The Issue Whether Respondent committed five violations of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, including the following counts: 1) failing to have the license of each salesperson in his employ prominently displayed in his principal place of business; 2) failing to place deposits received from clients pursuant to transactions involving yachts into a broker's trust account; 3) allowing a person licensed only as a salesperson to act as a broker and to use the broker's name to evade the provisions of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act; 4) failing to deposit funds into the broker's trust account within three working days of receipt of funds pursuant to a purchase contract by a salesperson licensed under him; 5) allowing a salesperson licensed under him to carry out acts which if committed by the broker would place him in violation of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act and the rules thereunder, such as violating the Notary Public Law, failing to exercise due professional care in the performance of brokerage services, and making substantial and intentional misrepresentations with respect to transactions involving yachts, as alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, in violation of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act is to protect the consumer. A yacht broker is an individual who, in expectation of compensation, sells used boats in excess of 32-feet in length for other persons. In order to obtain a license to act as a yacht broker, an individual must submit an application, undergo a background check for moral character, submit a surety bond, and demonstrate to the Division that he has a trust account to place funds received in pending yacht transactions. Before being able to independently perform yacht brokering services as a yacht broker, an individual must spend two consecutive years as a yacht salesperson in a mentorship working under a broker. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent held a license with Petitioner to operate as a yacht broker. Respondent continues to be licensed as a yacht broker. In late 1995 and early 1996, Respondent operated his yacht brokerage business, Greg and Associates, from two locations. His main office was located in Rockledge, Florida, and a branch office was located in Sarasota, Florida. No brokers were present at the Sarasota location. Respondent operated the Sarasota branch office from his main office in Rockledge, Florida. He never visited the Sarasota branch office. Respondent viewed his relationship to the Sarasota branch office as an "escrow agent." Bullock, a salesman, had complete autonomy to run the Sarasota branch office. Respondent met Bullock only once, and he never met any of the other salesmen who operated out of the branch office. Respondent had only a commission arrangement with Bullock. Respondent sent checks for all commissions to Bullock, who deposited them in Bullock's company, Friar Tuck, Inc's., Barnett Bank business account. Respondent allowed Bullock to hire the other salesmen, to determine a commission arrangement with the other salesmen, and to disburse commissions to the other salesmen. Respondent did not know the commission arrangement with most of the salesmen in the branch office. On April 16, 1996, Respondent was interviewed in his office about some complaints that had been received concerning the operation of his Sarasota branch office. Among the salesmen working under Respondent's broker's license in his Rockledge office at that time were Darrell Lawson and Mark Salmuller. Respondent did not have the licenses of either of these two salesmen displayed. Both men were listed as active employees by Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent maintained a broker's trust account, entitled Greg and Associates, d/b/a Yacht Brokerage USA, in the Rockledge branch of the Barnett Bank. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Chester Bullock, a yacht salesperson working for Respondent in Respondent's Sarasota branch office, maintained a business checking account entitled Friar Tuck, Inc., d/b/a Yachtmasters, in a Sarasota branch of the Barnett Bank. Bullock was listed as president of the company and was identified as a signatory on the account. This was not a proper broker's trust account, as Bullock, being a yacht salesman, could not have established such an account. In July 1995, Chester Bullock and Jeff Webb, salesmen in the Sarasota branch office, took an offer and received a $1,000.00 deposit from David and Cynthia Cislo, on a 1979 34-foot Marine Trade Trawler. Respondent's salesmen did not deliver the deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. The funds were deposited in Bullock's business checking account at the Sarasota branch of the Barnett Bank. Sometime later, the money was redeposited in Respondent's trust account. Bullock notarized the vessel bill of sale at the time of the closing, and received a commission on the sale. In November 1995, Bullock took an offer and received a $5,350.00 deposit from a Louisiana client, Charles Cosgrove, on a 1964 38-foot Chris-Craft Commander yacht. Respondent's salesman did not deliver the deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. On November 27, 1995, Bullock and Jeff Webber, Respondent's salespeople, acted as listing broker and salesperson, respectively, on the lease-purchase of the 1964 38-foot Christ Craft Commander by Cosgrove. Respondent never signed the brokerage sales record, which is the closing statement given to the lease-purchaser, Cosgrove, and was never identified as broker of record on any of the sales documents. Instead, the purchase-sale agreement lists Bullock as the broker, and the closing statement lists Bullock as the broker. Bullock acted as the notary public for the lease-purchase agreement. In January 1996, Bullock and Harold Raines, yacht salesmen in the Sarasota branch office, took an offer and received a $1,700.00 deposit from a client, Michael Hill, on a 1973, 53-foot Huckins yacht. The letterhead of the draft purchase and sales agreement, which stated "Yachtmasters" and a phone number for the Sarasota area, further indicated that Hill's offer was made through yacht salesmen at the Sarasota branch office. Respondent's salesmen did not deliver the $1,700.00 deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. Instead of delivering the $1,700.00 deposit to Respondent for deposit in Respondent's Rockledge broker's trust account, the check was delivered to Friar Tuck, Inc's., Sarasota account. Hill's deposit, which was supposed to be held in a trust account, intermingled with the other business funds of Bullock's account. Hill requested and received an oral extension from Bullock on his closing date to purchase the yacht. About a month later, Bullock notified Hill that the yacht was sold to another party. It was only after Hill threatened to sue Respondent, the responsible broker, and after Hill filed a complaint with Petitioner that Respondent refunded Hill his deposit. The Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act does not permit licensed salespeople to perform certain acts. It requires the employing broker to do them. An employing broker, a broker who holds the license of his salesperson, must make all trust account deposits and withdrawals of monies involved in a transaction brokered by the salesman. An employing broker is required to supervise the yacht transactions brokered by his salespeople and to sign closing statements, which itemize all charges and credits of the transaction for the client. Respondent minimized his own involvement in his Sarasota branch office and permitted his salesman, Bullock, to operate it. This enabled Bullock to sign as the broker a closing statement of the sale of a yacht, which is an action that should have been performed only by a broker. During the same time period that Respondent granted Bullock autonomy to supervise the Sarasota branch office, Bullock operated another business from the same location, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, which did boat surveys and cleaned boats. Bullock was the president of Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services. In early 1996, Wittman, a Colorado resident at that time, telephoned Bullock about the 1988, 34-foot Wellcraft Grandsport in the magazine advertisement placed by Bullock. Bullock sent Wittman a videotape of the yacht. After reviewing the videotape, Wittman did not think that it was the same yacht advertised in the magazine. Bullock admitted that the yacht in the videotape was not the same yacht advertised in the magazine, but claimed that it was a sister ship. Based upon Bullock's assurances that the sister yacht was in good condition and the results of a survey done by Bullock's company stating that the yacht was in good condition, Wittman purchased the yacht. Bullock acted as both the listing broker and the selling broker in the sale of the 1988, 34-foot Wellcraft Grandsport yacht to Boyd Wittman, the purchaser. Notwithstandng the fact that he was representing the seller, Bullock did not obtain the written consent of Wittman, the purchaser. Wittman wanted a registered surveyor to do a survey of the condition of the yacht, because Wittman lived out-of-state and wanted to avoid spending money to fly to Florida to inspect it. Bullock arranged for his own company, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, to perform the survey. The survey was signed by Ernest Shaffer, who was identified as a Certified Marine Surveyor and Consultant with the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, the National Association of Marine Surveyors, and the National Marine Investigators. Ernest Shaffer was someone that Bullock hired to wash boats. He was not a certified surveyor, as he was held to be. When the yacht was delivered to Wittman in Colorado, he was shocked by the poor condition of the yacht. The interior, the cockpit, the exterior, the bilge, and the mufflers were all in poor condition. Wittman was expecting a yacht that he could take someone out on a lake with, and it was not in good enough condition. Wittman had to pay another $15,000 to $20,000 to repair the yacht to improve it to good condition. Repairs included replacing all of the interior of the cabin, replacing the port windshield, putting new mufflers in, fixing a transmission leak, fixing the air-conditioning, rebuilding the water pumps so that the engines cooled properly, and replacing the dry-rot wood on the main deck on the cockpit. In sum, Wittman purchased the yacht for $38,000, spent another $15,000 to $20,000 in repairs, and eventually sold it for $37,000. Bullock also quoted to Wittman a fee for shipping the yacht from Florida to Colorado for $1,500. Wittman thought the price was reasonable. When the yacht was finally shipped, it cost Wittman approximately $3,800, which he paid, because he had already bought the yacht and had to finish the transaction. Bullock acted as both the listing broker and the selling broker in the sale of a 1973, 34-foot Nautiline yacht to Ernest C. Shaffer, the purchaser. Bullock arranged for his company, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, to perform the survey. The survey was signed by Ted Williams, who was identified as a Certified Marine Surveyor and Consultant with the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS), the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS), and the National Marine Investigators. Neither Bullock, Ernest Shaffer, nor Ted Williams, his employees who signed the surveys of the yachts described above, was certified with NAMS or SAMS, two marine surveys accreditation associations. In the case of a 1973, 53-foot Huckins yacht, Bullock tried to sell the boat three times and took three simultaneous contacts on the same vessel. He took a contract from Michael Hill, a prospective purchaser, extended the closing date for Hill to March 6, 1996, and simultaneously had contracts for the same boat with the prospective purchasers Sam Bankester and Steven Kenneally, with the closing dates of February 29, 1996, and March 2, 1996, respectively. Ultimately, Steven Kenneally purchased the yacht. The terms of the contracts did not provide for simultaneous contracts on the same vessel. The prospective purchaser who did not come up with the money first lost out on the opportunity to purchase the yacht. In addition, the Hills, the prospective purchasers, had a difficult time obtaining their earnest money back from Bullock. In January of 1996, Raines, Respondent's salesman, showed Chris June, a North Carolina resident, a 1970, 42-foot Trojan Sea Voyager yacht named "Fantasia." June liked the 42- foot Trojan Sea Voyager and entered into a contract to purchase it through Raines and Bullock. Bullock recommended a surveyor, John Pomeroy, in St. Petersburg, Florida, to complete the survey. Pomeroy was, in fact, not certified with NAMS or SAMS. Bullock told June that the boat was in very good condition and that it was a great value. During the survey, June noticed that wood on the yacht was separating in the bow, and asked Bullock and Pomeroy about it. They explained that this was "wet/dry expansion" which occurs in yachts that sit for a long time and can easily be fixed with some screws and caulking. "Wet/dry expansion" causes wood in wooden yachts to start separating, according to Bullock and Pomeroy, due to the wet wood below the waterline and the dry wood above the waterline. The survey disclosed no substantial problems with the yacht. Relying on the statements of Bullock and Pomeroy, June purchased the "Fantasia" for $22,000, with money loaned to him by a relative. A month after purchasing his yacht, June was informed that his boat was sinking while moored at the dock. June had to hire a marine recovery company to recover the yacht, just before it was about to go completely under water. The yacht took on water in an area near the stern that was not well checked-out, where a basketball-sized wad of putty holding the corner together came loose. As the estimate to repair the boat was more than three times what the boat was worth, June sold it to a salvage yard for $2,500. However, the salvage yard defaulted on that payment. June has been making accelerated payments on his loan, and has the loan down to approximately $19,000. He made a claim against Respondent's surety bond and settled the action for a small amount from the bonding company. Respondent attended two all-day workshops hosted by the Petitioner's Section of General Regulation, which cover in detail how to display a license, to display trust accounts, to display broker's duties and responsibilities, and to display branch offices. Respondent was exposed to the statutes and rules which were violated. Respondent took a cavalier attitude towards following the requirements of the Act. On February 15, 1996, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondent in Docket No. YS95397, imposing a fine of $1,500 for Respondent's violation of the Act. Respondent used the name "Yachtmasters" for his Sarasota branch office without having a license issued in that name in violation of Florida law. In the case DBPR v. Chester C. Bullock, Docket No. YS97172 (December 11, 1998), the Petitioner charged Chester Bullock, a registered salesman, with five violations: Charge 1 - The Respondent acted as a broker when he was licensed only as a salesman. Charge 2 - The Respondent made substantial and intentional misrepresentations with respect to transactions involving yachts upon which people have relied. Charge 3 - The Respondent violated other laws governing transactions involving yachts, specifically, he violated Chapter 117, Florida Statutes, by notarizing signatures on documents in which he had a financial interest. Charge 4 - The Respondent failed to immediately deliver deposits received from clients for the purchase of yachts to the broker under whom he was licensed as a salesman. Charge 5 - The Respondent failed to exercise due professional care in the performance of brokerage services, such as recommending his own company as a surveyor to a client and representing it as being an accredited surveyor company, when it was not. Bullock was found guilty on all charges and assessed a civil penalty of $45,000 in that case and had his yacht salesperson's license revoked. The Petitioner has proven each of the violations by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's explanations for his conduct is not credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Amended Notice to Show Cause. Respondent's broker's license is hereby revoked. The Division impose a civil penalty of $40,500, which is $500 for Count 1 and $10,000 each for Count 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Respondent shall immediately cease and desist from any violations of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 18th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William Oglo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Gregory Linnemeyer 613 Rockledge Drive Rockledge, Florida 32955 Philip Nowick, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the School Board lacked the delegated legislative authority to promulgate School Board Policy 2.57. Whether the challenged portions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate certain provisions of the charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, and State Board Rules, as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge Petitions. Whether the Innovative Rubric Policy 2.57 should be invalidated for enlarging, modifying, and/or contravening the charter statute and also the adopted State Board Education rule(s) and form(s). Whether the budget worksheet referenced in School Board Policy 2.57 is an unadopted rule because it was not attached or incorporated into School Board Policy 2.57 and/or was never specifically adopted by rule. Whether certain provisions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate section 1002.33(6)(h) as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge and Charter Petitions. Whether the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h) and/or section 120.595, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Renaissance is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance currently operates six charter schools in the School District of Palm Beach County ("School District") pursuant to charters issued by the School Board: (1) Renaissance Charter School at Central Palm; (2) Renaissance Charter School at Cypress; (3) Renaissance Charter School at Palms West; (4) Renaissance Charter School at Summit; (5) Renaissance Charter School at Wellington; and (6) Renaissance Charter School at West Palm Beach. The School Board is the "sponsor" of the six schools operated by Renaissance in the School District for purposes of section 1002.33. The six schools operated by Renaissance are public schools, by virtue of their status as charter schools, under section 1002.33(1). Charter Schools USA serves as the education services provider or management company for all six of Renaissance's schools in the School District. On April 1, 2015, the School Board held a public workshop on the subject of charter schools, including proposed revisions to School Board Policy 2.57 ("Policy 2.57") entitled "Charter Schools." After the workshop, the School Board reviewed proposed revisions to the rule, Policy 2.57, at a noticed public meeting on April 22, 2015, and approved development of the policy. On May 27, 2015, at a noticed public meeting, the School Board approved adoption of revised Policy 2.57. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 required, among other things, that charter schools meet a standard beyond the status quo for "innovative learning methods," mandated that every charter contract contain a provision requiring 51 percent of the charter school governing board members to reside within Palm Beach County, and mandated that every charter contract contain a provision precluding new charter schools from being located in the vicinity of a district-operated school that has the same grade levels and programs. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also included an attached Innovative Policy Rubric 2.57, which contained the innovative definition and additional standards of innovation which charter school applicants must satisfy. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also required a completed budget worksheet in the format prescribed by the School Board from each charter school applicant. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 is the "Budget Template Tool" developed by the Florida Charter Support Unit. