Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor, having been issued license number CB C012964 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed as an individual only. On or about April 14, 1982, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., entered into a contract with Mary Fedico to enclose the carport on her home, which was located at 2085 Victory Avenue, Largo, Florida. The contract price was $5,000.00. Mike Fredricks acted as the saleman for this contract on behalf of Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc. At all times material hereto, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was owned by Kenneth Larrow. The only employees of this corporation were Kenneth Larrow and his son. Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was formed in January of 1982 for the purpose of performing room additions and other types of construction. On April 14, 1982, the sole officer of Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was Kenneth Larrow, who also served as a director. An attorney John L. Riley, was the registered agent. At all times pertinent hereto, Kenneth Larrow was not licensed to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On or about April 16, 1982, Kenneth Larrow and his salesman, Mike Fredricks, went to the City of Largo Building Department to obtain a construction permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. Neither of these persons wash qualified, or licensed, to engage in the business of contracting in the City of Largo. Therefore, the Largo Building Department refused to issue a permit for this construction. When Kenneth Larrow and Mike Fredricks were unable to obtain a permit for the construction of the addition to Mary Fedico's home, they informed the Largo Building Department that the qualifier for Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was Barry L. Critoph, the Respondent. The Largo Building Department informed Mr. Larrow and Mr. Fredricks that the Respondent had to sign the permit application in order for a permit to be issued for the construction to be performed on Mary Fedico's home. On or about April 16, 1982, the Respondent applied for and obtained a construction permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. This permit was issued to Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., with the Respondent as the qualifying contractor. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent did not qualify Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all pertinent times, the Respondent did not have in his possession a certificate issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board with the notation "Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc." thereon. Moreover, the Respondent admitted he was not positive that he had properly qualified Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., when he obtained the permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. On or about May 5, 1982, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., entered into a second contract with Mary Fedico to finish the interior of the carport which was to be enclosed by Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., pursuant to the prior contract, for a price of $710. Kenneth Larrow began to perform the work required under the terms of the two contracts. Mary Fedico never saw the Respondent at the project site. Mr. Larrow hired all subcontractors and was responsible for paying them. He was also responsible for supervision of the construction of the carport enclosure. The Respondent did not know that there was a second contract for interior work in Mary Fedico's carport enclosure, and the Respondent performed no work on the project. He did drive his car by the site three times, but he never entered onto the project, and he simply viewed the construction being performed from the street. The Respondent had no knowledge as to who the subcontractors were on the Fedico project, and he had no responsibility for hiring them. He had no knowledge of the money that was being obtained from this project, and he did not know whether or not the subcontractors were being paid. At a time uncertain, construction of the carport enclosure addition to the Fedico home began to slow down. When Mary Fedico began to receive notices from subcontractors that they were not being paid, she contacted Kenneth Larrow about problems with the construction. However, when Mr. Larrow was unable to satisfactorily respond to Mary Fedico's questions regarding the work, she and her son-in-law took over the project, completed it, and paid all the subcontractors. The cost of completion was between $2,000 and $2,500 more than the contract price had been. As a result of the Fedico contracts noted above, Kenneth Larrow was charged with using the designation of "contractor" without a license, in two counts. Kenneth Larrow plead nolo contendere to these charges, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 plus court costs. Mary Fedico first became aware that the Respondent had some involvement with the construction of the addition to her home when she was subpoenaed to appear at this court proceeding. Prior thereto, she had not been notified by either the Respondent or Mr. Larrow, that the Respondent had any connection with her carport project. The Respondent's involvement with Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., was limited to obtaining permits and "supervision". As compensation therefor, the Respondent was to received two percent of the gross sales of the company. He was supposed to check jobs and verify construction, but this supervision was to consist of checking the projects contracted for by Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., at his own convenience, to determine if these projects