Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Alexander J. Milanick should be required to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,976.00 to Petitioner Charles Osborne to compensate Petitioner for his defense of an ethics complaint filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Beverly Beach, Florida has a population of about 600 located in Flagler County, Florida. It is about one mile from north to south, and occupies about .4 square miles. It is bounded on the west by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Highway A1A is the main north-south route through the town. Mr. Osborne is an aerospace engineer who served on the Beverly Beach Town Commission from 1997 through March 1999. He was mayor from March 1999 until 2001. He has lived at 2641 Osprey Circle, in Beverly Beach, in a home constructed at that location, since 1995. This residence is closer to the southern boundary of Beverly Beach than to the northern boundary. Dr. Milanick is a dentist who, along with his brother John, and a person named McGee, during times pertinent, owned land immediately north of Beverly Beach. On the property then and currently owned by Dr. Milanick, and east of A1A, is a restaurant named the Shark House. The premises has also been known as Crabby Joe's. In 1995, Dr. Milanick applied to the Town Commission to have his property, and that of his brother, and that of McGee, annexed into the town limits of Beverly Beach. He did this by asking a Mr. Taylor to do what was necessary to cause the annexation to occur. Mr. Taylor thereafter filed a petition with the Town Commission. By Ordinance 95-9-4, the Town Commission, in 1995, assented to the request and it was made effective November 15, 1995. The Ordinance purported to annex the Milanick property into the Town of Beverly Beach and to zone it general commercial. Mr. Osborne was not a member of the Town Commission and was not mayor during this time. The Ordinance, however, was defective in four ways. The Ordinance purported to annex the property into Bunnell, Florida; it was not properly signed by all commissioners; it was not publicly noticed; and it did not provide a legal description of the property. It was not filed with either the Flagler County Clerk of the Court or the Florida Secretary of State. The matter languished until 1997 when Dr. Milanick determined that his property had not in fact been moved within the boundaries of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick brought this to the attention of the Town Commission in October 1997. At a Town Commission meeting on December 3, 1997, the Town Attorney stated that he had not had a chance to look into the Milanick and Shark House issue. At a Town Commission meeting on February 4, 1998, Dr. Milanick inquired as to the progress being made on the annexation of his property and was told that the Town Attorney would get with him and discuss the procedure. Subsequently, the Town Attorney, Pat McCormick, suggested that it would be necessary to start the process from the beginning if the land was to be annexed. At a Town Commission meeting on March 4, 1998, Mayor Osborne stated that there was no benefit to the annexation of the Shark House. One member of the Town Commission suggested that they honor past commitments. Dr. Milanick was in attendance at this meeting. At a Town Commission meeting on May 5, 1999, Dr. Milanick and his brother again attended the Town Commission meeting and requested the annexation of their property and discussed the procedure that would be necessary. At a Town Commission meeting on June 2, 1999, a motion was made to go forward with Ordinance 95-9-4 and to amend the official city map and legal description to include the Shark House property. The motion passed but Mayor Osborne vetoed it. During a regular monthly meeting of the Town Commission on July 7, 1999, James Kearn, an attorney retained by Dr. Milanick, who was authorized to act for Dr. Milanick, appeared and requested that the Commission direct the Town Clerk to sign Ordinance 95-9-4 and to forward it to the county and the state in order to determine if the Ordinance was valid. This request was approved by the Town Commission. Mayor Osborne, vetoed the measure. Thereafter, the veto was over-ridden by the Commission. At a Town Commission workshop on July 21, 1999, there was additional discussion regarding the annexation of the Shark House. Mr. Kearn accused Mayor Osborne of discussing the Milanick annexation matter with Sid Crosby, Clerk of the Court of Flagler County. Mayor Osborne denied the charge. The discussion became heated and accusatory and Mayor Osborne threatened to have the sheriff eject Mr. Kearn from the meeting. Subsequent to the action of the Town Commission of July 7, 1999, the Town Clerk, Douglas Courtney, took Ordinance 95-9-4 to Syd Crosby, Clerk of the Court for Flagler County. In a memorandum dated July 26, 1999, Mr. Courtney reported to the Town Commission that Mr. Crosby would not file Ordinance 95-9-4 because it was defective. One of the defects cited was that the instrument purported to annex the land into the City of Bunnell, Florida. No creditable evidence was adduced which indicated that Mayor Osborne visited Syd Crosby for the purpose of preventing the recording of the annexation of Dr. Milanick's property. Mr. Crosby concluded from the beginning that Ordinance 95-9-4 was not recordable. Mayor Osborne suggested some solutions which would permit the annexation, including, re-submission of a proper application. Over a period of time some "glitch" bills were considered which would annex the land. However, none passed. Mr. Kearn attended the Town Commission meeting on February 2, 2000, and the minutes of the meeting noted that he was accompanied by "a person taking notes." Following this meeting, in a February 16, 2000, letter to Dennis Knox Bayer, Town Attorney, Mr. Kearn claimed that Mayor Osborne had a personal vendetta against Dr. Milanick, and that he was exercising dictatorial efforts to prevent citizens to speak at town meetings. He further demanded that ". . . all Town officials, including you as their representative, refrain from saying things that are simply and blatantly false, which only serve to incite Mr. Milanick." At a town meeting on March 1, 2000, Mr. Kearn complained about the annexation not being on the agenda and Mayor Osborne stated that a request for inclusion on the agenda had not been made in writing. Mr. Kearn was permitted to speak for three minutes, he spoke for three minutes, and immediately thereafter Mayor Osborne adjourned the meeting. On or about April 25, 2000, Dr. Milanick and his brother John, filed suit against the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne personally, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Flagler County. The suit alleged that the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne violated the civil rights of the Milanicks. The suit alleged that Mayor Osborne had a vendetta against Dr. Milanick and should be held personally liable to Dr. Milanick. The Circuit Court dismissed the civil rights count against Mayor Osborne and the town, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Circuit Court also dismissed the mandamus action, finding that the 30- day limitations' period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari applied and that a prima facie case for mandamus had not been established. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on October 19, 2001, remanded that count to the Circuit Court with directions to grant the petition for mandamus, but upheld the dismissal of the civil rights counts. On January 23, 2003, the Circuit Court entered its Alternative Writ of Mandamus. The Writ incorporated the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint by reference and ordered that the Defendants take whatever steps necessary to sign and record Ordinance 95-9-4. When this occurred, Mr. Osborne was no longer an elected official of Beverly Beach. The Circuit Court complaint filed by Dr. Milanick recited that the recording of the ordinance did not occur because Mayor Osborne conferred with the Clerk of the Court to block recording of the ordinance. The adoption of the matters recited in the complaint as true, by the appellate court, does not make them proven facts because no evidence was taken in the case. The complaint, moreover, alleges actions, such as being tyrannical and peevish, which could not in any event constitute a violation of a person's civil rights. The complaint does not allege that Mr. Osborne took any action, as mayor, because he wished to obtain a personal advantage and does not allege that the annexation of Dr. Milanick's real property would affect Mr. Osborne's real property in terms of value or otherwise. As of the date of the hearing, Dr. Milanick's property had not been annexed into the corporate limits of Beverly Beach. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor, was not helpful in causing the annexation to occur and it is apparent that his relations with Mr. Kearn were not amicable. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor was irascible, intimidating, and controlling. Mr. Osborne believed that the annexation would bring no benefit to Beverly Beach and believed it would, "change the town's character." Mr. Osborne gained nothing directly or personally by preventing, or making difficult, the annexation of Dr. Milanick's land. As an elected official, he was permitted to advance his own ideas with regard to what he believed would be best for Beverly Beach and for himself as a citizen and property owner of Beverly Beach. He could act in this regard so long as he did not secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, as opposed to a general benefit. A letter signed by Mr. Kearn dated July 18, 2003, accompanied by an affidavit signed by Dr. Milanick, requested that the Commission conduct an investigation into the activities of Mr. Osborne during the period when he was the mayor of Beverly Beach. For reasons which become apparent hereafter, this letter, which had the words "Via Airborne Overnight Mail" stamped on its face, will be hereinafter referred to as the "Airborne" letter. The following statements were contained in the "Airborne" letter: Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land into the Town as a general commercial, simply because he personally did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town. He also met with the former Clerk of Court for Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to persuade the Clerk to not record anything regarding the annexation of such land, in order to prevent the completion of the annexation. He thus plainly put his purely personal concerns, ahead of his duties as mayor, and fiduciary duty to the citizens of Beverly Beach. The mayor still refused to oblige the Town's request, or to honor the duly adopted resolution, for his own personal reasons, irrespective of his duties as mayor to the citizens of Beverly Beach.... Even worse, he met with the former Clerk of Circuit Court of Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to attempt to persuade Mr. Crosby to not record any ordinance presented by the Town, annexing the Milanicks' property. Mayor Osborne repeatedly ignored and defied the will of the Town to complete the annexation, to pursue his own personal agenda, i.e., stopping annexation of land as general commercial. The "Airborne" letter then parroted items that indicated that the Circuit Court had found to be true, as follows: Additionally, Mr. Osborne simply does not allow anyone to speak with whom he disagrees, or to address matter that he does not want addressed. Mayor Osborne has... refused to put the Milanicks' matters or requests on the Town Council agenda; taken action regarding the Milanicks' properties, without any notice to the Milanicks, or without knowledge by the Milanicks that such action was being taken against their property, as required by the Town's own law; refused to allow the Milanicks to speak to matters that affect their personal and property interests, once the Town Council had opened discussion regarding the annexation and zoning of the Milanicks' properties; blatantly and willfully misrepresented the Milanicks' positions, actions, and statements at Town meetings, beyond the scope of the privilege normally attendant to a politician's statements at such meeting, in order to defeat the Milanicks' requests, and to harm the Milanicks; refused to honor Ordinances passed by previous Town councils, as detailed above; refused to follow through with completing the annexation approved by previous council members of the Town; worked to undercut the recording of the completion of the signing of the ordinance, and the recording of the ordinance, to complete the annexation, all as detailed above. The matters in paragraph 25, are misleading because they indicate that the Circuit Court found these items to be true when in fact no evidentiary proceedings with regard to these items occurred in the Circuit Court. Moreover, the Complaint alleged several matters which Dr. Milanick either knew to be untrue, or should have known that it was untrue. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that Mayor Osborne "did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town." This allegation implies that he was acting for some personal and specific reason financial reason, as opposed to a general opposition to development. This allegation, had it been true, would have been actionable pursuant to Section 112.313(6) The Complaint also alleged that Mayor Osborne met with Syd Crosby in order to prevent the annexation of the Milanicks' property. This allegation, coupled with the allegation as to a financial interest, bolsters the asserted improper purpose. Based on this Complaint, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate, which was filed with the Commission on September 26, 2003, and assigned Complaint Number 03-091. Investigator Travis Wade of the Commission was directed to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether or not there was probable cause to believe a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, had occurred. That section reads as follows: (6) Misuse of public position.--No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. Mr. Osborne learned of the Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate and thereafter retained Robert J. Riggio, of the firm of Riggio & Mitchell, P.A., located in Daytona Beach, as his attorney. Mr. Riggio worked on the case from October 24, 2003, until September 29, 2004. He charged $150 per hour, which is below the customary charge in the Daytona Beach area, and the hourly rate therefore, is reasonable. He expended 33 hours which is reasonable. He expended $180 in costs. These expenditures totaled $4,976 which was billed to Mr. Osborne. He paid the bill. On April 6, 2004, a second letter dated July 18, 2003, was sent to the Commission by Mr. Kearn by facsimile. This will be referred to as the "Fax" letter. This was precipitated by a request to Mr. Kearn from Investigator Wade that he provide a copy of the original letter. The "Fax" letter differed from the "Airborne" letter. In the second paragraph of the "Fax" letter the following sentence appears: "Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land just north of Mr. Osborne's manufactured home . . . ." And in the fourth paragraph of the "Fax" letter, the following sentence appears: "The Mayor objected, because it would serve to annex land as general commercial, just north of his own manufactured home." It further stated that his motivation was ". . . stopping land as commercial near him." Mr. Kearn testified under oath that when Investigator Wade was discussing the case with him, that he, Mr. Kearn, realized the "Fax" letter was a draft that had been sent to Investigator Wade in error. Mr. Kearn said that the "Fax" letter was a draft that had subsequently been edited by Dr. Milanick who knew, July 18, 2003, that Mr. Osborne did not live in a manufactured home located immediately south of the property which was sought to be annexed. Mr. Kearn said that it the "Airborne" letter was supposed to be the operative document. He said that he realized that the "Fax" letter was being used by Investigator Wade when he was talking to him on the telephone on June 8, 2004, and that he advised Investigator Wade of the error. He testified that he made it perfectly clear to Investigator Wade that the "Airborne" letter was the operative document. Investigator Wade's Report of Investigation, however, recites that during the telephone interview of Mr. Kearn, that Mr. Kearn advised him that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property, while he served as mayor and that Mr. Osborne's interest in stopping the annexation was to use his position for his personal benefit. At the hearing, Investigator Wade stated under oath that Mr. Kearn advised him during their telephone conversation that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property while he was serving as mayor. Investigator Wade stated that the issue of whether or not Mr. Osborne lived in the immediate vicinity of the Milanick property was the key element in his investigation because if that were true, stopping the annexation could be a personal benefit to Mr. Osborne. Mr. Wade was a disinterested and credible investigator and witness and his testimony is taken as true and accurate. Mr. Osborne did not live in either a manufactured or mobile home. The type of home he lived in is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Mr. Osborne did not live adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the Milanick property. In fact, Mr. Osborne did not live near the north side of town. He lived closer to the south side of town and it is unlikely that the annexation of the Milanick property would have an economic effect on Mr. Osborne's property. Mr. Kearn was aware of Mr. Osborne's resident address because he had him served with a civil suit at his residence in 2000. Mr. Kearn knew that Mr. Osborne did not live in a mobile home community, or in a manufactured home near the Milanick property, or anywhere near it. Nevertheless, he asserted that to be true when he talked to Investigator Wade. Mr. Kearn is the attorney and agent of Dr. Milanick. Mr. Kearn is, therefore, the alter ego of Dr. Milanick so that the actions of Mr. Kearn, are the actions of Dr. Milanick. The Commission, found in their Public Report, dated September 8, 2004, that Mr. Osborne's opposition to the annexation was not connected to any desire to secure a benefit for himself. The Commission dismissed the Milanick complaint on a finding of "no probable cause."
