Findings Of Fact Mini-Warehouses at Kendall, Ltd. d/b/a A+ Mini-Storage (KENDALL) is a Florida partnership maintaining its principal place of business at 12345 S.W. 117th Court, Miami, Florida. DOT is a decentralized state agency. It has established several districts of which District 6, Dade County, is one. DOT's central office is located in Tallahassee, Florida. At all times material hereto, KENDALL held title to all privately owned real property, hereinafter abutting parcel, located adjacent to real property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), hereinafter surplus property, situated in Dade County, Florida. Surplus properties are oddly-shaped strips of land left over from parcels acquired by the State of Florida. The subject surplus property is of no use to the State and can only be used for a few economic purposes. It has utility value for the abutting property. KENDALL's abutting parcel is fully developed with buildings divided into mini-storage units being rented to the public and is zoned IU-C, Industrial/Conditional - Manufacturing. The east side of KENDALL's property abuts the surplus property. The surplus property and the abutting property are located in DOT's District 6. DOT identifies the surplus property as parcel no. 0739 which is a long, narrow right-of-way, consisting of .927 acres. It is 29 to 67 feet wide and approximately 950 feet long. The surplus property is zoned EU-M, Residential. On June 28, 1985, DOT and KENDALL entered into a written surplus property lease (original lease) for the subject surplus property. The original lease was automatically renewable and could be cancelled by either party with 30 days prior notice. Leasing the surplus property allowed KENDALL to reduce the amount of damage that the state's storm water runoff would otherwise cause to its abutting property. KENDALL was required by the original lease to pay DOT $2,400 annually, plus sales tax, for the use of the surplus property. KENDALL made the payments from 1985 to 1991. By letter dated May 3, 1991, DOT's District 6 office informed KENDALL that: (a) the original lease was unilaterally terminated; (b) KENDALL would be required to execute a renewal lease for 5 years with an option to renew for 5 more years, at an annual rate to be determined; (c) KENDALL might want to hire an independent appraiser from DOT's approved list of independent fee appraisers; and (d) KENDALL would have to negotiate a fee with the appraiser. Wanting to continue to lease the surplus property, KENDALL chose an appraiser from DOT's approved list of independent fee appraisers and hired him to appraise the surplus property. Per DOT's instructions, the independent appraiser contacted District 6's chief review appraiser for further instructions regarding the appraisal. The appraiser hired by KENDALL had a long working relationship with DOT. Throughout the 1980's to 1991, DOT and District 6 had accepted surplus property appraisals, without exception, from the appraiser that: (a) used only the contributory value method as a starting point in the appraisal process for fair market rent; (b) determined the fair market value that the surplus property would bring in a sale open to the public; and (c) made necessary market-based adjustments to arrive at a final figure, which was somewhere between the figure obtained in (a) and the figure obtained in (b), which represented the fair market rent for the surplus property. However, involving the surplus property at KENDALL, District 6's chief review appraiser informed the independent appraiser that only the unmodified across the fence or contributory value method would be acceptable when estimating rent that DOT should seek for the surplus property. Moreover, the chief review appraiser informed him that any other method would result in his appraisal being rejected. The chief review appraiser informed the independent appraiser that the factors to be used and considered were: (a) the surplus property's contributing value to KENDALL, as if the abutting property was vacant; and (b) a market rate of return based on the contributing value to KENDALL for fee simple ownership in perpetuity even though the renewal lease only conveyed surface rights, subject to a 30-day cancellation clause. In other words, District 6's chief review appraiser was instructing KENDALL's appraiser to use the across the fence appraisal method. This appraisal technique involves the following actions: Estimate the market value of the surplus property and the abutting property, as assembled. Estimate the market value of the abutting property, as it exists (without the surplus property added). Subtract the estimated market value of the abutting property, as it exists, from the estimated market value of the assembled abutting and surplus properties. The difference between the two value estimates should yield a supportable indication of market value for the surplus property. KENDALL's independent appraiser followed the instructions of the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6. Because of the very limited market data for surplus property leases, KENDALL's appraiser requested DOT's surplus property lease data for Dade County from the chief review appraiser; however, he received no response to his request. Without the requested data, KENDALL's appraiser was unable to use a lease data comparison. In his appraisal, he relied upon market data of the sales of commercial land, exclusively, and determined that the surplus property's highest and best use is to serve as a storage yard for parking trailers and boats, assuming the surplus property could be rezoned or a variance obtained to permit that use. Based upon the assumption of vacant or undeveloped commercial property and rezoned or variance surplus property for commercial use as a storage yard, the independent appraiser determined that the market value of the surplus property in fee simple was $128,000. He further ascertained that an investor would be satisfied with a 10 percent yield and determined that the across the fence value is an annual rent of $12,800 for a 50 to 100 year lease term, which is the prevailing market rent for the surplus property. The appraisal was accepted by DOT. Not agreeing with the across the fence method, KENDALL obtained approval from DOT for the submission of a second appraisal for the surplus property. DOT agreed but on the condition that the second appraisal had to be submitted by December 31, 1991. For the second appraisal, KENDALL'S independent appraiser used the method which he used previously and which was historically accepted by DOT. Again, he determined that the highest and best use of the surplus property was a storage yard, assuming that it could be rezoned or a variance obtained to permit such use. He then determined, as before, that the contributory value (across the fence) value of the surplus property in fee simple was $128,000. Subsequently, the appraiser determined that the fair market value of the surplus property was $32,000 if rezoned and sold in fee simple to the public, including KENDALL. Finally, contrary to the first appraisal, the appraiser determined that the fair market rent for the surplus property was $3,000 a year if the entire parcel could be used as a storage yard and that the surplus property would only produce a nominal rent of $100 a year if leased to the general public. The second appraisal was submitted by DOT's imposed deadline. By letter dated October 9, 1991, the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6 notified all approved appraisers on its list, including KENDALL's independent appraiser, of the surplus property appraisal policy that would be used. It states in pertinent part: SUBJECT: A STATEMENT OF DISTRICT APPRAISAL POLICY SURPLUS PROPERTY APPRAISALS - THE VALUATION PROCEDURE [I]t is inequitable to examine surplus properties without some evaluation of the abutting property. To be consistent in the appraisals for acquisition and those for sale by the Florida Department of Transportation, subjects should be estimated at their "ATF" or "Across The Fence" value. The surplus property appraisals should be addressed in the same way a "before