were "okay". The Respondent was not connected with the financial operation of Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., he had no financial control over the operations of the corporation, and he could not sign checks. All subcontractors were hired and paid by Kenneth Larrow. Mr. Larrow and his salesmen actually entered into the contracts, and the Respondent had no involvement with the contracts except to determine if work contracted for was structurally sound. Kenneth Larrow actually supervised all of the construction projects of Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., on a daily basis, and the Respondent was not aware of all the projects entered into by the corporation. Kenneth Larrow eventually made restitution to Mary Fedico in the amount of $1,250 for the problems which occurred in connection with the carport enclosure work on her home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CB C012964 held by the Respondent, Barry L. Critoph, be suspended for two years. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 2nd day of December, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Fogarty, Esquire 327 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33517 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Decorative Concrete and Curbing, Inc. ("Decorative Concrete"), complied with the requirements of Sections 440.10, 440.107, and 440.38, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact The Department is the government agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Decorative Concrete is a business, duly incorporated by the State of Florida, which is generally engaged in the construction industry. On September 17, 2008, Seidler, as an investigative analyst for the Department, visited a work site at 5423 Parker Drive in Ft. Myers, Florida, at approximately 8:30 a.m. She witnessed two men (later identified as Sam Gibson and Kevin Miller), doing some sort of concrete construction work.2 Seidler drove around to some other work sites and returned to the Parker Drive site around 10:00 a.m. Gibson and Miller were still engaged in their construction work at that time. Seidler approached the men and identified herself as a Department investigator and presented her credentials. Based on her questions to the men, she learned that they worked for Decorative Concrete. It was Miller's first day on the job, according to his statement. However, Clapper said Miller had never worked for Decorative Concrete. Rather, he and Gibson were "fishing buddies and drinking buddies," and Miller was simply helping Gibson get a small job done so they could go fishing. There is no other evidence that Miller was or ever had been employed by Decorative Concrete. Seidler then confirmed the identity and corporate status of Decorative Concrete using the Department of State, Division of Corporations website. Using a data base called the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, Seidler determined that there was no workers' compensation insurance coverage in place, nor were there any officer Certificates of Exemption for workers' compensation coverage for Decorative Concrete. She found that Decorative Concrete had previously had coverage through a Professional Employment Organization (PEO) called Decision HR. However, that insurance coverage had been terminated by Decision HR on July 27, 2008. Decorative Concrete had also had workers' compensation insurance coverage through another PEO, Southeast Personnel. However, Southeast Personnel had terminated their relationship with Decorative Concrete on August 11, 2008, approximately five weeks prior to Seilder's site visit. Seidler then met with Suzette Clapper, identified as the vice-president and registered agent for Decorative Concrete, and learned that Decorative Concrete was negotiating with Southeast Personnel for coverage, but they had not come to an agreement. Decorative Concrete had not had any concrete work for the period August 26 through September 17, 2008. As a result, Southeast Personnel had not issued any coverage. (It was the policy of Southeast Personnel to cancel coverage during times of inactivity, then reinstate the insurance--for a fee-- once work recommenced.) The Department requested certain business records from Decorative Concrete in order to assess the proper penalty for failure to have workers' compensation coverage. No business records were provided, so the Department was required to impute a penalty according to established Department policies and rules. In the absence of records, such as bank statements, cancelled checks, and general ledger books, the Department assesses a penalty on a structured formula. The Department uses the average weekly wage for the particular construction industry at issue (in this case Class Code 5221) as the imputed wage for the employees at issue. A factor of 1.5 is then added, wherein the imputed wage is multiplied by that number to obtain a gross imputed salary. The period of non-coverage is then determined, i.e., the number of weeks there was no workers' compensation coverage for each employee. The Department may impute income for workers for a period of up to three years. In the instant case, Decorative Concrete had only been incorporated since January 1, 2008, and so that date was used as the beginning date. The gross imputed salary is then multiplied by the number of uncovered work weeks. The workers' compensation rate for that particular classification code (in this case, $6.97) is then assigned to the calculation. This figure then results in a number equal to the actual amount of the premium that is due for the employee. In this case, the premium per employee was $2,885.79. That figure is then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the penalty ($4,328.68 per employee) to be assessed against the employer. The Department then issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Decorative Concrete with a total penalty amount of $8,657.38 (i.e., the calculated penalty times two employees). Decorative Concrete did not provide business records to the Department on the advice of counsel. That advice was clearly wrong, but Clapper relied upon the advice to his detriment. For example, business records would have verified workers' compensation coverage for part of the period in dispute, because Decorative Concrete was obviously covered for certain periods by two different PEOs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty against Respondent, Decorative Concrete and Curbing, Inc., in the amount of $4,328.