Pavate Lender Zip Code 33467 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINIOTR at DATIVE COMPLAINT: loz ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address __ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL 2 Code 33467 Private Lender Address Private Lender LenderfChent VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 o TRATIVE COMPLAINT SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ LENZER BURTON Properly Addess 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Slate FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address Private Lender PiaLEAOMG Anaraest Cathuare BAOKIIRTIT COMPARABLE# 1 3524 TURENNE WAY WELLINGTON, FL. COMPARABLE # 2 3521 MABILLON WAY WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 3 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND WELLINGTON, FL SERVICE APPRAISALS COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderCtent_ Private Lender Address Private Lender | COMPARABLE # 4 3540 AMBASSADOR DR WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # § COMPARABLE # 6 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IGE FI AVENDMG Annemnal Cathe arn BAN B99 O77 SERVICE APPRAISALS. . FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Implicit in thts definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of ttle from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and seller are typically motwated, (2) both partes are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest, (3) a reasonable time 1s allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U S dollars or tn terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by speciat or creatwe financing or sales concessions" granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or crealive financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or {aw in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Spectal or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that 1s not already involved in the property or transaction Any adjustment should not be calculated ‘on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession bul the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concesstons based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser wall not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the litle is good and marketable and, therefore will nol render any opinions about the title The property 1s appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of ils size 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site 1s located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser ts nol a surveyor he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied regarding this determination 4 The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at thei contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation the presence of hazard wastes, toxic substances, etc ) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes toxic substances etc ) that would make the property more or fess valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or plied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsibie for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist Because the appraiser 1s not an expert 7 the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources thal he or she considers to be reliable and beleves them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such :tems that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal thal 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repairs. or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner 10. The appraiser must provide his or her pnor written consent before the lender/chent specified in the appraisal report can distnbute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser 1s associated) to anyone other than the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the tender/chent may distnbute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The apprarser’s written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media { i Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fanmue Mae Form 10048 (5- Page 12 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 (have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration im the sales companson analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropnate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation Ifa significant item in a comparable Property Is Supertor to of more favorable than, the subject properly, | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant ttem nm a comparable property 1s inferior to or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 _ [have taken into consideration the factors thal have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report | have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | . believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appratsal report are true and correct 3 _ | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or Prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appratsal report on the race color, religion sex, handicap famular status, or national origin of exther the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 _ Shave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment for my compensation for performing this apprarsal 1s contingent on the appraised vatue of the property 6 _ Iwas not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party the amount of the value estimate, the attamment of a specific resull, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal 1 did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan 7 | performed this appratsal in conformity with 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 as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply ! acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market val.2 and the estimate | developed 1s consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 Ihave personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties ksted as comparables in the appraisal report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements on the subject site, of on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketabulty of the subject property 9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the reat estate thal were set forth in the appraisal report If | relied on significant professional assistance from any indwidual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation of the appraisal report, have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report { certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks Shave not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the repor, therefore, #f an unauthorized change ts made to the appraisal report, | will take 00 responsibilty for SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: {f a superusory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she Certifies and agrees thal | directly superuise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's cerlificalions fumbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibilty for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL. APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER {only if required) Signature Signature Name Gerald Re Name Date Signed APRIL 23, 2005 Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 Stale Certification # or State License # or State License # State FL_, State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License Ord Ord Not Inspect Property 107 Froddie Mac Form 439 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6.93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address_10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Clent Private Lender in developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or isting of the property being appraised (b) Any prior sale of the subject properly being appraised that occurred within the following time penods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and {if} three years for all other property types ‘The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings The subject property has had ao change of ownership during the past one (1) year The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summarized below [-] The subject property 1s currently offered for sale, listing price is $ [X] The subject property has been sold dunng the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record