and after" appraisal is conducted. The current Right of Way Appraisal Standards would be applicable in this assignment. The recommended appraisal procedure for surplus properties will be: Estimate the market value of the surplus property and the abutting property, as assembled. Estimate the market value of the abutting property, as it exists (without the surplus property added). Subtract the estimated market value of the abutting property, as it exists, from the estimated market value of the assembled abutting and surplus properties. The difference between the two value estimates should yield a supportable indication of market value for the surplus property. This process is logical and it appears to be reflective of the market. The appraisal problem is complicated by this procedure, but the result should be a more accurate and consistent estimate of market value of surplus property. In late 1991 or early 1992, KENDALL started the process to obtain a variance from Dade County. In accordance with DOT's requirement, KENDALL absorbed the costs associated with obtaining the variance. As of the date of hearing, KENDALL had expended between $10,000 and $15,000. Generally, the landowner is responsible for obtaining the variance or rezoning necessary for a lessee to use a leased parcel for its highest and best use. However, if the landowner is not obtaining the variance or rezoning, generally, the lessee receives a reduced rental rate. In July 1992, the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6 notified KENDALL that the second appraisal was rejected. He rejected the appraisal without reviewing it. Based on the accepted appraisal, DOT determined that the prevailing market rent for the surplus property was $12,800, plus tax, annually and assessed KENDALL accordingly. Wanting to continue to use the surplus property, KENDALL paid DOT $2,544 as partial payment of the annual rent, plus tax, for the initial year of renewal beginning June 28, 1991 and paid $24,617 for outstanding rent, plus tax, for the period June 28, 1991 through June 27, 1993. KENDALL has continuously paid the annual rent required by DOT. In May 1994, Dade County issued KENDALL a conditional variance. Assuming KENDALL satisfies numerous local concurrency and planning requirements, the final variance will permit it to use no more than 60 percent of the surplus property for storage purposes. Until rezoning or a variance is obtained, the market rent of the surplus property is $100 to $500 annually according to KENDALL's appraisers. A real property appraisal is expected to use an appraisal technique which reveals the maximum market value at a given time for the property being appraised. Several appraisal techniques are recognized and accepted by the appraisal profession, including across the fence method or technique. The appraiser initially determines the highest and best use of the parcel being appraised. Then, the sale value of the parcel is determined. The appraised market value is the base for establishing a market rental value for the property. The appraisal technique or method for surplus property can vary from parcel to parcel. Appraisal methods or techniques other than the across the fence method have been used by other DOT approved appraisers when appraising the fair market value for surplus property and have been accepted by DOT. Usually, surplus properties have a higher value when a contributing value appraisal technique (across the fence technique) is used because such properties are generally small in size and irregular in shape. The prospective buyer for surplus property is generally limited to the abutting parcel user or its competitors. District 6's chief review appraiser erroneously refused to consider any other appraisal value method, other than the across the fence method, to value the surplus property. DOT admits that its chief review appraiser in District 6 should not have required KENDALL's independent appraiser to use only the across the fence method to determine fair market rent for the surplus property. For the subject surplus property the market data for leases of DOT's surplus properties in Dade County would have been appropriate data to use in the appraisal. Even though DOT failed to provide KENDALL's appraiser with the market data, DOT did have such data for four leases executed between October 1989 and January 1991. These leases, as is KENDALL's lease, were only for surface use, subject to a 30-day cancellation clause. The data showed that the cancellation clause significantly reduced the market rental rate when leasing surplus property and that the market rental rate of return was between 1.89 percent and 2.62 percent per year to the respective owners. The data from DOT's surplus property leases would have been used by KENDALL's appraiser if it had been provided to him. Based upon the data of the surplus property leases, KENDALL's appraiser determined that the owner of the surplus property would receive annual rent equalling between 1.89 percent and 2.62 percent of the amount that the surplus property would produce if it was fully developed as commercial property and sold in fee simple. In February 1994, KENDALL obtained the services of another appraiser from DOT's approved list of independent appraisers to perform an independent appraisal for the fair market value of the surplus property for the period beginning July 1, 1991. Prior to obtaining his services, KENDALL did not request DOT to accept another appraisal. First, the appraiser determined that comparably-sized commercial property in Dade County, providing maximum utility, had a fair market value of $140,000 in a fee simple sale. Next, he determined that the highest and best use of the surplus property was for storage purposes, which reduced the value of the surplus property in fee simple by 57 percent. Even though the appraiser determined that KENDALL was the logical purchaser of the surplus property, he also determined that, due to KENDALL having fully developed its abutting property and not being able to economically build on the surplus property, the surplus property would not provide a maximum utility to KENDALL's abutting property. Based upon such market factors, the appraiser determined that the surplus property had a fair market value of $35,000 if sold in fee simple for storage purposes. Therefore, assuming a variance or rezoning could be obtained by KENDALL to use the surplus property for storage purposes, the appraiser determined that the fair market rent for the surplus property was $3,500 as of July 1, 1991. DOT never performed an appraisal of the surplus property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DOT enter a final order that the market rental value assessed to the surplus property leased to and paid by KENDALL is invalid, as exceeding prevailing market rent, that the prevailing market rent for the surplus property is $3,000 annually and that DOT refund to KENDALL the difference between a market rent of $12,800 annually and $3,000 annually, beginning in November 1993. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March 1995. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March 1995