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 was not specifically identified in Policy 2.57 or attached thereto when it was adopted. The School District requires use of the Budget Template Tool in order to provide charter school applicants notice about everything that is required to prepare a budget and to ensure that the budget includes all necessary information. Charter school applicants who do not use the Budget Template Tool often fail to provide all of the information required to be included in the budget. The School District will review an applicant's budget even if it is not submitted using the Budget Template Tool. Failure to use the Budget Template Tool, in and of itself, will not be a factor in the rating of the "Budget" section of an application or the overall recommendation on an application. On August 3, 2015, Renaissance submitted its application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach to the District's Charter Schools Department. The application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach is the only charter application Renaissance has filed in the School District since the revised Policy 2.57 was adopted on May 27, 2015. On or around August 18, 2015, Renaissance requested that the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE") mediate its dispute over the amendments to Policy 2.57. The School Board declined FDOE's request to mediate the dispute. On September 8, 2015, Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart issued a letter to both Renaissance and the School Board confirming that the dispute could not be settled through mediation and providing Renaissance with permission to bring its dispute to DOAH. The District Superintendent recommended that the application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach be denied and placed it on the consent agenda for the School Board's November 4, 2015, public meeting, with one of the reasons being that the application "failed to meet indicators of School Board Policy 2.57 innovative rubric." At the November 4, 2015, meeting, after deliberation, the School Board voted to deny the application. In its letter dated November 13, 2015, denying the charter application of the proposed Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach, the School Board relied, in part, on Policy 2.57 as grounds for denial. On September 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a consolidated challenge that was amended on December 20, 2016. Petitioner is challenging the School Board's adoption and amendments of May 27, 2015, to Policy 2.57 in the Rule Challenge and asserting a violation of the flexibility granted to charter schools for the amended provisions in the Charter Petition.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a Florida-licensed yacht salesman, should be disciplined for violation of Rule 61B- 60.006(2), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, DBPR, through its Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (the Division) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and discipline of yacht salespersons and brokers in this state and the regulation of the yacht-brokering profession. Respondent, Justo Lamar (Lamar), has been licensed as a yacht salesperson since November 1976. Prior to this action, Lamar has never been the subject of disciplinary action arising out of the practice of his profession. This action was precipitated by a yacht owner, Juan A. Galan (Galan), who unsuccessfully attempted to sell his yacht to a client of Lamar's. In July 1998, Galan listed his yacht, the Caliente, for sale through Ardell Yacht and Ship Brokers (Ardell). The listing resulted in negotiations for the purchase of the Caliente by one Larry Griggs (Griggs), a prospective customer represented by Lamar. At all times relevant to this case, Lamar was acting as a sales agent for Allied Marine and its broker, Dwight Tracy (Tracy). As set forth in more detail below, the negotiations between Galan and Griggs took place over a three-month period from October 1998 through December 1998 with no meeting of the minds. On July 12, 1999, some seven months after negotiations between Griggs and Galan terminated, Galan lodged a complaint with DBPR. Although the complaint was ostensibly directed against salesman Lamar and broker Tracy, each and every allegation in the complaint was directed to the broker's conduct, not Lamar's. Galan, who did not testify at final hearing, alleged in his complaint that "Broker presented a contract representing that deposit had been received/deposited (upon acceptance). In fact, broker never deposited check and we wasted our time and money on survey/sea trial as buyer was not (at that time or any time later) financially capable of buying boat @ $1.75 million." Galan provided some, but by no means all, of the documents which revealed the details of the prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations between Galan and Griggs. In the narrative portion of his complaint, Galan asserted that he lost money on sea trials and implied, without actually stating, that the Caliente had been taken off the market during the pendency of negotiations with Griggs. For reasons which remain unclear, the Division did not focus its investigation on Tracy, who was the obvious target of Galan's complaint. Instead, it targeted Lamar, who was an obvious add-on target of Galan's ire. The exhibits reveal a complex series of offers and counteroffers and jockeying for negotiating advantage, not just between Galan and Griggs as prospective Seller and Buyer of the Caliente, but also between Lamar and the two brokers, all three of whom stood to profit if the transaction were consummated. Negotiations for the Caliente began in late October 1998. On October 30, 1998, Lamar's client Griggs, through a corporation he controlled, issued a $150,000 check for "Deposit, 72' (sic) Caliente Sportfisherman." This check accompanied a Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 29, 1998, offering to purchase the Caliente for $1,500,000. That same day, Galan's representatives faxed Lamar to advise that Griggs' offer was insufficient. Lamar forthwith provided the check to his broker, Tracy. Negotiations between Galan and Griggs continued in November. Galan chose to by-pass his own Broker and negotiate directly with Lamar over lunch on November 18, 1998. Lamar wrote Galan's demands on the back of a restaurant placemat. The primary sticking point was Galan's insistence on a "bottom line" of $1,665,000 to him, after all commissions and other expenses, if any, were paid. Griggs nevertheless persevered in his effort to buy the Caliente for $1,500,000. On November 24, 2000, Griggs executed another Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement in which he offered an entity called Majua, Inc., of which Galan was President, the opportunity to sell the Caliente to Griggs for $1,500,000. Galan signed the November 24 agreement, but added an addendum which materially changed the terms. The addendum unilaterally purported to raise the sales prices to Galan's previously stated "bottom line" of $1,665,000. Thanksgiving passed, and negotiations wore on. On December 4, 1998, Griggs executed a third Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement, raising his offer to $1,755,000. The new offer expressly stipulated that Griggs' $150,000 earnest money check could be deposited when and if all parties executed this new proposed agreement. Like the October 29 and November 24 brokerage purchase and sale agreements, the December 4 document never ripened into a contract. The December 4 document was a clear and unembarrassed reminder from Griggs that an earnest money check had been written by Griggs, but was not on deposit, and was not going to be on deposit until such time as Galan had signed off on the contract as written by Griggs. Galan nevertheless permitted a sea trial of the Caliente in furtherance of negotiations, now in their fifth week. Also as part of the negotiating process, Galan permitted some, but not all, of the inspections requested by Griggs. Expenses for the sea trial and inspections were borne entirely by Griggs. By Christmas Eve, relations between the parties had deteriorated to the point where Lamar retrieved the check from the Allied Marine corporate files and returned it to Griggs. At no time did negotiations with Lamar's client Griggs preclude or interfere with efforts by Galan to negotiate with and sell the Caliente to any other prospective purchaser.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DBPR enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 March, 2001.
Conclusions Petitioner, Floxida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DBPR), and Respondent, Garald W. Rowley, hereby stipulate and agree that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (FREAB) issue a Final order adopting and incoxporating the provisiona of this Stipulation as final agency action in this cauge. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent ig and was, at all times material herein, a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RZ 967 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license the State issued Respondent was ag a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 2. Respondent admits being subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 478, Florida statutes, the Rules promulgated thereto and, therefore, to the jurisdiction of DBPR and the FREAB, 8090/2008 1¥837 340 OSZL21EL0b X¥4 PS.O1 S002/50/50 800/200 4 377 “SIddOH ONY NY¥YH440H 2ObE OB LSS X¥4 Bt OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 3. Respondent admita that DBPR served Reepondent with the Adminiatrative Complaint, charging Respondent with violation(s) of certain provigions of Chapters 455 and/or 475, Florida Statutes, and/or the Rules promulgated thereto. A copy of the Administrative Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in Counts Iz, IV, V, VII, and vitt of the Administrative Complaint, but ecenaeants to the Board's impesition of discipline on those counts and that such allegations constitute violations of the counts. 5. Respondent shall not in the futuxe violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the Rules promilgated thereto. 6. This Stipulation shall become effective immediately upon filing of the Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date"). All dates referenced herein shall commence to Yun on the Effective Date, unless otherwise specified herein. STIPULATED DISPOSITION 7. Fetitioner shall dismiss Counts I, III, VI, and IX of the Administrative Complaint. a. Respondent shall pay a fine of $1000 and $561 in costs. Respondent shall pay the fine and costs by saparate ¢hecks payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division 800/600 B 1v837 340 OSZ2LLEL0R XS PS .OL Bo00z/S0/50 800/600 B 377 ‘SISYOH ONY N¥YWS40H LOPE OF8 LSS X¥4 BL OL B00Z/20/50 DEPR vs. Geraid W. Rawley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation of Real Estate, within one (1) year from the Effective Date herein. 9, Suspension of Respondent’s real estate appraisal license shall be for a period of six (6) months, effective thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order. Reinstatement requires submission of proper forms. , 10, Respondent shall begin probation for a period of ane (1) year, beginning on the Effective Date herein, and shall have no trainees during the probationary period. During this time period, Respondent shall attend one (1) two-day FREAB general meeting, from the noticed time of the meeting te the duration of the meeting, not to exceed five o’cleck p.m. During this time period Respondent shall alse provide original evidence of satisfactory completion of continuing education appraisal courses totaling 45 hours, The education herein ig in addition to any requirement for Respondent to maintain his or her real estate appraisal license. Should Respondent completa tha above-listed requirement (s) beficre conclusion of the probationary period and previde satisfactory proof thereof, probation shall terminate. 11. Noncompliance with the terms of this Stipulation shall , xyeault in the suspension of Respondent’s appraisal license until Respondent submits satisfactory proof of compliance to DSPR; the period of suspeneaion shall not exceed ten (10) years. B00/ P00 8 V¥84a7 34o OSZLLLELOP X¥I GS.OL B002/G0/50 800/p00 A 317 ‘SI8HOH ONY N¥H4IOH 20PE OB LIS X¥4 BL-OL 6002/20/50 PAPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley Stipulation DRPR Case No. 2007013479 Reinstatement shall be effective ag of the date DBPR receives said Satisfactory proof of compliance, accompanied by the proper reinstatement forms. L2. Action of la. The FREAB Newe and Report shall publish a Summary of Final Order, as follows: (Delray Beach]: Gerald W. Rowley, Licenaa No. RZ 967; Violation: Failure to retain records for 5 years in violation of Sections 475.629 and 475.624(4), Florida Statutes relating to two appraisal reports in 2005 on a Subject Property in Wellington, Florida; violation of USPAP Standards Rule l-l(a), (b), and (c) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, relating to an incorrect sales history of the Subject Property, discrepancies between data sources on Comparable Sales, and aupport for adjustments; violation of USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(a) and Section 475.624(14), relating to selaction of Comparable Sales for said appraisal reports; violation of UBPAP Standarda Rule 2-1(a) and (b) and Section 475.624(14) relating to said appraisal reports; and violation of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b) (viii) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes relating to said appraisal reports. Penalty: $1000 fine plug costs, 6 months license suspension, no trainees during the one year probation, attendance at one 2-day FREAB meeting and completion of 45 houra of education in addition to that required for licensure. The parties understand that this Stipulation 4s subject to the approval of DBPR and of the FREAB, and that in the event of its disapproval, 800/500 800/500 & 1837 Jyd OS2LLLELOP 377 “SIYYON ONY N¥N440H LOPE OB L9G the game gahall have no further force and effect. X¥4d GS OL BoO02/G0/50 X¥4 BL OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Garald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 14. Respondent executes this Stipulation to avoid further administrative action with respect to this cause. Respondent authorizes the FREAB to review and examine all DBPR investigative materiale priexr to or in conjunction with consideration of this Stipulation. Further, in the event the FREAB disapproves this Stipulation, Respondent agrees that examination of any documente or records related thereto shall mot be deemed to have unfairly prejudiced DBPR, the FREAB or any of ita members, nor ehall such action disqualify any of them from further participation in the resolution of this cause. 15. Reapendent agrees that Petitioner may conduct further investigation at any time subsequent to the FREAB’s acceptance of this Stipulation, including, but not limited to, audits of Respondent's filee. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner shall have any and all rights and authority the law provides to insure Reaapondent’s compliance with Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the Rules promulgated therete. Respondent further agrees that DBPR and the FREAB may consider this Stipulation in connection with any future disciplinary proceeding. 16. The parties understand that this Stipulation and any final order adopting and incorporating its terms shall not preclude or deter DBPR or the FREAB from other diaciplinary proceedings g00/9008 WweAT add OSZAL1ELOb X¥4 9S.01 BOO*/S0/50 800/900 A 317 “STYYOW ONY N¥H4IOH 40bE OPB LIS X¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPRvs Gerald W Rowlay DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation against the Respondent for acts or omissions unrelated to those set forth in the Administrativa Complaint herein. 17. Respondent hereby waivas all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review or to othexwise challenge or conteat the validity or enforcement of the terms of this Stipulation and/or of any resulting final order of the FREAB adopting and incorporating game, 18. All parties hereto shall otherwise bear any and all attorney's fees and costs they may have incurred in connection with this cause. 19. Should Respondent withdraw from or in any Way Or manner cancel, annul, alter, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation prior to presentation or consideration by the FREAB, Respondent agrees to waive any rights to seek attorney's fees and costs Respondent may have incurred as the result of the disciplinary proceeding, up to and including the date of withdrawal from the settlement Stipulation or attempt to alter, change, annul, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation. 20. The FREAB HAS NOT taken prior disciplinary actiom against Respondent. 8900/1008 1W¥837 aud OSZLALELOD =X¥5 SS OL 8002/50/50 800/100 8 377 ‘SIYYON ONY NVH440H ZOE OB LOS Xv¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs, Gerald W. Rowlay ‘ ‘ DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation DBPR ATTORNEY EXECUTION EXECUTED this i 1 day of VV 1, 2009. Denna Christine Linda Senior Attorney On behalf of the DBPR, DRE RESPONDENT EXECUTION EXECUTED this 7 day of { , 2009, Gerald W. Rowley BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, a, Ss J day of J , 2009 personally appeared wha is pais . known to me or who hag produced Cif n 1 L€eefcas identification and who ewore and subscribed to egoing. ms A the for NOTARY PUBLIC State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: \s 2". YENTIFER GOME bpcu MY COMMISS*UN « 9D756024 ey: CXPIRED Febuary 00, 2012 tamertcriaty Fl ream Unsecuot Aue Co 7 g090/800R} 1WO37 340 O8SLLLELOH Xd 2G-0L GO02/G0/S0 800/800 4 311 ‘SISYOW ONY N¥N440H 2OPE OPS 19S X¥4 LZ OL 6007/20/50 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ~ FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 2007013479 GERALD W. ROWLEY, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Gerald W. Rowley (“Respondent"), and alleges: ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475 of the Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. 2. Respondent is currently a Florida state certified general real estate appraiser having been issued license 967 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part I of the Florida Statutes. 3. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state certified general real estate appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 4. On or about April 23, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report FDBPR vy. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administratrve Complaint (Report 1) on a property commonly known as 10766 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida 33487 (Subject Property). A copy of Report 1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. Report 1, prepared for purposes of refinancing by a private - lender, valued the Subject Property at $1.53 million. 5. On or about November 18, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated a second appraisal report (Report 2) on the same Subject Property. A copy of Report 2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. Report 2, prepared for purposes of refinancing at the request of the client WCS Lending, LLC, valued the Subject Property at $2.2 million. 6. Petitioner received a complaint concerning Reports 1 and 2 from the private lender, Oriel Tsvi (Tsvi). Tsvi complained that Respondent failed to use more suitable, available, and proximate Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood, the Comparable Sales relied on by Respondent were superior to the Subject Property, and their use resulted in overvaluation of the Subject Property. 