NATHAN & YOLOIE VINCENT Grantee/Purchaser LORAINE SMITH BROOKS & JOHN KIBLER Contract Price/Sale Puce $226,000 Date of Contract/Sale MAY 2004 Comments The subject property has not sold within the prior thirty six months ~ 10% ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION ‘The following Certification statements are m addition to and may supercede the signed Agpraiser’s Certification altached to this appraisal report This Apprarser’s Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief The statements of fact contamned in this report are true and correct . The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opimons and conclusions "have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved have no bias with respect to the property that 1s the sudject of this report or to the partes mvoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement 1s nol contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the chent the amount of the value opinion the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly relate to the intended use of this appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | [XJhave[_]have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report {If more than one person signs this certification the cerbification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make a personal inspection of the appraised property ) No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (if there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant reat property appratsal assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report The intended use of the appraisal ts to assist the clent and any other intended users in the underwnting, approval and funding of the mortgage foan The intended users of this report are the stated client and any other insttutions involved in the underwnting , approval, and funding of the mortgage oan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclusions contained in this appravsal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources inspection of the subyect property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales listings, and/or rentals within the subject market area The onginat source of the comparable data descnbed in the Data Source section of the market gnd along with the source of confirmation provided, where available, the onginal source ts presented first The sources and data are considered reliable When conflicting information was provided, source deemed most reltable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basis for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment 1s stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report EFINITION OF INSPECTION The term ‘inspection* as used mn this report 1s not the same level of inspection that is required for a “Professional Home Inspection” The appraiser| does not fully inspect the electrical system, plumbing systems mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure or subfloor The appraiser 1s not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal 1s to make an economic evaluation of the subject property if the chent needs a more detailed inspection of the propery a home inspection, by a Professional Home Inspector, is suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES The signature(s) affixed to this report and certification were applied by the onginal appraiser(s) or superisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his,or her signature electronically using a Password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individuat’s hand applied signature {f the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The appraiser has complied with Standards Rute 1-5b and 2-2b (0x} requinng the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years pnor to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) tts reported in the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD By studying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area, the appraiser feels that the exposure ttme for the subject property 18 equal to the indicated Marketing Time identified in the Neighborhood section of this appraisal report op Signature Jord Did Not x Name inspect Property Date Report'Signed APRIL + | Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL_ State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State 164 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower_LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Chent Private Lender Address Private Lender This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions Complete Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of vaiue, performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Summary Report A.wntien report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Restncted Report Awaitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-related issues requiring disclosure ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. ERY BIT ClickKFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Date APRIL 23, 2005 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Prepared for Private Lender Private Lender Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL. Work Performed. APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE $ 495 00 $ Customers payment towards appraisal fee $ 495 00 $ $ $ Total Amount Due $ 000 Piease make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 ’ X ADMINISTRATIVE COMFLAINT. EXHIBIT # | . PAGE I> Lae ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 | | | APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. WELLINGTON, FL As Of November 18, 2005 Prepared For WCS LENDING, LLC = 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Prepared By. SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. EXHIBIT i —____— co (0 re 1b PAGE __ OF SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo — RF-4102-05 erty Description UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT case No Proj Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cry WELLINGTON State FL Zip Code 33467, Legal Desenpion _ LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Assessors Parcel No_73-44-44-24-05.000-2840 ASSD $667 273 TaxYear 2004 RE Taxes$ 15,067 23 SpecialAssessments$ NIA Borrower LENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner [7 }Tenant_ [Yvacant Property nghis apprased |X| Fee Simple [| ]Leasehotd Prowect Type [X [PUD [Condominum (HUDIVAcnly) HOAS 358 00 Mo. Newhborhood or Project Name. VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 Sale Prce_$ REFINANCE DateofSae N/A __Desenption and $ amount of loan charges/concesswons lo be paid by seller N/A LenderiClent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Appraiser Gerald Rowley Address 4552 Highgate Dr, Delray Beach, FL_33445 Location [_furban Suburban [_]Rurat Predominant] Single family housing [resto vse % Land use change 4 Buiit up XJ Over 75% 15-75% Under 25% | occupancy Storr bear ‘One family 95 & ‘Not likely Likely Growhrate — {_|Rapad Stable Slow [X]owner 375 tow 5 | 2-4 famuly 0 In process Property values [_ | Increasing Stable Declining | [_] Tenant 3MM_Hagh 35 _| Mutt-family To Demandisupply (__|Shortage Inbatance {_|Over supply] [X] vacant (0-5%)} FREY Predominant [EA] Commercial 5 Marketing tine [ |Under 3 mos [13 6 mos [Over 6 mos | [7 |vacant fore 5%)/ 800-2 suum] 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Nexghbochood boundaries and characteristics FOREST HILL BLVD (NORTH), JOG ROAD (EAST) HYPOLUXO RO (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS, & TOWNHOUSES : Factors that affect the marketabiliy of the properties in the neighborhood (proximity to employment and amenities employment stabikly, appeal fo market, etc ) THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 5 MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE. 