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.624(2), (14) and (15), Florida Statutes (2006)1/, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of property appraisers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, James Lester, Jr., is a Florida state certified general appraiser, holding license number RZ2783. He has been licensed by the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board since 1991, initially holding a certified residential appraisal license and then a general appraisal license. Kenneth Ardire and Bradley Scott Bozeman formerly worked in the office referred to as J. Lester Company. The business was owned by Respondent's father. Bozeman was a residential appraiser and Ardire was a registered trainee appraiser supervised by Bozeman. During the time material to this Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent did not act in a supervisory capacity with respect to either Bozeman or Ardire. Neither man currently works for the firm, and Bozeman's appraiser's license has been revoked. In February 2006, Ardire and Bozeman prepared a vacant land appraisal report (Report 3) related to property located on Highway 71 in White City, Florida, for Vision Bank. Respondent was not involved in the preparation of the vacant land appraisal and did not sign the report. Vision Bank also requested a subdivision analysis of the property. Ardire and Bozeman were assigned the report regarding the subdivision analysis because they had prepared the prior report on the same property. They were assigned to this task by an employee in the office other than Respondent. Preparation of a subdivision analysis is considered a commercial appraisal, as opposed to a residential appraisal. Neither Ardire nor Bozeman is licensed to prepare commercial appraisals. For reasons that are unclear, Ardire provided a "draft" report to Vision Bank, which shall be referred to as Report 2. Report 2 is unsigned and contains only the names of Bozeman and Ardire. Report 2 was provided by Vision Bank to Donald Giles, another licensed appraiser. Based on his review of Report 2, Giles filed a complaint with the Department. The complaint was identified as DBPR Case No. 2007-3522. In response to a request from the Department, Bozeman supplied to DBPR a copy of what is now referred to as Report 1 and its supporting work papers. This report indicates that it was prepared by Respondent, Bozeman and Ardire. Based on this report and workfile, DBPR Case No. 2008-1566 (the current proceeding) was initiated against Respondent. Neither report has numbered pages. Reports 1 and 2 differ in the following ways: Report 1 lists all three appraisers, with purported signatures for each. Report 2 lists only Ardire and Bozeman and contains no signatures. However, both reports state on the second page of the cover letter that "the appraisals attached were written, valued, analyzed and concluded by Kenneth Ardire and Bradley Scott Bozeman." The cover letter for Report 1 is on company letterhead, and is addressed to Vision Bank. The cover letter for Report 2 is on plain paper, and is addressed to Capital City Bank, at the same address listed for Vision Bank. The first page of Report 2 lists Vision Bank as the intended user. On the page labeled "Extraordinary Assumptions," Report 2 contains a sixth assumption which states: "The appraiser completing this assignment has a small interest in the property. However, the appraiser was not biased in his final conclusion of value." This assumption is omitted in Report 1. The certification page in Report 2 also lists Bozeman as having a minor interest in the property, lists Ardire and Bozeman but contains no signatures. The certification page for Report 1 has no reference to Bozeman's interest and has three purported signatures (Ardire, Bozeman and Respondent). On the page entitled Certificate of Value, Report 1 has three signature blocks and three purported signatures (Ardire, Bozeman, and Respondent). Report 2 contains two signature blocks (for Ardire and Bozeman) but no signatures. The third paragraph of the section entitled "Approaches to Value Omitted" in Report 2 contains the following sentences: "The market approach is unique since not all properties are alike. In this case the appraiser compared an area in Lands Landing in Wewahitchka and Honey Hill Subdivision in Wewahitchka." These two sentences are omitted from this section of the report in Report 1. With respect to the Highest and Best Use Discussion, the first two pages in both reports are identical. Report 1 includes an additional two pages entitled "Introduction to the Appraisal Process," which appears to be general information related to the appraisal process as opposed to specific information related to the appraisal performed. The written information contained in the "Public and Private Restriction" section is identical. However, Report 1 also includes maps and pictures of the area. Both reports contain the Land Appraisal Report (Report 3) signed by Ardire and Bozeman. Report 1 contains additional information with respect to the vacant land report not included in Report 2. On the page labeled "Land Sales Comparison Chart," under the Section entitled "Reconciliation and Land Value Estimate," Report 2 contains the sentence, "All the sales are zoned for similar use and felt to have the same potential for use as the subject." This sentence is omitted from Report 1. On the page labeled "Income Approach," Report 2 contains the sentence, "Method 2 is the financing and development method." This sentence is omitted in Report 1. Report 1 contains a blank page entitled "Addendum" followed by pages from a book with a heading "Subdivision Analysis." While there are differences between Report 1 and Report 2, they do not make a significant difference in terms of the quality and usefulness of the reports. Section 475.628, Florida Statutes, requires that appraisers comply with the USPAP. Section 475.628 was last amended in 1998, and was enacted in 1991. USPAP is adopted by the Appraisal Foundation, which is authorized by Congress as the Source of Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Qualifications. Pursuant to Section 475.611(1)(q), Florida Statutes, "Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice" means the most recent standards approved and adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Section 475.611 was also enacted in 1991, and the language of this subsection has been unchanged, although renumbered, since that time. To this end, the Department has submitted as Exhibit 5 the USPAP Standards that became effective January 1, 2005. The most recent amendments for each section of the Standards is reflected on page four of the exhibit. None of these amendments relevant to these proceedings occurred prior to 1998. The Department alleges that Report 1 and the workfile for the report do not conform to several components of the USPAP standards in effect in 2005. Specifically, the Conduct portion of the Ethics Rule provides in part that "[a]n appraiser must not communicate assignment results in a misleading or fraudulent manner. An appraiser must not use or communicate a misleading or fraudulent report or knowingly permit an employee or other person to communicate a misleading or fraudulent report." Report 1 violated this section of the Ethics Rule contained in USPAP in that it was difficult for a reader of the report to determine exactly what was being appraised. Moreover, the inclusion of the gross sell-out amount on the first page, described as "potential gross income" in bold type is also misleading, because non- appraisers would infer that the potential gross income was the concluded value of the property. The Recordkeeping portion of the Ethics Rule addresses the need for appraisers to keep a workfile for each appraisal. The rule provides in pertinent part: An appraiser must prepare a workfile for each appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment. The workfile must contain: 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 written 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. With respect to Report 1, the workfile does not include documentation regarding marketing information for Gulf County, as listed in the report, and also lacks documentation to support any highest and best use analysis, including the four criteria necessary to establish the highest and best use for the property. It also lacks documentation to support the statements in Report 1 regarding the respective public and private restriction section, and lacks any plans or specifications to indicate the type of infrastructure proposed for the subdivision. The workfile also lacks documentation to support the income approach used, and contains no information to support the construction costs, closing costs, real estate taxes, expenses or other calculations used in the Calculations and Comments Section of Report 1. Also missing is any documentation from the identified engineers to support the data used for construction costs. Finally, there is also no documentation to support the data or calculations in the two-year discounted cash flow analysis in Report 1. With respect to