The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(2), 475.624(14), and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Sigmond is now and was, at all times material to this proceeding, a state-certified residential real estate appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 2479 in 1994. Mr. Sigmond has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against him. On January 2, 2006, Rels Valuation, an appraisal management company for Wells Fargo Bank, ordered an appraisal from Mr. Sigmond of a condominium unit located at 2740 Cypress Trace Circle, Unit 2715, Naples, Florida (Subject Property). The client for the appraisal was Wells Fargo Bank. The purpose of the appraisal was for mortgage lending. On or about January 6, 2006, Mr. Sigmond developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) on the Subject Property valuing the Subject Property at $375,000. The Subject Property is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit with 1,171 square feet of gross living area. The unit is located on the first floor of the building and has a carport. At the time of the Report, the Subject Property was one year old. The unit was freshly painted, had ceramic floor tile in the foyer, living room, kitchen, and dining areas. The bedrooms were carpeted. The foyer, living room, dining, and kitchen areas had crown molding. The Subject Property was appraised as unfurnished and listed for sale as unfurnished; however, some furniture was left in the unit. Mr. Sigmond stated in his report: As stated in contract: “Property is being sold ‘turnkey.’ Furnishings have little or no value and are being left as a convenience to the seller.” Also buyer agrees to pay $1,500 for kitchen set at closing. The Subject Property was sold prior to the issuance of the Report. The first sale was a preconstruction purchase on December 2, 2004, for a purchase price of $213,900. The Subject Property was listed on September 27, 2005, for $342,900, and the Subject Property was under contract for sale by October 10, 2005. The second sale was closed on December 13, 2005, and the sale price was $335,000. The buyers in the second sale entered into a sale and purchase contract with John Schrenkel on December 20, 2005, to sell the Subject Property for $375,000. After the sale of the Subject Property on December 13, 2005, the buyers put crown molding in the unit, painted all the walls of the unit, put in ceiling fans, and upgraded some electrical fixtures. Mr. Sigmond valued the Subject Property for $40,000 more than the Subject Property sold on December 13, 2005. He considered the upgrades that were made to the Subject Property after the December 13, 2005, sale, and the amount of time that had elapsed from the listing of the Subject Property in September 2005 for the sale that closed on December 13, 2005, and the date of the appraisal. Mr. Sigmond testified that he did not know the actual execution date of the sales contract for the December 13, 2005, sale. However, in his response to the Department dated July 16, 2008, he acknowledged that the pending date for the December 13 sale was October 10, 2005. He did not include the pending sale date in his Report. Mr. Sigmond did not adequately explain in his Report the $40,000 difference in valuation from the last sale of the Subject Property and his appraisal valuation. He admitted in his letter dated July 16, 2008, to the Department’s investigator that that he did not include an analysis of the December 13 sale in his Report. He stated: The prior sales of the subject property were identified in the addendum to the appraisal, however, the analysis of the 12/13/05 sale was inadvertently omitted from the addendum. The following comment was originally in the appraisal report: “At the time of the inspection, the subject property had been renovated since its previous sale on 12/13/05. The subject improvements were: Custom crown molding throughout, updated/additional electrical repairs and/or replacement throughout the subject unit; the interior had been completely repainted; replaced and/or upgraded light fixtures and ceiling fans. The subject has been well maintained and is considered to be in good physical condition with no functional inadequacies noted. No external inadequacies were noted in the subject’s immediate area.” That comment should not have been omitted from the appraisal, however, it did not materially affect the reporting standards or the opinion of the market value as the condition of the subject was referred to as good throughout the report. The Subject Property is part of a condominium complex known as Terrace IV at Cypress Trace. Terrace IV consists of 60 units. Cypress Trace is a conglomerate of individual condominium projects that have banded together through an agreement to share certain common amenities. The total number of condominiums in the conglomerate is 799. There are three methods for valuing all forms of real estate: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach. Mr. Sigmond used the sales comparison approach, which is the appropriate method for valuating condominium units such as the Subject Property. The goal of a sales comparison approach is to find a set of comparable sales as similar as possible to the property being appraised. Mr. Sigmond selected and listed three properties in his Report, which he considered to be comparable to the Subject Property. The first property listed as a comparable sale was located at Veranda III at Cypress Trace (Comparable Sale 1), less than .01 mile northwest of the Subject Property. It is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit with 1,414 square feet of gross living area located on the second floor of the building. The unit has a detached garage. At the time of the Report, Comparable Sale 1 was two years old. A contract for sale was entered into on July 5, 2005, for $399,000. The sale of Comparable Sale 1, which included furniture, was closed on September 23, 2005. Mr. Sigmond adjusted the value of Comparable Sale 1 downward by $15,000 for the detached garage and by $17,000 for the additional square footage. He also made a positive time adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 of $15,900. A time adjustment is an adjustment for the amount of time that has elapsed since the property last sold. In a market which is climbing, an upward adjustment for appreciation would be appropriate, but, if the market has peaked and is declining, a positive adjustment would not be appropriate. Mr. Sigmond made time adjustments