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD TO. EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including suppor for the above conclusions related to the trend of property values demand/supply and marketing time ~ such as data on compettive properties for sale m the nexghborhood, descnption of the prevalence af sales and financing concessions, etc ) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE TYPICAL FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS Project Information for PUDs (lt applicable - Is the developer/buider m contro of the Home Owner's Association (HOA)? ‘es L_JNo Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13£ Describe common elements and recreational facies COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_ MANNED GUARD GATE, COMMON AREAS Omensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography LEVEL 4 Sie area 12,632 SF Comertot [_]¥es [X]No | Sze TYPICAL OF AREA Specific zonng classification and descnpion PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [XK] Legal [“]Legat nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [_Jillegal [_]No Zoning | Dranage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as mproved_[ X ]Preseni use. Other use (expiain) view LAKE/RESID H] Utiives Pubic Other Off-ste Improvements Type Public Prvate | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Etcctricty XJEPL Sree ASPHALT [Xx] [_) Joneway Sudace PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutler CONCRETE/GUTTER x Apparent easements UTILITY. Water X| CITY Sdewak CONCRETE x LJ FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Yes [X]No 4) Santary sewer Steetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES [X FEMA Zone B__ Map Dale _02/01/1979 Storm sewer__{X Aley NONE FEMAMapNo__ 120192 01708 ‘Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments, side areas, iltegal or legal nonconfacming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE HOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER ‘GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION No of Units ONE ___| Foundation Reinf Cnc_]} Slab MONOLITHIC} Area Sq FL i) Roof _CODE 4 No of Sicnes TWO __ | Cxtenor Walls C Bik Stuccd Crawt Space NONE ‘% Finshed NIA Cetlng CODE Type (Det /Att) DETACHED] Roof Surfaces Conc Tile } Basement NONE Cetling NIA Wals CODE W Design (Style) 2STY _| Gutters & Dwaspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump NONE Walls BSEMNTS] Floor _CODE Existag/Proposed _EX{STING | Window Type SIN HUNG] Dampness NONE NOTEG Floor ARE NOT] None Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Stomm/Screens SCREENS | Settlement NONE NOTED Ouise Envy TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN Effectve Age (Yrs) EFF 1 | Manufactured House. NO Infestavon NONE. NOTEG OF SO FLORIDA ROOMS | Foyer | twing | Ding | Kitchen | “Den [FamiyRm]| Ree Rm |Bediooms | # Baths Area Sq Fl q_ Basement 0 d Level} x 1 1 i 1__[simnc| 2 350 3.848 Level 2 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 0 Finished area above grade contains 10 Rooms, 5. Bedroom(s) 6 50 Bath(s), 5,707 uare Feet of Gross Living Area INTERIOR — MaterralsiConduon HEATING KSTCHEN Equip_[ ATTIC ‘AMENITIES ‘CAR STORAGE Floors MarblefWd /Carpt /GQ Type Rev Cyc] Refngerator {X]} None (_] | Fueplaceis)# NONE None Walls DRYWALL/GOOD | Fuet ELECT } RangefOven {X]} Siaus Pato REAR Garage 3 #of cars . : sanders i TnFash ~=WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Osposai [XI] Drop Star [_] | Deck _ NONE Atached _3 CAR AUNTS Phe DEVE LIVE CALNER poh oor MARBLE/GOOD —T COOUNG Oshwasher [XI] soutle [K] | Porch _ REAR Detached ' Bath Wainscot MARBLE/GOOD _| Cental _ AVC _| FantHood Floor Fence _ NONE Burlt-tn EXHIBIT # Doors SOLID WD CORE EXT| Other ~_N/A_| Microwave Heated Pool __ NONE Carport a “WO CORE INT /GD | Condition GOOD | WasherOryer [Xl] Fiushed CVRD _ ENTRY Driveway _ PAVERS. PAGE OF A] Additonal features (special energy efficient dems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM J Condon of the improvements depreciation (physical, functional and extemal) epars needed qualiy of construction, remodelingladditions etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT IS EXCELLENT. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & 1S CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION Adverse environmental conditions (such as. but nol limited to, hazardous wastes, loxic Substances, ec ) present in the mprovernents, on the sile, orm the ummediate vicinity A of he subject property NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE d IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY. Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004(6 93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINY, EXHIBIT 4 ee ey SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No BA ESTIMATEDSITEVALUE oe s$ 1,150,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate site value, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS square foot calculation and for HUD and FmHA, the estimated remaining Bi Oweling __5,707_ Sq FL@S_ 17500 =$ 998,725 economic feof the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & Ee] Bsmt OSes > 0 |ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Fey KIT APPL-SIPATIO/PORCHICVRD ENTRY = 35,500 lOF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE Eq Gavgetcapon 714 Sq FL@$__ 5550 = 39,627 |ASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION EY Total Esumated CostHew = 7,073,852 IAND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & t Less Physical 1 54! Functional [ever SWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe] Depreciation 16,537 0 ° 16,537INO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE Depreciated Valve of Improvements 7.057, 319ATTRIBUTABLE _T EL = 65 YEARS. “As is" Value of Site Improvements _ _ - - 35,000, iNDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = =$ 2,242,314 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. (TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO_2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD 3597 Royalie Terrace 3595 AIKEN RD 71332 Long Meadow Dr Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proximity to Subject ae 032 MISSE 15 MINW 14 MINNW Sales Price $_ REFINANCE 2,400,000 2,430,000 [RSEARASHEE 1,950,000 ProelGrossiw Area _[$ 000 s 42046 Ales $398 30 RPESEEe|s 43939 Rea Data andor PUB RECORDS SALES OFFICE Verication Source _| PERS INSPECT | _ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _] ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS|_ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS. VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION +{J$ Adjustment] DESCRIPTION »{-)$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +{-)$ Adjustment, Sales or Financing CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL Concessions : | MTG $800,000 MTG $1,665,000 MTG_$400,000 Date of Sale/Time ARs OCT 2005 OCT 2005 JULY 2005 Location ~ | EXCt/RESIO. | EXCL RESID EXCL /RESIO EXCL /RESID Leasehold Fee Smple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 14,473 SE <17,000 47,480 SF -209,10d 23,958 SF “68,000 View TAKE/RESIO | LAKE/RESID Polo Grounds +15,000 Golf Crs (RES. +10,000] Design and Appeal 2 STY/EXCL__|_2 STY /EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Quatity of Construction |__ CBS/EXCL CBSIEXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Age 2003(2)a/EFF 12] 2005 SUP_EFF ~5,00_1993 INF EFF +5,000 1988 SIM_EFF +8,000] Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT GOOD +5000 GOOD +5,000 Above Grade Total_|Bdrms|_ Baths | Total] Bdrms| Baths Total] @drms| Baths: Total| Bdrms}_Baths Room Count 10 | 5 [650| 10} 5 [650 io{ 5 [600 +3500 9 | 4 | 450 +44,000] Gross Living Area 5,707 Sq Ft §,708 Sq Ft -101 6,101 Sq Ft -21,701 4438 Sq Ft +69,800) Basement & Finished NIA NIA NIA NIA : Fe] Rooms Below Grade N/A NA NIA NIA PA Functonal Utity AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Fd Heating/Cooling CENTRAL AC | CENTRAL AC CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Energy Effinent lems _| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAI| a4 Garage/Carport 3 CAR GARAGE |3 CAR GARAGE| 3 CAR GARAGE} 3. CAR GARAGE, Porch, Patio Deck, R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prch R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s},elo _, | CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY Feace, Pool, etc NONE POOL -15,000 POOL 715,000 POOL, -15,000 EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |SUP UPGRADES| _-100,000_ UPGRADES INF UPGRADES|__+100,000 Net Ad) (total e Dea cel Tx] $ _-131,100 | { [+ [X]- $s -217,300 X[+ {]- $123,800 ‘Adjusted Sales Price % | let=-9% fisse __.