Report 3, the workfile lacks documentation to support the single family price ranges in the neighborhood section of the report; lacks documentation to support the information in the Market Data Analysis Section; and lacks any multiple listing services (MLS) data or public records for the comparable sales used in the report. The Amended Administrative Complaint refers to the Scope of Work Rule. This rule is in actuality entitled Standard 1: Real Property Appraisal, Development and states: "In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must identify the problem to be solved and the scope of work necessary to solve the problem, and correctly complete research and analysis necessary to produce a credible appraisal." Report 1 identifies the problem as "estimating the value of the proposed subdivision and determines [sic] a value on a typical lot." However, the Report does not identify the scope of work and does not complete the research and analysis necessary to complete the appraisal properly. Standards 1-1(a), (b) and (c) require the following: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal; not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. Report 1 violates these standards because, as discussed more fully below, the report contains several significant errors, including the failure to discuss the four criteria for analyzing highest and best use. Standards Rule 1-2(d) requires that in developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must identify the effective date of the appraiser's opinions and conclusions. Report 1 stated that the value date of the report and the date of the report itself, were the same as the date of the inspection of the property, June 7, 2006. Mr. Grimes, the Department's expert, explained that this was a violation of the standard because in a situation where the appraiser is estimating a value for a project that is not now in existence, the hypothetical nature of the valuation must be adequately explained, and the effective date of the appraisal should reflect the date in the future when the subdivision is scheduled to be completed. Mr. Grimes' testimony is credited. Standards Rule 1-3 requires the following: When the value opinion to be developed is market value, and given the scope of work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f), an appraiser must: identify and analyze the effect on use and value of existing land use regulations, reasonably probable modifications of such land use regulations, economic supply and demand, the physical adaptability of the real estate, and market area trends; and develop an opinion of the highest and best use of the real estate. Report 1 does not provide an analysis of the highest and best use of the property. While the factors related to such an analysis are defined, there is no discussion of these factors related to the actual property being appraised. Standards Rule 1-4(a),(c) and (g) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information applicable to the appraisal problem, given the scope of work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f). (a) When a sales comparison approach is applicable, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. * * * When an income approach is applicable, an appraiser must: analyze such comparable rental data as are available and/or the potential earnings capacity of the property to estimate the gross income potential of the property; analyze such comparable operating expense data as are available to estimate the operating expenses of the property; analyze such comparable data as are available to estimate rates of capitalization and/or rates of discount; and base projections of future rent and/or income potential and expenses on reasonably clear and appropriate evidence. Comment: In developing income and expense statements and cash flow projections, an appraiser must weigh historical information and trends, current supply and demand factors affecting such trends, and anticipated events such as competition from developments under construction. * * * (g) An appraiser must analyze the effect on value of any personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property but are included in the appraisal. While the Amended Administrative Complaint refers to all three subparagraphs listed above, the evidence presented dealt solely with the deficiencies related to Standards Rule 1- 4(c). Mr. Grimes opined that with respect to Report 1, the income approach to the cash flow analysis did not support the conclusions, projections on income, and with respect to this project, the sale of lots over a period of time. The statements made in the report are conclusory in nature, with little or no explanation of the basis for forming the conclusions. Standards Rule 1-6(a) and (b) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: reconcile the quality and quantity of data available and analyzed within the approaches used; and reconcile the applicability or suitability of the approaches used to arrive at the value conclusion(s). Report 1 indicates that there are three traditional approaches to value in the valuation process: the cost approach, the direct sales comparison approach, and the income capitalization approach. While the report states that all three approaches will be considered, the appraisal report omits any discussion of the cost approach and the direct sales comparison approach. By omitting these approaches from the analysis, the report omits an important "check and balance" process that would have caught what Mr. Grimes considered to be a substantial error in the discounted cash flow analysis. Standards Rule 2-1 provides: Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; contain sufficient information to enable intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; and clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and limiting conditions used in the assignment. Hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions are considered to be two different things. As noted in Report 1, an extraordinary assumption is defined as an assumption that presumes certain information to be factual. If found to be false, the information could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. A hypothetical condition is something that assumes conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the property being appraised, or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends, or about the integrity of data used in the analysis. Hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions should be explained separately in an appraisal report, so that the intended user is in a better position to understand the true value of the appraisal. Report 1 lists 6 conditions and assumptions all together. They are that the proposed subdivision is based on 21 lots; that all plans and specs (unidentified) are to be approved and accepted by all governmental authorities; all work will be completed in a quality workmanship manner with quality materials; assumed the subject property can be developed as proposed; and information on the number of lots was made available by the engineer Bailey, Bishop and Lane. The report does not differentiate which are considered hypotheticals and which are considered extraordinary assumptions. The report does not contain sufficient information to enable the intended user of the appraisal to understand the report and to use it for its intended purpose, i.e., to determine whether the highest and best use for the land is subdivision development. Standards Rule 2-2(b) provides in pertinent part: Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used; Self-Contained Appraisal Report, Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report. * * * (b) The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * state the intended use of the appraisal; summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate involved in the appraisal, including the physical and economic property characteristics relevant to the assignment; * * * (vi) state the effective date of the appraisal and the date of the report; * * * summarize the information analyzed, the appraisal procedures