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter an order requiring Dr. Milanick to pay Mr. Osborne $4,976.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James J. Kearn, Esquire James J. Kearn, P.A. 138 Live Oak Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-4912 Gary S. Edinger, Esquire 305 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Martin A. Pedata, Esquire Martin Pedata, P.A. 505 East New York Avenue, Suite 8 DeLand, Florida 32724 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact In late December, 1991, the Department decided to seek space for a move of its regional toll operations office currently located in Lake Worth, Florida. This office provides administrative support for toll personnel and the distribution of supplies and maintenance equipment for the nine toll plazas between Ft. Pierce and Lantana. This move was sought because the Department had outgrown its current office and concurrently therewith, a decision was made to seek a more centralized location to better service the existing and two additional toll plazas sought. Under the existing procedures before letting any lease the Department must seek and receive approval of the Department of General Services, (DGS), leasing office for the proposal. Consistent therewith, a letter of agency staffing was prepared to justify the amount of space the office would need. DGS approved the Department's request for the lease on December 27, 1991, and assigned lease No. 550:0234 to the procurement action. By that approval, the Department was authorized to begin soliciting quotes for the lease of 2,985 square feet of office space. Since the proposed lease was for less than 3,000 square feet, under existing DGS rules the procurement did not have to be competitively bid. The Department's request to DGS sought office space in either Jupiter or Palm Beach Gardens and described the requirement for the property as being centrally located on Florida's Turnpike between the Ft. Pierce and Lantana plazas. Six prospective landlords submitted quotes for this space. They were Worth Realty and Management Co. Inc.; Cascio Real Estate, Inc.; Elizabethan Interiors; Petitioner, Kohno Corporation, USA; Deitz Realty Company; and Paramount Real Estate Services, Inc. Several of the quotes submitted by other than Petitioner, Deitz Realty and Paramount Realty, were rejected right away for various reasons. The Worth Realty quote was rejected because the proposed location, (Lake Worth), the current location, did not meet the basic geographic criteria specified by the Department, and in addition, the future status of the building was uncertain because the owners had recently declared bankruptcy. Cascio Real Estate's bid required a $2,000.00 non-refundable deposit just to hold the space until a lease was signed, which the Department was not authorized to post, and Elizabethan's space was eliminated because it had been leased prior to the Department evaluation. This left three quotes for consideration - those of Petitioner, Deitz and Paramount. These three quotes were evaluated on the basis of the criteria, equally applied to all, which was specified by the Department's regional office in conjunction with its lease coordinator. Review revealed that Petitioner offered 2,925 square feet of space on the second floor of its building. The Department was seeking 2,985 square feet of space and any space for future growth over Petitioner's initial offering of 2,925 square feet would have been on a different floor, losing the contiguity of the office. The Department also preferred ground floor space for ease of access for the numerous deliveries and pick ups of supplies which takes place at the regional office as well as for the convenience of the many visitors to the office. Petitioner claims the distance from its parking area to its proposed office was minimal and serviced by elevator, but the Department's preference is still valid. In addition, the space offered by Petitioner included a private balcony and a private bathroom in that area which would be designated as the regional manager's office. This type of accommodation is considered inappropriate for state offices. In addition, Petitioner's space was not already built out and would have required some remodeling to be usable by the Department. The Director of the toll facilities office, who had the ultimate authority to select the best quote, rejected Petitioner's submittal as non- responsive because it contained 60 feet less than the 2,985 square feet called for. This 60 square feet, however, is well within the 3% leeway which Ms. Goodman indicated was the standard for determining the responsiveness of an offer. Notwithstanding the fact that the square footage was within acceptable parameters, this does not necessarily mean the evaluator had to consider it as functionally acceptable, and he did not. In addition, he considered the second story location and the unacceptable private bath and balcony as adverse factors. Petitioner's space was offered at $15.85 per square foot for the first year of a six year lease with an increase of 5% per year over the term of the lease. Deitz Realty's property was quoted at $22.65 per square foot for the first year of the least with a 4% increase per year over the term of the lease. Paramount's property in the Sun Bank Building was also offered at $22.65 per square foot with the same increase as Deitz. Petitioner's offer would have saved in excess of $100,000.00 over the term of the lease. Price, however, was not the primary consideration when the various quotes were evaluated. More important was the operational need of the regional office, and therefore, the Department did not attempt to negotiate a lower price with any of the offerors even though it was entitled to do so under DGS's interpretation of the controlling leasing procedures. Instead, the Department considered of higher priority the ground floor location; the location closer to a Turnpike entrance; the potential for growth and where that growth would be located; and whether the space offered was ready for occupancy or would require modification. Based on all those considerations, the Department determined that the space proposed in Fairway Center, at $22.65 per square foot was more desirable and better suited to its needs than that offered by Petitioner at a lower price. However, because of correspondence received from the Petitioner, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation ordered an internal audit of the lease process utilized here. As a part of that audit, the auditor interviewed the personnel who had participated in the lease process both at the Department and at DGS; reviewed the statutes and both Department's rules and procedures relevant to this procurement; and reviewed the lease proposals. The report of this audit, accomplished according to normal Departmental procedure, indicated that only two of the six quotes received were responsive - those of Petitioner and Elizabethan Interiors, whose property had already been leased prior to evaluation. The other four offers were determined to be non-responsive either because the price exceeded the maximum rate allowed or for being outside the defined geographic area even though the Governor and Cabinet could approve an exception. This included Fairway Center. The audit report also concluded that in conducting this procurement, the Department had complied with normal leasing procedures and guidelines for this type of procurement. The report thereafter recommended that because of the above, it was in the best interests of the state to begin to re-solicit offers for this procurement, and also recommended that all offers already received be rejected. It further recommended that in any future procurement the requisite criteria to be used be documented in advance even though the procedure for leases of under 3,000 square feet of property did not require such documentation. Department of Transportation procurement procedures require that at least three responsive quotes be forwarded to the Department of General Services for evaluation. In the instant case, the audit conducted at the behest of the Secretary established that only two responsive bids had been received. This situation req uired a re-bidding or a new solicitation and based on that determination, all bids, including Petitioner's, were rejected. Petitioner's protest was filed as a result of that rejection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Kohno Corporation, U.S.A., in regard to the Department's rejection of all offers in the procurement of lease No. 550:0234 for the Regional Toll Office of the Florida Turnpike Authority in Palm Beach County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted but location was not the only basis for not choosing Petitioner's property. Accepted. Size alone was not the disqualifying factor. Rejected as an exercise in semantics. The Department made it very clear that it desired its office to be on a floor which provided direct access to the public and for deliveries without the necessity for the use of an elevator. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy Cropp Corporate Representative Kohno Corporation, U.S.A. 1615 Clare Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's Florida real estate sales associate license?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: 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, in particular Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, issued license number 3015177, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a sales associate with Diane Lynne Severino, P. O. Box 354491, Palm Coast, Florida 32135-4991. On or about August 6, 2004, Joaquin Torres and Marine Hopson (Torres) entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the real property located at 9 Rockwell Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Respondent was the sales associate on the above transaction. The closing did not occur on the above transaction. Additional Facts: According to Petitioner's records, the following constitutes the history of Respondent's sales associate license: Francis Anthony Severino, Sr., Sales Associate, License #SL-3015177 From January 1, 2004 to October 4, 2004, he was a sales associate affiliated with Team Real Estate, Inc. doing business as Realty Executives Fun Coast Team license number CQ 1008966, a brokerage corporation located at 185 Cypress Point Parkway, suite 4, Palm Coast, Florida 32164; From October 4, 2004 to March 31, 2005 said licensee was invalid due to no employing broker or no filing of a request to remain a sales associate under another broker. From March 31, 2005 to the Present he is a sales associate affiliated with Diane Lynne Severino license number BK 666867, a brokerage sole proprietorship doing business as Severino Realty located at 170 North Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. In his testimony Respondent indicated that his affiliation with Team Real Estate, Inc. ended on September 13, 2004, when he became inactive with that firm. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2 is a copy of a DBPR RE-2050-1 Request for Change of Status form intended to establish the separation from that business. Mark Vost the real estate broker for Team Real Estate, Inc. filled out, signed, and sent it in. It has a fax stamp of September 13, 2004. The request by Mark Vost to inactivate Respondent as a sales associate with Team Real Estate, Inc., through the form DBPR RE-2050, was dated September 13, 2004, and officially received by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation on October 4, 2004. More significantly, Respondent testified that he filled out a DBPR RE-2050-1 a Request for Change of Status to be affiliated with Severino Realty whose broker was Diane L. Severino. At that time, Ms. Severino was Respondent's wife. A copy of the Request for Change of Status is found as Respondent's Exhibit numbered 3. It is dated September 13, 2004. Unlike Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 3 does not have a fax stamp showing the date of transmission. Respondent indicated that he personally went to the fax machine in the office of Severino Realty and transferred his license to Petitioner by fax machine. On September 13, 2004, the date reflected on the form, Petitioner did not confirm the fax receipt by Petitioner. Respondent's explanation is that the fax machine upon which the transfer to Severino Realty of his sales associate license "did not have a receipt that prints out." Respondent in his testimony stated " . . . When I dialed the phone I got the dial tone, it rang, it answered, it made that beeping noise, and it never came and said anything that it did not go through and that it was an error. So I just assumed that it was accepted, because normally when a fax machine answers you, that beeping sound and it means that it is acknowledged and if it does not answer it’s a busy signal and you try dialing again." According to Respondent, from that point forward he assumed that his sales associate license had been transferred from Team Real Estate, Inc. to Severino Realty. It had not. Petitioner had evidence of the change of status of Respondent's license to inactive with Team Real Estate, Inc. It did not have evidence of the activation of Respondent's sales associates license with Severino Realty, even should one accept Respondent's testimony that he tried to fax the DBPR RE-2050-1 form designating a change in his broker to Diane L. Severino of Severino Realty on September 13, 2004. Ultimately the portrayal of Respondent's license history established in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1 is accepted where Respondent is recognized as being affiliated with Severino Realty commencing March 31, 2005. Respondent was involved with the Torres in a number of real estate transactions. One involved a purchase of a residence at 98 Ulysses Trail in Palm Coast, Florida, through a contract between Joaquine Torres and Holiday Builders, Inc. On July 21, 2004, the parties signed the contract. The total purchase price was $180,190.00. Respondent was named in the Sales/Forms FHA-VA- Std. in the portion of the forms described as "Realtor Referral" and Realty Executive is written next to his name. This is understood to refer to Team Real Estate, Inc. where Respondent was employed as a sales associate. The real estate commission involved with the purchase was 6 percent. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. The real estate commission due Realty Executives (Team Real Estate, Inc.) was $8,129.00 in Respondent's name. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. On September 24, 2004, when the purchase was settled at closing, the $8,1029.00 was paid, in relation to the property at 98 Ulysses Trail. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3. On September 24, 2004, the Torres as seller, with Severino Realty being reflected as the broker signed an Exclusive Right of Sale Listing Agreement for the 98 Ulysses Trail property. The price reflected was $229,800.00 with a broker's commission of 5.5 percent. The listing agreement bore one signature, that of the seller. The form did not name the authorized listing associate or broker. It referred to the brokerage firm name as Severino Realty. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. Earlier, Mr. Torres entered into a "Showcase Home Purchase Completed Field Model Agreement" with Holiday Builders, Inc. for a residence at 9 Rockwell Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. On August 6, 2004, the parties signed the agreement. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. On September 24, 2004, an Exclusive Rights of Sale Listing Agreement form was prepared between the Torres and Severino Realty on 9 Rockwell Lane, listing the sales price as $164,900.00. At the time, the Torres did not own the home. The brokerage commission was 5.5 percent. A seller's signature was attached. No other signature was provided. No one was listed as associate or broker. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. The Torres' contract on 9 Rockwell Lane never closed due to the inability of the Torres to provide sufficient funds to conclude the purchase. On October 7, 2004, the Torres executed a Promissory Note to pay Respondent $5,000.00 upon the first sale of homes at 98 Ulysses Trail, 9 Rockwell Lane and 14 Ethel Lane. The amount was to be paid in 180 days from the date of the note payable at PO Box 354491, Palm Coast, Florida 32135 or "at such other place as payee or holder may specify in writing or in person." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. On October 7, 2004, Mark Vost, broker/manager for Realty Executives Fun Coast Team Real Estate, Inc., wrote the title company that would be handling the closing on the 9 Rockwell Lane Property to advise that $5,000.00 of commission should be credited to the buyer with the balance of $879.00 being paid to Realty Executives the Fun Coast Team. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 8. This coincides with the settlement charges in the settlement statement for the 9 Rockwell Lane property that did not close on the anticipated date. October 12, 2004, was the scheduled closing date. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9. After the Torres purchase of 9 Rockwell Lane did not close, Respondent telephoned Ms. Torres and said that she would have to pay him $6,000 because of the percentage (commission) he was losing. He made more than one call. Respondent told Ms. Torres that the failure to close on the 9 Rockwell Lane property was not his problem. Respondent told Ms. Torres that she had to pay because she did not buy the property at 9 Rockwell Lane, that he lost his time and lost his commission and that it was her fault. Respondent told Ms. Torres to give him a check. Eventually, Respondent came to the Torres home to get money from the Torres that he said was due. Based upon the demand for money, Ms. Torres wrote a check payable to Frank Severino in the amount of $6,000.00. The face of the check stated the purpose for the check as "9 Rockwell Lane." The check was written on October 12, 2004, the date Respondent went to the Torres' home. The payment was not intended as any form of gift or gratuity to Respondent. Respondent deposited and cashed the check. A replica of the check and its execution is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 10.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 455.227(1)(n) and 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (e), Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking Respondent's sales associate license.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2007