| of Comparable ae es 2,268,900 _|Gross=11% 2,212,700 _|Gr b__2,073,800 ‘Comments on Sales Companson (including the subject property's compatbilty (othe neghbochood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM SUBJECT. COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Dale Poe andData | SEE SALES | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN [ NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 42 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS within year of apprarsal | _ ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS (SC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS ‘Analysis of any current agreement cf sale option oF isting of te subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables vain one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT INDICATED VALUE cY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ©. ----------- $ ___ 2,200,000 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH _{If Applicable) Estrmated Market Rent$__N/A_/Mo x Gross Rent Multiplier vss N/A This appraisals made subject the repans,alteratons, mspecions or conditions Isted below — [_] subject to completion per plans and specifications BY Conditions of Appraisal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES Of THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT Final Reconciliation “INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF QUALITY RENTAL DATA THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST. REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS “The purpose of ths appraisal s {o estate the market value of the real property that s subject to this report based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value defintion that are stated inthe atlached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 {WE} ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, ASOF November 18_2005 fe |ON AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE.OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 2,200,000 D>; fic. cJ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) fh , 1 Signature od [Jou not Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed : ‘__ Dale Report Signed Z State Cestficaton# —_ RZ967_ State FL State Certiication # Stale i Bas Or State License # State Or State License # State Freddie Mac Form 70 6-92 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 2 of 1 SERVICE APPRAISALS COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Propeny Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cay WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LenderfChent__WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardware throughout, fake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42° wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and patio area, tray celling and sitting room in master bedroom suite, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The subject has a built-in home theater ‘on the second floor The house exterior is painted concrete block stucco There 1s a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room = The house has central air conditioning The subject ts considered to be tn excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the subject's area High land to value ratio is typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington and the lake front lot This factor does not adversely affect the marketabulty of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subject's tocation, site area, site/vew, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amenites The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information The subject and Sale #1 are lake front propertes Sale #1 ts a recent sale of a similar modet as the subject located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #2 and #3 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently altached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ADMINISTRATIVE Comer ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 3 of SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address _ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiChent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir Boca Raton, FL 33487 \ Pool } Under Ye 225 Cor Sitting ROOM Kitchen 635 Dining ROOM Bedroom 595° Bedroom Bath 2 15 as zs First Floor Shel by Ape v= Cormats . \AREA CALCULATIONS, SUMVARY — . LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Code | __ Description a Size, Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals an Furst Floor 3847 60 3ea7 Farat Floor P/E Porch 120 00 25 x as 3125 Patio am 42 aia osx 32% 32 5 06 on Garage na is na 1s 32% 255 eta 40 x 27 aaa ox 25 360 00 asx 30 795 89 : osx 00% 00 030 s70 x 542 2008 73 33 « 2s 70 95 2S x 19s 243 75 wo x «wo 140 00 RETR Om Dy Ae PARP QTD A re an oe ANMIBISTD RIVE pager Re vrs a PE we wre 0 “. TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 11 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 | % mee etenetawen cys oe cee ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Adgress__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderiChent_WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 160 Recreation ROOM Bedroom 520° Home 465° Theater Bath 270 Bedroom o Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Conmsts, Code Description ° Size Net Totals. 1 . Breakdown Subtotals Gig Secured Floor 1es9 69 1959 6 ‘Sosa Floor 20x 260 an 05x 0x 107 64.38 o5x 35% 35 625 35 x 90 an Tox 2s e189 255 27 62 66 sox 135 an idx us 2453 35x 56 wa osx 81 an no osx 28x 28 «00 28x 28 193 wo x 400 640 00 osx 25x 25 3 06 «2x 60 25:46 osx 42m 42 900 osx 42% 42 900 165 x 270 44s 50 . TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) L 1960 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1960 lj ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page S of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 . Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LendedCuent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 i pe cnegiNDoD |__ wee) S som “ a _ — ~ = LO KAZET. I~ Toast z com 7 OO ete & za | 2200) zara] CKEECHOSEE | OKFECHGBEE| fOKEECHOBEE For] BRYAN ¥ aT Taser, "hed user j— 7/2 al ae RK a TT 7 g re ai=| T= J es ine Geo ~~ wf a | | e cofcect inc |dayan 5; a b 1 3 ACER, a r sca ” Lar 5 B | Fs d DILLMAN A a S NA me ENIE ys at - = Lye ad $ 2 FOREST HI = FA > o ra 2 — SMED I fal ¥ c a ~~ 7 nese cy Y i Pa (qerenteay z S —_—__|. al \a fae ou OGa] fer ie suc: > ©} —t LAKE MI _I 441 = = a ~——+ in { ‘ | Q JB Pf | 3 te] | 3 Tr LAT anal 7 sist \ i \ & . é \. eae WAP (C)1964-2001 TELE ATLAS NA inc Seal 11 61 mies ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 6 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State FL Zp Code 33467 LendeClent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, Fi_ 33487 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, Ft REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINISTRATIVE SXMIBIT “AGE io] sre MELAING ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cly_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderCient _WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor PHOTO OF KITCHEN PHOTO OF FAMILY ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower __LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cily_ WELLINGTON. County PALM BEACH Slate FL 21p Code 33467 Lender/Cient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 PHOTO OF Master Bedroom PHOTO OF MASTER BATHROOM PHOTO OF BATHROOM ADMINISTRATIy PXHIBIT 4 O DASE ae LD ADM meta arn ae a } SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower _LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cily_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Staie FL Zip Code 33467 LendedChient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir Boca Raton, Fl. 33487 PHOTO OF BEDROOM PHOTO OF RECREATION ROOM. PHOTO OF DINING ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 10 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Properly Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cay WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Siate FL 2p Code 33467 Lender/Clent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 ~ — |] COMPARABLE # 1 3597 Royalle Terrace WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 2 iee|| 3595 AIKEN RD ei WELLINGTON, FI. COMPARABLE # 3 11332 Long Meadow Dr WELLINGTON, FL ADMINISTRATIVE COMP LAINT ArdSit de ee ees iets el Click ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 11 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLA ne Em ME SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Impficit in this definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of 2 specified date and the passing of tite from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and setier are typically