followed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions; state the use of the real estate existing as of the date of value and the use of the real estate reflected in the appraisal; and, when reporting an opinion of market value, summarize the report and rationale for the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the real estate; . . . Report 1 states that the intended use of the appraisal is to determine the fair market value of the property. It also provides sufficient information to identify the real estate involved. However, as noted at finding of fact 18, the effective date of the appraisal, the date of the property inspection and the date of the report are the same. Where, as here, the appraisal is determining value of a proposed subdivision as completed at some future time, the date of the report cannot be the effective date of the appraisal. The report fails to have any discussion or analysis with respect to the property's highest and best use, and has little or no reasoning or analysis to support the opinions and conclusions contained in the report. Report 1 contains what purports to be Respondent's signature. Clearly, by signing an appraisal report, a property appraiser takes responsibility for the contents of that report. When speaking with the investigator during the investigation of this case, Respondent stated that he had little recollection of the appraisal, but given that his signature was on it, he acknowledged responsibility for whatever errors it contained. However, at hearing, Respondent disputed that it was actually his signature. Respondent's testimony that the signatures contained in Report 1 are not his is credited. Included in the record of this proceeding are other documents, including past appraisals prepared by Respondent, that contain what he acknowledges to be his signature. After carefully reviewing all of the signatures in evidence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the signatures included in Report 1 are indeed the signatures of Respondent.2/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Mini-Warehouses at Kendall, Ltd., d/b/a A+ Mini-Storage (KENDALL) is a Florida partnership maintaining its principal place of business at 12345 S.W. 117th Court, Miami, Florida. At all times material hereto, KENDALL held title to all privately owned real property, hereinafter abutting parcel, located adjacent to real property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), hereinafter surplus property, situated in Dade County, Florida. KENDALL's abutting parcel is zoned IU-C, Industrial/Conditional - Manufacturing. DOT is a decentralized state agency. It has established several districts of which District 6, Dade County, is one. DOT's central office is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The surplus property and the abutting property are located in DOT's District 6. DOT identifies the surplus property as parcel no. 0739 which is a long, narrow right-of-way, consisting of .927 acres. It is 29 to 67 feet wide and approximately 950 feet long. The surplus property is zoned EU-M, Residential. On June 28, 1985, DOT and KENDALL entered into a written surplus property lease (original lease) for the subject surplus property. The original lease was automatically renewable and could be cancelled by either party with 30 days prior notice. Leasing the surplus property allowed KENDALL to reduce the amount of damage that the state's storm water runoff would otherwise cause to its abutting property. KENDALL was required by the original lease to pay DOT $2,400 annually, plus sales tax, for the use of the surplus property. KENDALL made the payments from 1985 to 1991. By letter dated May 3, 1991, DOT's District 6 office informed KENDALL that: (a) the original lease was unilaterally terminated; (b) KENDALL would be required to execute a renewal lease for 5 years with an option to renew for 5 more years, at an annual rate to be determined; (c) KENDALL might want to hire an independent appraiser from DOT's approved list of independent fee appraisers; and (d) KENDALL would have to negotiate a fee with the appraiser. Wanting to continue to lease the surplus property, KENDALL chose an appraiser from DOT's approved list of independent fee appraisers and hired him to appraise the surplus property. Per DOT's instructions, the independent appraiser contacted District 6's chief review appraiser for further instructions regarding the appraisal. The appraiser hired by KENDALL had a long working relationship with DOT. Throughout the 1980's to 1991, DOT and District 6 had accepted surplus property appraisals, without exception, from the appraiser that: (a) used only the contributory value method as a starting point in the appraisal process for fair market rent; (b) determined the fair market value that the surplus property would bring in a sale open to the public; and (c) made necessary market-based adjustments to arrive at a final figure, which was somewhere between the figure obtained in (a) and the figure obtained in (b), which represented the fair market rent for the surplus property. However, involving the surplus property at KENDALL, District 6's chief review appraiser informed the independent appraiser that only the unmodified across the fence or contributory value method would be acceptable when estimating rent that DOT should seek for the surplus property. Moreover, the chief review appraiser informed him that any other method would result in his appraisal being rejected. The chief review appraiser informed the independent appraiser that the factors to be used and considered were: (a) the surplus property's contributing value to KENDALL, as if the abutting property was vacant; and (b) a market rate of return based on the contributing value to KENDALL for fee simple ownership in perpetuity even though the renewal lease only conveyed surface rights, subject to a 30-day cancellation clause. In other words, District 6's chief review appraiser was instructing KENDALL's appraiser to use the across the fence appraisal method. This appraisal technique involves the following actions: Estimate the market value of the surplus property and the abutting property, as assembled. Estimate the market value of the abutting property, as it exists (without the surplus property added). Subtract the estimated market value of the abutting property, as it exists, from the estimated market value of the assembled abutting and surplus properties. The difference between the two value estimates should yield a supportable indication of market value for the surplus property. KENDALL's independent appraiser followed the instructions of the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6. In his appraisal, he relied upon market data of the sales of commercial land, exclusively, and determined that the surplus property's highest and best use is to serve as a storage yard for parking trailers and boats, assuming the surplus property could be rezoned or a variance obtained to permit that use. Based upon the assumption of vacant or undeveloped commercial property and rezoned or variance surplus property for commercial use as a storage yard, the independent appraiser determined that the market value of the surplus property in fee simple was $128,000. He further ascertained that an investor would be satisfied with a 10 percent yield and determined that the across the fence value is an annual rent of $12,800 for a 50 to 100 year lease term, which is the prevailing market rent for the surplus property. The appraisal was accepted by DOT. Based on the accepted appraisal, DOT determined that the prevailing market rent for the surplus property was $12,800, plus tax, annually and assessed KENDALL accordingly. Wanting to continue to use the surplus property, KENDALL paid DOT $2,544 as partial payment of the annual rent, plus tax, for the initial year of renewal beginning June 28, 1991, and paid $24,617 for outstanding rent, plus tax, for the period June 28, 1991, through June 27, 1993. KENDALL has continuously paid the annual rent required by DOT. Not agreeing with the across the fence method, KENDALL obtained the approval from DOT for the submission of a