Findings Of Fact In May 1979, Respondent issued invitation for bids for office space in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of establishing a combined claims, tax, and appeals unemployment compensation office in the West Palm Beach area. The lease on the present office in West Palm Beach expires in December, 1979. Two prior invitations for bids on the required office space had failed to result in the receipt of any bids. The invitation for bids provided that Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to make the award deemed to be in the best interests of the State of Florida. (Testimony of Bradner, Exhibit 15) On May 30, 1979, Petitioner Richard S. Weinstein submitted the sole bid in response to the May 1979 invitation. He proposed to lease his building located at 1814 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, and to meet all bid specifications and requirements. At the time of bid submission, Petitioner was leasing the building in question to a tenant who operated a used furniture store on the premises. In order to meet the specifications of the bid, the property required considerable renovation and improvement which Petitioner agreed to accomplish. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) A bid selection committee composed of four departmental employees in Respondent's Tallahassee headquarters was appointed to consider Petitioner's bid and arrive at appropriate recommendations. On June 7, 1979, one of the committee members, accompanied by several officials of the West Palm Beach Office, inspected Petitioner's building and the surrounding area to determine its suitability for the proposed unemployment compensation office. Based upon statements made by those officials and the building's tenant that the area was unsafe and subject to frequent vandalism and theft, the committee member thereafter recommended to the selection committee that the bid be rejected and that the Department should readvertise for new bids. The committee unanimously accepted the recommendation and, on June 13, 1979, Petitioner was advised in a letter from the Respondent's support services director that his bid had been rejected based on the "inability of the building to meet our programmatic needs." Petition thereafter protested the decision and, as a result, the Secretary of the Department, Wallace E. Orr, directed the entire committee to make an on-site evaluation of the property and surrounding area. Thereafter, on July 18, 1979, the committee visited the site. At this time, each committee member, together with one of the officials of the local office, inquired of various businessmen in the surrounding area as to local criminal activity and solicited their opinion as to safety and security problems. One of the committee members also telephoned a city police desk sergeant concerning crime statistics in the area. (Testimony of Petitioner, Lowhorn, Orr, Bradner, Exhibits 3-4, 12) Petitioner gave the committee members a petition from a number of local businessmen supporting his bid, and a letter from the nearby Good Samaritan Hospital advising that it may construct a medical office building adjacent to the hospital in the future. Letters were also sent to the Department by the manager of an apartment building adjacent to Petitioner's premises stating that the area was safe and that there had been no break-ins in more than four years, and from the Mayor of West Palm Beach to the Secretary of the Department describing the area and asserting that it was making a resurgence in character as a result of city improvements and that it was no more unsafe than most of the areas of the city. Another letter, dated July 20, 1979, was sent to the Department from the West Palm Beach Downtown Development Authority Executive Director stating that the area was growing, new buildings were being developed, and that the downtown area generally was becoming a "hub" for governmental facilities. Upon return to Tallahassee, each member of the bid committee rendered a report and recommendations concerning Petitioner's bid. They applied weighted criteria in its consideration, and concluded that the bid was unacceptable because it failed to meet the two criteria of "condition of immediate vicinity of location" and "security of the facility." In these respects, they basically found that (a) the various businesses in the area were essentially "fortified" against burglary and vandalism, (b) the proposed office would be subjected to break-ins and possible loss of valuable office equipment and unemployment compensation checks, (c) the local departmental employees would be fearful of working in an unsafe area and (d) an office located at Petitioner's premises would be "depressing" to members of the public who utilized the departmental services. No mention was made in the various reports of the petition or letters sent to the Department by civic officials. The committee again recommended rejection of the bid and, by letter of August 1, 1979, Petitioner was advised of this fact and that new calls for bids would be made in the near future. Secretary Orr had viewed the premises himself and agreed with the committee recommendations that the site was unsuitable for the establishment of a local office. He felt that placement of the office in the area where Petitioner's building was located would be inconsistent with departmental goals to upgrade their state offices and improve their "image." He had not been made aware of most of the various letters and the petition provided to the committee, but had considered the letter of the West Palm Beach Mayor prior to arriving at his decision. (Testimony of Butler, Frisch, Radner, Baker, Orr, Lowhorn, Renfroe, Quigg, Petitioner, Exhibits 6-10, 11-12, 16) The street on which Petitioner's building is located is commercial in nature, although it is on the fringe of a residential community. It is an older part of the city and, until about five years ago, was in a rundown and depressed condition. In recent years, however, there has been an upgrading of the character of the downtown area of West Palm Beach which extends northerly to encompass the businesses in Petitioner's vicinity. The establishment of governmental facilities in the downtown and adjacent areas have been encouraged and a state office building is located in the area. A Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services "halfway house" has been erected approximately two blocks from Petitioner's building. Additionally, a branch banking facility, professional offices, several quality restaurants, and other modern business establishments are in the near vicinity. A laundry plant is across the street from Petitioner's building and at the present time presents an unsatisfactory appearance. It is intended, however, by the owners to expand and remodel the building in the near future. The City of West Palm Beach has the second highest crime incident rate in the state based on population. The city is divided into ten zones for police purposes, and during 1978, the zone in which Petitioner's building is located was average from the standpoint of crime statistics. In the opinion of the City Chief Police Inspector, it is typical of the various commercial areas located along U.S. Federal Highway No. 1, and as safe an area in the daytime as any in the city. He is of the further opinion that a burglar alarm would be a sufficient security precaution for nighttime safety, and that with such protection, a building would have adequate security. The highest crime rate in the city is located in the zone where the city hall, police station and other governmental buildings are located. Although business and professional individuals in the area near Petitioner's building have experienced minor vandalism and occasional illegal entries in the past, they uniformly are of the opinion that the area is safe with normal security precautions, such as a burglar alarm. A local boat sales establishment has a fence around the premises and a watch dog, but no burglar alarm. These precautions are designed to protect the expensive boats which are located out- side the building. The apartment building next to Petitioner's premises has not experienced break-ins in recent years although some of its elderly patrons have been exposed to occasional purse snatching on the street. The laundry plant across the street from Petitioner's building experiences various window breakage by youths on the weekends, and had a break-in recently in the nighttime through a poorly secured door in the rear of the premises. (Testimony of Lowhorn, Stackhouse, Hauser, Hodges, Lee, Lunney, Eddy, Ring, Eaton, DeSanti, Witt (Deposition - Exhibit 1), Exhibits 12-14).
Recommendation That Petitioner's bid be accepted by Respondent and recommended for approval to the Department of General Services. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Moyle, Esquire 707 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr. and Chad J. Motes, Esquires Department of Labor and Employment Security 2561 Executive Center Circle E. Suite 131 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions Petitioner, Floxida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DBPR), and Respondent, Garald W. Rowley, hereby stipulate and agree that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (FREAB) issue a Final order adopting and incoxporating the provisiona of this Stipulation as final agency action in this cauge. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent ig and was, at all times material herein, a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RZ 967 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license the State issued Respondent was ag a STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL Real Estate Appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 2. Respondent admits being subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 478, Florida statutes, the Rules promulgated thereto and, therefore, to the jurisdiction of DBPR and the FREAB, 8090/2008 1¥837 340 OSZL21EL0b X¥4 PS.O1 S002/50/50 800/200 4 377 “SIddOH ONY NY¥YH440H 2ObE OB LSS X¥4 Bt OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 3. Respondent admita that DBPR served Reepondent with the Adminiatrative Complaint, charging Respondent with violation(s) of certain provigions of Chapters 455 and/or 475, Florida Statutes, and/or the Rules promulgated thereto. A copy of the Administrative Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in Counts Iz, IV, V, VII, and vitt of the Administrative Complaint, but ecenaeants to the Board's impesition of discipline on those counts and that such allegations constitute violations of the counts. 5. Respondent shall not in the futuxe violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the Rules promilgated thereto. 6. This Stipulation shall become effective immediately upon filing of the Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date"). All dates referenced herein shall commence to Yun on the Effective Date, unless otherwise specified herein. STIPULATED DISPOSITION 7. Fetitioner shall dismiss Counts I, III, VI, and IX of the Administrative Complaint. a. Respondent shall pay a fine of $1000 and $561 in costs. Respondent shall pay the fine and costs by saparate ¢hecks payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division 800/600 B 1v837 340 OSZ2LLEL0R XS PS .OL Bo00z/S0/50 800/600 B 377 ‘SISYOH ONY N¥YWS40H LOPE OF8 LSS X¥4 BL OL B00Z/20/50 DEPR vs. Geraid W. Rawley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation of Real Estate, within one (1) year from the Effective Date herein. 9, Suspension of Respondent’s real estate appraisal license shall be for a period of six (6) months, effective thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order. Reinstatement requires submission of proper forms. , 10, Respondent shall begin probation for a period of ane (1) year, beginning on the Effective Date herein, and shall have no trainees during the probationary period. During this time period, Respondent shall attend one (1) two-day FREAB general meeting, from the noticed time of the meeting te the duration of the meeting, not to exceed five o’cleck p.m. During this time period Respondent shall alse provide original evidence of satisfactory completion of continuing education appraisal courses totaling 45 hours, The education herein ig in addition to any requirement for Respondent to maintain his or her real estate appraisal license. Should Respondent completa tha above-listed requirement (s) beficre conclusion of the probationary period and previde satisfactory proof thereof, probation shall terminate. 11. Noncompliance with the terms of this Stipulation shall , xyeault in the suspension of Respondent’s appraisal license until Respondent submits satisfactory proof of compliance to DSPR; the period of suspeneaion shall not exceed ten (10) years. B00/ P00 8 V¥84a7 34o OSZLLLELOP X¥I GS.OL B002/G0/50 800/p00 A 317 ‘SI8HOH ONY N¥H4IOH 20PE OB LIS X¥4 BL-OL 6002/20/50 PAPR vs. Gerald W. Rowley Stipulation DRPR Case No. 2007013479 Reinstatement shall be effective ag of the date DBPR receives said Satisfactory proof of compliance, accompanied by the proper reinstatement forms. L2. Action of la. The FREAB Newe and Report shall publish a Summary of Final Order, as follows: (Delray Beach]: Gerald W. Rowley, Licenaa No. RZ 967; Violation: Failure to retain records for 5 years in violation of Sections 475.629 and 475.624(4), Florida Statutes relating to two appraisal reports in 2005 on a Subject Property in Wellington, Florida; violation of USPAP Standards Rule l-l(a), (b), and (c) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, relating to an incorrect sales history of the Subject Property, discrepancies between data sources on Comparable Sales, and aupport for adjustments; violation of USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(a) and Section 475.624(14), relating to selaction of Comparable Sales for said appraisal reports; violation of UBPAP Standarda Rule 2-1(a) and (b) and Section 475.624(14) relating to said appraisal reports; and violation of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b) (viii) and Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes relating to said appraisal reports. Penalty: $1000 fine plug costs, 6 months license suspension, no trainees during the one year probation, attendance at one 2-day FREAB meeting and completion of 45 houra of education in addition to that required for licensure. The parties understand that this Stipulation 4s subject to the approval of DBPR and of the FREAB, and that in the event of its disapproval, 800/500 800/500 & 1837 Jyd OS2LLLELOP 377 “SIYYON ONY N¥N440H LOPE OB L9G the game gahall have no further force and effect. X¥4d GS OL BoO02/G0/50 X¥4 BL OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs. Garald W. Rowley DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation 14. Respondent executes this Stipulation to avoid further administrative action with respect to this cause. Respondent authorizes the FREAB to review and examine all DBPR investigative materiale priexr to or in conjunction with consideration of this Stipulation. Further, in the event the FREAB disapproves this Stipulation, Respondent agrees that examination of any documente or records related thereto shall mot be deemed to have unfairly prejudiced DBPR, the FREAB or any of ita members, nor ehall such action disqualify any of them from further participation in the resolution of this cause. 15. Reapendent agrees that Petitioner may conduct further investigation at any time subsequent to the FREAB’s acceptance of this Stipulation, including, but not limited to, audits of Respondent's filee. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner shall have any and all rights and authority the law provides to insure Reaapondent’s compliance with Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the Rules promulgated therete. Respondent further agrees that DBPR and the FREAB may consider this Stipulation in connection with any future disciplinary proceeding. 16. The parties understand that this Stipulation and any final order adopting and incorporating its terms shall not preclude or deter DBPR or the FREAB from other diaciplinary proceedings g00/9008 WweAT add OSZAL1ELOb X¥4 9S.01 BOO*/S0/50 800/900 A 317 “STYYOW ONY N¥H4IOH 40bE OPB LIS X¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPRvs Gerald W Rowlay DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation against the Respondent for acts or omissions unrelated to those set forth in the Administrativa Complaint herein. 17. Respondent hereby waivas all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review or to othexwise challenge or conteat the validity or enforcement of the terms of this Stipulation and/or of any resulting final order of the FREAB adopting and incorporating game, 18. All parties hereto shall otherwise bear any and all attorney's fees and costs they may have incurred in connection with this cause. 19. Should Respondent withdraw from or in any Way Or manner cancel, annul, alter, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation prior to presentation or consideration by the FREAB, Respondent agrees to waive any rights to seek attorney's fees and costs Respondent may have incurred as the result of the disciplinary proceeding, up to and including the date of withdrawal from the settlement Stipulation or attempt to alter, change, annul, repudiate, or revoke the terms of this Stipulation. 20. The FREAB HAS NOT taken prior disciplinary actiom against Respondent. 8900/1008 1W¥837 aud OSZLALELOD =X¥5 SS OL 8002/50/50 800/100 8 377 ‘SIYYON ONY NVH440H ZOE OB LOS Xv¥4 O2 OL 6002/10/50 DBPR vs, Gerald W. Rowlay ‘ ‘ DBPR Case No. 2007013479 Stipulation DBPR ATTORNEY EXECUTION EXECUTED this i 1 day of VV 1, 2009. Denna Christine Linda Senior Attorney On behalf of the DBPR, DRE RESPONDENT EXECUTION EXECUTED this 7 day of { , 2009, Gerald W. Rowley BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, a, Ss J day of J , 2009 personally appeared wha is pais . known to me or who hag produced Cif n 1 L€eefcas identification and who ewore and subscribed to egoing. ms A the for NOTARY PUBLIC State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: \s 2". YENTIFER GOME bpcu MY COMMISS*UN « 9D756024 ey: CXPIRED Febuary 00, 2012 tamertcriaty Fl ream Unsecuot Aue Co 7 g090/800R} 1WO37 340 O8SLLLELOH Xd 2G-0L GO02/G0/S0 800/800 4 311 ‘SISYOW ONY N¥N440H 2OPE OPS 19S X¥4 LZ OL 6007/20/50 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ~ FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 2007013479 GERALD W. ROWLEY, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint against Gerald W. Rowley (“Respondent"), and alleges: ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT 1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475 of the Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. 2. Respondent is currently a Florida state certified general real estate appraiser having been issued license 967 in accordance with Chapter 475 Part I of the Florida Statutes. 3. The last license the State issued to Respondent was as a state certified general real estate appraiser at 4552 Highgate Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445. 4. On or about April 23, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report FDBPR vy. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administratrve Complaint (Report 1) on a property commonly known as 10766 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida 33487 (Subject Property). A copy of Report 1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. Report 1, prepared for purposes of refinancing by a private - lender, valued the Subject Property at $1.53 million. 5. On or about November 18, 2005, Respondent developed and communicated a second appraisal report (Report 2) on the same Subject Property. A copy of Report 2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. Report 2, prepared for purposes of refinancing at the request of the client WCS Lending, LLC, valued the Subject Property at $2.2 million. 