from the time that the contracts for sale were entered for the properties used as comparables. The time adjustments were 1 percent per month from the date of the pending sale. The second property listed as a comparable sale was located at Terrace II at Cypress Trace (Comparable Sale 2), approximately .35 miles northeast of the Subject Property. Comparable Sale 2 is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit consisting of 1,194 square feet of gross living area located on the third floor of the building. The unit was two years old at the time of the report. Comparable Sale 2 has a carport. Comparable Sale 2 was sold furnished in November 2005. The multiple listing for Comparable Sale 2 described the furnishings as follows: “This 3rd floor condo has over $20,000.00 in furnishings including Tommy Bahama style furniture and drapes.” Mr. Sigmond or his assistant contacted the listing agent for Comparable Sale 2 and was told that the value of the furniture was nominal. Mr. Dennis J. Black, expert for the Department, contacted the owner of Comparable Sale 2, who advised Mr. Black that one of the selling points of the unit was the furnishings. A contract for sale for Comparable Sale 2 was pending on October 3, 2005, and the sale closed on November 16, 2005, for $355,000. Mr. Sigmond made a $15,000 positive adjustment to Comparable Sale 2 for options and upgrades and a positive time adjustment of $7,100. Mr. Sigmond made no adjustments for differences in floor locations, feeling that the floor location is typically a personal preference of the buyer. He also made no adjustments for the furniture that was sold with the unit. Comparable Sale 2 was the most current sale of a basic unit exactly like the Subject Property; however, Comparable Sale 2 did not have crown molding, was not freshly painted, and had carpet as opposed to ceramic tile in the living areas. The multiple listing for Comparable Sale 2 did indicate that the unit had some ceramic tile, but did not specify in what areas the tile was located. The third property listed as a comparable sale was located at Carrington at Stonebridge (Comparable Sale 3), approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the Subject Property. Comparable Sale 3 is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit consisting of 1,184 square feet of gross living area located on the first floor of the building. The unit has a carport and, at the time of the Report, was nine years old. A contract for sale of Comparable Sale 3, unfurnished, was entered into on June 22, 2005, and the sale was closed on July 13, 2005, for $350,000. Mr. Sigmond chose Comparable Sale 1 to bracket the sale price in order to meet an underwriting guideline of Wells Fargo Bank, which requires that a similar unit be listed which has a value that is more than what the appraiser may value the property being appraised. Bracketing is a common and accepted appraisal practice in the Collier County area when doing appraisals for mortgage lenders. He felt that Comparable Sale 2 was the most recent similar sale in the project. He went out of the project for Comparable Sale 3, because he felt that the banks wanted to have a comparable sale out of the project. Mr. Sigmond’s Report contained a description of the general market conditions as follows: There are no loan discounts, interest buy downs or concessions noted in the marketplace at this time. Conventional financing is readily available and interest rates are at competitive levels. Demand outweighs supply at this time, and market values have been increasing. The marketing time for condominium[s] in this area has ranged from one to three months and is considered to be typical. Mr. Sigmond also discussed the increasing market in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Supplemental Addendum of the Report. Time adjustments were necessary due to a market in which demands [sic] exceeds supply, and properties are commonly sold within 60 days of their listing. These adjustments were calculated at a conservative 1% per month from “pending” date. A 25%-40% increase in the Naples Real Estate market over the last 12 months has been well documented by MLS and local print media. Based on the overall evidence, the real estate market was not declining at the time the appraisal was done. There were other units which Mr. Sigmond considered, but did not use as a comparable sale. One such unit was located at Terrace IV at Cypress Trace, Unit 2738. Built in 2005, this unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms and is located on the third floor of the building. The living area of the unit is 1,232 square feet. The freshly painted unit has crown molding and ceramic tile throughout the unit. Unit 2738 was a new listing on August 5, 2005, for $339,900. A pending sale on August 16, 2005, showed a selling price of $335,000. The sale was closed on October 4, 2005. Another unit which Mr. Sigmond considered but did not use as a comparable sale was located at 2730 Cypress Trace Circle, Unit 2813. This condominium is a first-floor two- bedroom, two-bath unit, which was built in 2004. It has ceramic tile and carpeting. The living area is 1,194 square feet. Unit 2813 was listed on August 18, 2005, for $339,000. On September 7, 2005, a sale was pending for $320,000. The sale closed on November 30, 2005. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Sigmond intentionally crafted his Report so that his valuation of the Subject Property would equal the contract price of the Subject Property. In his Report, Mr. Sigmond certified the following: I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of 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 at the time this appraisal report was prepared. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) (2005), which were in effect at the time the Report was developed and communicated, provide the following: Standards Rule 1-1 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal. not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. Standards Rule 1-2 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: * * * (e) identify the characteristics of the property that are relevant to the type and definition of value and intended use of the appraisal, including: * * * (iii) any personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property but are included in the appraisal; * * * Standards Rule 1-4 (This Standards Rule contains specific requirements from which departure is permitted. See the DEPARTURE RULE.) In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information applicable to the appraisal problem, given the scope of the work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f). (a) When a sales comparison approach is applicable, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. * * * Standards Rule 1-5 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) In developing a real property appraisal, when the value opinion to be developed is market value, an appraiser must, if such information is available to the appraiser in the normal course of business: analyze all agreements of sale, options, or listings of the subject property current as of the effective date of the appraisal; and analyze all sales of the subject property that occurred within the last three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal. * * * Standards Rule 2-1 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; * * * Standards Rule 2-2 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used: Self-Contained Appraisal Report, Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report. * * * (b) The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * (iii) summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate involved in the appraisal, including the physical and economic property characteristics relevant to the assignment. * * * clearly and conspicuously: state all extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions; and state that their use might have affected the assignment results; * * * Standards Rule 2-3 (This Standards Rule contains binding requirements from which departure is not permitted.) Each written real property appraisal report must contain a signed certification that is similar in content to the following form: I certify to the best 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. --I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no (or specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. --I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. --my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. --my compensation for completing this assignment 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 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. --I have (or 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 certification 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 real property appraisal assistance must be stated.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Sigmond violated Subsections 475.624(2) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes; dismissing Counts Three through Ten; issuing a public reprimand; and imposing a $5,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed September 30, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for licensing, regulating, and imposing discipline upon real estate appraisers operating in Florida. See §§ 475.613(2) and .624, Fla. Stat. (2007). The Department is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints and, upon a finding of probable cause by the Board, issuing administrative complaints and prosecuting disciplinary actions involving real estate appraisers in Florida. See § 455.225(1)(a), (4), and (6), Fla. Stat. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. Facendo was a state-certified real estate appraiser, having been issued license number RD-2598, and his business office was located in Plantation, Florida. In August 2007, Mr. Facendo's office received a request from University Capital Funding, a mortgage broker, for an appraisal on property known as 901 Southwest Worchester Lane, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 ("Worchester Lane property"). After receiving the request, Mr. Facendo consulted the Multiple Listing Service with respect to the Worchester Lane property and the neighborhood. Mr. Facendo then went to the Worchester Lane property, measured the property, inspected the interior and exterior of the property, and looked at the homes that were comparable to the Worchester Lane property. Mr. Facendo returned to his office and analyzed the data he had collected during the site visit. He used print sources and online services available in his office to verify the flood zones, neighborhood composition, land sales, and other information necessary to complete the appraisal. Mr. Facendo prepared the Appraisal Report for the Worchester Lane property and provided it to University Capital Funding. Mr. Facendo also compiled a workfile containing documentation he used to develop the Appraisal Report. The Appraisal Report contained three errors:2 Mr. Facendo included the incorrect zoning classification for the Worchester Lane property, identifying it as RM-143, residential multi-family, rather than the correct RS-2, residential; he identified the wrong location for the Worchester Lane property on the map included with the Appraisal Report,3 and he failed to include the lot number in the legal description of the property. Mr. Facendo stated in the Appraisal Report that the property was not in a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Association) special flood hazard area, and he referenced FEMA Map # 12111C0290F, dated August 19, 1991. He did not include a copy of the map in the workfile he compiled when preparing the Appraisal Report. Mr. Facendo included in the Appraisal Report information regarding neighborhood characteristics, one-unit housing trends, one-unit housing, and present land use percentage. He indicated that the neighborhood was over 75 percent built-up and stable; that one-unit housing trends showed that the supply and demand for housing in the neighborhood were in balance, with marketing conditions partially stable to declining, and time exposure typically between three-to-six months; that the one-unit housing prices ranged from a low of $188,000.00 for new housing to a high of $450,000.00 for housing six years old, with a median of $305,000.00 for housing three years old; and that the present land use consisted of 80 percent one-unit housing and 20 percent commercial. Mr. Facendo did not include in his workfile documentation to support this information. Mr. Facendo concluded that the value of the Worchester Lane property was $305,000.00 when calculated under the Sales Comparison Approach method. In the Appraisal Report, Mr. Facendo identified 88 comparable properties currently for sale in the neighborhood, ranging in price from $175,000.00 to $360,000.00, and 72 comparable sales in the neighborhood within the previous 12 months, ranging in price from $188,000.00 