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 20th day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 489.227(1)(f), Florida Statutes, for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation has jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of contracting pursuant to Section 455.228, Florida Statutes. At no time material hereto was Respondent duly registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting pursuant to Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Augustine Weekley and Marilyn Weekley, the homeowners of a residence located at 2619 Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, sought to remodel specific areas of their home. Initially, Mr. Weekley hired Wedgewood Contractors ("Wedgewood"), a licensed contractor, to perform the construction work. In the fall of 1999, Wedgewood obtained a building permit and commenced work on the Weekley project, but was eventually terminated by Mr. Weekley for unsatisfactory work. Mr. Weekley, a licensed contractor, then hired Respondent to take over the construction work. Mr. Weekley and Respondent entered into an oral contract whereby Respondent would complete work on the Weekley home and he would be paid as the work progressed. Between November 6, 1999 and June 16, 2000, Respondent sent invoices to the Weekleys totaling nearly $30,000 for labor and materials related to the construction work he performed, which amounts were paid in full by the Weekleys. The scope of the work performed by the Respondent as evidenced by the invoices, when considered as a whole, required either licensure or permitting. Admittedly, a building permit cannot be obtained by Respondent because he is not licensed. The building department records of the City of Tampa show that Respondent was never identified as the contractor of record for the Weekley project. The Weekleys became concerned when Respondent failed to deliver certain building materials that they had paid him to provide. On June 16, 2000, Respondent abandoned the Weekley project. Thereafter, Mr. Weekley hired another contractor to complete the work required for the project. Although Mr. Weekley is licensed as a general contractor, he did not determine whether Respondent was licensed. At no time did Respondent represent that he was a licensed contractor. The Department's investigative costs for this case total $350.62.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.227(1)(f), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of the Department's investigation in the amount of $350.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Bishop 2212 Spyglass Hill Circle Valrico, Florida 33594 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Patrick L. Butler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Fred Catchpole and Gwendolyn Barker (Respondents) should be subject to disciplinary action as licensed residential real estate appraisers by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) for failure to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.623(15), Florida Statutes (2004).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the licensing authority for real estate appraisers in Florida with revocation and disciplinary authority over its licensees pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On or about September 16, 2004, Respondents Fred Catchpole and Gwendolyn Barker prepared, signed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for the property, including a manufactured home, located at 209 Ponderosa Pine Court, Georgetown, Florida 32139 (Subject Property). At the time of the Report, Respondent Catchpole was licensed by Petitioner as a State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, and Respondent Barker was licensed by Petitioner as a State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser. Both Respondents are currently licensed by Petitioner as State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers. The Report was prepared for Pass and Associates in connection with refinance of a loan secured by the Subject Property. Respondents issued a corrected version of the Report (Corrected Report) with changes and additions requested by the client in 2004, prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. In October 2004, a One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review (Field Review) of the Report was conducted on behalf of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., who was listed in the Field Review as the “Lender/Client.” Between 2004 and 2009, Respondents provided rebuttal and rebuttal materials to address the Field Review. In 2009, Chase Home Lending (Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. and Chase Home Lending are both referred to herein as “Chase”) filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding the Report. The complaint consisted of a cover letter from Larry Handley with Chase Home Lending, a copy of the Report, and a copy of the Field Review. The complaint was found legally sufficient and forwarded to Petitioner’s investigator. Petitioner’s