6. Petitioner received a complaint concerning Reports 1 and 2 from the private lender, Oriel Tsvi (Tsvi). Tsvi complained that Respondent failed to use more suitable, available, and proximate Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood, the Comparable Sales relied on by Respondent were superior to the Subject Property, and their use resulted in overvaluation of the Subject Property. 7. Through investigation, the following errors were noted in Report 1: A) In Report 1, Respondent used Comparable Sales 1 and 2 in the Subject Property’s neighborhood, but the remaining two Comparable Sales relied upon were from other subdivisions; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2, 3, and 4 were all in excess of a mile distant from the Subject Property; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint D) In the comments to the Sales Comparison Analysis section of Report 1, Respondent directed the reader to a sales (sic: subject) history addendum that recited a prior sale of the Subject Property within the previous one year period from Nathan & Yoldie Vincent to Lorraine Smith Brooks and John Kibler in May 2004 for $226,000, when no such sale had occurred; E) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sales 1,2, and 4 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sale 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records, but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Comparable Sales 1 and 2 had different dates of construction; 2) Palm Beach County records showed Comparable Sale 1 to have 5 bedrooms, 6 baths and 2 half-baths, while Respondent reported 3 bedrooms and 2 baths; 3) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 1 had 5,570 square feet of Gross Living Area, while the Palm Beach Count Property Appraiser reported 7,544 square feet; 4) Respondent reported Comparable Sale 2 to have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, while Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records reflected 5 bedrooms and 5 % baths; 5) Respondent showed the gross living area for Comparable Sale 2 as 5,670 square feet, while the county records showed 6,542 square feet; 6) Respondent reported 6,715 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 4, while county records showed 5,568 square feet. 8. Respondent committed the following errors or omissions in Report 2: FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint A) Respondent utilized Comparable Sales 2 and 3, which were from different communities than the Subject Property; B) Respondent failed to use numerous recent, more suitable Comparable Sales from the Subject Property’s neighborhood (the Versailles PUD subdivision); C) Comparable Sales 2 and 3 were over a mile distant from the Subject Property; D) Respondent listed the condition for the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 1 as “excellent” but adjusted Comparable Sales 2 and 3 by + $5000 for “good” condition, without providing any explanation for the stated condition or adjustment; E) Respondent made significant upward adjustments in the Cost Approach Section of Report 2 over the previous values stated in Report 1 for site value increasing it from $575,000 to $1,150,000 in under 7 months, per square foot reproduction cost of the gross living area of the Subject Property increasing from $155 per square foot to $175 per square foot resulting in an overall increase in value of $113,985, and an increase for appliances without adequate explanation or analysis; F) Respondent listed data and/or verification sources for the Comparable Sales as ISC/Public Records (and MLS in the case of Comparable Sales 2 and 3), but failed to note discrepancies between the data sources as set forth below: 1) Respondent listed the site size of Comparable Sale 1 as 14,473 square feet when the Property Appraiser’s Office shows .28 acres, equivalent to 12,196 square feet; 2) The public records show Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 instead of 2005; 3) County records show 6,307 square feet for Gross Living Area for Comparable Sale 1 as opposed to the 5,708 square feet reported by Respondent; FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint 4) Respondents sole supporting documentation to support listed features of Comparable Sale 1 is a printout captioned “Competitive Market Analysis” (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3) dated 01/20/06, ( after the effective date of Report 2), which reported only the number of bedrooms, baths, living area square footage, date and amount of sale, lot size, dollars per square foot and year built; 5) The Competitive Market Analysis document reflects that Comparable Sale 1 was built in 2003 and not 2005 as stated, that Comparable Sale 1 had 6,959 square feet of gross living area and not 5,708 as reported by Respondent, and that Comparable Sale 1 was sold in November 2005 for $2,418,000 and not in October 2005 for $2,400,000 as stated by Respondent; 6) Respondent reported 6,101 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 2, but ISC records in Respondent’s work file show 6,261 square feet, MLS records in the work file report 6,101 square feet, and Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s records show 7,504 square feet; 7) Respondent reported 4,438 square feet of gross living area for Comparable Sale 3, while ISC records in Respondent’s work file showed 5,213 square feet and Property Appraiser’s records show 4,389 square feet. 9. Respondent was interviewed concerning the Cost Approach discrepancies between the two reports and stated that an unknown sales agent for the builder advised Respondent his per square foot reproduction cost was too low, that the site value increased with the increase in sales in the new development, and the $10,000 increase under “appliances” was for commencement of pool construction by the Subject Property’s owner. 10. Respondent acknowledged in the interview that the error in Report | regarding a non- 5 FDBPR v. Gerald W Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint existent prior sale was due to a “cloning” error from an earlier, unrelated report. COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of failure to retain records for at least five years of any contracts engaging the appraiser’s services, appraisal reports, and supporting data assembled and formulated by the appraiser in preparing appraisal reports in violation of Section 475.629, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Record Keeping Section of the Ethics Rule, or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-1(a), (b), and (c), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or 6 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication ofa real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 1-6(a), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-1(a) and (b),or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT VIII Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-2(b)(viii), or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IX Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically Standards Rule 2-3, or other provision of the 7 FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2005) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as may be appropriate, to issue a Final Order as final agency action finding the Respondent(s) guilty as charged. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication, or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 475.624, Florida Statutes and Rule 61J1-8.002, Florida Administrative Code. The penalties which may be imposed for violation(s) of Chapter 455 of the Florida Statutes, depending upon the severity of the offense(s), include: revocation of the license, registration, or certificate; suspension of the license, registration, or certificate for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; imposition of an administrative fine of up to $5,000 for each count or offense; imposition of investigative costs; issuance of a reprimand; imposition of probation subject to terms including, but not limited to, requiring the licensee, registrant, or certificate holder to complete and pass additional appraisal education courses; publication; restriction of practice; injunctive or mandamus relief: imposition of a cease and desist order; or any combination of the foregoing which may apply. See Section 455.227, Fla. Statutes and FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No. 2007013479 Administrative Complaint Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-8.002. SIGNED this 4 day of \ ( Lone , 2008. Florida Department of Business ak Professional Regulation Thomas O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER not 3 3 i; ~* % Sas : tonar Ces Ssionai SORE ae J dreviont of Profe Division af F Real Esiate D. C. Lindamood, Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 273694 Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 (407) 481-5632 (407) 317-7260 - FAX PCP: JH/PA 3/08 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PLEASE BE ADVISED that mediation under Section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to this Administrative Complaint you may request, within the time allowed by law, a hearing to be conducted in this matter in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes; that you have the right, at your option and expense, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative in this matter; and that you have the right, at your option and expense, to take testimony, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoena and subpoena duces FDBPR v. Gerald W. Rowley Case No 2007013479 Administrative Complaint tecum issued on your behalf if a formal hearing is requested. PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that if you do not file an Election of Rights form or some other responsive pleading with the Petitioner within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner will file with the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board a motion requesting an informal hearing and entry of an appropriate Final Order which may result in the suspension or revocation of your real estate license or registration. Please see the enclosed Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form. 10 APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL As Of: APRIL 23, 2005 Prepared For: Private Lender Private Lender Prepared By: SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 DMINIST RAI WE COWwPLAINT \AV exHiait #4 a a loAGe [OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, EXHIBIT # AGE vo SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-0448-05 Descnption UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No i Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City. WELLINGTON State FL _ ZipCode 33467 | Legal Description LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Ra_Assessors Parcol No_73-41-44-24-05-000-2840 ASSD $667,273 TaxYear__2004 _RE Taxes$_ 15,067 23 Special Assessments $ NIA Borrower sENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner_[ [tenant T [vacant Property nghts epprased _[X]Fee Simple _{ |Leasehotd Project Type |X ]PUD_[_[Condominum (HUDIVA only) OAS 358 00 tMo Neighborhood of Project Name VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference: 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 SalePrce_$§ REFINANCE _ Date ol Sale NIA Description and $ amount of loan charges/concessions to be paid by seller N/A Lender/Clent_Private Lender Addiess Private Lender @ Aopraser Gerald Rowley Address 1901 SW 5 AVE , MIAMI, FL 33129 Location Urban Rural Predominant [Single faruly housing [Prost ind we % Land use change _ Bult up K]Over75% (_]25-75% lUnder 25% | Occupancy S00) tet [One famty 95. lotlkely [_]ukely Growth rate Rapid Slow XJ Owner 245 low 5 | 2-4 family G In process: Property values [increasing [Dechnng 375 High 35 _| Mutt farmly To Demand/supply [__}Shortage Over supply 82] Predommant ['S5e| Commercial 5 Markeung tme_[ [Under 3 mos Over 6 mos 260-345| 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appratsal factors Nexghborhood boundaries and charactensties. FOREST HILL BLVO (NORTH) JOG ROAD (EAST), HYPOLUXO RD (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS & TOWNHOUSES, Factors that affect the marketability of the properties the nexghborhood (proxmty to employment and amenites employment stabaity, appeal (o market etc } THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 S MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD 70 EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. G Market conditions in the subject newghborhood (including suppart for the above conclusions refated to the trend of property values, demand/supply and marketing ume ~- such as data on competiive properties for sale in the neighborhood description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions etc) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE _TYPICAL a FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS. NEIGHBORHOOD Project Information for PUDs {ll applicable ~ Is the developerfbullder wn control ofthe Home Owners Association (HOA)? [X]¥es L_]No A Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13 E Describe common elements and recreational faciltes COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_MANNEO GUARO GATE, COMMON AREAS Dimensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography CEVEL Sileaea 42,632 SF Comer tot | ]¥es [XJNo | Sve TYPICAL OF AREA Spectfic zoning classification and descnpton PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [X] Legal gies nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [__}llegal [_]No Zonng | Drainage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as improved [X [Present use_[ ]Other use fexplan) View LAKEPRESID Utlites, Public Other Off ste Improvements: Type Public Private | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Electricity Keer Street ASPHALT Onveway Surface PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutter CONCRETE/GUTTER, Apparent easements UTILITY Water Py CITY Sidewalk CONCRETE FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (_|¥es [X]No Santary sewer [X Seetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES FEMA Zone B__MapDate_ 02/01/1979 H Storm sewer [X] Alley NONE, [|_[FEMa Map No 120192 01708 Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments slide areas, legal or legal nonconforming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE @ THOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION | FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION A No of Units ONE _| Foundation Reinf Cnc_j Slab MONOLITHIC) Area Sq Ft it} Roof CODE No of Stones TWO _] Extenor Walls C Blk Stucco) Craw Space NONE % Fimshed NIA Ceting CODE Type {Det/Att) DETACHED] Root Surtaces Conc Tite | Basement NONE | Ceiling NiA | Walls CODE Design (Style) 2STY__|Guiters & Dwnspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump. NONE Wat's BSEMNTS] Moor _CODE ExistingProposed EXISTING | Window Type SIN_HUNG]| Dampness NONE NOTEQ Floor ARE NOT | None Fe) 4 2 PY Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Storm/Screens SCREENS | Settiemen. NONE NOTEG Outside Entry TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN FRY ctlecwve Age (vis) EFF 1 | ManufaciwedHouse NO. Infestation NONE NOTE, OF SO FLORIDA fe] Rooms | Foyer | twno | Onng | chen [den [FamiyRm| Rec Rin [Bedrooms | # Bats | Laundry | Oiner | avea Sa FL 4 Basement 0 EFA Level § x 1 i 1 1__|srtinc| 2 350 4 STUDY 3,848 Fa} Level 2 > 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 Zz 0 FS] Finshedarea above qradecontans 10 Rooms, §__—Betrooms), «6. 50 Baths) 5,708 Square Feet of Gross Lng Area FY WTERIOR — Matenals/Conditon HEATING [ wTcHen aur | Aric AMENITIES CAR STORAGE Foor MarbieWWad /CamptiGU Type Rev Cyc| Reingerator None Fueplace(s)# NONE {_]} None Hq Walls ORYWALL/GOOD | Fuel _ELECT | RangefOven [X]} Stars Patio REAR. Garage 3 Hof cars fe} TamFinsh ~WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Disposal X]} Drop Star Deck NONE Altached _3CAR al BathFlor MARBLE/GOOD | COOLING Oishwasher |X} Scuttle XJ | Porch REAR Detached Bath Wamsoot MARBLE/GOOD __| Cenirat __A/C_} FanHood Floor Fence _ NONE Buit in ‘Doors SOLID WD _CORE EXT] Other N/A__| Microwave Heated Pool NONE Carport HOLLOW WD CORE INT/GD | Condition GOOD | WashertOryer [XI] Fished CVRO ENTRY [X]l Dwveway _ PAVERS ‘Addiwonal features (special energy effixentitems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM Condition ofthe improvements, depreciation (physical functional and external), cepars needed, quakiy of construction remodelngadéitons, etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT {S EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION ‘Adverse environmental conditions {such as, bul not imited to hazardous wastes, toxic substances, ele } present inthe improvements, on the site or m the immediate. if ; of the subject propery NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE. IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY Freddie Mac Form 70.6 93 ClckF ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT al 7 SERVICE APPRAISALS File No UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No ‘Valuation Section RF-0448-05 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE By ESTIMATED REPRCQUCTION COST OF Dwelling §,708__ Sq FL@$ _ 155 00 ne 575,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as source of cost estimate, site value, square foot caleulation and for HUD VA and FmHA the estimated remaining economec ife of the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & FS] Bsmt 0 sqr@s [ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Ped KIT APPL SIPATIOIPORCH/CVRO ENTRY OF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE & GaragelCarport 714 Sq Ft @3_ 4550 = IASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Fd Total Estimated CostNew = |AND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & Pr Less Physical 1 $4 Functional External ISWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe} Depreciaton 14,518, fy 14,519NO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE FFA Depreciated Value of improvements. = - 928, 209ATTRIBUTABLE TEL =65 YEARS “Asis” Value of Site improvements _ _ 35,00 Bid INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = 1,538,209 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. a TEM. I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3524 TURENNE WAY 3521 MABILLON WAY 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, Fl. WELLINGTON, FL See 0.94 MI NNW 13 MLNW 28MIN i $_REFINANCE [GSES 1,340,106 if Genes 1,500,000 Bi ProelGrosslw Area [$000 (ig 24059 aa 28176 767 66 E Data andlor PUB RECORDS Verifcation Souce | PERS INSPECT | __ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _|_1SC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS Ry VALUE ADJUSTMEN: S| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +4)$ Adustment| DESCRIPTION __+{ )$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION _+{ }$ Adjustment Sales or Financing i A) CONVENTIONAL} CONVENTIONAL CASH TO Concessions i MTG $800,000 MTG $1,000 000, SELLER Date of Sale/Time PARES | OFC 2004 NOV 2004 APRIL 2005 Location EXCL/RESID | EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID EXCL /RESID Leasehold! Fee Simple | _ FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 20,473 SF ~15,700__ 17,859 