second appraisal for the surplus property. DOT agreed but on the condition that the second appraisal had to be submitted by December 31, 1991. For the second appraisal, the independent appraiser used the method which he used previously and which was historically accepted by DOT. Contrary to the first appraisal, the appraiser determined in the second appraisal that the fair market rent for the surplus property was $3,000 a year if the entire parcel could be used as a storage yard and that the surplus property would only produce a nominal rent of $100 a year if leased to the general public. The second appraisal was submitted by DOT's imposed deadline. By letter dated October 9, 1991, the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6 notified all approved appraisers on its list, including KENDALL's independent appraiser, of the surplus property appraisal policy that would be used. It states in pertinent part: SUBJECT: A STATEMENT OF DISTRICT APPRAISAL POLICY SURPLUS PROPERTY APPRAISALS - THE VALUATION PROCEDURE [I]t is inequitable to examine surplus properties without some evaluation of the abutting property. To be consistent in the appraisals for acquisition and those for sale by the Florida Department of Transportation, subjects should be estimated at their "ATF" or "Across The Fence" value. The surplus property appraisals should be addressed in the same way a "before and after" appraisal is conducted. The current Right of Way Appraisal Standards would be applicable in this assignment. The recommended appraisal procedure for surplus properties will be: Estimate the market value of the surplus property and the abutting property, as assembled. Estimate the market value of the abutting property, as it exists (without the surplus property added). Subtract the estimated market value of the abutting property, as it exists, from the estimated market value of the assembled abutting and surplus properties. The difference between the two value estimates should yield a supportable indication of market value for the surplus property. This process is logical and it appears to be reflective of the market. The appraisal problem is complicated by this procedure, but the result should be a more accurate and consistent estimate of market value of surplus property. In late 1991 or early 1992, KENDALL started the process to obtain a variance from Dade County. In accordance with DOT's requirement, KENDALL absorbed the costs associated with obtaining the variance. As of the date of hearing, KENDALL had expended between $10,000 and $15,000. Generally, the landowner is responsible for obtaining the variance or rezoning necessary for a lessee to use a leased parcel for its highest and best use. However, if the landowner is not obtaining the variance or rezoning, generally, the lessee receives a reduced rental rate. In July 1992, the chief review appraiser for DOT's District 6 notified KENDALL that the second appraisal was rejected. He rejected the appraisal without reviewing it. In May 1994, Dade County issued KENDALL a conditional variance. Assuming KENDALL satisfies numerous local concurrency and planning requirements, the final variance will permit it to use no more than 60 percent of the surplus property for storage purposes.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner; and Whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondent if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, at all times material to this matter, was a state certified general real estate appraiser subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Petitioner. He started doing commercial appraisals in the early 1990s in Florida. Whitham was licensed on July 21, 2003. Petitioner issued Whitham license number RZ-2669, which expires on August 31, 2012. On or about January 17, 2006, First Priority Bank asked Whitham to prepare an appraisal for three parcels of land near Bradenton, Florida, for use by the bank in determining a collateral loan amount. At the time Whitham was requested to appraise the parcels, the market was extremely active. There was a very high demand for development sites, particularly for residential development sites. During the appraisal, Whitham developed a regional overview section for the appraisal report. The section summarized the region, history, and economics that had contributed to the evolution of bringing Sarasota and Manatee counties to their current state of desirability. Whitham obtained the information for the section from various published reports and compiled them into a summary of the region. Whitham's historical overview outlined subject matters all the way back to the 1980s. Each of the older references specified a date including the following portions of the report: * * * The Sarasota-Bradenton MSA is noted for its attractive barrier islands . . . all of which have been heavily developed over the last 50 years. Population growth in the MSA-49.3 between 1980 and 1995--has also spread eastward into the woodland area . . . * * * New office construction remained highly constrained through 1996 which had the effect of reducing existing inventories and increasing rents. Over the last 36 months office development particularly in suburban areas but also including the Bradenton and Sarasota CBDs has resumed. * * * In 1997, per capita income was estimated at $21,293, indicating an average annual gain of 3.97 percent, well above the rate of inflation. Whitham included a wrong city, Venice, in his regional overview. When referencing the circus, Whitham reported, "and the winter headquarters of Ringling Bros-Barnum & Bailey Circus (Venice)." Whitham also failed to make clear that Englewood is not an incorporated city and that North Port's entire boundaries lie within Sarasota county. Instead, Whitham reported in the overview section, " . . . the incorporated towns of Englewood and North Port lie in both Sarasota and Charlotte Counties." While preparing the appraisal report, Whitham properly used the highest and best use methodology to value the subject property for his appraisal by applying the four tests: physically possible,1 legally permissible,2 financially feasible,3 and maximally productive.4 In doing the analysis, Whitham used the direct sales comparison approach. He visited the sites and separated out the subject small parcel, 4.8 acres ("subject 1") that had the river frontage and analyzed that applying comparable sales 1 through Whitham used comparable sales 4 through 6 to perform a separate analysis of the 17-acre parcel ("subject 2") that was not connected to the riverfront site. Both subjects 1 and 2 were vacant parcels zoned Planned Development Residential (PDR). Whitham chose six comparable sales that were vacant and physically possible for residential use like the subject parcels at the time of the appraisal in 2006. When Whitham evaluated subject 1, he found it difficult to find waterfront or water view properties to compare to subject 1. As a result, he made proper adjustments to account for the dissimilarities he encountered under the substitution principle in order for the comparable sales to conform. Whitham determined comparable sale 1 was legally permissible because the zoning was Planned Development Projects ("PDP"), which provided for development either as residential or commercial. He further determined the property was financially feasible as the rate of growth in the market for residential property was at its peak. When Whitman used the substitution principle with comparable sale 1, he focused on two primary considerations: utility and desirability. Since the goal was a potential development and investment, not a completed developer product, Whitham compared the two with adjustments. When looking at the attributes, Whitham determined that traffic was an easy drive to either property and neither was particularly visible from a roadway. Comparable sale 2 was a small site zoned Planned Development Mixed Use, which allows for blending of residential and commercial uses within the same development. Whitham researched the commercial possibilities of comparable sale 2 in 2006, and the direction of the development had not been established. As