investigator did not receive a copy of the Corrected Report. T. 15, 204. Following the investigation, the Administrative Complaints were filed against Respondents. Count I of the Administrative Complaints relies on a number of alleged problems with the Report or the supporting workfiles (Workfiles), as detailed in the “Essential Allegations of Material Fact” section of the Administrative Complaints. After dismissing Counts 2 through 12 of the Administrative Complaints at the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner did not provide an Amended Administrative Complaint for either Respondent. Count I of the Administrative Complaints is based solely upon Respondents’ alleged failure “to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15).” Instead of providing Amended Administrative Complaints, during the final hearing and in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner addressed the following alleged problems with the Report or Workfiles: The address of comparative sale 2, listed in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report, was incorrect. The Subject Property has a zoning classification of R-2, which is mixed residential, which was incorrectly stated in the Report. The Workfiles for comparable sales 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 listed in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report are not supported by documentation contemporaneous to the effective date of the Report. Multiple Listing Services (MLS) is listed as a data source in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report for comparable sales 3, 5 and 6, but the Workfiles lack MLS documentation for those comparative sales. The Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report failed to identify features for comparable sale 2 that were noted in the Workfiles. The Workfiles lack data to support the gross living area for comparable sale 6 noted in the Sales Comparison Analysis of the Report. The Report failed to note fences on the comparable sales, failed to make adjustments for the fences in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report, and failed to address whether the fences had an influence on the price. The Report contains inconsistent Cost Approach data. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the Estimated Site Value, Lump Sum, and As-Is Value data for the Subject Property in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the Site Value for the Subject Property listed in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the market trends outlined in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report. The Report lacks internal consistency. At the final hearing, Respondents addressed each of the above-listed allegations. Alleged Incorrect Address in Comparable Sale 2 The incorrect address was a minor typographical error. The address listed for comparable sale 2 was only one number off the actual street address. The Report listed the street address as 815 CR 309B instead of the correct street address of 815 CR 308B. [underlines added]. The Corrected Report corrected the typographical error in the street address. Alleged Wrong Zoning Classification for the Subject Property The Subject Property is zoned “R-2, mixed residential” in the public records of Putnam County. Page one of the Report, consisting of the first page of the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Freddie Mac Form 70, revised 6-93, the Report lists as the specific zoning classification and description, “single family residential R-2.” At the final hearing, Respondent’s investigator, who pointed out the alleged error in the Report, admitted that he had not had training in filling out the Freddie Mac Form 70. The description used in the Report is consistent with the public tax record information on the web, which describes the Subject Property as “residential” with a zoning of “R-2.” Exhibit R-18. In addition, the One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report of the Report, which was prepared to determine the correctness of the procedures used by the original appraisal, specifically stated, “The zoning is correct.” Exhibit R-37. Alleged Lack of Contemporaneous Documentation Supporting Comparative Sales Petitioner’s witness, Francois K. Gregoire, a real estate appraiser who reviewed the Report, provided testimony to support a number of the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaints. Based upon his credentials, Mr. Gregoire was allowed to offer opinions on the Report as an expert in residential real estate appraisals. An appraiser’s workfile must be contemporaneous with the development and communication of the appraisal report. In addressing this allegation, Mr. Gregoire referenced comparable sales data in the Workfiles taken from Win2Data and Putnam County tax rolls in 2008, approximately four years after the effective date of the Report, which was issued in September 2004. Although Petitioner’s expert opined that since the data was retrieved in 2008, it could not be contemporaneous, the 2008 data included comparable sales contemporaneous with the Report. The fall 2004 issue of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board News & Report included a question and answer from the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) relating to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The question and pertinent parts of the answer stated: Question: Recently I have considered maintaining only electronic workfiles (i.e. saving only electronic versions of my reports and supporting data, and scanning any paper documents used so that copies may be stored on electronic media). Is this prohibited by USPAP? Response: No. There is nothing in USPAP that would prohibit an appraiser from maintaining only electronic versions