to $450,000.00. Mr. Facendo did not include in his workfile documentation to support the number of properties currently for sale or the number of properties sold within the past 12 months. Mr. Facendo concluded that the value of the Worchester Lane property was $296,990.00 when calculated under the Cost Approach to Value method. Mr. Facendo placed a value of $60,000.00 on the property's home site. He calculated the square footage replacement cost new using the cost estimator in his online copy of the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook and noted in the Appraisal Report that this was the source of his cost data. Mr. Facendo also noted as a comment on the cost approach that he used the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook "& local builders [estimates]" as the sources of the cost figures he used to estimate the value of the Worchester Lane property using the cost approach. Finally, Mr. Facendo also consulted the South Florida 2007 Blue Book Construction and the 2007 National Building Cost Manual for cost data, but he did not mention these sources in the Appraisal Report. Mr. Facendo did not include in the workfile he compiled for the Appraisal Report documentation to support his opinion of site value, copies of the Marshall & Swift online calculations of the replacement cost new, copies of the local and national builder's data he used in his calculations, or copies of the Marshall & Swift data to support the square footage prices he used to calculate the value of the Worchester Lane property. Mr. Facendo signed the Appraisal Report on August 22, 2007, and noted on the Appraisal Report that it was effective August 22, 2007. In October 2007, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,4 ordered a review of Mr. Facendo's August 22, 2007, Appraisal Report of the Worchester Lane property. The review appraiser, John Nickerson, prepared a One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report ("Review Appraisal"), which he signed and dated October 8, 2007. In the review report, Mr. Nickerson opined that there were a number of errors in Mr. Facendo's Appraisal Report, including the zoning classification, the legal description, and the location of the property. Mr. Nickerson also criticized the comparable properties used by Mr. Facendo in the Sales Comparison section of the Appraisal Report and the site value assigned by Mr. Facendo in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal Report. At some point, Mr. Facendo was advised by Chase Home Lending of the results of Mr. Nickerson's Review Appraisal, and he was provided with a copy of the report.5 In a letter to Chase Home Lending dated August 25, 2008, Mr. Facendo responded to the concerns raised by Mr. Nickerson in the Review Appraisal about Mr. Facendo's Appraisal Report. Mr. Facendo explained the basis for his choice of comparable properties and for the value he placed on the building site, and he discussed his reasons for believing that the conclusions regarding comparable properties and site valuation reached by Mr. Nickerson were flawed. As directed by an employee of Chase Home Lending, Mr. Facendo modified his August 22, 2007, Appraisal Report to include the correct zoning classification of RS-2, residential. Mr. Facendo was expressly directed by the employee of Chase Home Lending not to change anything on the face of the original Appraisal Report except for the zoning classification. Mr. Facendo followed this direction, and he did not revisit the Worchester Lane property or change any other information in the original Appraisal Report. The corrected Appraisal Report was, therefore, not a new appraisal report based on new information gathered in August 2008 regarding the Worchester Lane property. The corrected Appraisal Report was not effective in August 2008, and did not supersede the original Appraisal Report of August 22, 2007, except for the zoning classification correction.6 Mr. Facendo submitted the corrected Appraisal Report on the Worchester Lane property to Chase Home Lending on or about August 25, 2008, but he did not alter the original signature date or effective date of August 22, 2007. Mr. Facendo did not, however, include a copy of the original Appraisal Report in the workfile that he transmitted to the Department during the course of its investigation; the workfile contained a copy of only the corrected Appraisal Report. In signing the Appraisal Report, Mr. Facendo certified and agreed that he had complied with the USPAP that were effective when the report was prepared in August 2007. The Ethics Rule of the USPAP (2006) provides in pertinent part as follows: Record Keeping An appraiser must prepare a workfile for each appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment. The workfile must include: the name of the client and the identity, by name or type, or any other intended users; true copies of any written reports, documented on any type of media; summaries of any oral reports or testimony, or a transcript of testimony, including the appraiser's signed and dated certification; and all other data, information, and documentation necessary to support the appraiser's opinions and conclusions and to show compliance with this Rule and all other applicable Standards, or references to the location(s) of such other documentation. USPAP (2006) Standards Rule 1-1(c) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: * * * (c) not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. USPAP (2006) Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information necessary for credible assignment results. When a sales comparison approach is necessary for credible assignment results, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. When a cost approach is necessary for credible assignment results, an appraiser must: develop an opinion of site value by an appropriate appraisal method or technique; analyze such comparable cost data as are available to estimate the cost new of the improvements (if any); and analyze such comparable data as are available to estimate the difference between the cost new and the present worth of the improvements (accrued depreciation). USPAP (2006) Standards Rule 2-1(a) provides: Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading[.] USPAP (2006) Standards Rule 2-2(b)(viii) provides: Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used: Self-Contained Appraisal Report. Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report.[footnote omitted.] * * * The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * (viii) summarize the information analyzed, the appraisal methods and techniques employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions; exclusion of the sales comparison approach, cost approach, or income approach must be explained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint dated September 30, 2009. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 4th day of March, 2010.