7. Through investigation, the following errors were noted in Report 1: A) In Report 1, Respondent used Comparable Sales 1 and 2 in the Subject Property’s neighborhood, but the remaining two Comparable Sales relied upon were from other subdivisions; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2, 3, and 4 were all in excess of a mile distant from the Subject Property; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint D) In the comments to the Sales Comparison Analysis section of Report 1, Respondent directed the reader to a sales (sic: subject) history addendum that recited a prior sale of the Subject Property within the previous one year period from Nathan & Yoldie Vincent to Lorraine Smith Brooks and John Kibler in May 2004 for $226,000, when no such sale had occurred; E) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sales 1,2, and 4 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sale 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records, but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Comparable Sales 1 and 2 had different dates of construction; 2) Palm Beach County records showed Comparable Sale 1 to have 5 bedrooms, 6 baths and 2 half-baths, while Respondent reported 3 bedrooms and 2 baths; 3) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 1 had 5,570 square feet of Gross Living Area, while the Palm Beach Count Property Appraiser reported 7,544 square feet; 4) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 2 to have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, while Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records reflected 5 bedrooms and 5 % baths; 5) Respondent showed the gross living area for Comparable Sale 2 as 5,670 square feet, while the county records showed 6,542 square feet; 6) Respondent reported 6,715 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 4, while county records showed 5,568 square feet. 8. Respondent committed the following errors or omissions in Report 2: FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint A) Respondent utilized Comparable Sales 2 and 3, which were from different communities than the Subject Property; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2 and 3 were over a mile distant from the Subject Property; D) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 1 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sales 2 and 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; E) Respondent made significant upward adjustments in the Cost Approach Section of Report 2 over the previous values stated in Report 1 for site value increasing it from $575,000 to $1,150,000 in under 7 months, per square foot reproduction cost of the gross living area of the Subject Property increasing from $155 per square foot to $175 per square foot resulting in an overall increase in value of $113,985, and an increase for appliances without adequate explanation or analysis; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records (and MLS in the case of Comparable Sales 2 and 3), but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Respondent listed the site size of Comparable Sale 1 as 14,473 square feet when the Property Appraiser’s Office shows .28 acres, equivalent to 12,196 square feet; 2) The public records show Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 instead of 2005; 3) County records show 6,307 square feet for Gross Living Area for Comparable Sale 1 as opposed to the 5,708 square feet reported by Respondent; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint 4) Respondents sole supporting documentation to support listed features of Comparable Sale 1 is a printout captioned “Competitive Market Analysis” (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3) dated 01/20/06, ( after the effective date of Report 2), which reported only the number of bedrooms, baths, living area square footage, date and amount of sale, lot size, dollars per square foot and year built; 5) The Competitive Market Analysis document reflects that Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 and not 2005 as stated, that Comparable Sale 1 had 6,959 square feet of gross living area and not 5,708 as reported by Respondent, and that Comparable Sale 1 was sold in November 2005 for $2,418,000 and not in October 2005 for $2,400,000 as stated by Respondent; 6) Respondent reported 6,101 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 2, but ISC records in Respondent’s work file show 6,261 square feet, MLS records in the work file report 6,101 square feet, and Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records show 7,504 square feet; 7) Respondent reported 4,438 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 3, while ISC records in Respondent’s work file showed 5,213 square feet and Property Appraiser’s records show 4,389 square feet. 9. Respondent was interviewed concerning the Cost Approach discrepancies between the two reports and stated that an unknown sales agent for the builder advised Respondent his per square foot reproduction cost was too low, that the site value increased with the increase in sales in the new development, and the $10,000 increase under “appliances” was for commencement of pool construction by the Subject Property’s owner. 10. Respondent acknowledged in the interview that the error in Report | regarding a non- 5 FDBPR v. Gerald W Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint existent prior sale was due to a “cloning” error from an earlier, unrelated report. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of failure to retain records for at least five years of any contracts engaging the appraiser’s services, appraisal reports, and supporting data assembled and formulated by the appraiser in preparing appraisal reports in violation of Section 475.629, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Record Keeping Section of the Ethics Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-1(a), (b), and (c), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or 6 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-6(a), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-1(a) and (b),or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VIII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-2(b)(viii), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IX Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-3, or other provision of the 7 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as may be appropriate, to issue a Final Order as final agency action finding the Respondent(s) guilty as charged. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication, or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 475.624, Florida Statutes and Rule 61J1-8.002, Florida Administrative Code. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 455 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration, or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication; restriction of practice; injunctive or mandamus relief: imposition of a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 455.227, Fla. Statutes and FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-8.002. SIGNED this 4 day of \ ( Lone , 2008. Florida Department of Business ak Professional Regulation Thomas O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER not 3 3 i; ~* % Sas : tonar Ces Ssionai SORE ae J dreviont of Profe Division af F Real Esiate D. C. Lindamood, Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 273694 Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: JH/PA 3/08 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PLEASE BE ADVISED that mediation under Section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to this Administrative Complaint you may request, within the time allowed by law, a hearing to be conducted in this matter in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes; that you have the right, at your option and expense, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative in this matter; and that you have the right, at your option and expense, to take testimony, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoena and subpoena duces FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint tecum issued on your behalf if a formal hearing is requested. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that if you do not file an Election of Rights form or some other responsive pleading with the Petitioner within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner will file with the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board a motion requesting an informal hearing and entry of an appropriate Final Order which may result in the suspension or revocation of your real estate license or registration. Please see the enclosed Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form. 10 APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL As Of: APRIL 23, 2005 Prepared For: Private Lender Private Lender Prepared By: SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 DMINIST RAI WE COWwPLAINT \AV exHiait #4 a a loAGe [OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, EXHIBIT # AGE vo SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-0448-05 Descnption UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No i Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City. WELLINGTON State FL _ ZipCode 33467 | Legal Description LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Ra_Assessors Parcol No_73-41-44-24-05-000-2840 ASSD $667,273 TaxYear__2004 _RE Taxes$_ 15,067 23 Special Assessments $ NIA Borrower sENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner_[ [tenant T [vacant Property nghts epprased _[X]Fee Simple _{ |Leasehotd Project Type |X ]PUD_[_[Condominum (HUDIVA only) OAS 358 00 tMo Neighborhood of Project Name VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference: 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 SalePrce_$§ REFINANCE _ Date ol Sale NIA Description and $ amount of loan charges/concessions to be paid by seller N/A Lender/Clent_Private Lender Addiess Private Lender @ Aopraser Gerald Rowley Address 1901 SW 5 AVE , MIAMI, FL 33129 Location Urban Rural Predominant [Single faruly housing [Prost ind we % Land use change _ Bult up K]Over75% (_]25-75% lUnder 25% | Occupancy S00) tet [One famty 95. lotlkely [_]ukely Growth rate Rapid Slow XJ Owner 245 low 5 | 2-4 family G In process: Property values [increasing [Dechnng 375 High 35 _| Mutt farmly To Demand/supply [__}Shortage Over supply 82] Predommant ['S5e| Commercial 5 Markeung tme_[ [Under 3 mos Over 6 mos 260-345| 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appratsal factors Nexghborhood boundaries and charactensties. FOREST HILL BLVO (NORTH) JOG ROAD (EAST), HYPOLUXO RD (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS & TOWNHOUSES, Factors that affect the marketability of the properties the nexghborhood (proxmty to employment and amenites employment stabaity, appeal (o market etc } THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 S MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD 70 EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. G Market conditions in the subject newghborhood (including suppart for the above conclusions refated to the trend of property values, demand/supply and marketing ume ~- such as data on competiive properties for sale in the neighborhood description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions etc) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE _TYPICAL a FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS. NEIGHBORHOOD Project Information for PUDs {ll applicable ~ Is the developerfbullder wn control ofthe Home Owners Association (HOA)? [X]¥es L_]No A Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13 E Describe common elements and recreational faciltes COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_MANNEO GUARO GATE, COMMON AREAS Dimensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography CEVEL Sileaea 42,632 SF Comer tot | ]¥es [XJNo | Sve TYPICAL OF AREA Spectfic zoning classification and descnpton PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [X] Legal gies nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [__}llegal [_]No Zonng | Drainage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as improved [X [Present use_[ ]Other use fexplan) View LAKEPRESID Utlites, Public Other Off ste Improvements: Type Public Private | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Electricity Keer Street ASPHALT Onveway Surface PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutter CONCRETE/GUTTER, Apparent easements UTILITY Water Py CITY Sidewalk CONCRETE FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (_|¥es [X]No Santary sewer [X Seetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES FEMA Zone B__MapDate_ 02/01/1979 H Storm sewer [X] Alley NONE, [|_[FEMa Map No 120192 01708 Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments slide areas, legal or legal nonconforming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE @ THOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION | FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION A No of Units ONE _| Foundation Reinf Cnc_j Slab MONOLITHIC) Area Sq Ft it} Roof CODE No of Stones TWO _] Extenor Walls C Blk Stucco) Craw Space NONE % Fimshed NIA Ceting CODE Type {Det/Att) DETACHED] Root Surtaces Conc Tite | Basement NONE | Ceiling NiA | Walls CODE Design (Style) 2STY__|Guiters & Dwnspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump. NONE Wat's BSEMNTS] Moor _CODE ExistingProposed EXISTING | Window Type SIN_HUNG]| Dampness NONE NOTEQ Floor ARE NOT | None Fe) 4 2 PY Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Storm/Screens SCREENS | Settiemen. NONE NOTEG Outside Entry TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN FRY ctlecwve Age (vis) EFF 1 | ManufaciwedHouse NO. Infestation NONE NOTE, OF SO FLORIDA fe] Rooms | Foyer | twno | Onng | chen [den [FamiyRm| Rec Rin [Bedrooms | # Bats | Laundry | Oiner | avea Sa FL 4 Basement 0 EFA Level § x 1 i 1 1__|srtinc| 2 350 4 STUDY 3,848 Fa} Level 2 > 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 Zz 0 FS] Finshedarea above qradecontans 10 Rooms, §__—Betrooms), «6. 50 Baths) 5,708 Square Feet of Gross Lng Area FY WTERIOR — Matenals/Conditon HEATING [ wTcHen aur | Aric AMENITIES CAR STORAGE Foor MarbieWWad /CamptiGU Type Rev Cyc| Reingerator None Fueplace(s)# NONE {_]} None Hq Walls ORYWALL/GOOD | Fuel _ELECT | RangefOven [X]} Stars Patio REAR. Garage 3 Hof cars fe} TamFinsh ~WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Disposal X]} Drop Star Deck NONE Altached _3CAR al BathFlor MARBLE/GOOD | COOLING Oishwasher |X} Scuttle XJ | Porch REAR Detached Bath Wamsoot MARBLE/GOOD __| Cenirat __A/C_} FanHood Floor Fence _ NONE Buit in ‘Doors SOLID WD _CORE EXT] Other N/A__| Microwave Heated Pool NONE Carport HOLLOW WD CORE INT/GD | Condition GOOD | WashertOryer [XI] Fished CVRO ENTRY [X]l Dwveway _ PAVERS ‘Addiwonal features (special energy effixentitems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM Condition ofthe improvements, depreciation (physical functional and external), cepars needed, quakiy of construction remodelngadéitons, etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT {S EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION ‘Adverse environmental conditions {such as, bul not imited to hazardous wastes, toxic substances, ele } present inthe improvements, on the site or m the immediate. if ; of the subject propery NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE. IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY Freddie Mac Form 70.6 93 ClckF ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT al 7 SERVICE APPRAISALS File No UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No ‘Valuation Section RF-0448-05 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE By ESTIMATED REPRCQUCTION COST OF Dwelling §,708__ Sq FL@$ _ 155 00 ne 575,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as source of cost estimate, site value, square foot caleulation and for HUD VA and FmHA the estimated remaining economec ife of the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & FS] Bsmt 0 sqr@s [ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Ped KIT APPL SIPATIOIPORCH/CVRO ENTRY OF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE & GaragelCarport 714 Sq Ft @3_ 4550 = IASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Fd Total Estimated CostNew = |AND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & Pr Less Physical 1 $4 Functional External ISWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe} Depreciaton 14,518, fy 14,519NO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE FFA Depreciated Value of improvements. = - 928, 209ATTRIBUTABLE TEL =65 YEARS “Asis” Value of Site improvements _ _ 35,00 Bid INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = 1,538,209 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. a TEM. I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3524 TURENNE WAY 3521 MABILLON WAY 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, Fl. WELLINGTON, FL See 0.94 MI NNW 13 MLNW 28MIN i $_REFINANCE [GSES 1,340,106 if Genes 1,500,000 Bi ProelGrosslw Area [$000 (ig 24059 aa 28176 767 66 E Data andlor PUB RECORDS Verifcation Souce | PERS INSPECT | __ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _|_1SC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS Ry VALUE ADJUSTMEN: S| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +4)$ Adustment| DESCRIPTION __+{ )$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION _+{ }$ Adjustment Sales or Financing i A) CONVENTIONAL} CONVENTIONAL CASH TO Concessions i MTG $800,000 MTG $1,000 000, SELLER Date of Sale/Time PARES | OFC 2004 NOV 2004 APRIL 2005 Location EXCL/RESID | EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID Leasehold! Fee Simple | _ FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 20,473 SF ~15,700__ 17,859 SE 10,500 31,363 SF -37,500| View LAKE/RESID | CANAURESID +5,000_ LAKE/RESID POND/RESID +10,000] ‘Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL_|_2 STY/EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Qualty of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Ba Age 2003(2)a/EFF_1e| 1997 INF_EFF +5,000_1997 INF EFF +5,00d 1989 SIM EFF +5,000 FEY Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT GOOD 45,000 Ed Above Grade. Total_|@drms} Baths | Totall Bdems} Baths: Total{Bdrms|_ Baths Total] Bdrms|_ Baths Be] Room Count io | 5 +650} 9] 3 {| 200 +31,50d_9 | 3 [200 +31,500 9 | 4 [550 +7,000 EA Gross Living Area 5,708 Sqfi| 5570 Sq fi +7,600 5,670 __Sq FL +2,104" 5,121 sq Ft]___ +32,300] = Basement & Finished NIA NIA N/A N/A Fe] Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA NIA NIA FF Funcuonal Buty AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE _| Fad HeaungCootng CENTRAL A/C _| CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Fl Enorgy Eficent toms_| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAY NONE SPECIAL a NONE SPECIAL Fe Garane/Carport 3. CAR GARAGE |2 CAR GARAGE +5 oda CAR GARAGE -5,000 2 CAR GARAGE! +5,000 ia] Porch, Patio Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prck R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch BE] Frepiaces), etc CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY CVRD ENTRY Pr Fence, Pool ete NONE POOL -12,00 POOL -12,00 POOL =42,000} EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |PT UPGRADES] +50,00d_ upGRaDES INF UPGRADES] __+25,000} Mepemeeeed (X|+ | |- $ 76.400 | (x]+ | |- s 11,100 {xi+ [T- s "39,800 let INet=1% Net=3% 1,416,506 _|Gross=4% 6 _1,608,692_|Gross=9% 1,539,800 Comments on Sates Companson (iscuding the ‘subject property s compatibikly fo the neghborhood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM. SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Date, Pace and Data SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN. Source, for por sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS walhin year of appears | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS. ISC/PUB RECORDS Analysis of any current agreement of Sale option oF Isting of the subject propery and analysis of any prot sales of subject and comparables within one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT. @ INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH INDICATED VALUE BY I OME APPROACH {i Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ NA {Ma x Gross Rent Muluptier “ =3 NIA 1,530,000 This apprassal is made s [_Jsubject to the repairs, alterations mspectons or conditons listed below —[__]subject to completion per plans and spectications Conditons of Apprasal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES OF THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT. Final Reconckaton *"INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF, QUALITY RENTAL DATA_THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS: RECONCILIATION 5: ‘The purpose of this appraisal 1s to estimate the market value of the real property that is subject to this report based on the above conditions and the cerhfication, contingent and himutmg condibons, and market value defintuon that are stated m the attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 UWE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF (WHICH IS THE DATE OF NSE TION ANO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ _ APRIL 23, 2005 1,530,000 SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) ‘Signature Od [_Jou Not acatdh ff Name inspect Property t Date Report Signed APRIL 23, 2005. Date Report Signed Slale Cenfication# _ RZ967 State FL State Certification # Slate Go Or State License # Slate Or Stale License # Stale Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6.93) Page 2 of 16 ADM mete 5 INISTRATIVE COMPLAINT tal 4. SERVICE APPRAISALS EXTRA COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City, WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiClient Private Lender Address Private Lender than the subject property a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reduct subject property, a plus (+) adjustments made, thus ncreasing the indicated value af the subject These recent sales of properties are most similar and proximate lo subject and have been considered in the market analysis The description includes a dollar adjustment saflacting ‘market reaction to those Hems of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties If a signiticant lem in the comparable property #s superior lo or more favorabley the mated vale of subject 112 Sgnicant stom m the comparable 1s enor Lo o ess favorable tan the TEM {suaJect COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 10765 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3540 AMBASSADOR OR Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proxmuly to Subject 8 Sales Price eS PaceiGross Liv Area aay Af Data andior PUB RECORDS Verficaton Sowce | PERS INSPECT | 1SC PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS ee VALUE ADJUSTMENTS| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION _[+{}$Adustment| DESCRIPTION | «{)$ Adusimeni| DESCRIPTION | +{.