motivated, (2) both parties are weil informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest (3) a reasonable tme ts. allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment ts made in terms of cash inU S$ dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normai consideration for the property so'd unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions“ granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally patd by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable properly by comparisons to financing terms offered by @ third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or fansaclion Any adjustment should not be calculated ona mechanicat dollar for doliar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing ar concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The apprasser’s certification that appears in the apprassal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser will not be responsible for malters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it The appraiser assumes that the tille is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the tiie The property s appraised on the basis of il being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appratsal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch 1s included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size 3. The appraiser has examined the avatlable flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject sie 1s located in an identified Specral Flood Hazard Area Because the apprarser 1s nol a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The apgraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazard wastes toxic substances, etc ) observed durmng the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the apprarsal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc ) thal would make the property more or less valuable, and has assured that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions extst Because the appraiser 1s nol an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions thal were expressed in the appratsal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the apprarsal report except as prowded for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repawrs, or alterations an the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner TNF The apprarser must provide his or her prior wntten consent before the lendericlent specified in the appraisal report dn distnbute the appraisal report (including conclustons about the property value, the appraiser's denuty and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser ts associated) to-anygng-aijer than the borrower the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the lender/client may distnbute ifie property descnption section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, WHE Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 (6 93) : Page 12 of 16 AUWINISTRAHIVE exHigit 4% SERVICE APPRAISALS File No — RF-1102-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 Ihave researched the subject market area and have selected a munmum of three recent sales of properties most simular and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysts and have made a dotiar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those tlems of significant variation if a significant stem in a comparable property 1s superior to, or more favorable than, the subject properly | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales pnce of the comparable and, if a significant tem in a comparable property 1s inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 Ihave taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in ha appraisal report { have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | believe to the best of my knowledge that all statements and information mn the appratsal report are true and correct 3. | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opimons, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 Thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partally or completely my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familar status, or national origin of either the prospective awners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 Lhave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal (s contingent on the appraised value of the property 6 | was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal { did not base the appratsal report on a requesied minimum vatuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage foan 7 1 pertormed this appraisal in conformity with 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 as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply | acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate | developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this 7eport, unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 | have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties hsted as comparables in the appraisat report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements, an the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property 9 | personally prepared ail conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report If relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation’ of the aopraisal repo | have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them In the reconetlation section of this appraisai report | certify that any individual so named 1s qualified to perform the tasks { have not authorized anyone to make a change to any stem in the report, therefore, if an unauthonzed change 1s made to the appraisal report Iwill take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION if a supervisory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she certifies and agrees that | directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED. 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required) Signature Name Date Signed November 18, 2005. Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 State Certification # ~~ or State License # or State License # State FL State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License [J od ([) did Not inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6 93 ChckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fane Mae Form 10048 6 93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Client WCS LENDING, LLC In developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or listing of the property being appraised (0) Any prior saie of the subject property being appraised that occurred within the following time periods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and (ll). three years for all other property types The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings [X] The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past one (1) year (7) The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summanzed below The subject property is currently offered for sale, listing pce 1s $ The subject property has been sold during the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record TRANSEASTERN VERSAILLES LLC Grantee/Purchaser LENZER L_ BURTON, JR Contract Price/Sale Price $834,077 Date of ContraclSale DEC 2003 Comments COMPLAINT Ly ClckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Drie dF 2 PAG SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM File No Case No RF-1102-05 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION “The following Certification statements are in addition to and may supercede the signed Appraiser s Certification aliached to this appraisal report This Appraisers Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that, to the hest of my knowledge and belief ‘The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct The reported analyses opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal impartial, and unbiased professional analyses opinions, and conclusions Ihave no present or prospective interest n the property that 1s the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved Ihave no bias with respect to the property thats the subject of this report or to the parties invoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent ‘event directly related to the intended use of his appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice 1 [X]have[__Jhave not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subyect of this report (If more than one person