The Issue Petitioner's Administrative Complaint dated March 5, 1997, charges that Respondent, Barbara Cogan, obtained a license by means of knowingly submitting false information or engaging in misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.624(12), Florida Statutes. The issue for disposition is whether that violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara E. Cogan is a state-certified residential real estate appraiser, having been issued license no. 0002758 on or about April 22, 1996, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Beverly Ridenauer is presently a complaint analyst, but previously was an administrative assistant in appraiser certification for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). As part of her duties at the time, Ms. Ridenauer reviewed Ms. Cogan's application for state certified residential appraiser in March 1996. The application on its face was complete and the requisite fee was attached. Ms. Cogan achieved the required hours of education and passed the state examination. Her application was, therefore, approved. In the meantime, Ms. Ridenauer, as required by law, commenced an audit of the work experience claimed by Ms. Cogan in support of her application for certification. In response to a letter request from Ms. Ridenauer, Ms. Cogan promptly submitted copies of appraisal reports that she had prepared in her pre- certification employment experience. The appraisal reports submitted by Ms. Cogan were all signed by Thomas M. Hayes, a state certified residential appraiser, with the additional notation "assistance by Barbara E. Cogan." In the course of her review, Ms. Ridenauer determined that Ms. Cogan had no real estate sales or broker's license, nor was she registered or certified as an appraiser. Ms. Ridenauer sent a memo to the DBPR complaint division because she deemed that the experience claimed by Ms. Cogan in the application process was invalid: qualifying appraisal experience may only be obtained when an individual is licensed to perform the appraisals. There are no false statements on Ms. Cogan's application. She did not claim any other professional licenses in Florida and she truthfully answered "no" to the question whether she had ever been registered, licensed, or certified in another jurisdiction. Nor did Ms. Cogan misrepresent her work experience. She did all of the work on the appraisals under the supervision of Thomas Hayes, with whom she worked for 2 and 1/2 years. She successfully completed the required appraisal education courses and was trained by Mr. Hayes. Neither Ms. Cogan nor Mr. Hayes had the slightest notion that Ms. Cogan was performing work for which she was not appropriately licensed. The appraisals signed by Mr. Hayes and submitted by Ms. Cogan to the agency as evidence of her experience include this statement in the appraiser's certification: I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. . . . (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 4, emphasis in original) The emphasized language in the above text of the certification was underlined by hand and an asterisk was placed in the margin. Below Mr. Hayes' signature and next to an asterisk is the notation acknowledging Ms. Cogan's assistance that is described in paragraph 4, above. When she took her appraisal education courses, Ms. Cogan observed that she was the only student who was not a registered appraiser. She asked her teacher if she had to be registered in order to get certified and he said, "no." Ms. Cogan also had obtained, and was thoroughly familiar with, a 2-sided sheet from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, titled "Essential Information for Real Estate Appraiser Applicants." The information sheet provides instructions for completing applications. It also describes the qualifications for registered appraiser (75 classroom hours of approved courses), licensed appraiser (75 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal), certified residential appraiser (120 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal), and certified general appraiser (165 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal, including non-residential appraisal work). Ms. Cogan correctly noted that neither the information sheet nor her appraiser rules booklet states plainly that a candidate for certification as a residential appraiser must be first registered or licensed as an appraiser, a real estate salesperson, or a broker. When she was notified of the administrative complaint, she was thoroughly surprised and confused. She never intended to obtain her certification under false pretenses. While agreeing that the rules and statute are not perfectly clear, the agency contends that Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, requires that appraisals must be done by appropriately- licensed individuals. The agency concedes that Ms. Cogan did the work she claimed and that it was good, competent work. But for the fact that she was not registered or licensed when she did the work, Ms. Cogan is fully qualified for her residential real estate appraiser certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Barbara Cogan. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara E. Cogan 3745 Oak Lane Melbourne, Florida 32934 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Pfeiffer was a certified residential appraiser licensed by the State of Florida, License No. RD3059. She first became licensed in 1998. On June 12, 2006, Ms. Pfeiffer accepted an assignment from Diane Purser to appraise her home located in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Mrs. Purser was in the midst of a divorce proceeding with her husband Mark Purser and wanted to have the appraisal to determine the market value of their home prior to a meeting with her attorney. Mrs. Purser wanted the appraisal to be expedited. Ms. Pfeiffer gave the appraisal assignment to Brian Choron, who, at that time, was a registered trainee real estate appraiser, License No. RI-10526. Ms. Pfeiffer was Mr. Choron’s supervisor. Mr. Choron went to Mrs. Purser’s home and physically inspected the home while Mr. and Mrs. Purser were present. Mr. Choron developed an appraisal report of the Purser property. Mr. Choron extracted data from appraisals of other property in the area in developing the report on the Purser property. This is not an uncommon practice in the appraisal profession. Mr. Choron sent the appraisal report to Ms. Pfeiffer for her review. Ms. Pfeiffer reviewed the report and sent it to Mrs. Purser. Ms. Pfeiffer signed the appraisal on June 15, 2006, as the appraiser. Mr. Choron did not sign the appraisal. By signing the appraisal report as the appraiser, Ms. Pfeiffer certified, among other things, that she had “performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property.” Additionally, she certified the following: I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore, any changes made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. On page four3 of the appraisal report, Ms. Pfeiffer stated: “Brian Choron RI10526 assisted in the research, inspection, preparation of this appraisal report.” On page 17 of the appraisal report, Ms. Pfeiffer indicated that she had inspected the property. Ms. Pfeiffer admits that she incorrectly signed the appraisal report as the appraiser, that she should have signed as the supervisory appraiser, and that Mr. Choron should have signed the appraisal report as the appraiser. The appraisal report listed the effective date of the appraisal as June 14, 2006. The final estimated value of the Purser property was listed as $275,000.00. Mr. Purser contacted Ms. Pfeiffer and was upset about some discrepancies which he perceived to be in the appraisal report. Ms. Pfeiffer and Mr. Choron developed a revised appraisal report, hereinafter referred to as the “revised appraisal.” The revised appraisal was communicated to Mrs. Purser in October 2006. The final estimated value of the property was listed the same as it was in the original appraisal, $275,000.00. The revised appraisal listed Mr. Choron as the appraiser. On page 8 of the revised appraisal, Mr. Choron signed the revised appraisal as the appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. On the same page of the revised appraisal, Ms. Pfeiffer signed the revised appraisal as the supervisory appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. She also indicated on that page that she had not inspected the property. On page 18 of the revised appraisal, Mr. Choron signed the revised appraisal as the appraiser with a signature date of October 20, 2006. Ms. Pfeiffer signed on the same page as the supervisory appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. Ms. Pfeiffer checked boxes on page 18 of the revised appraisal, indicating that she both did and did not inspect the property. There are no issues with the valuation of the Purser property. None of the experts who testified at the final hearing found fault with the market value placed on the property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. Pfeiffer guilty of violating Subsections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and Rule 2-3 of the USPAP; dismissing Count IX of the Amended Administrative Complaint; placing Ms. Pfeiffer on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and requiring Ms. Pfeiffer to complete the 15-hour USPAP course. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether either Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts I through VIII of their respective Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board is the state agency charged with regulating real estate appraisers who are, or want to become, licensed to render appraisal services in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent, Ms. Green was licensed as a certified residential real estate appraiser. Ms. Green held license number 3236 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Moody was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser. Ms Moody held license number 16667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. In October 2008, Ms. Moody received a license as a certified residential appraiser, license number RD 7444. On March 8, 2007, Ms. Moody signed an appraisal of real property located at 11735 Chanticleer Drive, Lot 16, Block B Grand Lagoon, in Pensacola, Florida. She signed as appraiser. Ms. Green signed the report as supervisory appraiser. The listed borrower was James W. Cobb, and the lender was Premier Mortgage Capital. Respondents developed, signed, and communicated this report. Subsequently, the borrower, Mr. Cobb, who was also the buyer, complained to the Division with regard to the appraisal on the property, and the Division investigated the matter. The investigation resulted in an investigative report dated December 21, 2007. According to the appraisal, the property was listed for $1,030,000 in the multiple listing service, and the contract price was $790,000. The appraisal report valued the property using both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach. Both approaches resulted in a value of $1,030,000. These facts were reported in a six-page Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. At the time of the hearing, the property was the subject of a foreclosure action. The USPAP provides guidance to those involved in the business of conducting real estate appraisals. Real estate appraisers typically use both a "sales comparison approach" and a "cost approach" in attempting to arrive at a value. A "sales comparison approach" uses data obtained from sales of similar properties and adjusts for differences. A "cost approach" starts with the cost of an empty building site and adds to that the cost of building an identical structure and adjusts for enhancements and depreciation. Both approaches were used by Respondents and were reported on the Form 1004. The Division's expert witness, Sylvia G. Storm, reviewed the Form 1004 and all of the available supporting data. She did not make an appraisal herself and did not visit the property in question. Ms. Storm was accepted as an expert as provided by Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, because she had "specialized knowledge" regarding real estate appraisals. This was the first time that Ms. Storm testified as an expert witness in a case involving appraisals. The same was true in the case of the expert witness presented by Respondents, Victor Harrison. It is noted that these experts were only minimally qualified, and their testimony is given little weight. Ms. Storm commented on the fact that