}$ Adjustment Kal Sales of Financing in oh CASH TO. Concessions SELLER Date of Sale/Time JUNE 2004 Locabon EXCL /RESID FH Leasehold/Fee Simple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE Bd Sue 42,632 SF 22,650 SF 20,000 oa View LAKE/RESID | LAKE/RESIO -| 4 Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL__{ RANCH/EXCL ‘Quality of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL | Ace 2003(2)a/EFF te] 2003 SIM EFF Condon EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT Above Grade Total [Bdrm Gaths | Total] Bdrmd Baths Total] Béimd_ Baths Totall Bdrmd_Baths Rooin Count jo | 5 [esol 9 | 4 | 550 +7,00 Gross Lung Avea 5708 Sq Ea 6,715 _ Sq Ft -55,401 Sq Ft Sq Fl Basement & Finished NIA NIA Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA Functional Unity AVERAGE AVERAGE | Heatna/Cootng CENTRAL AIC | CENTRAL A/C Energy Efficent tems | NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL| GarageiCarport 3 CAR GARAGE | 3 CAR GARAGE] # Porch, Pato Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s), etc CVRD ENTRY | PCOUSPA -15,000 Fence, Poo, ele NONE FNCD REAR -2,000, | EQUIPMENT UPGRADES | UPGRADES Net Ad) {total -85,400 Mt Ls oO x = $ 0 Adjusted Sales Price let= 0% - let=0% | ‘of Comparable 4,564,600 _|Gross=0% _ |s 0 ross= 0% fs 0 Comments on Comparables TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 Date, Pree and Daia | SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS vattin year of appraisal | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS . COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Ciy_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL ZipCode 33467 LenderChent__Private Lender Address Private Lender ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardward throughout, lake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42" wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and pati area, tray ceiling and sitting room in master bedroom sutte, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The house exterior 1s painted concrete block stucqo There ts a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room ~The house has central air conditioning The subject is considered to be in excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the ‘subject's area High land to value ratio 1s typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington This factor does not adversely affect the marketability of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subyect's location, site area, site/view, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amensties The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information Two of the comparables are located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #3 and #4 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, lot size, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently attached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ALMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPI SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower__LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderClient Private Lender Address Private Lender 25 1 5 BATH ' 1 1 Family . 120 140 ROOM fot a Kitchen 3 Dining Bedroom ROOM ROOM , 2 FE Bedroom Study wic Laundry Foyer Bath as ” aad First Floor ‘Staten of Aver w™ Carers . AREA CALCULATIONS SUVIVARY LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN | Code Description Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals GAL First Flooe 3047 60 ea? 60 Furst Floor PrP Porch 120 00 25% 125 325 Patso au a onan osx 32% 32 $06 car Garage ne 15 na is 32% 255 Cee 40 x 27 11473 ox 25 360 00 Sx 370 795 89 05% 00% 090 910 0 x 542 2004 73 33x as 70 95 wsx 195 243 15, - 190 x 140 149 00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 41 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 a4 ClickFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 ADMINIST RATIVE COMPLAINT i SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address_Private Lender Open to 160° Recreation ROOM oe Open ta Bedroom 4 Below 520° Bath Home 16S Theater Bath 270° Bedroom oS Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Comets, . ‘AREA CALCULATIONS. SUVIVARY” LUMING AREA BREAKDOWN Code Description : Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals Graz ‘Second Floor 1859 69 1859 69 ‘Second Floor 120 x 260 ani a2 O5x 120 x 107 64 38 05x 35 x 35 625 3S x 90 273 TO x 125 @7 89 25 x 277 6a 66 SOx 135 oa , 17x 4s 2a 53 aS x 56 19 7% O5x 81x 81 33 06 OSx 28% 28 400 20% 28 193 160 x 400 640 00 O5x 25% 25 306 a2 x 60 25 46 O5x 42x 42 9 00 OSx 42% 42 300 165% 270 4a5 50 TOTAL UVABLE (rounded) 1860 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1860 10 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ _LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL 2ip Code 33467 LenderiCkent__ Private Lender Address_ Private Lender a HAVERHILL OVAL PaLw agacy FLVING COW RANCH FOR FLsHONy 1a [HINVY ARROWHEAD on tu0 THE TOW Raney Lal | x HYPOLUXO HAGEN Raney = o 2 Ww oe iy) > VE COMPLAINT cy aro earl ess ae HAGEN RANCH Scale aP(C)i984-2001 TELE ATLAS NA INC ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON. Property Address‘ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Lender/Cient__ Private Lender Address _Pavate Lender Zip Code 33467 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINIOTR at DATIVE COMPLAINT: loz ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address __ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL 2 Code 33467 Private Lender Address Private Lender LenderfChent VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 o TRATIVE COMPLAINT SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ LENZER BURTON Properly Addess 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Slate FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address Private Lender PiaLEAOMG Anaraest Cathuare BAOKIIRTIT COMPARABLE# 1 3524 TURENNE WAY WELLINGTON, FL. COMPARABLE # 2 3521 MABILLON WAY WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 3 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND WELLINGTON, FL SERVICE APPRAISALS COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderCtent_ Private Lender Address Private Lender | COMPARABLE # 4 3540 AMBASSADOR DR WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # § COMPARABLE # 6 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IGE FI AVENDMG Annemnal Cathe arn BAN B99 O77 SERVICE APPRAISALS. . FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Implicit in thts definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of ttle from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and seller are typically motwated, (2) both partes are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest, (3) a reasonable time 1s allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U S dollars or tn terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by speciat or creatwe financing or sales concessions" granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or crealive financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or {aw in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Spectal or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that 1s not already involved in the property or transaction Any adjustment should not be calculated ‘on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession bul the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concesstons based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser wall not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the litle is good and marketable and, therefore will nol render any opinions about the title The property 1s appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of ils size 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site 1s located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser ts nol a surveyor he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied regarding this determination 4 The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at thei contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation the presence of hazard wastes, toxic substances, etc ) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes toxic substances etc ) that would make the property more or fess valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or plied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsibie for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist Because the appraiser 1s not an expert 7 the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources thal he or she considers to be reliable and beleves them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such :tems that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal thal 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repairs. or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner 10. The appraiser must provide his or her pnor written consent before the lender/chent specified in the appraisal report can distnbute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser 1s associated) to anyone other than the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the tender/chent may distnbute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The apprarser’s written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media { i Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fanmue Mae Form 10048 (5- Page 12 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 (have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration im the sales companson analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropnate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation Ifa significant item in a comparable Property Is Supertor to of more favorable than, the subject properly, | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant ttem nm a comparable property 1s inferior to or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 _ [have taken into consideration the factors thal have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report | have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | . believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appratsal report are true and correct 3 _ | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or Prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appratsal report on the race color, religion sex, handicap famular status, or national origin of exther the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 _ Shave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment for my compensation for performing this apprarsal 1s contingent on the appraised vatue of the property 6 _ Iwas not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party the amount of the value estimate, the attamment of a specific resull, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal 1 did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan 7 | performed this appratsal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply ! acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market val.2 and the estimate | developed 1s consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 Ihave personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties ksted as comparables in the appraisal report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements on the subject site, of on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketabulty of the subject property 9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the reat estate thal were set forth in the appraisal report If | relied on significant professional assistance from any indwidual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation of the appraisal report, have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report { certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks Shave not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the repor, therefore, #f an unauthorized change ts made to the appraisal report, | will take 00 responsibilty for SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: {f a superusory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she Certifies and agrees thal | directly superuise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's cerlificalions fumbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibilty for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL. APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER {only if required) Signature Signature Name Gerald Re Name Date Signed APRIL 23, 2005 Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 Stale Certification # or State License # or State License # State FL_, State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License Ord Ord Not Inspect Property 107 Froddie Mac Form 439 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6.93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address_10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Clent Private Lender in developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or isting of the property being appraised (b) Any prior sale of the subject properly being appraised that occurred within the following time penods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and {if} three years for all other property types ‘The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings The subject property has had ao change of ownership during the past one (1) year The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summarized below [-] The subject property 1s currently offered for sale, listing price is $ [X] The subject property has been sold dunng the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record NATHAN & YOLOIE VINCENT Grantee/Purchaser LORAINE SMITH BROOKS & JOHN KIBLER Contract Price/Sale Puce $226,000 Date of Contract/Sale MAY 2004 Comments The subject property has not sold within the prior thirty six months ~ 10% ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION ‘The following Certification statements are m addition to and may supercede the signed Agpraiser’s Certification altached to this appraisal report This Apprarser’s Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief The statements of fact contamned in this report are true and correct . The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opimons and conclusions "have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved have no bias with respect to the property that 1s the sudject of this report or to the partes mvoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement 1s nol contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the chent the amount of the value opinion the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly relate to the intended use of this appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | [XJhave[_]have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report {If more than one person signs this certification the cerbification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make a personal inspection of the appraised property ) No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (if there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant reat property appratsal assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report The intended use of the appraisal ts to assist the clent and any other intended users in the underwnting, approval and funding of the mortgage foan The intended users of this report are the stated client and any other insttutions involved in the underwnting , approval, and funding of the mortgage oan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclusions contained in this appravsal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources inspection of the subyect property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales listings, and/or rentals within the subject market area The onginat source of the comparable data descnbed in the Data Source section of the market gnd along with the source of confirmation provided, where available, the onginal source ts presented first The sources and data are considered reliable When conflicting information was provided, source deemed most reltable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basis for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment 1s stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report EFINITION OF INSPECTION The term ‘inspection* as used mn this report 1s not the same level of inspection that is required for a “Professional Home Inspection” The appraiser| does not fully inspect the electrical system, plumbing systems mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure or subfloor The appraiser 1s not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal 1s to make an economic evaluation of the subject property if the chent needs a more detailed inspection of the propery a home inspection, by a Professional Home Inspector, is suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES The signature(s) affixed to this report and certification were applied by the onginal appraiser(s) or superisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his,or her signature electronically using a Password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individuat’s hand applied signature {f the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The appraiser has complied with Standards Rute 1-5b and 2-2b (0x} requinng the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years pnor to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) tts reported in the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD By studying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area, the appraiser feels that the exposure ttme for the subject property 18 equal to the indicated Marketing Time identified in the Neighborhood section of this appraisal report op Signature Jord Did Not x Name inspect Property Date Report'Signed APRIL + | Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL_ State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State 164 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower_LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Chent Private Lender Address Private Lender This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions Complete Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of vaiue, performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Summary Report A.wntien report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Restncted Report Awaitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-related issues requiring disclosure ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. ERY BIT ClickKFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Date APRIL 23, 2005 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Prepared for Private Lender Private Lender Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL. Work Performed. APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE $ 495 00 $ Customers payment towards appraisal fee $ 495 00 $ $ $ Total Amount Due $ 000 Piease make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 ’ X ADMINISTRATIVE COMFLAINT. EXHIBIT # | . PAGE I> Lae ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 | | | APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. WELLINGTON, FL As Of November 18, 2005 Prepared For WCS LENDING, LLC = 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Prepared By. SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. EXHIBIT i —____— co (0 re 1b PAGE __ OF SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo — RF-4102-05 erty Description UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT case No Proj Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cry WELLINGTON State FL Zip Code 33467, Legal Desenpion _ LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Assessors Parcel No_73-44-44-24-05.000-2840 ASSD $667 273 TaxYear 2004 RE Taxes$ 15,067 23 SpecialAssessments$ NIA Borrower LENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner [7 }Tenant_ [Yvacant Property nghis apprased |X| Fee Simple [| ]Leasehotd Prowect Type [X [PUD [Condominum (HUDIVAcnly) HOAS 358 00 Mo. Newhborhood or Project Name. VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 Sale Prce_$ REFINANCE DateofSae N/A __Desenption and $ amount of loan charges/concesswons lo be paid by seller N/A LenderiClent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Appraiser Gerald Rowley Address 4552 Highgate Dr, Delray Beach, FL_33445 Location [_furban Suburban [_]Rurat Predominant] Single family housing [resto vse % Land use change 4 Buiit up XJ Over 75% 15-75% Under 25% | occupancy Storr bear ‘One family 95 & ‘Not likely Likely Growhrate — {_|Rapad Stable Slow [X]owner 375 tow 5 | 2-4 famuly 0 In process Property values [_ | Increasing Stable Declining | [_] Tenant 3MM_Hagh 35 _| Mutt-family To Demandisupply (__|Shortage Inbatance {_|Over supply] [X] vacant (0-5%)} FREY Predominant [EA] Commercial 5 Marketing tine [ |Under 3 mos [13 6 mos [Over 6 mos | [7 |vacant fore 5%)/ 800-2 suum] 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Nexghbochood boundaries and characteristics FOREST HILL BLVD (NORTH), JOG ROAD (EAST) HYPOLUXO RO (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS, & TOWNHOUSES : Factors that affect the marketabiliy of the properties in the neighborhood (proximity to employment and amenities employment stabikly, appeal fo market, etc ) THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 5 MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE. 