signs this certification, | the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did nol make a personal inspection of the appraised property } No one provided significant reat property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (If there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant real property apprarsai assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL ‘The purpose af the apprarsat is to estimate the market value of the subject property as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report ‘The intended use of the appraisal is to assist the client and any other intended users in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan The intended users of this report are the stated chent and any other institutions volved in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclustons contained in this appraisal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM ‘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, listings and/or rentals within the subject market area The original source of the comparable data desonbed im the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source ‘of confirmation provided where available the onginal source 1s presented first The sources and dala are considered reliable When conflicung information was provided source deemed most reliable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basts for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment is stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report DEFINITION OF INSPECTION The term "Inspection", as used in this report 1s not the same level of mspection thal is required for a ‘Professional Home Inspection The appraiser does not fully inspect the electrical system plumbing systems, mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure, of subfloor The appraiser is not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal ss to make an economic evaluation of the subject property If the client needs a more detailed inspection of the property a home inspection by a Professional Home Inspector 1s suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES ‘The signature(s) affixed to this report, and certification were applied by the ariginal appraiser(s) of supervisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his or her signature electronically using a password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individual's hand applied signature , If the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisat Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ‘The appraiser has complied with Standards Rule 1-5b and 2-2b ('x) requiring the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) t's reported _an the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD ying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area the appraiser feels that the exposure time for the t property ts equal to.the indicated Marketing-Time identified in the Neighborhood section of thes appraisal report if I Signature Cod (Jo not ft Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed‘November 18, 2005 Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State ( ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo_—- RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WE!LINGTON County PALM BEACH State, FL ZipCode___33467 Lender/Chent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave_, Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions [X] Complete Appratsal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of value performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision ‘This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisat performed under Standard 1 DQ summary Report Awwntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or umited apprarsal performed under Standard 1 [_] Restncted Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-retated issues requiring disclosure y ? ClickKFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Cate November 18, 2005 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 $ $ $ ms $ $ $ $ Total Amount Due 400 00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATH ERPS, £ COMPLAINT ‘ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 INVOICE Date November 18, 2005 FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 Total Amount Due $ 400.00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT 2 oar LSI ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727, PI1S*022 COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS 01/20/0¢ PAGE. 11 A PREPARED BY- SCB FUNDING GROUP SUBJECT 73-414424~05-000-4240 BD BTH SQFT SLU CLC WG V LOT SIZE 3520 PALAIS TERR 3.2 0100 14,374 CORRELATED PROPERTY AVERAGES SCANNED 484 FOLIOS FOR 12 MATCHES AVERAGING 4,401 SQ/FT @ $3022 37 /sQrt SALE-HIGH 61,318,060 Low: 581,000 AvG- 6,137,819 AVG ASMT 259,02€ AVR 23.696 ASSESSED RATIO AMT: 3,080,480 LIVING SQ FT AVERAGE: c X PROPERTY ADDRESS BD BT LIVSQF DATE SALE AMT DT I LOTSZE T SQFTS YB AVE 10275 TRIANON PL 302 0 1105 700000 Wo 11325 97 B.E 0 3597 ROYALLE TERR 3_ 6 6959 1105 2418000 wo 12196 347 4 03 3.2 _ 3610 ROYALE TERR 304 3917 1105 1095168 Sw 6969 279 5 03 2.€ 10678 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 2 0 0905 885000 WD 11325 97 7.5 _ 3608 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0805 1040000 wo 9147 97:1 ¢ ~ 10273 TRIANON PL 3.2 0 0805 900000 sw 11325 97 1.3 73-414424-05-000-2630 3.4 2773 0805 61318000 sw 6969 112.5 03 4.0 ea 10707 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 __2 0 0805 1650000 WD 11761 97 2.6 3518 TURENNE WAY 3.3 4181 0705 1092000 wo 16552 261.1 03 2.2 & 1077} VERSAILLES BLVD 3.2 0.0705 1260000 wo 12632 979.6 _ 3600 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0205 714662 wD 8712 97 B 2 _ 10329 TRIANON PL 303 4174 0205 581000 WD 8712 139.1 03 1.3 X=VIEW D=DELETE F1=SHIFT DATA F4=MORE F6=ALTER SEARCH F7=SUBJECT F1LO=HELP PI15 << ADD A COMP >> RE otis Oriel Tsvt private. Lendipl. | ‘ * EXHiBIT # 2 0.7- PAGE ) _oog
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. is the developer of a 510 unit three-tower condominium project on an island now known as Grove Isle in Biscayne Bay. As part of the project Grove Isle plans to construct a ninety slip pleasure boat marina on the west side of the island. Since its inception, the project has been in litigation between the parties to this Proceeding. See Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., et al v. DER, DOAH Case No. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354; State ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 295 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Doheny vs. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferre, Case No. 80-101-AP (Circuit Court, Appellate Division, Dade County, September 16, 1980). Petitioners Doheny and Filer have their residences near the site of the proposed marina. In the past they have used the waters in and around this site for fishing, boating and swimming. If the marina is constructed their use of the waters in the immediate area of the marina could be limited somewhat. While Petitioner Jaffer does not live in the immediate area of the marina, he also uses the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. The project could have some minimal impact on his use of those waters. The protesting organizations: Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., Coconut Grove Civil Club, Tigertail Association, and the Tropical Audubon Society, Inc. all have members who use the waters of Biscayne Bay in the area of the project for nature study or recreation. The use of these waters by their members could be diminished in some degree if the marina is constructed. That portion of Grove Isle from which the marina will project is owned by Grove Isle Club, Inc., an entity created to operate the recreational facilities appurtenant to the Grove Isle Condominium. The Club is an integral part of the Grove Isle condominium project. Membership in the Club is mandatory for unit owners. It is the plan of Grove Isle, Ltd. that after the marina is constructed the individual wet-slips will be sold to only condominium owners. Grove Isle, Ltd. expects to realize a onetime profit from the sale of each slip. The slips would therefore not produce a periodic or reoccurring income to the developer. In the recent past, DNR has interpreted its rules relating to submerged land leases not to require a lease for the construction of a marina over submerged state lands if the marina will not generate a regular income. Evidence of this practice dates back to June 8, 1978. On March 29, 1979, Grove Isle applied to DNR for a state lease of the submerged lands over which the proposed marina would be constructed. By a letter of April 4, 1979, from Daniel S. Meisen, Administrator, Operations Section, Bureau of State Lands, the Department informed Grove Isle that a lease would not be required. The full text of the letter follows: April 4, 1979 Ms. Pat Bourguin Post, Buckley, Schub and Jernigan, Inc. 7500 Northwest 52nd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Dear Ms. Bourguin: Martin Margulies A review of the above referenced application has aided us in determining that a lease will not be required although the submerged bottom lands are state-owned. Submerged land leases are not re- quired for private docks or non-income producing facilities. Your $150.00 refund is being processed and will be forwarded to you within the next two months. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact Laura Lewallen of this office. Sincerely, Daniel S. Meisen Administrator Operations Section Bureau of State Lands DSM/11m cc: DER West Palm Beach Health Department The State of Florida owns the submerged lands to the west of Grove Isle over which the marina would be constructed. Beginning in the fall of 1979 and continuing through the spring of 1980, there was a string of correspondence between DNR, Mr. Doheny and Grove Isle. This was its basic pattern. Mr. Doheny would write to DNR with some information indicating in his opinion that the proposed marina would not be private in nature, that is, persons other than condominium owners might be able to use the wet-slips. In response to Mr. Doheny's letter DNR would then query Grove Isle requesting assurances that the marina would be private. At least three of these inquiries, April 26, 1979; October 26, 1979; and February 12, 1980, appear in the record. Grove Isle then responded with letters indicating in various ways that the marina would not be income producing. It is apparent from some of the correspondence that there were also oral communications among the parties. The contents of these communications do not appear in the record. Finally on March 13, 1980, Mr. Doheny wrote to DNR on behalf of the Homeowner Petitioners to express his disagreement with the Department's position previously expressed in correspondence dating back to April 4, 1979, that if the proposed marina is limited to only condominium owners and does not produce direct income then it does not require a lease. Mr. Dean on behalf of Dr. Gissendaner replied to Mr. Doheny on March 24, 1980, by reiterating the Department's consistent position on this project. The text of the letter fellow's: March 24, 1980 David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Grove Isle Marina Dear David: Dr. Gissendanner asked that I respond to your letter dated March 13, 1980 regarding Grove Isle Marina. Attached his a copy of the affidavit executed by Grove Isle, Ltd. and the subsequent letter to Grove Isle, Ltd. from the Department of Natural Resources. It is the position of the Department of Natural Resources that where a condominium marina will derive no income from the rental or lease of boat slips and furthermore, where all slips will be used exclusively by the condominium unit purchasers that the marina is not a commercial/industrial docking facility requiring a lease from the Trustees pursuant to Rule 16C-12.14, F.A.C. and Chapter 253.03, F.S. (1979). This position is based on the proposition that riparian rights attached to a single condominium unit purchaser as do riparian rights for a single family lot owner who likewise is exempt from a submerged land lease. Sincerely, Henry Dean Assistant Department Attorney Division of State Lands HD/le Enclosures cc: Elton J. Gissendanner Richard P. Ludington On May 3, 1979, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund passed a resolution which states in pertinent part that: Where the Trustees have title, by either deed of conveyance or sovereignty pursuant to 1 and/or 2 above, and where any person has requested an environmental or other permit and where the Trustees neither by statute nor rule must give permission for the use involved in the permit, the Execu- tive Director is authorized to indicate, by letter or otherwise, said circumstances and that no action by the Trustees is necessary for the said use; . . . Subsequently Mr. Jaffer, the Homeowners and Mr. Filer filed their petitions for administrative hearings on April 2, 1980, 4/ April 9, 1980, and April 21, 1980, respectively. DNR's position concerning a lease requirement was well known to all of the Petitioners by at least January 2 and 3, 1980, the date of the final hearing on the related DER cases for the instant project. 5/
Recommendation For the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources issue a final order dismissing the petitions in Case Nos. 80-670, 80-768, and 80-815. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 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 11th day of December, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the activities of a yacht broker without a license in violation of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. In May 1993, the Department issued a yacht and ship salesman's license to Davis. In 1995, after a formal hearing, the Department revoked Davis' license for misrepresentation in entering false answers on his license application. Davis had been a licensed stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission between 1971 and 1991. He failed to tell the Department on his application that the National Association of Securities Dealers had censured him, imposed a fine of $20,000, and suspended his license for two years. Davis attended a Department workshop on yacht and ship brokerage laws during the time he held a license. The workshop covered Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, brokerage activities, and administrative rules. In June 1997, Davis approached Don Gilman of Gilman Yachts with an offer to co-broker the purchase of the Princessa del Mar by his client, William Bond Elliott (Elliott). Davis suggested that Gilman split the commission on the purchase with him on a 50/50 basis. Gilman is a licensed yacht and ship broker. Gilman, who knew Davis personally and knew that Davis had been licensed by the Department, agreed to co-broker the transaction. Gilman was unaware that Davis' license had been revoked. Davis had an office in Palm Beach, Florida, with a local telephone and facsimile machine number. Diana Harvey, an employee of Gilman Yachts who handled the closing and paperwork associated with the sale of the Princessa del Mar, thought that Davis had represented himself to her as a licensed broker. The Princessa del Mar is a 105-foot Broward yacht built in 1984. Throughout the negotiations for Elliott's purchase, the Princessa del Mar was moored at docks in West Palm Beach, Florida. The listing broker for the Princessa del Mar was Richard Betram Yachts, Inc. Gary Fisette (Fisette) was the licensed broker handling the listing. Davis requested that Fisette send him the listing specifications on the Princessa del Mar. Fisette sent the specifications to Davis by facsimile transmission and by mail to Davis' Palm Beach office. Davis and Gilman met with Elliott onboard the Princessa del Mar in June 1997 for Elliott to view the yacht. The two discussed the yacht, including the purchase of the yacht, with Elliott. Davis also discussed placing the yacht into charter service to cover some of the costs of the purchase, operation and maintenance of the yacht. Davis met with both the buyer and seller alone and with Gilman and Fisette. On July 3, 1997, Elliott signed an initial purchase contract, offering $1.5 million for the Princessa del Mar on the condition of a sea trial and survey satisfactory to him. Davis signed the contract on the witness line. On July 16, 1997, Fisette sent a letter by facsimile transmission to Davis at his Palm Beach office with information on the engine rebuild on the Princessa del Mar that Davis had discussed with him. Fisette also wrote that the owner would sign and return the agreement by facsimile transmission. Davis arranged for William Seger to conduct the survey. Davis also arranged for the sea trial, which was conducted along the Intracoastal Waterway in