of workfiles. The Record Keeping section of the ETHICS RULE states, in part: The workfile must include: the name of the client and the identity, by name or type, of any other intended users; true copies of any written reports, documented on any type of media; summaries of any oral reports or testimony, or a transcript of testimony, including the appraiser’s signed and dated certification; and all other data, information, and documentation necessary to support the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions and to show compliance with this Rule and all other applicable Standards, or references to the location(s) of such other documentation. As long as an electronic workfile contained these items, it would be sufficient. An appraiser must also be mindful of the requirement to have access to the workfile for the applicable required time period. The appraiser must ensure that the proper software is maintained to allow access to the electronic files. (Italics in original.) October 2008, the ASB issued a sequel its 2004 opinion, in the following response to the following question: Question: In the course of preparing my appraisals, I often research Multiple listing Service (MLS) and other data sources. I use this information to develop conclusions regarding neighborhood value ranges and market trends. Is it necessary for me to include copies of this information in my workfile? Alternatively, can I simply reference the data sources in my workfile. Response: References in the workfile to the location of documentation used to support an appraiser’s analysis, opinions, and conclusions can be adequate. It is not always necessary for the appraisal workfile to include all the documentation provided the referenced material is retrievable by the appraiser throughout the workfile retention period. Care should be exercised in the selection of the format and location of documentation. The Workfiles reflect that Respondents used MLS, Win2Data, and MLS public records to support the Report. While contemporaneous paper copies may not have been maintained of all the data, they were retrievable as reflected in the workfiles. Alleged failure to include MLS Listings in the Workfiles When Listed as a Source for Comparative Sales 3, 5 and 6 As noted in Finding of Fact 21, supra, while MLS and other supporting data contemporary with comparative sales 3 and 5 listed in the Report may not have been kept in the Workfiles, they were retrievable. See, e.g., Exhibit R-20, pp. 74-75 (listing 2009 tax data showing comparative sale 5 on 6/8/2004 for $92,000 and MLS data retrieved on 2/28/10 showing subsequent sale of the property on 7/20/05 for $110,000). Moreover, contrary to the allegation, the Report does not list MLS as a data source for comparative sale 6. Rather, the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report lists “WINDAT/PUB REC/DRIVEBY” as the data and/or verification source for comparative sale 6. See Exhibit P-2, p. 3. Alleged Failure of Report to Identify Features for Comparable Sale 2 Noted in the Workfiles Paragraphs 6(R) and 6(S) of the Administrative Complaints allege that the Report failed “to note that comparable sale 2 had a hot tub,” and failed “to note the renovated status of comparable sale 2, as outlined in workfile documentation.” According to Mr. Gregoire, “in Comparable Sale Number 2, the MLS printout indicates some features that were not described in the appraisal report. There’s inconsistency between the work file data and what was reported in the appraisal.” T. 93-94. While the MLS listing in the Workfiles provided additional information, there is no indication that the information was “inconsistent” with the Report. At the final hearing, Respondent Catchpole explained their rating in the Report of comparative sale 2 as “good,” accurately reflected recent renovations in that sale when compared to the “good” rating given to the Subject Property, which, at the time of the Report, had new floors, new carpets, and a new AC system. T. 202. Alleged Lack of Data in the Workfiles to Support Gross Living Area Listed in Report for Comparable Sale 6 The gross living area reported in the Report for comparable sale 6 is 840 square feet. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gregoire, testified that there is no contemporaneous data to support that figure, and noted that the contemporaneous Win2Data in the Workfiles lists the square footage for comparable sale 6 as 2,380 square feet. In making his observation, however, Mr. Gregoire conceded that Win2Data sometimes rolls non-living areas into the reported living area. T. 99. The 2008 tax data in Respondents’ Workfiles for comparative sale 6 shows that the “base” square footage for the mobile home on comparative sale 6 was 840 square feet, which is the same square footage reported in the Report. Exhibit P-3, p. 60 While the tax data print-out is not contemporaneous with the sale, the tax data on that print-out reflects the 2003 sale for $89,000 listed in the Report, and provides a basis for the reported 840 square feet for comparable sale 6. As noted above, electronic data that has retrievable information contemporaneous with the Report is acceptable. Alleged Failure of the Report to Note or Make Adjustments for Fences on the Comparable Sales Respondent Catchpole explained at the final hearing that, in addition to reviewing public sources and MLS listings, Respondents based their Report on actual drive-bys of the comparative sales. According to Mr. Catchpole, as memory served him from six years before when the Report was written, only one fence was visible from the road. Mr. Catchpole further explained that they did not add any value to the comparative sales for the fences which they saw because they considered them to be personal property and were not a 100 percent sure