SE 10,500 31,363 SF -37,500| View LAKE/RESID | CANAURESID +5,000_ LAKE/RESID POND/RESID +10,000] ‘Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL_|_2 STY/EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Qualty of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Ba Age 2003(2)a/EFF_1e| 1997 INF_EFF +5,000_1997 INF EFF +5,00d 1989 SIM EFF +5,000 FEY Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT GOOD 45,000 Ed Above Grade. Total_|@drms} Baths | Totall Bdems} Baths: Total{Bdrms|_ Baths Total] Bdrms|_ Baths Be] Room Count io | 5 +650} 9] 3 {| 200 +31,50d_9 | 3 [200 +31,500 9 | 4 [550 +7,000 EA Gross Living Area 5,708 Sqfi| 5570 Sq fi +7,600 5,670 __Sq FL +2,104" 5,121 sq Ft]___ +32,300] = Basement & Finished NIA NIA N/A N/A Fe] Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA NIA NIA FF Funcuonal Buty AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE _| Fad HeaungCootng CENTRAL A/C _| CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Fl Enorgy Eficent toms_| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAY NONE SPECIAL a NONE SPECIAL Fe Garane/Carport 3. CAR GARAGE |2 CAR GARAGE +5 oda CAR GARAGE -5,000 2 CAR GARAGE! +5,000 ia] Porch, Patio Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prck R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch BE] Frepiaces), etc CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY CVRD ENTRY Pr Fence, Pool ete NONE POOL -12,00 POOL -12,00 POOL =42,000} EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |PT UPGRADES] +50,00d_ upGRaDES INF UPGRADES] __+25,000} Mepemeeeed (X|+ | |- $ 76.400 | (x]+ | |- s 11,100 {xi+ [T- s "39,800 let INet=1% Net=3% 1,416,506 _|Gross=4% 6 _1,608,692_|Gross=9% 1,539,800 Comments on Sates Companson (iscuding the ‘subject property s compatibikly fo the neghborhood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM. SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Date, Pace and Data SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN. Source, for por sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS walhin year of appears | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS. ISC/PUB RECORDS Analysis of any current agreement of Sale option oF Isting of the subject propery and analysis of any prot sales of subject and comparables within one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT. @ INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH INDICATED VALUE BY I OME APPROACH {i Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ NA {Ma x Gross Rent Muluptier “ =3 NIA 1,530,000 This apprassal is made s [_Jsubject to the repairs, alterations mspectons or conditons listed below —[__]subject to completion per plans and spectications Conditons of Apprasal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES OF THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT. Final Reconckaton *"INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF, QUALITY RENTAL DATA_THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS: RECONCILIATION 5: ‘The purpose of this appraisal 1s to estimate the market value of the real property that is subject to this report based on the above conditions and the cerhfication, contingent and himutmg condibons, and market value defintuon that are stated m the attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 UWE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF (WHICH IS THE DATE OF NSE TION ANO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ _ APRIL 23, 2005 1,530,000 SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) ‘Signature Od [_Jou Not acatdh ff Name inspect Property t Date Report Signed APRIL 23, 2005. Date Report Signed Slale Cenfication# _ RZ967 State FL State Certification # Slate Go Or State License # Slate Or Stale License # Stale Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6.93) Page 2 of 16 ADM mete 5 INISTRATIVE COMPLAINT tal 4. SERVICE APPRAISALS EXTRA COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City, WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiClient Private Lender Address Private Lender than the subject property a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reduct subject property, a plus (+) adjustments made, thus ncreasing the indicated value af the subject These recent sales of properties are most similar and proximate lo subject and have been considered in the market analysis The description includes a dollar adjustment saflacting ‘market reaction to those Hems of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties If a signiticant lem in the comparable property #s superior lo or more favorabley the mated vale of subject 112 Sgnicant stom m the comparable 1s enor Lo o ess favorable tan the TEM {suaJect COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 10765 VERSAILLES BLVD | 3540 AMBASSADOR OR Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proxmuly to Subject 8 Sales Price eS PaceiGross Liv Area aay Af Data andior PUB RECORDS Verficaton Sowce | PERS INSPECT | 1SC PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS ee VALUE ADJUSTMENTS| DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION _[+{}$Adustment| DESCRIPTION | «{)$ Adusimeni| DESCRIPTION | +{.}$ Adjustment Kal Sales of Financing in oh CASH TO. Concessions SELLER Date of Sale/Time JUNE 2004 Locabon EXCL /RESID FH Leasehold/Fee Simple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE Bd Sue 42,632 SF 22,650 SF 20,000 oa View LAKE/RESID | LAKE/RESIO -| 4 Design and Appeal 2STY/EXCL__{ RANCH/EXCL ‘Quality of Construction | CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL | Ace 2003(2)a/EFF te] 2003 SIM EFF Condon EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT Above Grade Total [Bdrm Gaths | Total] Bdrmd Baths Total] Béimd_ Baths Totall Bdrmd_Baths Rooin Count jo | 5 [esol 9 | 4 | 550 +7,00 Gross Lung Avea 5708 Sq Ea 6,715 _ Sq Ft -55,401 Sq Ft Sq Fl Basement & Finished NIA NIA Rooms Below Grade NIA NIA Functional Unity AVERAGE AVERAGE | Heatna/Cootng CENTRAL AIC | CENTRAL A/C Energy Efficent tems | NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL| GarageiCarport 3 CAR GARAGE | 3 CAR GARAGE] # Porch, Pato Deck R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s), etc CVRD ENTRY | PCOUSPA -15,000 Fence, Poo, ele NONE FNCD REAR -2,000, | EQUIPMENT UPGRADES | UPGRADES Net Ad) {total -85,400 Mt Ls oO x = $ 0 Adjusted Sales Price let= 0% - let=0% | ‘of Comparable 4,564,600 _|Gross=0% _ |s 0 ross= 0% fs 0 Comments on Comparables TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLENO 4 COMPARABLENO 5 COMPARABLENO 6 Date, Pree and Daia | SEE SALES NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 12 MONTHS vattin year of appraisal | ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS . COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Ciy_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL ZipCode 33467 LenderChent__Private Lender Address Private Lender ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardward throughout, lake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42" wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and pati area, tray ceiling and sitting room in master bedroom sutte, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The house exterior 1s painted concrete block stucqo There ts a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room ~The house has central air conditioning The subject is considered to be in excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the ‘subject's area High land to value ratio 1s typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington This factor does not adversely affect the marketability of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subyect's location, site area, site/view, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amensties The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information Two of the comparables are located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #3 and #4 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, lot size, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently attached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ALMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPI SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower__LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City_ WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderClient Private Lender Address Private Lender 25 1 5 BATH ' 1 1 Family . 120 140 ROOM fot a Kitchen 3 Dining Bedroom ROOM ROOM , 2 FE Bedroom Study wic Laundry Foyer Bath as ” aad First Floor ‘Staten of Aver w™ Carers . AREA CALCULATIONS SUVIVARY LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN | Code Description Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals GAL First Flooe 3047 60 ea? 60 Furst Floor PrP Porch 120 00 25% 125 325 Patso au a onan osx 32% 32 $06 car Garage ne 15 na is 32% 255 Cee 40 x 27 11473 ox 25 360 00 Sx 370 795 89 05% 00% 090 910 0 x 542 2004 73 33x as 70 95 wsx 195 243 15, - 190 x 140 149 00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 41 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 a4 ClickFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 ADMINIST RATIVE COMPLAINT i SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address_Private Lender Open to 160° Recreation ROOM oe Open ta Bedroom 4 Below 520° Bath Home 16S Theater Bath 270° Bedroom oS Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Comets, . ‘AREA CALCULATIONS. SUVIVARY” LUMING AREA BREAKDOWN Code Description : Size Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals Graz ‘Second Floor 1859 69 1859 69 ‘Second Floor 120 x 260 ani a2 O5x 120 x 107 64 38 05x 35 x 35 625 3S x 90 273 TO x 125 @7 89 25 x 277 6a 66 SOx 135 oa , 17x 4s 2a 53 aS x 56 19 7% O5x 81x 81 33 06 OSx 28% 28 400 20% 28 193 160 x 400 640 00 O5x 25% 25 306 a2 x 60 25 46 O5x 42x 42 9 00 OSx 42% 42 300 165% 270 4a5 50 TOTAL UVABLE (rounded) 1860 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1860 10 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ _LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County. PALM BEACH State FL 2ip Code 33467 LenderiCkent__ Private Lender Address_ Private Lender a HAVERHILL OVAL PaLw agacy FLVING COW RANCH FOR FLsHONy 1a [HINVY ARROWHEAD on tu0 THE TOW Raney Lal | x HYPOLUXO HAGEN Raney = o 2 Ww oe iy) > VE COMPLAINT cy aro earl ess ae HAGEN RANCH Scale aP(C)i984-2001 TELE ATLAS NA INC ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON. Property Address‘ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Lender/Cient__ Private Lender Address _Pavate Lender Zip Code 33467 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINIOTR at DATIVE COMPLAINT: loz ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address __ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL 2 Code 33467 Private Lender Address Private Lender LenderfChent VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 o TRATIVE COMPLAINT SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borower_ LENZER BURTON Properly Addess 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Slate FL Zip Code 33467 LenderChent__ Private Lender Address Private Lender PiaLEAOMG Anaraest Cathuare BAOKIIRTIT COMPARABLE# 1 3524 TURENNE WAY WELLINGTON, FL. COMPARABLE # 2 3521 MABILLON WAY WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 3 2520 FAIRWAY ISLAND WELLINGTON, FL SERVICE APPRAISALS COMPARABLES 4-5-6 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderCtent_ Private Lender Address Private Lender | COMPARABLE # 4 3540 AMBASSADOR DR WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # § COMPARABLE # 6 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IGE FI AVENDMG Annemnal Cathe arn BAN B99 O77 SERVICE APPRAISALS. . FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Implicit in thts definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of ttle from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and seller are typically motwated, (2) both partes are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest, (3) a reasonable time 1s allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U S dollars or tn terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by speciat or creatwe financing or sales concessions" granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or crealive financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or {aw in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Spectal or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that 1s not already involved in the property or transaction Any adjustment should not be calculated ‘on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession bul the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concesstons based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser wall not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the litle is good and marketable and, therefore will nol render any opinions about the title The property 1s appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of ils size 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site 1s located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser ts nol a surveyor he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied regarding this determination 4 The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at thei contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation the presence of hazard wastes, toxic substances, etc ) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes toxic substances etc ) that would make the property more or fess valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or plied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsibie for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist Because the appraiser 1s not an expert 7 the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources thal he or she considers to be reliable and beleves them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such :tems that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal thal 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repairs. or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner 10. The appraiser must provide his or her pnor written consent before the lender/chent specified in the appraisal report can distnbute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser 1s associated) to anyone other than the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the tender/chent may distnbute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The apprarser’s written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media { i Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fanmue Mae Form 10048 (5- Page 12 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 (have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration im the sales companson analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropnate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation Ifa significant item in a comparable Property Is Supertor to of more favorable than, the subject properly, | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant ttem nm a comparable property 1s inferior to or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 _ [have taken into consideration the factors thal have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report | have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | . believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appratsal report are true and correct 3 _ | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or Prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appratsal report on the race color, religion sex, handicap famular status, or national origin of exther the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 _ Shave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment for my compensation for performing this apprarsal 1s contingent on the appraised vatue of the property 6 _ Iwas not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party the amount of the value estimate, the attamment of a specific resull, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal 1 did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan 7 | performed this appratsal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply ! acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market val.2 and the estimate | developed 1s consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 Ihave personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties ksted as comparables in the appraisal report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements on the subject site, of on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketabulty of the subject property 9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the reat estate thal were set forth in the appraisal report If | relied on significant professional assistance from any indwidual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation of the appraisal report, have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report { certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks Shave not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the repor, therefore, #f an unauthorized change ts made to the appraisal report, | will take 00 responsibilty for SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: {f a superusory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she Certifies and agrees thal | directly superuise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's cerlificalions fumbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibilty for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL. APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER {only if required) Signature Signature Name Gerald Re Name Date Signed APRIL 23, 2005 Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 Stale Certification # or State License # or State License # State FL_, State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License Ord Ord Not Inspect Property 107 Froddie Mac Form 439 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6.93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address_10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Clent Private Lender in developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or isting of the property being appraised (b) Any prior sale of the subject properly being appraised that occurred within the following time penods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and {if} three years for all other property types ‘The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings The subject property has had ao change of ownership during the past one (1) year The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summarized below [-] The subject property 1s currently offered for sale, listing price is $ [X] The subject property has been sold dunng the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record NATHAN & YOLOIE VINCENT Grantee/Purchaser LORAINE SMITH BROOKS & JOHN KIBLER Contract Price/Sale Puce $226,000 Date of Contract/Sale MAY 2004 Comments The subject property has not sold within the prior thirty six months ~ 10% ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION ‘The following Certification statements are m addition to and may