Florida. Davis, Gilman, and Elliott attended the sea trial. Captain John Lloyd piloted the yacht. Davis arranged for some engine repair to the yacht. On August 5, 1997, Diana Harvey sent the executed purchase agreement and addendum to Davis at his Palm Beach office. On the same day, Gilman advised Elliott by facsimile transmission with a copy to Davis at his Palm Beach office that the yacht should be hauled for an inspection of the bottom. Gilman and Elliott met to negotiate the final offer. The closing was scheduled in the Bahamas. On September 3, 1997, Gilman confirmed his conversation with Davis about their agreement to reduce their commission by $4,000 toward the seller's request of an additional $12,000 to close the transaction. At the conclusion of the transaction, Gilman received a commission check from the attorney handling the closing. Davis directed Gilman and Harvey to pay his share of the commission, $19,500, in five separate checks: $5,000 to himself as his commission, $1,000 to Foley Law Office for legal fees for the yacht, $1,000 to A. Stokes and $9,500 to Peter Gollsby for reimbursement for expenses for the yacht, and $3,000 to Bill Seger for the survey. A check for $2,850 was also given to Davis for repairs to the yacht. Davis picked up the checks in person from Ms. Harvey at Gilman Yachts. Davis claims that any brokering activities that he may have done were not done in the State of Florida. He claimed that calls to his Palm Beach office were forwarded to Rhode Island, and that only conversations between him and Elliott concerning chartering services and assisting with Elliott's due diligence activities took place in Florida. Davis' claims are rejected as not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered requiring Thomas I. Davis to cease and desist from engaging in yacht and ship brokerage activities in Florida and imposing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland 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 19th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Ashley R. Pollow, Esquire Atrium Financial Center 1515 North Federal Highway, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432-1994 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondent Heidt Neil "Cap" Fendig, Jr., and his corporate alter ego, Go Fish, Inc., do business under the name Golden Isles Charter Company. Aside from operating the marina he leases on St. Simons Island, Georgia, Mr. Fendig hires out as a captain (for $175 a day), arranges charters, and acts as a yacht broker in Georgia. When Kirby J. Bourgeois acquired the Westwind, a 55-foot "Ocean Super Sportfisherman," the man to whom the boat had previously belonged recommended respondent to Mr. Bourgeois, an Oklahoman who knew little about boats, as somebody who could assist him. When Messrs. Fendig and Bourgeois met on October 5 or 6, 1990, respondent agreed to register the Westwind in the name of a corporation (Mandela Corp.) Mr. Bourgeois specified, and to equip the boat in accordance with Coast Guard requirements. Later he took Mr. Bourgeois out on "training trips." For each of these services, respondent prepared invoices which Mr. Bourgeois paid in due course. Around Thanksgiving of 1990, Mr. Fendig acted as the Westwind's captain on a cruise Mr. Bourgeois took to the Bahamas. They left the boat docked in Marsh Harbor. In January of 1991, Mr. Bourgeois told Mr. Fendig on the telephone that he wanted to sell the Westwind. At that time, if not before, Mr. Fendig mailed Mr. Bourgeois a packet of information about selling boats, which included a form yacht brokerage agreement. Instead of signing the yacht brokerage agreement, Mr. Bourgeois decided to show the Westwind at the Third Annual Brokerage Yacht Show in Miami Beach, one of the alternatives Mr. Fendig had suggested. Mr. Fendig, who had once inquired of petitioner DBR about obtaining a Florida yacht broker's license, and been told he was ineligible because he lived and worked out of state, advised Mr. Bourgeois that he was not licensed in Florida and could not act as a yacht broker in Florida. From conversations he had with petitioner's employees at the time he discussed obtaining a Florida license, Mr. Fendig understood that Florida law permitted him to accompany and assist yacht owners in the sale or purchase of yachts in Florida so long as he did not buy or sell as an owner's agent. Mr. Fendig agreed to bring the Westwind over from Marsh Harbor for the show, which began on February 14, 1991, a Thursday. On January 23 or 24, 1991, respondent sent Mr. Bourgeois a facsimile transmission, described as confirmation of a telephone conversation, in which he wrote: "As per your instructions, I will transport the boat to the Miami show and look for your arrival in Miami at [sic] sometime during the show." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Although Mr. Bourgeois had informed respondent "that he would not be able to be there the first day" (T.24), Mr. Fendig arrived before the show began. He also filled out a form application and a contract for exhibit space, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, which, together with the application fee, had reached Yachting Provisions, Inc. in Ft. Lauderdale, on February 1, 1991. Mr. Bourgeois, whose name did not appear on the application and contract, later reimbursed him the fee. Reportedly delayed by a snowstorm, Mr. Bourgeois did not reach Miami before Saturday evening. Until Mr. Bourgeois arrived, Mr. Fendig stayed with the boat, moored at slip 221 on Collins Avenue. Available to anybody who visited the Westwind while he was on board were copies of his business card, which included the words "YACHT SALES-YACHT MANAGEMENT." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Also available to show goers (including those to whom respondent never spoke) were one page fliers describing the Westwind and concluding: "Asking $350,000 Looking for serious offers contact H. N. "Cap" Fendig, Golden Isles Yacht Sales & Charter Co. 912 638-7717 St. Simons Island, Ga." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Respondent had asked his brother to make up this flier. Like other paid captains, respondent told anybody who inquired the owner's asking price. When, on the first day of the boat show, investigators in petitioner's employ posed as potential buyers, Mr. Fendig told them they would have to speak to the owner, who would be arriving later in the show. He told "everybody that, if they wanted to make an offer, the owner was coming and they could drop by later in the show and . . . talk to him." T. 36. While at the boat show, Mr. Fendig slept on the boat, which was an economic benefit for him, at the same time it afforded the vessel a measure of security, which was an economic benefit for the owner. Mr. Bourgeois paid him for bringing the boat to Miami Beach, but not for the time he spent there. He had wanted to go to the boat show for his own purposes, in any event. The yacht show closed on Monday without the Westwind's changing hands. Mr. Bourgeois still owned the Westwind on March 11, 1991, when he signed a yacht brokerage agreement with respondent Fendig. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before that time Mr. Fendig had no agreement for or expectation of any compensation on account either of the Westwind's sale or of his efforts to accomplish a sale (other than bringing the boat to Miami, for which he received a fixed amount.)
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3108 Petitioner's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, he was off and on the boat during the last two days. Before Mr. Bourgeois' arrival, it had been necessary to stay with the boat for security reasons. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the proof did not show that anybody asked the owner's name, address or phone number. Respondent testified he did not distribute this information because it "wasn't necessary, because the owner was going to be there." T.36. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10, the taking of evidence had closed and respondent was making legal argument. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, respondent (who appeared pro se) answered a speculative question about what "could" happen. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 H. N. "Cap" Fendig 205 Marina Drive St. Simons Island, GA 31522 Henry M. Solares, Director Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