a result, he concluded that it was financially feasible for residential. Comparable sale 3's direction of development also had not been finalized when Whitham did his appraisal and it was zoned for PDP. After finishing his analysis, Whitham was able to conclude that comparable sales 1 through 3 were financially feasible. Whitham made the determination based on the tenor of the market being good for residential property, which each comparable could become. He then concluded that it was therefore financially feasible for each comparable site to be developed as residential, which would have been both financially feasible and maximally productive. Whitham evaluated subject 2 against comparable sales without waterfronts, water access, and water views. Comparable sales 4, 5, and 6 were either zoned General Agriculture District or Agricultural, which both allowed for general agricultural- related, normal activity and co-existence of other uses generally consistent with agricultural activities including rural residential development. Whitham used comparable sales 4, 5, and 6, since all had proper zoning, which meant residential was allowed like the subject 2 parcel and met the physically possible and legally permissible portion of the tests. Further, each was financially feasible since the strength in the market at the time was residential sites, which would provide for maximal productivity. Whitham summarized how each of the six comparable sales satisfied the four test criteria for the direct sales comparison approach in his appraisal report land sales summary and grid.5 On or about January 28, 2006, after completing his appraisal analysis, Respondent signed and communicated the appraisal report, for the property commonly known as ±4.76, ±17, and ±0.6 Acre Parcels UAs Vacant, Mill Creek Road, Bradenton Florida 34212. Whitman's report concluded in the Highest and Best Use section of the appraisal report that "Our assessment of highest and best use for the subject is: As Vacant: Residential development in accordance with the PDR zoning." In 2009, after a complaint was filed by Ronald Carr, the Department opened an investigation on Whitham regarding the January 2006 appraisal report. Dennis Black ("Black") was hired as an expert State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser to review Whitham's appraisal report. As a result of Black's conclusions on or about October 27, 2009,6 the Department charged Whitham in a four-count Administrative Complaint. The Charges: In Count I, Petitioner charges Respondent with having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. In Count II, Petitioner charges Respondent with fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of section 475.624(2). In Count III, Petitioner charges Respondent with failing to retain, for at least five years, original or true copies 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. In Count IV, Petitioner charges Respondent with making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the licensee's profession in violation of section 455. 227(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order that finds Respondent not guilty as charged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 14th day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners owe the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon Petitioners’ alleged rental of their real property to a related corporation from June 2000 through August 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: In July 1997, Petitioners acquired the real property located at 640 North Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida (hereafter “the Property”). The Property was acquired in Petitioners’ individual capacities, and they financed the purchase of the Property through a loan secured by a mortgage on the Property. The documents relating to the 1997 loan and mortgage were not introduced at the hearing. At the time the Property was acquired, Petitioner Paul Solano was engaged in the practice of accounting through a sole proprietorship known as P. Solano and Associates. Mr. Solano has been practicing accounting in Florida since 1969 and he is familiar with Florida's sales tax laws. The Property was treated as an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship even though he was not using it as his place of business at the time. For example, depreciation expense related to the Property was itemized on Petitioners’ tax returns as a business expense. The mortgage payments made by Petitioners were also treated as business expenses of the sole proprietorship. In October 1999, Mr. Solano incorporated his accounting practice into an entity known as Solano & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter “the Corporation”). The sole business of the Corporation is providing accounting services. At the time of its formation, the Corporation was owned in equal 20 percent shares by Mr. Solano, his wife (Petitioner Diane Solano), their two daughters, and their son-in-law. There has been no change in the ownership of the Corporation since its inception. Mr. Solano is the president of the Corporation. The other owners/family members are also officers in the Corporation. Once the Corporation was formed, the depreciation expense related to the Property was included on the Corporation's tax returns, not Petitioners' tax return. At the time the Property was purchased, it was zoned for residential use. Between 1997 and 1999, Petitioners took the necessary steps to get the Property rezoned for commercial use so that the Corporation could conduct its accounting practice from that location. In November 1999, after the property had been rezoned, the Corporation and its owners applied for a loan from First Union National Bank (First Union) to obtain the funds necessary to renovate the existing building on the Property. Although unclear from the documentation in the record, Petitioners both testified that the 1999 loan was effectively a refinancing of the 1997 loan. The Corporation was not able to obtain a loan in its own name because it had only been in existence for a short period of time. The owners of the Corporation were not able to obtain a loan at a favorable interest rate, primarily because of the lack of credit history of Petitioners’ daughters and son-in- law. As a result, the loan was obtained by Petitioners in their individual capacities. Petitioners gave a mortgage on the Property as collateral for the 1999 loan. The mortgage document, entitled “Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases” (hereafter "the 1999 mortgage"), was signed by Petitioners in their individual capacities on November 18, 1999; the Corporation was not identified in the 1999 mortgage in any way. The 1999 mortgage includes boiler-plate language referring to Petitioners’ obligation to maintain and enforce any leases on the Property and requiring the assignment of rents from any such leases to First Union. That language cannot be construed to mean that a lease actually existed at the time; in fact, the Property was still undergoing renovations at the time. The Corporation began doing business from the Property in February 2000 after the renovation work was complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The 1999 loan was refinanced in May 2000 with First Union. The loan amount was increased from $145,000 to $200,000 and the term of the loan was extended through a document entitled “Mortgage and Loan Modification and Extension Agreement” (hereafter "the 2000 mortgage"). The 2000 mortgage refers to the Corporation as the borrower and refers to Petitioners as the guarantors. Petitioners signed the 2000 mortgage in their individual capacities (to bind themselves as guarantors) as well as their capacities as corporate officers (to bind the Corporation as borrower). The related promissory note, dated May 5, 2000, also refers to the Corporation as the borrower, and it is signed by Petitioners in their capacity as officers of the Corporation. As part of the documentation for the refinancing in 2000, Petitioners executed an “Affidavit of Business Use” in which they attested they were the owners of the Property