supercede the signed Agpraiser’s Certification altached to this appraisal report This Apprarser’s Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief The statements of fact contamned in this report are true and correct . The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opimons and conclusions "have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved have no bias with respect to the property that 1s the sudject of this report or to the partes mvoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement 1s nol contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the chent the amount of the value opinion the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly relate to the intended use of this appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | [XJhave[_]have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report {If more than one person signs this certification the cerbification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make a personal inspection of the appraised property ) No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (if there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant reat property appratsal assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report The intended use of the appraisal ts to assist the clent and any other intended users in the underwnting, approval and funding of the mortgage foan The intended users of this report are the stated client and any other insttutions involved in the underwnting , approval, and funding of the mortgage oan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclusions contained in this appravsal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources inspection of the subyect property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales listings, and/or rentals within the subject market area The onginat source of the comparable data descnbed in the Data Source section of the market gnd along with the source of confirmation provided, where available, the onginal source ts presented first The sources and data are considered reliable When conflicting information was provided, source deemed most reltable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basis for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment 1s stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report EFINITION OF INSPECTION The term ‘inspection* as used mn this report 1s not the same level of inspection that is required for a “Professional Home Inspection” The appraiser| does not fully inspect the electrical system, plumbing systems mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure or subfloor The appraiser 1s not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal 1s to make an economic evaluation of the subject property if the chent needs a more detailed inspection of the propery a home inspection, by a Professional Home Inspector, is suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES The signature(s) affixed to this report and certification were applied by the onginal appraiser(s) or superisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his,or her signature electronically using a Password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individuat’s hand applied signature {f the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The appraiser has complied with Standards Rute 1-5b and 2-2b (0x} requinng the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years pnor to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) tts reported in the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD By studying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area, the appraiser feels that the exposure ttme for the subject property 18 equal to the indicated Marketing Time identified in the Neighborhood section of this appraisal report op Signature Jord Did Not x Name inspect Property Date Report'Signed APRIL + | Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL_ State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State 164 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo — RF-0448-05 Case No Borrower_LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Chent Private Lender Address Private Lender This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions Complete Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of vaiue, performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Summary Report A.wntien report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Restncted Report Awaitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-related issues requiring disclosure ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. ERY BIT ClickKFORMS Appraisal! Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Date APRIL 23, 2005 FileNo RF-0448-05 Case No Prepared for Private Lender Private Lender Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL. Work Performed. APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE $ 495 00 $ Customers payment towards appraisal fee $ 495 00 $ $ $ Total Amount Due $ 000 Piease make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 1901 SW 5 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 ’ X ADMINISTRATIVE COMFLAINT. EXHIBIT # | . PAGE I> Lae ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 | | | APPRAISAL REPORT of Single Family Residence at 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. WELLINGTON, FL As Of November 18, 2005 Prepared For WCS LENDING, LLC = 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Prepared By. SERVICE APPRAISALS Gerald Rowley 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. EXHIBIT i —____— co (0 re 1b PAGE __ OF SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo — RF-4102-05 erty Description UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT case No Proj Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cry WELLINGTON State FL Zip Code 33467, Legal Desenpion _ LOT 284, VERSAILLES PUD County PALM BEACH Assessors Parcel No_73-44-44-24-05.000-2840 ASSD $667 273 TaxYear 2004 RE Taxes$ 15,067 23 SpecialAssessments$ NIA Borrower LENZER BURTON Current Owner LENZER BURTON Occupant [X]Owner [7 }Tenant_ [Yvacant Property nghis apprased |X| Fee Simple [| ]Leasehotd Prowect Type [X [PUD [Condominum (HUDIVAcnly) HOAS 358 00 Mo. Newhborhood or Project Name. VERSAILLES PUD. Map Reference 44-41-24 Census Tract 62 030 Sale Prce_$ REFINANCE DateofSae N/A __Desenption and $ amount of loan charges/concesswons lo be paid by seller N/A LenderiClent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Appraiser Gerald Rowley Address 4552 Highgate Dr, Delray Beach, FL_33445 Location [_furban Suburban [_]Rurat Predominant] Single family housing [resto vse % Land use change 4 Buiit up XJ Over 75% 15-75% Under 25% | occupancy Storr bear ‘One family 95 & ‘Not likely Likely Growhrate — {_|Rapad Stable Slow [X]owner 375 tow 5 | 2-4 famuly 0 In process Property values [_ | Increasing Stable Declining | [_] Tenant 3MM_Hagh 35 _| Mutt-family To Demandisupply (__|Shortage Inbatance {_|Over supply] [X] vacant (0-5%)} FREY Predominant [EA] Commercial 5 Marketing tine [ |Under 3 mos [13 6 mos [Over 6 mos | [7 |vacant fore 5%)/ 800-2 suum] 20 Note race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Nexghbochood boundaries and characteristics FOREST HILL BLVD (NORTH), JOG ROAD (EAST) HYPOLUXO RO (SOUTH), & 150 AVE (WEST) TYP DWELLINGS ARE 1&2 STY CB STUCCO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, VILLAS, & TOWNHOUSES : Factors that affect the marketabiliy of the properties in the neighborhood (proximity to employment and amenities employment stabikly, appeal fo market, etc ) THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AVERAGE TO GOOD PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING, SERVICES, & A REGIONAL MALL, THE WELLINGTON GREEN MALL, LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WELLINGTON MEDICAL CENTER IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF FOREST HILL BLVD , INTERSTATE 95 IS LOCATED 6 5 MILES EAST, THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE. 1S LOCATED 1 MILE EAST, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY, RESIDENCES HAVE GOOD TO. EXCELLENT APPEAL TO THE MARKET. Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including suppor for the above conclusions related to the trend of property values demand/supply and marketing time ~ such as data on compettive properties for sale m the nexghborhood, descnption of the prevalence af sales and financing concessions, etc ) VALUES HAVE REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE DUE TO DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE WELLINGTON VICINITY, DISCOUNTS, BUYDOWNS, AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT PREVALENT AND HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON VALUE TYPICAL FINANCING IS CASH, FHA, & CONVENTIONAL FINANCING MARKETING TIME FOR COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AVERAGING THREE TO SIX MONTHS Project Information for PUDs (lt applicable - Is the developer/buider m contro of the Home Owner's Association (HOA)? ‘es L_JNo Approximate total number of units in the subject project 456 Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project 13£ Describe common elements and recreational facies COMMUNITY POOL , CLUBHOUSE, 24 HR_ MANNED GUARD GATE, COMMON AREAS Omensions IRREGULAR (SUBJECT TO SURVEY) Topography LEVEL 4 Sie area 12,632 SF Comertot [_]¥es [X]No | Sze TYPICAL OF AREA Specific zonng classification and descnpion PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Shape IRREGULAR Zoning comphance [XK] Legal [“]Legat nonconforming (Grandfathered use) [_Jillegal [_]No Zoning | Dranage APPEARS ADEQUATE Highest & best use as mproved_[ X ]Preseni use. Other use (expiain) view LAKE/RESID H] Utiives Pubic Other Off-ste Improvements Type Public Prvate | Landscaping TYPICAL OF AREA Etcctricty XJEPL Sree ASPHALT [Xx] [_) Joneway Sudace PAVERS Gas BOTTLE Curbigutler CONCRETE/GUTTER x Apparent easements UTILITY. Water X| CITY Sdewak CONCRETE x LJ FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Yes [X]No 4) Santary sewer Steetights ON FIBERGLASS POLES [X FEMA Zone B__ Map Dale _02/01/1979 Storm sewer__{X Aley NONE FEMAMapNo__ 120192 01708 ‘Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments special assessments, side areas, iltegal or legal nonconfacming zoning use etc) NO UNUSUAL OR UNFAVORABLE ADVERSE EASEMENTS ENCROACHMENTS, OR CONDITIONS WERE OBSERVED EASEMENTS ARE HOSE OF PUBLIC RECORD TYPICAL OF UTILITIES NO SURVEY PROVIDED APPRAISER ‘GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION No of Units ONE ___| Foundation Reinf Cnc_]} Slab MONOLITHIC} Area Sq FL i) Roof _CODE 4 No of Sicnes TWO __ | Cxtenor Walls C Bik Stuccd Crawt Space NONE ‘% Finshed NIA Cetlng CODE Type (Det /Att) DETACHED] Roof Surfaces Conc Tile } Basement NONE Cetling NIA Wals CODE W Design (Style) 2STY _| Gutters & Dwaspts SIDES ‘Sump Pump NONE Walls BSEMNTS] Floor _CODE Existag/Proposed _EX{STING | Window Type SIN HUNG] Dampness NONE NOTEG Floor ARE NOT] None Age (Yrs) 2003(2) | Stomm/Screens SCREENS | Settlement NONE NOTED Ouise Envy TYPICAL | Unknown _UKN Effectve Age (Yrs) EFF 1 | Manufactured House. NO Infestavon NONE. NOTEG OF SO FLORIDA ROOMS | Foyer | twing | Ding | Kitchen | “Den [FamiyRm]| Ree Rm |Bediooms | # Baths Area Sq Fl q_ Basement 0 d Level} x 1 1 i 1__[simnc| 2 350 3.848 Level 2 1 3 300 THEATER 1,860 0 Finished area above grade contains 10 Rooms, 5. Bedroom(s) 6 50 Bath(s), 5,707 uare Feet of Gross Living Area INTERIOR — MaterralsiConduon HEATING KSTCHEN Equip_[ ATTIC ‘AMENITIES ‘CAR STORAGE Floors MarblefWd /Carpt /GQ Type Rev Cyc] Refngerator {X]} None (_] | Fueplaceis)# NONE None Walls DRYWALL/GOOD | Fuet ELECT } RangefOven {X]} Siaus Pato REAR Garage 3 #of cars . : sanders i TnFash ~=WOOD/GOOD Conditon GOOD | Osposai [XI] Drop Star [_] | Deck _ NONE Atached _3 CAR AUNTS Phe DEVE LIVE CALNER poh oor MARBLE/GOOD —T COOUNG Oshwasher [XI] soutle [K] | Porch _ REAR Detached ' Bath Wainscot MARBLE/GOOD _| Cental _ AVC _| FantHood Floor Fence _ NONE Burlt-tn EXHIBIT # Doors SOLID WD CORE EXT| Other ~_N/A_| Microwave Heated Pool __ NONE Carport a “WO CORE INT /GD | Condition GOOD | WasherOryer [Xl] Fiushed CVRD _ ENTRY Driveway _ PAVERS. PAGE OF A] Additonal features (special energy efficient dems, etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM J Condon of the improvements depreciation (physical, functional and extemal) epars needed qualiy of construction, remodelingladditions etc NO FUNCTIONAL INADEQUACIES WERE NOTED UPON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY NOR ANY EXTERNAL INADEQUACIES OBSERVED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT SUBJECT IS EXCELLENT. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & 1S CONSIDERED TO BE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION Adverse environmental conditions (such as. but nol limited to, hazardous wastes, loxic Substances, ec ) present in the mprovernents, on the sile, orm the ummediate vicinity A of he subject property NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOTED UPON EXAMINATION OF SITE d IMPROVEMENTS OR WITHIN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY. Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004(6 93) Page 1 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINY, EXHIBIT 4 ee ey SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Case No BA ESTIMATEDSITEVALUE oe s$ 1,150,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate site value, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS square foot calculation and for HUD and FmHA, the estimated remaining Bi Oweling __5,707_ Sq FL@S_ 17500 =$ 998,725 economic feof the property) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH & Ee] Bsmt OSes > 0 |ADDENDUM FOR DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATIONS Fey KIT APPL-SIPATIO/PORCHICVRD ENTRY = 35,500 lOF LIVABLE AREA BASE COST TO REPRODUCE Eq Gavgetcapon 714 Sq FL@$__ 5550 = 39,627 |ASSUMES EXCELLENT QUALITY CONSTRUCTION EY Total Esumated CostHew = 7,073,852 IAND DESIGN AS REFERENCED BY MARSHALL & t Less Physical 1 54! Functional [ever SWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK THERE IS fe] Depreciation 16,537 0 ° 16,537INO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE Depreciated Valve of Improvements 7.057, 319ATTRIBUTABLE _T EL = 65 YEARS. “As is" Value of Site Improvements _ _ - - 35,000, iNDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = =$ 2,242,314 Est Remaining Econ Life 64 yrs. (TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO_2 COMPARABLE NO 3 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD 3597 Royalie Terrace 3595 AIKEN RD 71332 Long Meadow Dr Address WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL WELLINGTON, FL Proximity to Subject ae 032 MISSE 15 MINW 14 MINNW Sales Price $_ REFINANCE 2,400,000 2,430,000 [RSEARASHEE 1,950,000 ProelGrossiw Area _[$ 000 s 42046 Ales $398 30 RPESEEe|s 43939 Rea Data andor PUB RECORDS SALES OFFICE Verication Source _| PERS INSPECT | _ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS _] ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS|_ISC/PUBLIC RECORDS/MLS. VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION +{J$ Adjustment] DESCRIPTION »{-)$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +{-)$ Adjustment, Sales or Financing CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL Concessions : | MTG $800,000 MTG $1,665,000 MTG_$400,000 Date of Sale/Time ARs OCT 2005 OCT 2005 JULY 2005 Location ~ | EXCt/RESIO. | EXCL RESID EXCL /RESIO EXCL /RESID Leasehold Fee Smple | FEE SIMPLE | FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 12,632 SF 14,473 SE <17,000 47,480 SF -209,10d 23,958 SF “68,000 View TAKE/RESIO | LAKE/RESID Polo Grounds +15,000 Golf Crs (RES. +10,000] Design and Appeal 2 STY/EXCL__|_2 STY /EXCL 2 STY /EXCL RANCH/EXCL Quatity of Construction |__ CBS/EXCL CBSIEXCL CBS/EXCL CBS/EXCL Age 2003(2)a/EFF 12] 2005 SUP_EFF ~5,00_1993 INF EFF +5,000 1988 SIM_EFF +8,000] Condition EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT GOOD +5000 GOOD +5,000 Above Grade Total_|Bdrms|_ Baths | Total] Bdrms| Baths Total] @drms| Baths: Total| Bdrms}_Baths Room Count 10 | 5 [650| 10} 5 [650 io{ 5 [600 +3500 9 | 4 | 450 +44,000] Gross Living Area 5,707 Sq Ft §,708 Sq Ft -101 6,101 Sq Ft -21,701 4438 Sq Ft +69,800) Basement & Finished NIA NIA NIA NIA : Fe] Rooms Below Grade N/A NA NIA NIA PA Functonal Utity AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Fd Heating/Cooling CENTRAL AC | CENTRAL AC CENTRAL A/C CENTRAL A/C Energy Effinent lems _| NONE SPECIAL | NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAL NONE SPECIAI| a4 Garage/Carport 3 CAR GARAGE |3 CAR GARAGE| 3 CAR GARAGE} 3. CAR GARAGE, Porch, Patio Deck, R PATIO/R PORCH R Patio/Prch R Patio/Porch R Patio/Porch Fireplace(s},elo _, | CVRD ENTRY | CVRD ENTRY CVRD ENTRY CVRD_ENTRY Feace, Pool, etc NONE POOL -15,000 POOL 715,000 POOL, -15,000 EQUIPMENT UPGRADES |SUP UPGRADES| _-100,000_ UPGRADES INF UPGRADES|__+100,000 Net Ad) (total e Dea cel Tx] $ _-131,100 | { [+ [X]- $s -217,300 X[+ {]- $123,800 ‘Adjusted Sales Price % | let=-9% fisse __.