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD TO. EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including suppor for the above conclusions related to the trend of property values demand/supply and marketing time ~ such as data on compettive properties for sale m the nexghborhood, descnption of the prevalence af sales and financing concessions, etc ) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE TYPICAL FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS Project Information for PUDs (lt applicable - Is the developer/buider m contro of the Home Owner's Association (HOA)? ‘es L_JNo Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13£ Describe common elements and recreational facies COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_ MANNED GUARD GATE, COMMON AREAS Omensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography LEVEL 4 Sie area 12,632 SF Comertot [_]¥es [X]No | Sze TYPICAL OF AREA Specific zonng classification and descnpion PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [XK] Legal [“]Legat nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [_Jillegal [_]No Zoning | Dranage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as mproved_[ X ]Preseni use. Other use (expiain) view LAKE/RESID H] Utiives Pubic Other Off-ste Improvements Type Public Prvate | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Etcctricty XJEPL Sree ASPHALT [Xx] [_) Joneway Sudace PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutler CONCRETE/GUTTER x Apparent easements UTILITY. Water X| CITY Sdewak CONCRETE x LJ FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Yes [X]No 4) Santary sewer Steetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES [X FEMA Zone B__ Map Dale _02/01/1979 Storm sewer__{X Aley NONE FEMAMapNo__ 120192 01708 ‘Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments, side areas, iltegal or legal nonconfacming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE HOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER ‘GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION No of Units ONE ___| Foundation Reinf Cnc_]} Slab MONOLITHIC} Area Sq FL i) Roof _CODE 4 No of Sicnes TWO __ | Cxtenor Walls C Bik Stuccd Crawt Space NONE ‘% Finshed NIA Cetlng CODE Type (Det /Att) DETACHED] Roof Surfaces Conc Tile } Basement NONE Cetling NIA Wals CODE W Design (Style) 2STY _| Gutters & Dwaspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump NONE Walls BSEMNTS] Floor _CODE Existag/Proposed _EX{STING | Window Type SIN HUNG] Dampness NONE NOTEG Floor ARE NOT] None Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Stomm/Screens SCREENS | Settlement NONE NOTED Ouise Envy TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN Effectve Age (Yrs) EFF 1 | Manufactured House. NO Infestavon NONE. NOTEG OF SO FLORIDA ROOMS | Foyer | twing | Ding | Kitchen | “Den [FamiyRm]| Ree Rm |Bediooms | # Baths Area Sq Fl q_ Basement 0 d Level} x 1 1 i 1__[simnc| 2 350 3.848 Level 2 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 0 Finished area above grade contains 10 Rooms, 5. Bedroom(s) 6 50 Bath(s), 5,707 uare Feet of Gross Living Area INTERIOR — MaterralsiConduon HEATING KSTCHEN Equip_[ ATTIC ‘AMENITIES ‘CAR STORAGE Floors MarblefWd /Carpt /GQ Type Rev Cyc] Refngerator {X]} None (_] | Fueplaceis)# NONE None Walls DRYWALL/GOOD | Fuet ELECT } RangefOven {X]} Siaus Pato REAR Garage 3 #of cars . : sanders i TnFash ~=WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Osposai [XI] Drop Star [_] | Deck _ NONE Atached _3 CAR AUNTS Phe DEVE LIVE CALNER poh oor MARBLE/GOOD —T COOUNG Oshwasher [XI] soutle [K] | Porch _ REAR Detached ' Bath Wainscot MARBLE/GOOD _| Cental _ AVC _| FantHood Floor Fence _ NONE Burlt-tn EXHIBIT # Doors SOLID WD CORE EXT| Other ~_N/A_| Microwave Heated Pool __ NONE Carport a “WO CORE INT /GD | Condition GOOD | WasherOryer [Xl] Fiushed CVRD _ ENTRY Driveway _ PAVERS. PAGE OF A] Additonal features (special energy efficient dems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM J Condon of the improvements depreciation (physical, functional and extemal) epars needed qualiy of construction, remodelingladditions etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT IS EXCELLENT. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & 1S CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION Adverse environmental conditions (such as. but nol limited to, hazardous wastes, loxic Substances, ec ) present in the mprovernents, on the sile, orm the ummediate vicinity A of he subject property NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE d IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY. Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004(6 93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINY, EXHIBIT 4 ee ey SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No BA ESTIMATEDSITEVALUE oe s$ 1,150,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate site value, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS square foot calculation and for HUD and FmHA, the estimated remaining Bi Oweling __5,707_ Sq FL@S_ 17500 =$ 998,725 economic feof the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & Ee] Bsmt OSes > 0 |ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Fey KIT APPL-SIPATIO/PORCHICVRD ENTRY = 35,500 lOF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE Eq Gavgetcapon 714 Sq FL@$__ 5550 = 39,627 |ASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION EY Total Esumated CostHew = 7,073,852 IAND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & t Less Physical 1 54! Functional [ever SWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe] Depreciation 16,537 0 ° 16,537INO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE Depreciated Valve of Improvements 7.057, 319ATTRIBUTABLE _T EL = 65 YEARS. “As is" Value of Site Improvements _ _ - - 35,000, iNDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = =$ 2,242,314 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. (TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO_2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD 3597 Royalie Terrace 3595 AIKEN RD 71332 Long Meadow Dr Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proximity to Subject ae 032 MISSE 15 MINW 14 MINNW Sales Price $_ REFINANCE 2,400,000 2,430,000 [RSEARASHEE 1,950,000 ProelGrossiw Area _[$ 000 s 42046 Ales $398 30 RPESEEe|s 43939 Rea Data andor PUB RECORDS SALES OFFICE Verication Source _| PERS INSPECT | _ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _] ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS|_ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS. VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION +{J$ Adjustment] DESCRIPTION »{-)$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +{-)$ Adjustment, Sales or Financing CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL Concessions : | MTG $800,000 MTG $1,665,000 MTG_$400,000 Date of Sale/Time ARs OCT 2005 OCT 2005 JULY 2005 Location ~ | EXCt/RESIO. | EXCL RESID EXCL /RESIO EXCL /RESID Leasehold Fee Smple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 14,473 SE <17,000 47,480 SF -209,10d 23,958 SF “68,000 View TAKE/RESIO | LAKE/RESID Polo Grounds +15,000 Golf Crs (RES. +10,000] Design and Appeal 2 STY/EXCL__|_2 STY /EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Quatity of Construction |__ CBS/EXCL CBSIEXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Age 2003(2)a/EFF 12] 2005 SUP_EFF ~5,00_1993 INF EFF +5,000 1988 SIM_EFF +8,000] Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT GOOD +5000 GOOD +5,000 Above Grade Total_|Bdrms|_ Baths | Total] Bdrms| Baths Total] @drms| Baths: Total| Bdrms}_Baths Room Count 10 | 5 [650| 10} 5 [650 io{ 5 [600 +3500 9 | 4 | 450 +44,000] Gross Living Area 5,707 Sq Ft §,708 Sq Ft -101 6,101 Sq Ft -21,701 4438 Sq Ft +69,800) Basement & Finished NIA NIA NIA NIA : Fe] Rooms Below Grade N/A NA NIA NIA PA Functonal Utity AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Fd Heating/Cooling CENTRAL AC | CENTRAL AC CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Energy Effinent lems _| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAI| a4 Garage/Carport 3 CAR GARAGE |3 CAR GARAGE| 3 CAR GARAGE} 3. CAR GARAGE, Porch, Patio Deck, R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prch R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s},elo _, | CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY Feace, Pool, etc NONE POOL -15,000 POOL 715,000 POOL, -15,000 EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |SUP UPGRADES| _-100,000_ UPGRADES INF UPGRADES|__+100,000 Net Ad) (total e Dea cel Tx] $ _-131,100 | { [+ [X]- $s -217,300 X[+ {]- $123,800 ‘Adjusted Sales Price % | let=-9% fisse __.| of Comparable ae es 2,268,900 _|Gross=11% 2,212,700 _|Gr b__2,073,800 ‘Comments on Sales Companson (including the subject property's compatbilty (othe neghbochood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM SUBJECT. COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Dale Poe andData | SEE SALES | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN [ NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 42 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS within year of apprarsal | _ ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS (SC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS ‘Analysis of any current agreement cf sale option oF isting of te subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables vain one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT INDICATED VALUE cY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ©. ----------- $ ___ 2,200,000 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH _{If Applicable) Estrmated Market Rent$__N/A_/Mo x Gross Rent Multiplier vss N/A This appraisals made subject the repans,alteratons, mspecions or conditions Isted below — [_] subject to completion per plans and specifications BY Conditions of Appraisal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES Of THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT Final Reconciliation “INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF QUALITY RENTAL DATA THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST. REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS “The purpose of ths appraisal s {o estate the market value of the real property that s subject to this report based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value defintion that are stated inthe atlached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 {WE} ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, ASOF November 18_2005 fe |ON AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE.OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 2,200,000 D>; fic. cJ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) fh , 1 Signature od [Jou not Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed : ‘__ Dale Report Signed Z State Cestficaton# —_ RZ967_ State FL State Certiication # Stale i Bas Or State License # State Or State License # State Freddie Mac Form 70 6-92 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 2 of 1 SERVICE APPRAISALS COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Propeny Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cay WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LenderfChent__WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardware throughout, fake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42° wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and patio area, tray celling and sitting room in master bedroom suite, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The subject has a built-in home theater ‘on the second floor The house exterior is painted concrete block stucco There 1s a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room = The house has central air conditioning The subject ts considered to be tn excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the subject's area High land to value ratio is typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington and the lake front lot This factor does not adversely affect the marketabulty of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subject's tocation, site area, site/vew, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amenites The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information The subject and Sale #1 are lake front propertes Sale #1 ts a recent sale of a similar modet as the subject located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #2 and #3 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently altached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ADMINISTRATIVE Comer ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 3 of SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address _ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiChent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir Boca Raton, FL 33487 \ Pool } Under Ye 225 Cor Sitting ROOM Kitchen 635 Dining ROOM Bedroom 595° Bedroom Bath 2 15 as zs First Floor Shel by Ape v= Cormats . \AREA CALCULATIONS, SUMVARY — . LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Code | __ Description a Size, Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals an Furst Floor 3847 60 3ea7 Farat Floor P/E Porch 120 00 25 x as 3125 Patio am 42 aia osx 32% 32 5 06 on Garage na is na 1s 32% 255 eta 40 x 27 aaa ox 25 360 00 asx 30 795 89 : osx 00% 00 030 s70 x 542 2008 73 33 « 2s 70 95 2S x 19s 243 75 wo x «wo 140 00 RETR Om Dy Ae PARP QTD A re an oe ANMIBISTD RIVE pager Re vrs a PE we wre 0 “. TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 11 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 | % mee etenetawen cys oe cee ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Adgress__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderiChent_WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 160 Recreation ROOM Bedroom 520° Home 465° Theater Bath 270 Bedroom o Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Conmsts, Code Description ° Size Net Totals. 1 . Breakdown Subtotals Gig Secured Floor 1es9 69 1959 6 ‘Sosa Floor 20x 260 an 05x 0x 107 64.38 o5x 35% 35 625 35 x 90 an Tox 2s e189 255 27 62 66 sox 135 an idx us 2453 35x 56 wa osx 81 an no osx 28x 28 «00 28x 28 193 wo x 400 640 00 osx 25x 25 3 06 «2x 60 25:46 osx 42m 42 900 osx 42% 42 900 165 x 270 44s 50 . TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) L 1960 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1960 lj ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page S of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 . Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LendedCuent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 i pe cnegiNDoD |__ wee) S som “ a _ — ~ = LO KAZET. I~ Toast z com 7 OO ete & za | 2200) zara] CKEECHOSEE | OKFECHGBEE| fOKEECHOBEE For] BRYAN ¥ aT Taser, "hed user j— 7/2 al ae RK a TT 7 g re ai=| T= J es ine Geo ~~ wf a | | e cofcect inc |dayan 5; a b 1 3 ACER, a r sca ” Lar 5 B | Fs d DILLMAN A a S NA me ENIE ys at - = Lye ad $ 2 FOREST HI = FA > o ra 2 — SMED I fal ¥ c a ~~ 7 nese cy Y i Pa (qerenteay z S —_—__|. al \a fae ou OGa] fer ie suc: > ©} —t LAKE MI _I 441 = = a ~——+ in { ‘ | Q JB Pf | 3 te] | 3 Tr LAT anal 7 sist \ i \ & . é \. eae WAP (C)1964-2001 TELE ATLAS NA inc Seal 11 61 mies ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 6 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State FL Zp Code 33467 LendeClent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, Fi_ 33487 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, Ft REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINISTRATIVE SXMIBIT “AGE io] sre MELAING ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cly_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderCient _WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor PHOTO OF KITCHEN PHOTO OF FAMILY ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower __LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cily_ WELLINGTON. County PALM BEACH Slate FL 21p Code 33467 Lender/Cient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 PHOTO OF Master Bedroom PHOTO OF MASTER BATHROOM PHOTO OF BATHROOM ADMINISTRATIy PXHIBIT 4 O DASE ae LD ADM meta arn ae a } SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower _LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cily_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Staie FL Zip Code 33467 LendedChient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir Boca Raton, Fl. 33487 PHOTO OF BEDROOM PHOTO OF RECREATION ROOM. PHOTO OF DINING ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 10 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Properly Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cay WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Siate FL 2p Code 33467 Lender/Clent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 ~ — |] COMPARABLE # 1 3597 Royalle Terrace WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 2 iee|| 3595 AIKEN RD ei WELLINGTON, FI. COMPARABLE # 3 11332 Long Meadow Dr WELLINGTON, FL ADMINISTRATIVE COMP LAINT ArdSit de ee ees iets el Click ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 11 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLA ne Em ME SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Impficit in this definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of 2 specified date and the passing of tite from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and setier are typically motivated, (2) both parties are weil informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest (3) a reasonable tme ts. allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment ts made in terms of cash inU S$ dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normai consideration for the property so'd unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions“ granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally patd by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable properly by comparisons to financing terms offered by @ third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or fansaclion Any adjustment should not be calculated ona mechanicat dollar for doliar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing ar concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The apprasser’s certification that appears in the apprassal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser will not be responsible for malters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it The appraiser assumes that the tille is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the tiie The property s appraised on the basis of il being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appratsal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch 1s included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size 3. The appraiser has examined the avatlable flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject sie 1s located in an identified Specral Flood Hazard Area Because the apprarser 1s nol a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The apgraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazard wastes toxic substances, etc ) observed durmng the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the apprarsal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc ) thal would make the property more or less valuable, and has assured that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions extst Because the appraiser 1s nol an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions thal were expressed in the appratsal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the apprarsal report except as prowded for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repawrs, or alterations an the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner TNF The apprarser must provide his or her prior wntten consent before the lendericlent specified in the appraisal report dn distnbute the appraisal report (including conclustons about the property value, the appraiser's denuty and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser ts associated) to-anygng-aijer than the borrower the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the lender/client may distnbute ifie property descnption section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, WHE Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 (6 93) : Page 12 of 16 AUWINISTRAHIVE exHigit 4% SERVICE APPRAISALS File No — RF-1102-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 Ihave researched the subject market area and have selected a munmum of three recent sales of properties most simular and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysts and have made a dotiar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those tlems of significant variation if a significant stem in a comparable property 1s superior to, or more favorable than, the subject properly | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales pnce of the comparable and, if a significant tem in a comparable property 1s inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 Ihave taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in ha appraisal report { have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | believe to the best of my knowledge that all statements and information mn the appratsal report are true and correct 3. | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opimons, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 Thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partally or completely my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familar status, or national origin of either the prospective awners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 Lhave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal (s contingent on the appraised value of the property 6 | was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal { did not base the appratsal report on a requesied minimum vatuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage foan 7 1 pertormed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply | acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate | developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this 7eport, unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 | have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties hsted as comparables in the appraisat report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements, an the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property 9 | personally prepared ail conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report If relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation’ of the aopraisal repo | have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them In the reconetlation section of this appraisai report | certify that any individual so named 1s qualified to perform the tasks { have not authorized anyone to make a change to any stem in the report, therefore, if an unauthonzed change 1s made to the appraisal report Iwill take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION if a supervisory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she certifies and agrees that | directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED. 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required) Signature Name Date Signed November 18, 2005. Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 State Certification # ~~ or State License # or State License # State FL State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License [J od ([) did Not inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6 93 ChckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fane Mae Form 10048 6 93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Client WCS LENDING, LLC In developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or listing of the property being appraised (0) Any prior saie of the subject property being appraised that occurred within the following time periods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and (ll). three years for all other property types The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings [X] The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past one (1) year (7) The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summanzed below The subject property is currently offered for sale, listing pce 1s $ The subject property has been sold during the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record TRANSEASTERN VERSAILLES LLC Grantee/Purchaser LENZER L_ BURTON, JR Contract Price/Sale Price $834,077 Date of ContraclSale DEC 2003 Comments COMPLAINT Ly ClckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Drie dF 2 PAG SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM File No Case No RF-1102-05 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION “The following Certification statements are in addition to and may supercede the signed Appraiser s Certification aliached to this appraisal report This Appraisers Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that, to the hest of my knowledge and belief ‘The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct The reported analyses opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal impartial, and unbiased professional analyses opinions, and conclusions Ihave no present or prospective interest n the property that 1s the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved Ihave no bias with respect to the property thats the subject of this report or to the parties invoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent ‘event directly related to the intended use of his appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice 1 [X]have[__Jhave not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subyect of this report (If more than one person signs this certification, | the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did nol make a personal inspection of the appraised property } No one provided significant reat property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (If there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant real property apprarsai assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL ‘The purpose af the apprarsat is to estimate the market value of the subject property as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report ‘The intended use of the appraisal is to assist the client and any other intended users in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan The intended users of this report are the stated chent and any other institutions volved in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclustons contained in this appraisal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM ‘The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources inspection of the subject property and neighborhood and selection of comparable sales, listings and/or rentals within the subject market area The original source of the comparable data desonbed im the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source ‘of confirmation provided where available the onginal source 1s presented first The sources and dala are considered reliable When conflicung information was provided source deemed most reliable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basts for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment is stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report DEFINITION OF INSPECTION The term "Inspection", as used in this report 1s not the same level of mspection thal is required for a ‘Professional Home Inspection The appraiser does not fully inspect the electrical system plumbing systems, mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure, of subfloor The appraiser is not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal ss to make an economic evaluation of the subject property If the client needs a more detailed inspection of the property a home inspection by a Professional Home Inspector 1s suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES ‘The signature(s) affixed to this report, and certification were applied by the ariginal appraiser(s) of supervisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his or her signature electronically using a password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individual's hand applied signature , If the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisat Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ‘The appraiser has complied with Standards Rule 1-5b and 2-2b ('x) requiring the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) t's reported _an the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD ying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area the appraiser feels that the exposure time for the t property ts equal to.the indicated Marketing-Time identified in the Neighborhood section of thes appraisal report if I Signature Cod (Jo not ft Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed‘November 18, 2005 Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State ( ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo_—- RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WE!LINGTON County PALM BEACH State, FL ZipCode___33467 Lender/Chent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave_, Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions [X] Complete Appratsal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of value performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision ‘This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisat performed under Standard 1 DQ summary Report Awwntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or umited apprarsal performed under Standard 1 [_] Restncted Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-retated issues requiring disclosure y ? ClickKFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Cate November 18, 2005 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 $ $ $ ms $ $ $ $ Total Amount Due 400 00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATH ERPS, £ COMPLAINT ‘ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 INVOICE Date November 18, 2005 FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 Total Amount Due $ 400.00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT 2 oar LSI ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727, PI1S*022 COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS 01/20/0¢ PAGE. 11 A PREPARED BY- SCB FUNDING GROUP SUBJECT 73-414424~05-000-4240 BD BTH SQFT SLU CLC WG V LOT SIZE 3520 PALAIS TERR 3.2 0100 14,374 CORRELATED PROPERTY AVERAGES SCANNED 484 FOLIOS FOR 12 MATCHES AVERAGING 4,401 SQ/FT @ $3022 37 /sQrt SALE-HIGH 61,318,060 Low: 581,000 AvG- 6,137,819 AVG ASMT 259,02€ AVR 23.696 ASSESSED RATIO AMT: 3,080,480 LIVING SQ FT AVERAGE: c X PROPERTY ADDRESS BD BT LIVSQF DATE SALE AMT DT I LOTSZE T SQFTS YB AVE 10275 TRIANON PL 302 0 1105 700000 Wo 11325 97 B.E 0 3597 ROYALLE TERR 3_ 6 6959 1105 2418000 wo 12196 347 4 03 3.2 _ 3610 ROYALE TERR 304 3917 1105 1095168 Sw 6969 279 5 03 2.€ 10678 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 2 0 0905 885000 WD 11325 97 7.5 _ 3608 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0805 1040000 wo 9147 97:1 ¢ ~ 10273 TRIANON PL 3.2 0 0805 900000 sw 11325 97 1.3 73-414424-05-000-2630 3.4 2773 0805 61318000 sw 6969 112.5 03 4.0 ea 10707 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 __2 0 0805 1650000 WD 11761 97 2.6 3518 TURENNE WAY 3.3 4181 0705 1092000 wo 16552 261.1 03 2.2 & 1077} VERSAILLES BLVD 3.2 0.0705 1260000 wo 12632 979.6 _ 3600 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0205 714662 wD 8712 97 B 2 _ 10329 TRIANON PL 303 4174 0205 581000 WD 8712 139.1 03 1.3 X=VIEW D=DELETE F1=SHIFT DATA F4=MORE F6=ALTER SEARCH F7=SUBJECT F1LO=HELP PI15 << ADD A COMP >> RE otis Oriel Tsvt private. Lendipl. | ‘ * EXHiBIT # 2 0.7- PAGE ) _oog
The Issue Whether Petitioner owes sales and use tax (plus penalties and interest) to the Department of Revenue (Department), as alleged in the Department's December 22, 1999, Notice of Decision.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the numerous stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and Second Joint Stipulation of Facts: 23/ Mr. Wheeler is a very successful entrepreneur, who has numerous investments and businesses. His interest in Petitioner represents only a small fraction of his wealth, and, consequently, he pays little or no attention to its business operations. He has let Captain Ernest exercise day-to-day control over these operations. No one other than Captain Ernest has been delegated such authority. When the "Destiny" was purchased by Petitioner, Mr. Wheeler intended for it to be used, for a time, as a charter boat (on a bare boat basis) and then sold, hopefully for a profit. From the time that Petitioner purchased the "Destiny" until the end of the Audit Period, Petitioner was not "involved in any business other than chartering the 'Destiny.'" Captain Ernest was the one who "picked [the "Destiny"] out." He did so pursuant to Mr. Wheeler's instructions that he "make sure" to select a "good charter platform." Aside from giving Captain Ernest these instructions, Mr. Wheeler did not participate in the selection process. The "Destiny" had a "perfect" configuration for chartering. In fact, it was "originally designed as a charter boat." It had last been used for chartering approximately five years before it was purchased by Petitioner. Rob Maas (the "Mr. Maas" referred to in the parties' Stipulation of Fact 26) is the attorney who represented Petitioner at the time the "Destiny" was purchased. At the request of Mr. Wheeler, who was "interested in satisfying all conditions for the Florida use tax exemption," Mr. Maas advised Mr. Wheeler and Captain Ernest as to "what was necessary to maintain the exemption." He told them that "bare boat charter forms" needed to be used when the vessel was chartered and that "any time the boat ever moved . . . [it had to be for] a business reason." After being given such advice, Mr. Wheeler specifically instructed Captain Ernest to use the "Destiny" exclusively for bare boat chartering and no other purpose, instructions that Captain Ernest followed. Captain Ernest accepted delivery of the "Destiny" on behalf of Petitioner in the Bahamas, 1/ notwithstanding that the purchase agreement between Petitioner and the seller indicated that delivery of the vessel was to be made at Pier 66 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Petitioner did not pay any sales tax on its purchase of the boat. Mr. Wheeler was not present at the time delivery of the vessel was accepted. After accepting delivery, Captain Ernest brought the boat to Fort Lauderdale. He did so because Fort Lauderdale was "the easiest place to get repairs done," a "good place to pick up crew . . . and finding things that you need for boats," and "the place you want to be" to charter a boat; however, he "probably [would] not" have entered Florida waters if had known that doing so would subject Petitioner to use tax liability. Upon arriving in Fort Lauderdale, Captain Ernest took the "Destiny" directly to Bradford Marine Shipyard (Bradford Marine), a Fort Lauderdale repair facility, where it was "outfitted . . . specifically for charter." On those occasions that Mr. Wheeler was on the "Destiny" during the Audit Period, he was aboard in the capacity of a paying charterer pursuant to a bare boat charter agreement that he and Petitioner had entered into on July 21, 1995. This bare boat charter agreement provided that Petitioner (as the "Owner") would make the "Destiny" available to Mr. Wheeler (as the "Charterer") "for charter on a 'stand-by' basis" and further provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Vessel Availability. Charterer understands the Vessel is scheduled to undergo significant repairs and improvements during 1995 and will not be available when such work is scheduled. Charterer further understands and agrees its charter is on a non-exclusive basis and Owner intends to charter the Vessel through the use of a charter broker to other parties. In the event of a scheduling conflict between Charterer and another charterer, Charterer agrees Owner may "bump" Charterer from using the Vessel during the conflicting period. Charter Broker. Owner and Charterer acknowledge that this is a direct charter without a charter broker. Accordingly, the charter rate is a discounted rate. Term, Hire, & Payment. Subject to the Vessel's availability, Owner agrees to let, and Charterer to hire, the Vessel on such days and for such term as Owner and Charter[er] agree at the rate of $3,000.00 per day, plus state sales tax, if applicable. There will be an accounting at the end of each calendar year to determine Charterer's usage during the preceding year. Due to the Vessel's repair schedule in 1995, the first accounting shall occur at the end of 1996 for Charterer's usage from the date of this Agreement. Charterer shall pay Owner the charter hire determined by the accounting by January 31st of next year. In addition to the charter hire, Charterer shall be responsible for all remaining expenses during charter, including but not limited to food, beverage, fuel, dockage, and accommodations. . . . 5. Control. The Vessel is chartered on a demise basis. Owner hereby transfers to Charterer full authority regarding operation and management of the Vessel for the charter terms. Charterer is solely responsible for retaining a master and crew and it is agreed that said Captain and/or crew are agents and employees of Charterer and not Owner. . . . On July 21, 1995, Mr. Wheeler and Petitioner also entered into a separate agreement for the services of the "Destiny's" captain and crew. This agreement between Mr. Wheeler (as "Charterer") and Petitioner (as "Contractor") for use of the "Destiny's" captain and crew provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Term, Hire & Payment. Charterer hereby retains Contractor to provide crew services to the Vessel during the charter period at the rate of $500.00 per day. In addition, Charterer shall provide the master and crew with food and quarters aboard the Vessel while retained. There will be an accounting at the end of each calendar year to determine Charterer's usage during the preceding year. Due to the Vessel's repair schedule in 1995, the first accounting shall occur at the end of 1996 for Charterer's usage from the date of this Agreement. Charterer shall pay Owner the charter hire determined by the accounting by January 31st of the next year. Provisions. Charterer, before any charter use, shall advance an expense deposit for running expenses. The master shall use these funds to pay for food, liquor, laundry, fuel and lubricants, harbor fees, communication expenses, and any other required supplies or services. If the deposit is insufficient to cover all charges, Charterer shall advance further funds, as needed, during the charter. Upon conclusion of a charter, the master shall provide an accounting to the Charterer of sums received and disbursed. Crew Services. Contractor, on those days Charterer is to use the Vessel, shall provide a full-time, qualified captain and crew. Each crew member shall hold any required license and shall be properly uniformed. . . . Navigation. The master shall act at the Charterer's direction; provided, however, that the master shall not have to carry out any order that jeopardizes the safety of the Vessel or those on board. Relationship. Contractor is retained by Charterer only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement, and Contractor's relationship to Charterer shall be that of an independent contractor. Neither the execution or performance of this Agreement shall render the parties partners or co-venturers for any purposes. . . . Mr. Wheeler chartered the "Destiny" pursuant to the July 21, 1995, bare boat charter agreement (and utilized the services of the "Destiny's captain and crew pursuant to the separate July 21, 1995, employment agreement) on the following dates during the Audit Period: September 12, 1995, through September 15, 1995; December 21, 1995, through January 4, 1996; March 4, 1996, through March 7, 1996; July 21, 1996, through July 28, 1996; and August 19, 1996, through August 25, 1996. 