and that the loan proceeds would be “utilized exclusively for business or commercial purposes and not for personal use.” Petitioners also executed a “Mortgagors" Affidavit” in which they attested that they were in sole possession of the Property and that no other persons have claims or rights to possession of the property “except Solano & Associates Enterprises by virtue of a written lease which does not have an option to purposes or right of first refusal.” The monthly mortgage payment for the refinanced loan was $2,044.91. That amount was due on the fifth day of each month beginning on June 5, 2000, and it was automatically deducted from the Corporation’s bank account with First Union. In addition to making the mortgage payment for the Property, the Corporation paid the ad valorem taxes, insurance, and related expenses. The amount of those payments is not quantified in the record. Petitioners formally deeded the Property to the Corporation in October 2003. Mrs. Solano testified that the failure to do so earlier was simply an “oversight.” When the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation, Petitioners did not report any income or loss on the transaction for tax purposes. Any equity that had accumulated in the Property was simply “given” to the Corporation. The First Union mortgages were satisfied in October 2003 as part of a refinancing done by the Corporation with SunTrust bank after it became the owner of the Property.1 At that point, the Corporation had been in existence long enough to establish a credit history and obtain financing in its own name. The record does not include any documentation related to the 2003 refinancing transaction. Despite the representation in the “Mortgagors’ Affidavit” quoted above, there has never been any written or oral lease between Petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the use of the Property. Petitioners have always considered the Property to be a business asset, initially an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship and then an asset of the Corporation. Petitioners never collected any sales tax from the Corporation on the mortgage payments made by the Corporation. Petitioners did not consider those payments to be rental payments. In late-June or early-July 2003, the Department sent a letter to Petitioners stating that the Property “appears to be subject to sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212.031, Florida Statutes.” The letter was sent as part of the Department’s “Corporation Rent Project” through which the Department compares records in various databases to identify commercial properties whose owner of record is different from the business operating at that location. Included with the letter was a questionnaire soliciting information from Petitioners regarding the Property and its use. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Solano and returned to the Department in a timely manner. Mr. Solano marked a box on the questionnaire indicating that the Property is “[o]ccupied by a corporation in which a corporate officer is the property owner,” and he identified the Corporation as the entity occupying the Property. In response to the question as to “which of the following considerations are received by you,” Mr. Solano marked the following boxes: “The corporation remits payment for the mortgage loan”; “I do not receive rental income, but the related entity pays the mortgage payments”; and “No consideration is received from this related entity.” In response to the questions regarding the “monthly gross rental income of the property” and the “amount of real estate taxes . . . paid on the property by the lessee” for 2000 through 2003, Mr. Solano answered $0 for all periods. Terry Milligan, a tax specialist with the Department, determined based upon Mr. Solano’s responses on the questionnaire that the Corporation’s use of the Property was subject to the sales tax on rentals. Mr. Milligan advised Petitioners of that determination by letter dated July 29, 2003. The letter requested that Petitioners provide “a detailed month by month breakdown of rent (or mortgage payment) amounts, any other consideration, and property taxes that you received from the tenant (or tenant paid on your behalf) for the last thirty-six (36) months).” (Emphasis in original). Petitioners responded to Mr. Milligan’s request through a letter dated August 11, 2003. The letter explained that the reason that the title to the Property appeared under Petitioners’ name rather than the Corporation's name is “due to credit history.” More specifically, the letter stated that “[i]t was decided by the Board members, my wife and our [] children, to put it under our name since we have a long history of good credit.” Included with the letter was a bank statement showing the monthly mortgage payment of $2,044.91 and a notice of the proposed property tax assessment from Orange County for the Property, which was addressed to the Corporation. In addition to providing the requested documentation to Mr. Milligan, one of Petitioners’ daughters, Joylynn Aviles, spoke with Mr. Milligan to explain the circumstances relating to the financing and use of the Property. Ms. Aviles is the Secretary of the Corporation. Ms. Aviles also spoke with Mr. Milligan’s supervisor and an individual in the Department’s legal division. When it became apparent that the matter could not be resolved informally, Ms. Aviles requested that Mr. Milligan issue a final assessment so that Petitioners could bring a formal protest. In response, the Department issued the NOFA on September 11, 2003. The NOFA was preceded by a spreadsheet dated September 3, 2003, which showed how Mr. Milligan calculated the tax, penalties, and interest amounts set forth in the NOFA. As described in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and his testimony at the hearing, the tax was computed based upon the monthly mortgage payments of $2044.91 made by the Corporation from June 2000 to August 2003. The June 2000 start-date for the assessment corresponds to the 36-month period referred to in Mr. Milligan’s July 29, 2003, letter; it also happens to correspond to the date that Corporation began making the mortgage payments. The August 2003 end-date for the assessment was used because it was the month preceding the date of the NOFA. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include the period between August 2003 and October 2003 when the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation. The NOFA does not include any assessment for the property taxes, insurance or other expenses paid by the Corporation on the Property. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include those amounts. The sales tax rate in effect in Orange County during the assessment period was six percent from June 2000 through December 2002, and it was 6.5 percent from January 2003 through August 2003. The 0.5 percent increase resulted from the imposition of a county surtax of some kind. The NOFA calculated a total tax due of $4,784.91. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated by multiplying the monthly mortgage payment by the tax rate in effect at the time of the payment and then totaling those monthly amounts. The NOFA calculated $465.79 in interest due on the unpaid tax through September 13, 2003. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated at the applicable statutory rates. Interest continues to accrue at 53 cents per day. The NOFA calculated a penalty due of $2,233.97. That amount was calculated based upon the applicable statutory rate as shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and explained in the NOFA. In total, the NOFA imposed an assessment of $7,566.43. That amount includes the taxes, interest, and penalties described above. The NOFA informed Petitioners of the procedure by which they could protest the Department's assessment. On November 10, 2003, the Department received Petitioners' timely protest of the assessment. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order rescinding the Notice of Final Assessment issued to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 17th day of March 2004.