that the fences they observed belonged on the comparative sale property, as opposed to adjacent land. According to Mr. Gregoire, whether or not comparative sales had fences should have been reported in the Report, “because to some buyers, that may have had an influence on the price.” T. 101. Mr. Gregoire conceded, however, that “I can’t say whether or not there should have been an adjustment, because I haven’t done an appraisal in this area.” Id. Alleged Inconsistent Cost Approach data in the Report Petitioner’s expert witness, Mr. Gregoire, noted during his direct examination that there were inconsistent values between the Estimated Site Value of $15,000 set forth on page 2 of the Report and the Market Value of Subject Site reported as $10,000 on page 5 of the Report. He also noted that the value for “Lump Sum” of $8,000 set forth on page 2 of the Report was different from the $5,000 value for “Lump Sum” reported on page 5 of the Report. Finally, he noted that the “As is” value of $15,000 for site improvements set forth on page 2 of the Report was different from the $10,000 value reported on page 5 of the Report for “other depreciated site improvements.” Exhibit P-2, pp. 2, 5. According to Mr. Gregoire, these internal inconsistencies made the Report misleading and demonstrated a lack of due diligence in its preparation. T. 107-110. Mr. Gregoire’s observations, however, did not take into account the fact that Respondents issued a Corrected Report with changes and additions requested by the client in 2004, prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. T. 15; Exhibit R-1. The Corrected Report corrected the inconsistencies pointed out by Mr. Gregoire. Exhibit R-1, pp. 2, 9 (the Corrected Report lists both “Estimated Site Value” and “Market Value of Subject Site” as $15K; reports the “Lump Sum” value consistently as $8K; and consistently reports both “As is Value of Site improvements” and “Market Value of Subject Site” as $15K). Alleged lack of documentation in Workfiles supporting the Estimated Site Value, Lump Sum, and As-Is Value data for the Subject Property in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The record citations provided in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Petitioner do not clearly indicate the alleged problem with the estimated site value, other than the inconsistency, which was corrected in the Corrected Report. Petitioner’s PRO, ¶ 22. Nevertheless, there were six comparable sales listed in the Report, and Corrected Report, with supporting data in the Workfiles from which estimated site cost data could be derived. As further noted by Respondent Catchpole, site data was addressed in an addendum to the Workfiles noting: Where difference in the size of the site did not afford additional utility, there was no adjustment taken, it was considered excess land. (P-3, p. 4) Mr. Gregoire also stated that there was no identification as to what “lump sum” is, either in the Report or the Workfiles. T. 109. At the final hearing, in his cross- examination of Mr. Gregoire, Respondent Catchpole indicated that the lump sum figure included porches and the air-conditioning system. In response, Mr. Gregoire stated that, if that was the case, it should have been disclosed. T. 139. There is no evidence, however, in the Field Review, that the “lump sum” category was criticized. In fact, the Field Review reported that “the data in the improvements section [is] complete and accurate.” Exhibit R-37, p. 1, § II, ¶ 4. Further, there is no evidence that the lender asked for further explanation prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. As far as the alleged failure of supporting documentation for the “as is” value of site improvements on page 2 of the Report, although noting that it was not specifically identified in the report, Mr. Gregoire conceded that the value “easily corresponds with the way it’s described on Page 5 of [the Report] as Other Depreciated Site Improvements. But there is no explanation as to why in one - - it goes from $15,000 [on page 2] to $10,000 [on page 5 of the Report].” T. 110. As noted above, however, the Corrected Report, which Mr. Gregoire did not review, corrected the inconsistency between the two “as is” values set forth in the Report. Alleged Lack of Support for the Site Value for the Subject Property listed in the Cost Approach sections of the Report As noted in Finding of Fact 30, supra, the Workfiles contain comparable sales supporting the site value for the Subject Property, with an explanation in an addendum in the Workfiles. In addition, the Field Review of the Report prepared in 2004 marked “Yes” to the inquiry, “Did the appraisal report contain the appropriate prior sale(s) and/or prior listings(s) of the subject property and comparable sales?” Exhibit R-37, p. 1. Aside from the comparative sales, there was also data in the Workfiles showing other land sales in the area. Exhibit P-3, pp. 64-65. Alleged lack of documentation supporting the Market Trends outlined in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report. The Neighborhood section of the Report indicates that the subject property is in a suburban area with 25 to 75 percent build-up and stable growth, and with stable property values, demand and supply in balance, and a marketing time of three to six months. Exhibit P-3, p. 1 (top third); T. 110. The Report finds that the following factors affect the marketability of the properties in the neighborhood: MSA 3600 the area located in south Putnam County, is convenient to major transportation routes which offer easy access to employment opportunities, schools, and most residential services. The homes in the area exhibit average to good quality and appeal and are typically frame, manufactured or masonry construction and are generally well