| of Comparable ae es 2,268,900 _|Gross=11% 2,212,700 _|Gr b__2,073,800 ‘Comments on Sales Companson (including the subject property's compatbilty (othe neghbochood etc) SEE COMMENT ADDENDUM TEM SUBJECT. COMPARABLE NO_1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Dale Poe andData | SEE SALES | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN | NOPRIOR SALE WITHIN [ NO PRIOR SALE WITHIN Source, for prior sales HISTORY 42 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS within year of apprarsal | _ ADDENDUM ISC/PUB RECORDS (SC/PUB RECORDS ISC/PUB RECORDS ‘Analysis of any current agreement cf sale option oF isting of te subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables vain one year of the date of appraisal NO CURRENT AGREEMENT OF SALE, OPTION, OR LISTING OF THE SUBJECT OR THE SALE COMPARABLES WERE. UNCOVERED THE SALES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH EQUIVALENT INDICATED VALUE cY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ©. ----------- $ ___ 2,200,000 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH _{If Applicable) Estrmated Market Rent$__N/A_/Mo x Gross Rent Multiplier vss N/A This appraisals made subject the repans,alteratons, mspecions or conditions Isted below — [_] subject to completion per plans and specifications BY Conditions of Appraisal APPRAISED VALUE IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS & FEATURES Of THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION ALSO SEE LIMITING CONDITIONS ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED CASH EQUIVALENT Final Reconciliation “INCOME APPROACH NOT USED DUE TO PREDOMINANT OWNER OCCUPANCY AND LACK OF QUALITY RENTAL DATA THE SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS IS GIVEN PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS IT BEST. REFLECTS CURRENT BUYER/SELLER ACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THE COST APPROACH SUPPORTS “The purpose of ths appraisal s {o estate the market value of the real property that s subject to this report based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value defintion that are stated inthe atlached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised 6/93 {WE} ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, ASOF November 18_2005 fe |ON AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE.OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 2,200,000 D>; fic. cJ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED) fh , 1 Signature od [Jou not Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed : ‘__ Dale Report Signed Z State Cestficaton# —_ RZ967_ State FL State Certiication # Stale i Bas Or State License # State Or State License # State Freddie Mac Form 70 6-92 ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 1004 (6-93) Page 2 of 1 SERVICE APPRAISALS COMMENT ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Propeny Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cay WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LenderfChent__WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 ADDITIONAL FEATURES Oakwood banister and steps, sauna, home theater on second floor, recreation room ‘on second floor, marble flooring throughout the first floor, marble flooring and wainscots in bathrooms, high end fixtures and hardware throughout, fake front property, granite tle countertops and backsplash in kitchen, 42° wood custom cabinets in kitchen, recessed lighting throughout, 3 car garage, rear porch and patio area, tray celling and sitting room in master bedroom suite, wood vanities and granite vanity tops in bathrooms, inground sprinkler system There ts wall to wall Berber carpeting in the bedrooms The subject has a built-in home theater ‘on the second floor The house exterior is painted concrete block stucco There 1s a full sized washer and dryer in the laundry room = The house has central air conditioning The subject ts considered to be tn excellent condition COMMENTS ON COST APPROACH Estimated Site Value was abstracted from recent improved sales in the subject's area High land to value ratio is typical of the area due to demand for housing in this section of Wellington and the lake front lot This factor does not adversely affect the marketabulty of the subject DEFERRED MAINTENANCE None noted at time of inspection COMMENTS ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The comparables were adjusted to the subject's tocation, site area, site/vew, age, condition, size of living area, car storage, and amenites The comparables used were the best available with verifiable information The subject and Sale #1 are lake front propertes Sale #1 ts a recent sale of a similar modet as the subject located in the Versailles subdivision Comparables #2 and #3 are all located within the Wellington area The sales uncovered are similar to the subyect with regards to location, functional utility, quality of construction, total bedroom and bath count, appeal, community amenities, and size of living area Equal emphasis given to all sales PERSONAL PROPERTY Personal property, including those items which are not permanently altached/fixed to the real property, have been excluded from the estimate of value unless indicated otherwise Examples of the aforementioned include above ground swimming pools, countertop microwave ovens, movable dishwashers, TV satellite dishes, and furniture ADMINISTRATIVE Comer ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 3 of SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Address _ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderiChent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir Boca Raton, FL 33487 \ Pool } Under Ye 225 Cor Sitting ROOM Kitchen 635 Dining ROOM Bedroom 595° Bedroom Bath 2 15 as zs First Floor Shel by Ape v= Cormats . \AREA CALCULATIONS, SUMVARY — . LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Code | __ Description a Size, Net Totals Breakdown Subtotals an Furst Floor 3847 60 3ea7 Farat Floor P/E Porch 120 00 25 x as 3125 Patio am 42 aia osx 32% 32 5 06 on Garage na is na 1s 32% 255 eta 40 x 27 aaa ox 25 360 00 asx 30 795 89 : osx 00% 00 030 s70 x 542 2008 73 33 « 2s 70 95 2S x 19s 243 75 wo x «wo 140 00 RETR Om Dy Ae PARP QTD A re an oe ANMIBISTD RIVE pager Re vrs a PE we wre 0 “. TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3848 11 Calculations Total (rounded) 3848 | % mee etenetawen cys oe cee ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 4 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SKETCH ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borower LENZER BURTON Property Adgress__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code. 33467 LenderiChent_WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 160 Recreation ROOM Bedroom 520° Home 465° Theater Bath 270 Bedroom o Bedroom = 6 Second Floor 60 Conmsts, Code Description ° Size Net Totals. 1 . Breakdown Subtotals Gig Secured Floor 1es9 69 1959 6 ‘Sosa Floor 20x 260 an 05x 0x 107 64.38 o5x 35% 35 625 35 x 90 an Tox 2s e189 255 27 62 66 sox 135 an idx us 2453 35x 56 wa osx 81 an no osx 28x 28 «00 28x 28 193 wo x 400 640 00 osx 25x 25 3 06 «2x 60 25:46 osx 42m 42 900 osx 42% 42 900 165 x 270 44s 50 . TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) L 1960 18 Calculations Total (rounded) 1960 lj ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page S of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 . Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State Fu Zip Code 33467 LendedCuent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 i pe cnegiNDoD |__ wee) S som “ a _ — ~ = LO KAZET. I~ Toast z com 7 OO ete & za | 2200) zara] CKEECHOSEE | OKFECHGBEE| fOKEECHOBEE For] BRYAN ¥ aT Taser, "hed user j— 7/2 al ae RK a TT 7 g re ai=| T= J es ine Geo ~~ wf a | | e cofcect inc |dayan 5; a b 1 3 ACER, a r sca ” Lar 5 B | Fs d DILLMAN A a S NA me ENIE ys at - = Lye ad $ 2 FOREST HI = FA > o ra 2 — SMED I fal ¥ c a ~~ 7 nese cy Y i Pa (qerenteay z S —_—__|. al \a fae ou OGa] fer ie suc: > ©} —t LAKE MI _I 441 = = a ~——+ in { ‘ | Q JB Pf | 3 te] | 3 Tr LAT anal 7 sist \ i \ & . é \. eae WAP (C)1964-2001 TELE ATLAS NA inc Seal 11 61 mies ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 6 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cty WELLINGTON County, PALM BEACH State FL Zp Code 33467 LendeClent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, Fi_ 33487 FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, Ft REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE ADMINISTRATIVE SXMIBIT “AGE io] sre MELAING ClickFORMS Appratsal Software 800-622-8727 Page 7 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cly_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 LenderCient _WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave , Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 VIEW OF LAKE FROM 2nd Floor PHOTO OF KITCHEN PHOTO OF FAMILY ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 8 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower __LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD Cily_ WELLINGTON. County PALM BEACH Slate FL 21p Code 33467 Lender/Cient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_33487 PHOTO OF Master Bedroom PHOTO OF MASTER BATHROOM PHOTO OF BATHROOM ADMINISTRATIy PXHIBIT 4 O DASE ae LD ADM meta arn ae a } SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower _LENZER BURTON Property Address__ 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cily_WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Staie FL Zip Code 33467 LendedChient__WCS LENDING, LLC Address_ 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir Boca Raton, Fl. 33487 PHOTO OF BEDROOM PHOTO OF RECREATION ROOM. PHOTO OF DINING ROOM ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 10 of SERVICE APPRAISALS. COMPARABLES 1-2-3 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Properly Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. Cay WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH Siate FL 2p Code 33467 Lender/Clent_ WCS LENDING, LLC Address_6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 ~ — |] COMPARABLE # 1 3597 Royalle Terrace WELLINGTON, FL COMPARABLE # 2 iee|| 3595 AIKEN RD ei WELLINGTON, FI. COMPARABLE # 3 11332 Long Meadow Dr WELLINGTON, FL ADMINISTRATIVE COMP LAINT ArdSit de ee ees iets el Click ORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 11 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLA ne Em ME SERVICE APPRAISALS FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price 1s not affected by undue stimulus Impficit in this definition 1s the consummation of a sale as of 2 specified date and the passing of tite from seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and setier are typically motivated, (2) both parties are weil informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest (3) a reasonable tme ts. allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment ts made in terms of cash inU S$ dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto and (5) the price represents the normai consideration for the property so'd unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions“ granted by anyone associated with the sale “Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally patd by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market, these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable properly by comparisons to financing terms offered by @ third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or fansaclion Any adjustment should not be calculated ona mechanicat dollar for doliar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing ar concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The apprasser’s certification that appears in the apprassal report is subject to the following conditions 1 The appraiser will not be responsible for malters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it The appraiser assumes that the tille is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the tiie The property s appraised on the basis of il being under responsible ownership 2 The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appratsal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch 1s included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size 3. The appraiser has examined the avatlable flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject sie 1s located in an identified Specral Flood Hazard Area Because the apprarser 1s nol a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand 5 The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used 6 The apgraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazard wastes toxic substances, etc ) observed durmng the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal Unless otherwise stated in the apprarsal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc ) thal would make the property more or less valuable, and has assured that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineenng or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions extst Because the appraiser 1s nol an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property 7 The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions thal were expressed in the appratsal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties 8 The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the apprarsal report except as prowded for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 9 The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that 1s subject to satisfactory completion, repawrs, or alterations an the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner TNF The apprarser must provide his or her prior wntten consent before the lendericlent specified in the appraisal report dn distnbute the appraisal report (including conclustons about the property value, the appraiser's denuty and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser ts associated) to-anygng-aijer than the borrower the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage insurer, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, except that the lender/client may distnbute ifie property descnption section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, WHE Freddie Mac Form 439 (6 93) ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 (6 93) : Page 12 of 16 AUWINISTRAHIVE exHigit 4% SERVICE APPRAISALS File No — RF-1102-05 Case No APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1 Ihave researched the subject market area and have selected a munmum of three recent sales of properties most simular and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysts and have made a dotiar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those tlems of significant variation if a significant stem in a comparable property 1s superior to, or more favorable than, the subject properly | have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales pnce of the comparable and, if a significant tem in a comparable property 1s inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, | have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable 2 Ihave taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in ha appraisal report { have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and | believe to the best of my knowledge that all statements and information mn the appratsal report are true and correct 3. | stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opimons, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form 4 Thave no present or prospective interest in the property that 1s the subject to this report, and | have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction | did not base, either partally or completely my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familar status, or national origin of either the prospective awners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property 5 Lhave no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal (s contingent on the appraised value of the property 6 | was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal { did not base the appratsal report on a requesied minimum vatuation, a specific valuation or the need to approve a specific mortgage foan 7 1 pertormed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply | acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market 1s a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate | developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this 7eport, unless | have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section 8 | have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties hsted as comparables in the appraisat report | further certify that | have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions im the subject improvements, an the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which | am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that | had market evidence to support them | have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property 9 | personally prepared ail conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report If relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the Preparation’ of the aopraisal repo | have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them In the reconetlation section of this appraisai report | certify that any individual so named 1s qualified to perform the tasks { have not authorized anyone to make a change to any stem in the report, therefore, if an unauthonzed change 1s made to the appraisal report Iwill take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION if a supervisory appraiser signed the appraiser report, he or she certifies and agrees that | directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED. 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD , WELLINGTON, FL SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required) Signature Name Date Signed November 18, 2005. Date Signed State Certification # RZ967 State Certification # ~~ or State License # or State License # State FL State Expiration Date of Certification or License 11/30/06 Expiration Date of Certification or License [J od ([) did Not inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6 93 ChckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Fane Mae Form 10048 6 93 Page 13 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS SUBJECT HISTORY ADDENDUM FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD City WELLINGTON County PALM BEACH State FL Zip Code 33467 Lender/Client WCS LENDING, LLC In developing a real estate appraisal, an appraiser must consider, analyze and disclose (a) Any current agreement of sale, option or listing of the property being appraised (0) Any prior saie of the subject property being appraised that occurred within the following time periods (I) one (1) year for 1-4 family residential property, and (ll). three years for all other property types The appraiser has attempted to obtain specific information on the subject property with the following findings [X] The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past one (1) year (7) The subject property has had no change of ownership during the past three (3) years The subject property 1s currently under contract Details of the pending purchase are summanzed below The subject property is currently offered for sale, listing pce 1s $ The subject property has been sold during the past one (1) year period Details of the previous sale are disclosed below The subject property 1s proposed construction and 1s not currently being offered A previous sale history of the property could not be obtained by the appraiser in the normal course of business Grantor/Owner of Record TRANSEASTERN VERSAILLES LLC Grantee/Purchaser LENZER L_ BURTON, JR Contract Price/Sale Price $834,077 Date of ContraclSale DEC 2003 Comments COMPLAINT Ly ClckFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 14 of 16 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Drie dF 2 PAG SERVICE APPRAISALS USPAP COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM File No Case No RF-1102-05 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION “The following Certification statements are in addition to and may supercede the signed Appraiser s Certification aliached to this appraisal report This Appraisers Certification 1s compliant with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice | certify that, to the hest of my knowledge and belief ‘The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct The reported analyses opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal impartial, and unbiased professional analyses opinions, and conclusions Ihave no present or prospective interest n the property that 1s the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved Ihave no bias with respect to the property thats the subject of this report or to the parties invoved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results My compensation for completing this assignement is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent ‘event directly related to the intended use of his appraisal My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice 1 [X]have[__Jhave not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subyect of this report (If more than one person signs this certification, | the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did