2/ These charters all occurred outside of Florida. Mr. Wheeler was billed (in accordance with his agreements with Petitioner) for his use of the "Destiny," for the services performed for him by the "Destiny's" captain and crew, and for all "running expenses" incurred during his charters, and he paid Petitioner the full amount he was billed. Mr. Wheeler was not the only one to charter the "Destiny" during the Audit Period. There were seven other charters: by Ryder Systems, Inc., of Miami, Florida, from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on January 22, 1996; by Barry Zekelman, from noon on April 6, 1996, to noon on April 13, 1996; by William Boardman, from noon on May 20, 1996, to noon on May 31, 1996; by David Cole, from noon on June 29, 1996, to noon on July 7, 1996; by the Robert E. Morris Company, from 4:00 p.m. on July 9, 1996, to 4:00 p.m. on July 12, 1996; by Thomas Russell, from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on July 30, 1996; and by Richard Dvorak, from 3:00 p.m. on August 4, 1996, to 3:00 p.m. on August 18, 1996. Each of these charters, like Mr. Wheeler's charters of the "Destiny," occurred pursuant to a bare boat charter agreement (on a form containing provisions standard in the bare boat chartering industry, including, among others, one obligating the charterer to pay all "running expenses" during the charter), with the captain and crew being provided in accordance with the terms of a separate employment agreement entered into by the charterer. (These separate employment agreements, unlike Mr. Wheeler's agreement for the services of the "Destiny's" captain and crew, were with Captain Ernest, not Petitioner.) The arrangements made for the payment of the "Destiny's" captain and crew for services performed by them while the "Destiny" was under charter during the Audit Period were "customary in the industry." Only one charter during the Audit Period, the Ryder Systems, Inc., of Miami, Florida, charter, took place in Florida. Florida is not considered a preferred destination in the bare boat chartering industry. A considerable amount of time was spent during the Audit Period marketing and promoting the "Destiny" to rebuild the reputation it had previously enjoyed as a charter boat. 3/ It was not until 1997 that Petitioner's bare boat chartering business "really took off as far as . . . charter numbers went." Although the "Destiny" was under charter only for a small portion of the Audit Period, at no time during the remainder of the Audit Period (when it was not under charter) was it used for any purpose unrelated to Petitioner's bare boat chartering business. The "Destiny" was used to house 4/ and feed Captain Ernest and the other members of the crew 5/ at all times during the Audit Period, whether the "Destiny" was under charter or not. Such use of the "Destiny" was in furtherance of Petitioner's bare boat chartering operations. Having a full-time captain and crew aboard a "mega" yacht available for bare boat charter, even when the yacht is not under charter, is essential to conduct successful chartering operations. The captain and crew must be available, on the vessel, to host the charter brokers and prospective charterers who come aboard between charters (sometimes with little or no advance notice) and to perform those everyday tasks necessary to maintain the vessel. To attract and keep qualified onboard personnel, it is necessary to provide them with, as part of their compensation package, free room and board on the "mega" yacht. Doing so is the standard practice in the bare boat chartering industry. When it was not under charter during the Audit Period, the "Destiny" was heavily promoted and marketed in an attempt to attract bare boat charter business. "[A] lot of promotion" and marketing was needed because the "Destiny" was reentering the charter market after a five year hiatus and Captain Ernest "was new to the charter industry." The promotional and marketing efforts included entering the "Destiny" in boat shows, hosting luncheons for charter brokers aboard the "Destiny," taking charter brokers and their guests on "fam" trips on the "Destiny," and showing the "Destiny" to prospective clients. Captain Ernest and the crew always tried to make the "Destiny" look its best when charter brokers and prospective charterers came aboard. Flowers were purchased and used to enhance the appearance of the "Destiny." When charter brokers came aboard the "Destiny," they were wined and dined and otherwise shown the type of service Captain Ernest and the crew were capable of delivering to charterers. (The reputation of the captain and crew for quality service determines "what charters [a "mega" yacht bare boat chartering business is] going to get and how [the] business is going to go.") It was particularly important "in the early days" for Captain Ernest and his crew to "make an impression on the brokers" because they were not known in the broker community. During the Audit Period, when not under charter, the "Destiny" was stocked with supplies and provisions purchased for use in connection with Petitioner's bare boat chartering operations. These supplies and provisions included fuel and various food and beverage items. Some of the food and beverage items were for use during promotional and marketing activities aboard the vessel. The chef (who specialized in European-style dishes) would often serve rack of lamb or roast duck (as a main course) to visiting charter brokers. There were also food and beverage items on the vessel for the members of the crew. In addition, items that could not readily be obtained in the Caribbean islands (at a reasonably competitive price) were purchased before the "Destiny" departed for the Caribbean. These items were stored on the vessel so that they would be available for any charter that Captain Ernest might be able to obtain while the vessel was located in Caribbean. (Charterers paid Petitioner for the items they and their guests consumed during the charter.) It was "common" for Petitioner to buy large quantities of meats and seafood and store these items for later use in the seven freezers on the "Destiny." For example, on one occasion, Petitioner bought 71.49 pounds of leg of lamb (from a company that would "cryovac" the meat so that it would keep for a very long time). There were many occasions during the Audit Period, when the "Destiny" was not under charter, that it was moved from one location to another. All such movements, however, were in furtherance of Petitioner's bare boat chartering operations. For example, it was moved from time to time to attend boat shows and to pick up charter brokers and prospective charterers who wanted to look at the vessel. On other occasions, it was taken to repair facilities and other places ("mainly . . . in Florida"), such as Pier 66, to have repair and maintenance work done. It was also taken out on "quite a few" sea trials. In addition, there were times it was moved to avoid the problems that can arise if a boat just "sit[s] at the dock." "It's very important for a boat to stay moving and stay running" in order for it to remain in good working order. Another reason it was moved was to be in "the prime areas for [charter] pick-ups." 6/ In summary, during the Audit Period, the "Destiny" was either chartered on a bare boat basis (with captain and crew furnished under a separate employment agreement) or used in a manner reasonably designed to further Petitioner's bare boat chartering business, and for no other purpose. Furthermore, every tax-free Florida purchase of tangible personal property made by Petitioner under its Florida sales tax exemption certificate from the time of its acquisition of the "Destiny" until the end of the Audit Period (including the purchase of Yamaha WaveRunners on August 14, 1995, for $12,770.00 7/) was made in furtherance of Petitioner's bare boat chartering business. 8/ By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department informed Petitioner that it was going to audit Petitioner's "books and records" for the Audit Period. Petitioner was selected for audit because it had reported only a relatively small amount of taxable charter revenue on the Florida sales and use tax returns it filed during the Audit Period. The Department began its review of Petitioner's "books and records" on January 23, 1997, at Mr. Maas' office. The Department's "audit findings" were that the "Destiny" "was purchased for [a] dual purpose, for leasing and to be used by the shareholder" and therefore "the vessel and other purchases [made by Petitioner during the Audit Period under its sales tax exemption certificate] are taxable at the cost price." Based upon these audit findings, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, in which it advised Petitioner that Petitioner owed $250,744.18 in sales and use taxes, $125,325.07 in penalties, and $56,948.55 in interest through July 18, 1997, for a total of $433,017.80, "plus additional interest of $82.44 per day . . . from 07/18/97 through the date [of] payment." By letter dated April 22, 1998, Petitioner protested the Department's proposed assessment. On December 22, 1999, the Department issued its Notice of Decision sustaining the proposed assessment and announcing that, as of December 22, 1999, Petitioner owed the Department $506,142.08, with "interest continu[ing] to accrue at $82.44 per day from 12/23/99." Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing on the Department's proposed action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its assessment against Petitioner is incorrect in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2002.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by E. Gary Early, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Daytona Beach Cycles, LLC d/b/a Indian Motorcycle of Daytona, be granted a license to sell motorcycles manufactured by Victory (VICO) at 420 North Beach Street, Daytona Beach (Volusia County), Florida 32114, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed March 8, 2012 9:15 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this Io day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, J “Baker Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this Oy day of March, 2012. 2 Pobias Vinegek Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Kicense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jc Copies furnished: Andrew Pallemaerts Volusia Motorsports, Inc. 1701 State Road 44 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168 Jonathan Brennen Butler, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 E. Gary Early Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Findings Of Fact Notices to Show Cause were issued by the Department against Roy D. Mathew, and William Gannaway on April 9, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibits 1 and 2). The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated May 12, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibit 3). Roy D. Mathew, d/b/a Anchorline Yacht Brokerage holds Yacht and Ship Broker License No. 12433, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 5). Mathew has at all material times held a yacht and ship broker license issued by the Department. William G. Gannaway holds Yacht and Ship Salesman License No. 12657, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 4). Gannaway has at all material times held a yacht and ship salesman license issued by the Department. Gannaway has at all material times served as a yacht and ship salesman for Roy D. Mathew and Anchorline Yacht Brokerage. Prior to July, 1975, R. A. McKenzie, the owner of a yacht called The Anokone, decided to sell the yacht. The yacht was housed at Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in St. Petersburg, Florida, and McKenzie agreed to pay Anchorline a commission for selling the yacht. On or about July 8, 1975, Jean C. Noll, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, saw the yacht, and believed that it was the sort of vessel that she and her husband had been looking for. She entered into a purchase agreement with the understanding that her husband, the Reverend Joseph E. Noll, Jr., would have the opportunity to make a personal inspection. William G. Gannaway represented Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in the transaction, and received a deposit from Mrs. Noll. (See: Agency Exhibit 6). On or about July 15, 1975 Reverend Noll came to St. Petersburg from Jacksonville and inspected the yacht. Gannaway at that time advised Reverend Noll that the starboard engine on the yacht was broken down and would require extensive repairs. Reverend Noll liked the yacht, and hired the Wilkinson Company to conduct a survey of the yacht. Dean Greger conducted the survey on behalf of the Wilkinson Company. A very thorough inspection was performed by Greger. He made 24 recommendations respecting & repairs, some of which were significant, and some of which were minor. He was not able to conduct a sea test of the vessel because of the broken down engine. His report was issued on July 22, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 7). McKenzie was somewhat disturbed about the large number of discrepancies, and he offered the following alternatives to the Nolls: He would sell the boat "as is" for $15,000; he would sell the boat "as is" with a new starboard engine installed for $17,000; or he would sell the boat for $19,500 with a new engine, with him making all additional repairs up to $1,000 and with all remaining repairs being split evenly three ways between the Nolls, McKenzie, and Anchorline. The Nolls accepted the latter option, and a contract reflecting it was signed. (See: Agency Exhibit 28). All work was to be performed at Whistlers Yacht Service, Inc., which was located adjacent to Anchorline. Shortly after July 22, 1975, it became apparent that a new replacement starboard engine could not be obtained, because the engine was no longer in production. Gannaway advised the Nolls that Whistlers indicated to him that they could replace the "shortblock" of the engine, rebuild the engine, and that they would stand by their work. Gannaway told the Nolls that he thought the rebuilt engine would carry a one year guarantee. Reverend Noll believed that the guarantee would be for no more than 90 days, and he agreed to a rebuilt engine rather than a new engine. Extensive work was performed by Whistlers Marina, and more than $2,100 was paid to Whistlers to perform the repairs. (See: Agency Exhibits 14, 22, 23, 24, 25). Dean Greger conducted a supplemental survey, including a sea test of the vessel on or about August 14, 1975. Fourteen of the 24 discrepancies noted in the original report were found to have been satisfactorily corrected. It was noted that the generator, the depth sounder, the auto pilot, the signal horn, the marine air conditioning, and the docking lights were not performing properly. (See: Agency Exhibit 8). The Nolls were aware of these problems when they closed the transaction and purchased the yacht on approximately August 20, 1975. The closing took place at a Federal Credit Union in Jacksonville. No representative of Anchorline was present at the closing. Following the closing the Nolls took possession of the yacht, and renamed it "Escape Hatch II". The Nolls were advised by several persons, including personnel at Whistlers Yacht Basin, and personnel at Anchorline, that they should familiarize themselves with the vessel in the immediate area prior to their taking any long excursions. The Nolls nonetheless left St. Petersburg in early September to return to Jacksonville. On this return trip the Nolls experienced many mechanical difficulties. Major repairs needed to be performed on the vessel in Ft. Myers (See: Agency Exhibit II), and minor repairs were performed in Stuart and Melbourne (See: Agency Exhibits 12 and 13). Upon return to Jacksonville major repairs were required and are continuing to be performed. (See: Agency Exhibits 16, 17, and 27). It is apparent that the starboard engine was not properly repaired, and that considerable dry rot remained on the vessel. The Nolls are presently engaged in litigation respecting their liabilities in connection with the vessel. Whistlers disclaimed any liability for making repairs, but Mrs. Coe, the general manager at Whistlers testified that she would have performed any repairs within 90 days if the vessel had been returned to the yacht basin. Mr. Gannaway and Mr. Mathew had sound reason to believe that there were no discrepancies respecting the operability of the yacht other than those set out in the marine surveys. Mathew and Gannaway had sound reason to believe that all of the repairs required to rectify these discrepancies had been performed at Whistlers. There was no evidence offered to show that either Gannaway or Mathew intentionally misstated any facts to the Nolls, or that they knew or should have known that any statements they made to the Nolls were false. There was no evidence to establish that Mathew had any personal knowledge of any of the dealings or discussions between Gannaway and the Nolls.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Louis C. Eder (hereafter Respondent) is a registered building contractor holding license number RB 0010762. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Lujack Construction Company. On September 11, 1979, Dennis Ecks, a complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent Jack Greenblatt, for remodeling his residence for the sum of $5,200. The permit for the Ecks job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Ecks paid $4,900 to Abco for the job. He withheld $300 to compensate for the failure of Abco to install a screen door. Ecks paid the $4,900 directly to Abco and never met or spoke to the Respondent during the time the contract was being negotiated and executed. After the job was started, the Respondent sent letters to Ecks rescinding the permit for the job and orally communicated his concern that Ecks should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. The Respondent received no monies from either Ecks or Abco for the Ecks' job. On January 21, 1980, Dominic Sicilian, the other complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco General Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent, Jack Greenblatt, to enclose a carport for $11,675. The permit for the Sicilian job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Sicilian paid $9,000 of the contract sum directly to Abco. This job was abandoned after approximately fifty percent of the construction work was completed, Sicilian, like Ecks, had no discussions with the Respondent before the contract was executed. Approximately one year after the contract was executed, Sicilian spoke to the Respondent concerning his problems with Abco. At that time the Respondent offered to finish the job for the remainder of the contract price. Additionally, shortly after Abco started the job, the Respondent informed Sicilian, both orally and in writing, that he would not be working on the job because he had not been paid by Abco and Sicilian should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. Both Ecks and Sicilian believed that they were dealing with Abco and neither had any knowledge of Lujack Construction or its relationship to Abco. The Respondent did not enter into construction contracts with either Ecks or Sicilian. The Respondent began working for Abco in the capacity of foreman. Shortly after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent was requested by Abco to obtain permits for pending jobs due to a problem Abco encountered in obtaining permits. The problem resulted from Abco maintaining a business in an area zoned noncommercial. Approximately two weeks after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent's relationship with Abco changed and he became the contractor on the job under the name Lujack Construction Company, a name which the Respondent had used for many years. Shortly after commencing work at Lujack Construction, the Respondent quit when he was not paid from the first draw. The Respondent terminated his relationship with Abco and notified Ecks and Sicilian that he was no longer working on the job due to non-payment and was rescinding the permits which he had pulled. The Respondent attempted without success to as certain the proper procedure to terminate the permits by directing inquiries to the Cooper City Building Department, Broward County Building Department, Palm Beach County Building Department and the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent has been a licensed general contractor for fourteen years. During that period of time, he has built hundreds of homes in the Palm Beach area. Other than the complaints filed in the instant case, the Respondent has not been the subject of any previous complaint or disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Louis C. Eder. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 15th day of March, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the activities of a yacht broker without a license in violation of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. In May 1993, the Department issued a yacht and ship salesman's license to Davis. In 1995, after a formal hearing, the Department revoked Davis' license for misrepresentation in entering false answers on his license application. Davis had been a licensed stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission between 1971 and 1991. He failed to tell the Department on his application that the National Association of Securities Dealers had censured him, imposed a fine of $20,000, and suspended his license for two years. Davis attended a Department workshop on yacht and ship brokerage laws during the time he held a license. The workshop covered Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, brokerage activities, and administrative rules. In June 1997, Davis approached Don Gilman of Gilman Yachts with an offer to co-broker the purchase of the Princessa del Mar by his client, William Bond Elliott (Elliott). Davis suggested that Gilman split the commission on the purchase with him on a 50/50 basis. Gilman is a licensed yacht and ship broker. Gilman, who knew Davis personally and knew that Davis had been licensed by the Department, agreed to co-broker the transaction. Gilman was unaware that Davis' license had been revoked. Davis had an office in Palm Beach, Florida, with a local telephone and facsimile machine number. Diana Harvey, an employee of Gilman Yachts who handled the closing and paperwork associated with the sale of the Princessa del Mar, thought that Davis had represented himself to her as a licensed broker. The Princessa del Mar is a 105-foot Broward yacht built in 1984. Throughout the negotiations for Elliott's purchase, the Princessa del Mar was moored at docks in West Palm Beach, Florida. The listing broker for the Princessa del Mar was Richard Betram Yachts, Inc. Gary Fisette (Fisette) was the licensed broker handling the listing. Davis requested that Fisette send him the listing specifications on the Princessa del Mar. Fisette sent the specifications to Davis by facsimile transmission and by mail to Davis' Palm Beach office. Davis and Gilman met with Elliott onboard the Princessa del Mar in June 1997 for Elliott to view the yacht. The two discussed the yacht, including the purchase of the yacht, with Elliott. Davis also discussed placing the yacht into charter service to cover some of the costs of the purchase, operation and maintenance of the yacht. Davis met with both the buyer and seller alone and with Gilman and Fisette. On July 3, 1997, Elliott signed an initial purchase contract, offering $1.5 million for the Princessa del Mar on the condition of a sea trial and survey satisfactory to him. Davis signed the contract on the witness line. On July 16, 1997, Fisette sent a letter by facsimile transmission to Davis at his Palm Beach office with information on the engine rebuild on the Princessa del Mar that Davis had discussed with him. Fisette also wrote that the owner would sign and return the agreement by facsimile transmission. Davis arranged for William Seger to conduct the survey. Davis also arranged for the sea trial, which was conducted along the Intracoastal Waterway in Florida. Davis, Gilman, and Elliott attended the sea trial. Captain John Lloyd piloted the yacht. Davis arranged for some engine repair to the yacht. On August 5, 1997, Diana Harvey sent the executed purchase agreement and addendum to Davis at his Palm Beach office. On the same day, Gilman advised Elliott by facsimile transmission with a copy to Davis at his Palm Beach office that the yacht should be hauled for an inspection of the bottom. Gilman and Elliott met to negotiate the final offer. The closing was scheduled in the Bahamas. On September 3, 1997, Gilman confirmed his conversation with Davis about their agreement to reduce their commission by $4,000 toward the seller's request of an additional $12,000 to close the transaction. At the conclusion of the transaction, Gilman received a commission check from the attorney handling the closing. Davis directed Gilman and Harvey to pay his share of the commission, $19,500, in five separate checks: $5,000 to himself as his commission, $1,000 to Foley Law Office for legal fees for the yacht, $1,000 to A. Stokes and $9,500 to Peter Gollsby for reimbursement for expenses for the yacht, and $3,000 to Bill Seger for the survey. A check for $2,850 was also given to Davis for repairs to the yacht. Davis picked up the checks in person from Ms. Harvey at Gilman Yachts. Davis claims that any brokering activities that he may have done were not done in the State of Florida. He claimed that calls to his Palm Beach office were forwarded to Rhode Island, and that only conversations between him and Elliott concerning chartering services and assisting with Elliott's due diligence activities took place in Florida. Davis' claims are rejected as not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered requiring Thomas I. Davis to cease and desist from engaging in yacht and ship brokerage activities in Florida and imposing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Ashley R. Pollow, Esquire Atrium Financial Center 1515 North Federal Highway, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432-1994 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Broward County School Board has good cause to non- renew Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida, Inc.'s Charter School Agreement.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 2001, the School Board approved the initial Charter School Agreement that allowed Parkway Academy to open. The original contract was effective for a ten-year period, which ended on June 30, 2011. Parkway Academy was assigned school location number 5181. Parkway Academy serves students from both Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Parkway Academy is located on Broward College Campus and the 2011-2012 school year enrollment was approximately 517 students. Eighty-five students were in Parkway Academy's most recent graduating class and 84 were accepted into college. Charter schools are part of the public school system and are required to follow the same precepts as a public school. During the 2010-2011 school year, the school district conducted a program review of Parkway Academy's Charter to determine if the charter should be renewed. After the first program review conducted during the 2010-2011 school year, the School Board determined that Parkway Academy had academic performance and programmatic deficiencies. As a result of the deficiencies, the School Board only granted Parkway Academy a one-year renewal Charter. Parkway Academy's Charter was renewed for the 2011-2012 school year, permitting the school to operate through June 30, 2012. The Charter Agreement mandated that Parkway Academy "provide educational services in accordance with the terms of [the] charter school agreement." The Charter School Agreement provided the following contractual performance obligations in Section 2.D: "Any non- renewal cancellation or termination of the Charter shall be subject to Section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, and the terms of this Charter." Section 2.D.1. of the Charter prohibited Parkway Academy from being designated a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years and provided the following non-renewal provisions: a failure by the School to participate in the state's education accountability system created in section 1008.31 or failure to meet requirements for student performance stated in this Charter. * * * (f) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four(4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform to current state law or rules; Section 2.D.1.a of the Charter delineated what constitutes "good cause" for charter termination or non-renewal and read in pertinent part: "Good cause" for termination or non-renewal shall include, but not be limited to, the following: * * * (2) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four (4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than "Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform with the current state or rules. * * * (22) any other good cause shown, which shall include without limitation, any material breach or violation by the School of the standards, requirements or procedures of this Charter such as: * * * (c) the School's failure to fulfill all the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) * * * (t) a failure by the School to fulfill all of the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by NCLB Section 11.D of the Charter provided the requirements for teacher certification and highly qualified teachers and read in pertinent part: All teachers employed by or under contract to the School shall be certified and highly qualified as required by Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes and any other applicable state of federal law. Criteria developed by the School for hiring all other staff (administrative and support staff) shall be in accordance with their educational and/or experiential backgrounds that correspond to the job responsibilities they will be expected to perform. If the School receives Title I funds, it will employ highly qualified staff. In compliance with those requirements, the School's teachers shall be certified and teaching in-field and the School's support staff shall have attained at least Two (2) years of college education or have passed an equivalent exam. The School may employ or contract with skilled selected non-certified personnel to provide instructional services or to assist instructional staff members as education paraprofessionals in the same manner as defined in Chapter 1012 and as provided by State Board of Education rule for charter school Governing Boards; however, in order to comply with NCLB requirements, all teachers in core academic areas must be certified/qualified based on Florida Statutes and highly qualified as required by NCLB. The School agrees to disclose to the parents of its students the qualifications of instructional personnel hired by the School. Parkway Academy's Charter Agreement for the 2011-2012 school year was signed by the parties on or about March 3, 2011, and went into effect July 1, 2011. The School District conducted its next renewal review of Parkway Academy during the last week of October and first week of November of 2011 to determine if the charter school renewal should go beyond the 2011-2012 school year. Diane Rogers ("Rogers"), Personnel Administrator for the Certification Department, audited and reviewed Parkway Academy's instructors and the courses each instructor was teaching. On or about October 26, 2011, Rogers retrieved teacher assignment information from the Data Warehouse1 and reviewed the instruction assignments and qualifications for the 2011-2012 school year to make a determination if each of Parkway Academy's teachers were certified, teaching in field, out of field, highly qualified, or not highly qualified for the teaching assignments he/she had been given. After completing the teacher review audit, Rogers identified the following five faculty members who lacked appropriate teacher certification: John Ahrens ("Ahrens"), Valerie Cedant ("Cedant"), Jerry Goodbolt ("Goodbolt"), Talondra Ingram ("Ingram"), and Uriel Williams ("Williams"). Rogers found Ahrens was teaching auto mechanics and auto tech but did not have the required Broward certificate. Rogers notified Parkway Academy in November 2011 that Ahrens needed a Broward teaching certificate. Rogers also found that Cedant previously had a temporary certificate, which expired June 30, 2011, and Ingram's temporary certificate had also expired before the 2011-2012 school year. Additionally, Goodbolt was working at the school without ever applying for a teaching certificate. While assessing the Parkway Academy, Rogers also discovered Williams had applied for a certificate from the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE"). FDOE determined his status was ineligible for a Florida educator's certificate in any area. Therefore, Rogers properly categorized Williams as not highly qualified to teach his assignments, Physical Education, Personal Fitness and Health Education, for the school because Williams did not have the basic requirement, a Florida educator's certificate. Rogers also identified the following eight teachers who did not have the required highly qualified2 status when she did her review: Floyd Barber ("Barber"), Cedant, Ingram, Gleandeal Johnson ("Johnson"), Lee Kornhauser ("Kornhauser"), Hyaptia Mata ("Mata"), Roxanna Smilovich ("Smilovich"), and Manage Vincent ("Vincent"). Rogers determined that Cedant was not highly qualified in that Cedant was precluded from the status because she did not have a valid educator's certificate and was also teaching improperly out of field without a valid educator's certificate. Rogers determined that Barber was not highly qualified to teach his assignment, Literature and Arts, since his FDOE certification was in Business Education. Therefore, he was improperly teaching out of field at Parkway Academy. Rogers also found in her review that Johnson had a FDOE certificate in Business Education 6 through 12 but she was assigned to teach Journalism, which requires FDOE certification either in English 6 through 12, Journalism, or English 5 through Therefore, Johnson was not highly qualified to teach Journalism because she was teaching out of field improperly, and she had not met the requirements. Rogers also discovered during her audit that Kornhauser was FDOE certified in Math 5 through 9, which allows him to teach middle school grade level math but he was assigned to teach Business Math and Math for College Readiness, which requires a Mathematics 6 through 12 certification. Therefore, Rogers determined that Kornhauser was not highly qualified to teach his assigned courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Rogers' review of Mata found that she was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, Chemistry, and Physics, all three of which required certifications other than Biology. Rogers determined Mata was not highly qualified to teach the three courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Upon review, Rogers found that Smilovich's FDOE certification was in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, which requires certification in Chemistry, Physics, Earth Space Science, or General Science 5 through 9. Rogers' audit also determined that Smilovich was not highly qualified for her assigned class, and she was improperly teaching Earth Space Science out of field. Rogers' review also found Vincent was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but Vincent was teaching Chemistry, which requires a certification in Chemistry 6 through 12. Rogers determined that Vincent was not highly qualified for the teaching assignment and was improperly teaching Chemistry out of field. Parkway Academy employed and had the following instructors teaching out of field for the 2011-2012 school year without the proper credential for the core course of instruction they were assigned: Cedant, Ingram, Johnson, Kornhauser, Mata, Smilovich, Vincent, and Williams. Seventeen out of the 52 classes at Parkway Academy were being taught out of field. After discovering the teachers who were teaching out of their fields during her audit, Rogers also checked to determine if Parkway Academy had complied with the requirement to notify the parents that their children had teachers providing instruction out of field. Rogers found that Parkway Academy had only notified parents partially regarding Vincent and Mata. She concluded that the newsletter notification was incomplete for Mata because it listed only one of her areas being out of field, and it failed to notify the parents about the other instructors teaching out of field. Rogers concluded her audit by determining that Parkway Academy did not comply with the Charter School Agreement and laws because the school failed to employ teachers who all had valid teaching certificates, failed to have all of its teachers teaching in the appropriate field, failed to correctly designate teachers who were highly qualified to teach core curriculum subject areas, and failed to correctly notify parents that their children were being taught by teachers who were out of field. Rogers emailed Parkway Academy on or about December 1, 2011, and requested updated information on the status of each deficiency regarding the instructors that lacked the proper certification and/or qualifications that she had discovered during her review. Parkway Academy provided Rogers an email update the next day on each teacher Rogers had listed in the email of December 1, 2011, that was not in compliance, but Parkway Academy never provided Rogers any replacement teachers' names or certifications to verify compliance as she requested. During December 2011, Parkway Academy took the following measures to correct some of the teacher certification and qualification deficiencies. Parkway Academy replaced Cedant, Ingram, and Smilovich with certified, highly qualified teachers. Also, Parkway Academy changed Barber, Johnson, and Kornhauser's core course codes to courses they were certified to teach. Parkway also obtained out of field agreements with Mata and Vincent to teach courses they were not certified to teach while each worked on certification in the area they were teaching. The School Board's Testing and Assessment Department also reviewed Parkway Academy's Charter. Among other things, the Department looked at Parkway Academy's Adequate Yearly Progress ("AYP"), the measure of school performance used to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB"). The Testing and Assessment Department found that Parkway Academy did not meet AYP for the latest school year 2010-2011, which was reported after the signing of the renewal Charter School Agreement in March 2011. Additionally, the Department determined that the failure to meet the requirements for student performance for the 2010-2011 school year meant Parkway Academy had failed to make AYP for the following eight consecutive years: 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. Parkway Academy's failure to meet the AYP for eight consecutive years earned the school the status of a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years. Parkway Academy failed to operate in compliance with the Charter School Agreement. The Certification Department's audit review report which showed a failure to use instructors that had the proper certification and/or qualifications for a substantial part of the year, combined with the Testing and Assessment Department's review results that concluded the Respondent was a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years due to failing to make AYP for eight consecutive years, caused a recommendation to be made to the School Board to non-renew Parkway Academy's Charter. On March 20, 2012, the School Board voted not to renew Parkway Academy's Charter. A Proposed Non-Renewal of its Charter notice was sent to Parkway Academy. On April 4, 2012, the School Board received Parkway's letter dated April 2, 2012, requesting a hearing upon the proposed Charter non-renewal, which was forwarded to the DOAH. The day of the formal hearing, Ahrens obtained a vocational certificate, which qualified him to teach auto mechanics and auto tech. Kornhauser neither had applied for nor obtained mathematics certification for grades 6 though 12.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board, enter a final order declining to renew the Charter School Agreement for Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida Inc., upon both the statutory and contractual grounds of (1) failure to meet the requirements for student performance stated in Parkway Academy's Charter including the school's status as a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years; (2) failure to use instructors having proper certification and/or qualifications; (3) failure to have teachers teaching in their fields; and (4) failure for Parkway Academy to disclose the out of field qualifications to the students' parents. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2012, 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 10th day of August, 2012.