maintained. P-3, p. 1. The Report states as market conditions in the subject neighborhood: The market is currently stable with mortgage funds available to qualified buyers at competitive rates. There is no evidence of concessions, buydowns, or discounts which would affect market value. Property values are relatively stable with no changes expected in the market in the near term. Recent fluctuations in mortgage lending rates do not appear to have affected market values in the subject market. Exhibit P-3, p. 1. According to Mr. Gregoire, referring to the Workfiles, he “couldn’t develop any trend here based on the way it’s maintained, whether it’s stable or not.” In addition, Mr. Gregoire opined that the Workfiles contain poor support for the reported single-family price range. T. 111. Mr. Gregoire acknowledged, however, that the Workfiles include, “in addition to the comparable sales that we discussed, some what I call on-line printouts.” Mr. Gregoire also acknowledged that the Workfiles contained several sales in the above $200,000 price which are indicated as being the high price. According to Mr. Gregoire, however, “it doesn’t necessarily show a predominant value there.” T. 110-111. The on-line printouts referenced by Mr. Gregoire appear on pages 26 through 30 of the Workfiles for improved property, and pages 64 and 65 of the Workfiles for land sales. Exhibit P-1, pp. 26-30, 64-65. The on-line printouts were derived from Win2Data, which Mr. Gregoire admitted was a recognized service for extracting market data. While Mr. Gregoire suggested that the “RealQuest” data source he utilizes was superior because it has updated on-line data, on- line Win2Data is also available and was utilized by Respondents. T. 150. The evidence did not show that the market data utilized by Respondents was deficient. Respondent Catchpole is also expert in real estate appraisal. He has a master’s degree in business administration, has testified as an expert before Congress, the United States District Courts in Georgia and Florida, and before the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida. He has testified in numerous circuit courts in Florida. He has been a member of the Appraisal Institute. He has appraised nuclear power plants, been an advisor for real estate investment trusts, and has been an appraiser for Whirlpool, Citi Corp and Shearson Lehman. In the exchange during Mr. Gregoire’s cross- examination by Respondent Catchpole, it was clear that they had a difference of opinion as to how to best support an appraisal. See T. 115-167; see also T. 196-198. The evidence was insufficient to show that Mr. Gregoire’s approach was superior to the method utilized by Respondents in conducting the appraisal reflected in the Report or that Respondents did not use reasonable diligence in its preparation. Alleged Failure of Respondents to Maintain Internal Consistency in the Report In support of this allegation, Petitioner cites to Mr. Gregoire’s testimony at the final hearing that “it is the appraiser’s responsibility to ensure internal consistency and to ensure that the report reflects their opinions and conclusion before they affix their name to the report or certification. Petitioner’s PRO, p. 12; T. 135. Aside from the fact that Mr. Gregoire’s opinion did not reflect the Corrected Report, it is apparent his opinion did not consider other information provided by Respondents in support of the Report. While the Field Review was critical of a number of aspects of the Report, Respondents provided rebuttal to that Field Review prior to the complaint by Chase initiating this action. Some of the rebuttal included information indicating that the reviewer who prepared the Field Review had used comparable sales that were not arm’s length transactions. Although Petitioner’s investigator saw the information provided by Respondent Catchpole indicating that the reviewer’s comparables were not arm’s length transactions (T. 53), Mr. Gregoire did not review that information. Mr. Gregoire admitted that he was aware that Respondents provided a written rebuttal with documentation to Chase to the Field Review conducted in 2004. At the time of his testimony in this case, however, Mr. Gregoire had not reviewed any correspondence related to the rebuttal. T. 117-118. One document in particular, Exhibit R-30, that was provided to Petitioner’s investigator from Respondents’ Workfiles, contained notes from Respondent Catchpole contemporaneous to the Report indicating that Respondent Catchpole had contacted the property appraiser’s office to resolve differences in comparable sale 2 between the MLS listing and public records. T. 65-66. Mr. Gregoire was not provided this further evidence of Respondents’ diligence prior to his testimony. T. 121-122. In addition, the Workfiles submitted as Exhibits P-3 and P-7, were offered as the same documents. T. 25. It is clear, however, that a number of documents in P-7 were not in P-3. P-3 consists of 78 pages, whereas P-7 has 94 pages. It is apparent from Mr. Gregoire’s testimony and reference to Exhibit P-3, that his opinions were based upon his review of P-3. There was also evidence that there were a number of documents provided to Petitioner’s investigator, but not placed in Exhibit P-3 for review by Mr. Gregoire for his analysis. Exhibits RA-1 through RA-12, RB-1, and RC-1 through RC-8. While ultimately not used as comparative sales, the documents are additional evidence of Respondents’ efforts and diligence in preparing the Report. In addition, the refinanced loan for which the Report was provided has never gone into default. In sum, the evidence adduced at the final hearing was far less than convincing that Respondents did not use reasonable diligence in preparing the Report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 19th day of May, 2010.