nol make a personal inspection of the appraised property } No one provided significant reat property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification (If there are exceptions the name of each individual providing significant real property apprarsai assistance must be stated ) PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL ‘The purpose af the apprarsat is to estimate the market value of the subject property as defined in this report as of the effective date of this report ‘The intended use of the appraisal is to assist the client and any other intended users in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan The intended users of this report are the stated chent and any other institutions volved in the underwriting approval, and funding of the mortgage loan No one else, including the purchaser and seller, should rely on the estimate of value or any other conclustons contained in this appraisal report ANALYSIS AND REPORT FORM ‘The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources inspection of the subject property and neighborhood and selection of comparable sales, listings and/or rentals within the subject market area The original source of the comparable data desonbed im the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source ‘of confirmation provided where available the onginal source 1s presented first The sources and dala are considered reliable When conflicung information was provided source deemed most reliable has been used Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report or used as a basts for the value conclusion The extent of the analysis to this assignment is stated in the Appraiser's Certification included above and attached to this report DEFINITION OF INSPECTION The term "Inspection", as used in this report 1s not the same level of mspection thal is required for a ‘Professional Home Inspection The appraiser does not fully inspect the electrical system plumbing systems, mechanical systems, foundation system, floor structure, of subfloor The appraiser is not an expert in construction materials and the purpose of the appraisal ss to make an economic evaluation of the subject property If the client needs a more detailed inspection of the property a home inspection by a Professional Home Inspector 1s suggested DIGITAL SIGNATURES ‘The signature(s) affixed to this report, and certification were applied by the ariginal appraiser(s) of supervisory appraiser and represent their acknowledgements of the facts, opinions and conclusions found in the report Each appraiser(s) applied his or her signature electronically using a password encrypted method Hence these signatures have more safeguards and carry the same validity as the individual's hand applied signature , If the report has a hand-applied signature, this comment does not apply OPINION OF MARKET VALUE VS ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisat Practice defines the market value conclusion as an opinion of market value and not an estimate of market value THREE YEAR SALES HISTORY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ‘The appraiser has complied with Standards Rule 1-5b and 2-2b ('x) requiring the appraiser to analyze and report all sales of the subject property that occurred within the three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal If this information was available to the appraiser(s) t's reported _an the subject column of Sales Comparison Analysis section of the appraisal report EXPOSURE PERIOD ying the sales of similar comparable residential properties with value ranges as identified in the Neighborhood section of this report and discussions with individuals knowledgeable of current neighborhood trends in the subject area the appraiser feels that the exposure time for the t property ts equal to.the indicated Marketing-Time identified in the Neighborhood section of thes appraisal report if I Signature Cod (Jo not ft Name Inspect Property Date Report Signed‘November 18, 2005 Date Report Signed State Certification # RZ967 State FL State Certification # State Or State License # State Or State License # State ( ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 15 of 16 SERVICE APPRAISALS APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION = FileNo_—- RF-1102-05 Case No Borrower LENZER BURTON Property Address 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD. City WE!LINGTON County PALM BEACH State, FL ZipCode___33467 Lender/Chent WCS LENDING, LLC Address 6501 Congress Ave_, Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL_ 33487 This Appraisal conforms to one of the following definitions [X] Complete Appratsal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimate of value performed without invoking the Departure Provision Limited Appraisal The act or process of estimating value, or an estimation of value, performed under and resulting from invoking the Departure Provision ‘This Report is one of the following types Self Contained Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(A) of a complete or limited appraisat performed under Standard 1 DQ summary Report Awwntten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(B) of a complete or umited apprarsal performed under Standard 1 [_] Restncted Report Awnitten report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(C) of a complete or limited appraisal performed under Standard 1 Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any departures from Standards Rules 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, plus any USPAP-retated issues requiring disclosure y ? ClickKFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 Page 16 of 16 INVOICE Cate November 18, 2005 FileNo RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 $ $ $ ms $ $ $ $ Total Amount Due 400 00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATH ERPS, £ COMPLAINT ‘ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727 INVOICE Date November 18, 2005 FileNo — RF-1102-05 Case No Prepared for WCS LENDING, LLC 6501 Congress Ave Third Fir, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Property Appraised LENZER BURTON 10766 VERSAILLES BLVD WELLINGTON, FL Work Performed APPRAISAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 400 00 Total Amount Due $ 400.00 Please make checks payable to SERVICE APPRAISALS 4552 Highgate Dr Delray Beach, FL 33445 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT 2 oar LSI ClickFORMS Appraisal Software 800-622-8727, PI1S*022 COMPETITIVE MARKET ANALYSIS 01/20/0¢ PAGE. 11 A PREPARED BY- SCB FUNDING GROUP SUBJECT 73-414424~05-000-4240 BD BTH SQFT SLU CLC WG V LOT SIZE 3520 PALAIS TERR 3.2 0100 14,374 CORRELATED PROPERTY AVERAGES SCANNED 484 FOLIOS FOR 12 MATCHES AVERAGING 4,401 SQ/FT @ $3022 37 /sQrt SALE-HIGH 61,318,060 Low: 581,000 AvG- 6,137,819 AVG ASMT 259,02€ AVR 23.696 ASSESSED RATIO AMT: 3,080,480 LIVING SQ FT AVERAGE: c X PROPERTY ADDRESS BD BT LIVSQF DATE SALE AMT DT I LOTSZE T SQFTS YB AVE 10275 TRIANON PL 302 0 1105 700000 Wo 11325 97 B.E 0 3597 ROYALLE TERR 3_ 6 6959 1105 2418000 wo 12196 347 4 03 3.2 _ 3610 ROYALE TERR 304 3917 1105 1095168 Sw 6969 279 5 03 2.€ 10678 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 2 0 0905 885000 WD 11325 97 7.5 _ 3608 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0805 1040000 wo 9147 97:1 ¢ ~ 10273 TRIANON PL 3.2 0 0805 900000 sw 11325 97 1.3 73-414424-05-000-2630 3.4 2773 0805 61318000 sw 6969 112.5 03 4.0 ea 10707 VERSAILLES BLVD 3 __2 0 0805 1650000 WD 11761 97 2.6 3518 TURENNE WAY 3.3 4181 0705 1092000 wo 16552 261.1 03 2.2 & 1077} VERSAILLES BLVD 3.2 0.0705 1260000 wo 12632 979.6 _ 3600 COLLONADE DR 3.2 0 0205 714662 wD 8712 97 B 2 _ 10329 TRIANON PL 303 4174 0205 581000 WD 8712 139.1 03 1.3 X=VIEW D=DELETE F1=SHIFT DATA F4=MORE F6=ALTER SEARCH F7=SUBJECT F1LO=HELP PI15 << ADD A COMP >> RE otis Oriel Tsvt private. Lendipl. | ‘ * EXHiBIT # 2 0.7- PAGE ) _oog
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, Larry A. Moore, was certified as a law enforcement officer and corrections officer in Florida. The Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement and corrections officer in Florida. During the months of November and December, 1987, Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. In December, 1987, Officer Chris Hamori was a traffic officer with the same department. He had been issued certain equipment for his personal use on duty in which he had placed his personal identification mark. The equipment, primarily a windbreaker, a raincoat, a flashlight and other items necessary for traffic accident investigation, was kept in the trunk of the patrol car signed out to him. He was the only operator of that vehicle, though numerous department cars, all of the same make and model, were identically keyed. Therefor, any key for any of the vehicles would open and operate any of the other identical vehicles. On December 8, 1987, Officer Hamori was assigned to teach a class at a junior college in the next county to the south. When he got there, it was raining and he went to the trunk to get his raincoat but found it missing. He had to get to class and so did not search the trunk at that time. During the mid-class break, however, he again went to the car to make a more thorough search and discovered that his trunk had been rifled and not only his raincoat but his windbreaker as well were missing. There was no evidence of breaking into the trunk. Officer Hamori reported the theft the next morning and went to the Department's property custodian to let them know as well. At that time he was issued another raincoat and windbreaker which, according to the property custodian, Ms. Bell, had just been turned in by the Respondent who was leaving employment with the Department. Officer Hamori noted, from the lack of patches on the windbreaker, that it was much like his and upon further checking, noted that his name appeared on the underside of the right sleeve where he had placed it when the garment was initially issued to him. He also noted that the raincoat had his name written on the inside of the placket where he had placed it when the coat was initially issued to him. From this, he determined that these two garments were the ones taken from his car, without his knowledge or permission, the previous day. Ms. Bell was quite certain that the items in issue here had been turned in to her that same day by the Respondent. When he brought them in, she cleared his property account and placed the items off to the side. She had not had time to place them back into stock. Notwithstanding Respondent's urging that other individuals than Ms. Bell had access to the property storage area, she indicated that no one else turned in any items of that nature that day. Respondent was the only one to turn in equipment that day and, as was stated, she had not put it back into stock when Hamori came in to ask for a reissue. It is found, therefore, that the property turned in by Respondent was the property issued to Officer Hamori and was the same property which had been taken from him without permission. Respondent urges that numerous people could have gotten into Respondent's patrol car and taken his property because of the large number of keys out that would fit it. This is true, but the evidence is uncontrovertible that the property turned in by the Respondent was the property taken from Officer Hamori's car the day before and there is some evidence in fact, that Respondent indicated to Sergeant Lobeck, his immediate supervisor, that he needed some equipment, including a raincoat, to turn in when he left the Department's employ. It is found, therefore, that Respondent is the individual who took the property in question from Officer Hamori's car. Had this not been discovered, the Department would have been out the cost of the equipment since, because it had been stolen from Hamori, Hamori would have been released from liability for it. Only the property initially issued to Respondent was not returned, and though he ultimately paid for it, at the time in issue, he took it from Hamori without authority. Toward the end of 1988, Assistant Chief of the West Palm Beach Department, attempted to locate the Respondent, then a patrolman with that agency, due to a schedule change. At that time, Respondent was not where he was supposed to be and had not advised the Department of his whereabouts. He was finally located at the Mt. Vernon Motor Lodge in West Palm Beach. Discussions with the manager of that facility indicated that the Respondent had moved out without paying the full amount of the room rent owed and had left his room in a messy and unclean condition. Abel Menendez was the manager of the Mount Vernon Motor Lodge during the period September through November, 1988. During that time, Respondent, who represented himself incorrectly as an employee of the Sheriff's office, rented a room at the motel, paying a rate therefor of $135.00 per week. Respondent was to pay his rent in advance and at first did so, but after a while, he began to get behind in his payments and Mr. Menendez had trouble finding him. When it became clear that Respondent could not bring his arrears current, Mr. Menendez agreed that he could make partial payments to catch up, but he never did so. Finally, in November, along with Mr. Fishbein, the motel owner, Mr. Menendez told Respondent he would have to pay up or move out. When Respondent first began to fall behind in his rent, Mr. Menendez contacted representatives of the West Palm Beach Police Department and gave them a summary of the charges owed by Respondent. The last payment made by Respondent was $135.00 on November 11, 1988, which left a balance due of $500.00 which was never paid. Respondent is alleged to have left the motel during the night of November 11, 1988. According to Mr. Menendez, Respondent "destroyed" the room before his departure. Some of his clothes and things were left in the room. The room was examined the following day by Sgt. Chappell, also of the Department, who had gone there to look for the Respondent at the direction of Captain Griffin. This officer observed holes punched in the walls, and trash and dirty diapers in the room. He never located Respondent. Chief Bradshaw subsequently spoke with the Respondent about this situation and based on the facts as he determined them, terminated Respondent's probationary status with the Department and discharged him. In their discussion, Respondent indicated he had an arrangement with the motel manager, but this was only partially true. The arrangement was to pay in installments but Respondent abandoned the room without doing so. He was locked out by the management the following day. Even though Respondent agreed with Chief Bradshaw to make payments of the amounts owed, he may not have done so. As a result, criminal charges were filed against him. The criminal charges were subsequently disposed of by a Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered into by the Respondent and the State in June, 1989. By the terms of that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay off the obligation at a rate no less than $100.00 per month. However, Mr. Moore never paid any money to the motel because, due to a total mixup in the motel's paperwork, they were never able to establish to whom the money was to be paid. As a result, the matter was ultimately disposed of by the State entering a nolle prosequi in the case. Respondent's public defender, Ms. Kretchmer, remembers Respondent's repeatedly indicating he wanted to pay off the obligation, however. Respondent's wife, with whom he was living in the motel prior to their marriage, recalls having offered Mr. Menendez $300.00 the day before the Moores moved out. Mr. Menendez would not take it, however, indicating he wanted to receive it from Respondent. When Respondent came by, she gave him the money and they went to Menendez to pay him but he would accept only $150.00 and told Moore to keep the rest and not worry about it because, due to the fact he was a policeman, they "needed him around there." Shortly thereafter, however, Mrs. Moore heard Mr. Menendez complaining to the police about the amount owed. She claims Moore tried to make payments several times and whenever he would do so, Menendez would get upset. It was her understanding that Menendez was getting pressure from his boss to collect what was due and get the records straight. He mentioned to her that the motel cash account was short and he was being accused of taking the money. There is some evidence that Moore was not the only one having trouble with rent payments at the motel at that time. When he found that out, he decided to move but Mr. Menendez begged him not to go because his presence as a policeman helped in curbing drugs, gambling and prostitution there. Mrs. Moore absolutely denies that she and Respondent ever hid from Mr. Menendez nor did they sneak out during the night. They checked out in broad daylight at 11:45 in the morning with Mr. Menendez standing by. At that time, Menendez threatened to call the police but, according to Respondent, he, Moore did so instead, but could get no one in authority to listen or help him. Even after they left, Moore called and spoke with Menendez several times but was still subsequently arrested on the defraud charge. According to Mrs. Moore, they at no time damaged the room. At the time they left, the motel was fixing the air conditioner which caused some damage, but that's the only damage in the room when they left. Before they left, she cleaned the room so that it was in the same condition when they left as it was when they moved in. Respondent claims that when he began work with the West Palm Beach Police Department he discussed his rent problems with police officials and told them he had an arrangement with the motel to pay off the arrears. He admits he then got behind and when he tried to pay, the figures kept changing because of the absence of rental records. When he left, his disagreement with the motel was over the amount owed. He called the police to get a witness to his request for a firm bill, but by that time, he had already been terminated and the police would not come out. He had already had his discussion with Chief Bradshaw who, he claims, had told him to take care of the bill whatever the amount. He felt this was unfair, however, because he was told to pay whatever was asked regardless of whether he owed it or not. Respondent was ordained and licensed as a minister by the Church of God, 629 5th Street, West Palm Beach, on January 3, 1992. His minister the Reverend Preston Williams has found him to be a nice person and a well mannered person dedicated to his work, who has served with him in the local ministry since 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case, dismissing the allegation of defrauding an innkeeper as alleged in the original Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of unlawfully taking the property issued to officer Hamori as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and revoking his certification as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Gina Cassidy, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Moore 5100 45th Street, Apt. 1-A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