the property was called "new" in the improvements section yet on the following sales comparison approach it was listed under actual age, "27/E New-2." This suggests the property with improvements is 27 years old, but has an effective age of new to two years. In fact, in the improvements section it was noted that the property has been completely reconstructed. It is clear from the Form 1004, and the hearing record, that the property was essentially destroyed during Hurricane Ivan and was rebuilt above the surviving foundation. It is found that the house was essentially new at the time of the appraisal. Ms. Storm believes some of the deficiencies she noted in the Form 1004, discussed in more detail below, and the supporting documentation contained in the work file, affect the credibility of the report. She believes that some of these deficiencies amounted to a violation of USPAP. Ms. Storm stated that an appraiser should do a complete analysis of the contract and that if it is not done the appraiser is not being reasonably diligent. She also testified that an appraiser, who failed to discuss the large difference between the contract price and appraised value, and who failed to document the analysis, is not being reasonably diligent. Mr. Harrison, on the other hand, testified that after his analysis of the report he found no indication at all of a lack of reasonable diligence. Ms. Storm opined that two or more appraisers, appraising the same property may arrive at two or more numbers and that there is nothing unusual when that occurs. Ms. Moody testified under oath that the supporting information contained in the work file was adequate and that references to other documents, such as public records, were plentiful and complied with the requirements of USPAP. This testimony was adopted by Ms. Green. In order to provide clarity, actual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints will be discussed in seriatim. As will be addressed more fully in the Conclusions of Law, the Division must prove its factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, that standard will be used below. The factual allegations will be presented in bold face type, and the discussion of the proof will be in regular type: Respondent made the following errors and omission in the Report:"Failure to discuss or explain why the Subject Property was listed for sale for $1,030,000 and the contract price was $790,000." Ms. Storm opined that the discussion of the contract price did not go into the details as to the history of the property, or list price history, or who the contracting parties were or any fees to be paid by either party. She believes the Form 1004 should have reported when the property was listed and how many days it had been on the market. She believes that USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the contract completely. She believes the Form 1004 should have commented on the large difference between the sales price and the appraised price. The Form 1004 states, "I did analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction." Ms. Moody testified under oath that they analyzed the difference between the appraisal price and the selling price. She stated that there was no requirement to discuss it in the Form 1004. Ms. Green adopted this testimony. Ms. Moody also stated that the contract price of a piece of property does not affect the value of the property as reported in the Form 1004. This factual allegation was not proven. "Use of an outdated FEMA map for the Subject Property." Respondents used a FEMA flood map that was outdated. This occurred because the computer program Respondents were using, InterFlood.com, presented an out-of-date map. The map used in the appraisal was dated February 23, 2000, but the most current edition of the map available at the time of the appraisal was dated September 26, 2006. The later map was no different from the map Respondents used. The Form 1004 notes, with regard to the flood status, "It appears to be located in FEMA Flood Zones X and AE. A survey would be needed to confirm flood zones." In sum, there is nothing incorrect or misleading with regard to flooding potential. The Division's expert witness, Ms. Storm, concluded that Respondents did not err with regard to the FEMA flood map. This factual allegation was not proven. "Misstatement of PUD Homeowner's Association Fees for the Subject Property." Respondents asserted the homeowner's association fee to be $100 annually. The by-laws of the Grande Lagoon Community Association, Inc., in effect during all times pertinent, state unequivocally that annual dues of the Association are $100. The Division's investigator stated that he learned through a telephone call with a "Mr. Broome," who was possibly an officer in the homeowner's association, that at the time of the appraisal there was an annual assessment by the homeowner's association of $250 for canal maintenance, and that this amount was to increase to $500 annually in 2008. Information about this assessment was not readily available to Respondents. An assessment is different from a homeowner's fee. The Division's expert witness stated that if there is a homeowner's fee it should be stated on the Form 1004, but that it is not a USPAP requirement. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to differentiate view of Subject Property and comparable sale 2, when the Subject Property is located on a canal and the comparable had an open water location." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a small, lagoon- like body of water with access to Pensacola Bay, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note financial assistance in the sales contract, where seller was to pay all closing costs." The agreement whereby seller would pay $20,000 in closing costs was not made until March 28, 2007, 20 days after the appraisal was completed. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note consulting fee to Investor's Rehab in the sales contract." This allegation is true in that the consulting fee was not mentioned. Ms. Storm opined that it should be analyzed in the appraisal report. She asserted that persons who were not privy to the contract might make decisions in reliance upon the appraisal report and, therefore, the Form 1004 should mention the consulting fee. However, Ms. Moody pointed out that the consulting fee had no effect on the value of the property and stated that it was intentionally omitted. This factual allegation was proven to the extent that the consulting fee was not mentioned, but this omission did not affect the accuracy or credibility of the appraisal report. "Failure to explain range of effective age dates for the Subject Property and comparable sale 1." As discussed in Finding of Fact 8, the subject property was essentially new at the time it was appraised. As pointed out by Mr. Harrison, the effective age was new. Effective age is an estimate of the physical condition of a building. The actual age of the building may be shorter or longer than the effective age. The determination of effective age is largely a matter of judgment. In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5 years. The Form 1004, therefore, presented a one year error as to actual age, which is insignificant. The allegation is that Respondents failed to explain the range of effective age dates. However, it is found that the Form 1004 adequately informs anyone reading it. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its effective age difference." No evidence supporting this allegation was presented. The unrebutted testimony of Ms. Moody, adopted by Ms. Green, was that there was no market data suggesting that there was a need for adjustment. There was no evidence that an explanation for no adjustment was required. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Incorrect site size adjustment for comparable sale 1; the $17,000 should be in the positive direction." The site size adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 is in the amount of $40,000. It appears that the intentions of the Administrative Complaints were to allege an error in gross living area. The result is that the record provides no proof of this allegation. "Adjustment for both the room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 1." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 1." In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5. The Form 1004 therefore presented a one-year error. This error is insignificant. "Failure to explain inconsistent site size adjustments made to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The subject property was located on a site (or lot) that was .3 acres. Comparable Sale 1 was located on a site that was .52 acres. Respondents subtracted $40,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 1. Comparable Sale 2 was located on a site that was .7 acres. Respondents subtracted $60,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 2. Comparable Sale 3 was located on a site that was .44 acres. Respondents added $25,000 to the sale price of Comparable Sale 3. It is the appraiser's duty to value a comparable in such a way that differences between the comparable and the subject property are accounted so that a common denominator may be found. For example, Comparable Sale 1 was approximately .2 of an acre larger than the subject property and thus more valuable solely because it is on a larger site. To equalize the situation, the price of Comparable Sale 1 must be reduced, and it was. Comparable Sale 2 also was reduced, but Comparable Sale 3 that was on a larger lot than the subject property, was credited with a $25,000 addition to its price. Nothing in Respondents' work file provides how the figures for the comparables were found. Moreover, if two of the comparables experienced a downward adjustment because of a larger lot size, then the third comparable, having a larger lot size, should have been adjusted downward also. Therefore, there were inconsistencies requiring explanation, and no explanation was found in the file. "Failure to note that comparable sale 1 has a fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." Comparable Sale 2 was built in 1990. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 17 years old. It last sold November 2006. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of five years on the Form 1004. This is both incorrect and insignificant. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 2." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." This allegation repeats that stated in "O" above. "Failure to not [sic] that comparable sale 2 has three fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its multiple fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its lake view." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a lagoon-like body of water with access to open water, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age of comparable sale 3." Comparable Sale 3 was built in 1989. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 18 years old. It last sold in August of 2005. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of 10 years on the Form 1004. This age was reported incorrectly. "Use of comparable sale 3 which sold 19 months prior to the Report." The Form 1004 noted that finding comparables was difficult due to market disruption caused by Hurricane Ivan. As noted by Ms. Storm, the change in the real estate market during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, have been profound everywhere. Primarily, market prices have declined during those years. She was of the opinion that the August 18, 2005, sale date of Comparable Sale 3 was too remote. She stated, correctly, that a market condition adjustment should have been made to the price reported for Comparable Sale 3. Ms. Storm found in the work file analyst listings of the comparables that were utilized, and pages from the Marshall and Swift, but did not see any actual paired sale analyses for any of the adjustments that were used in the report. She could not determine from where they obtained these sales and the adjustments for differences. She opined that this made the report less credible. According to Ms. Storm, the insufficient analysis runs afoul of USPAP. The opinion of Ms. Storm, however, fails to take into account the insufficient data in the Pensacola area that resulted from hurricane-induced market disruption and the consequent lack of sales. Because of the lack of viable alternatives, using this property as a comparable was necessary. This factual allegation was not proven. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to calculate and list the net adjustment and gross adjustment totals for comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to utilize current Marshall & Swift information for the Cost Approach section of the Report." Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information in the cost approach analysis. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides "local multipliers" for the cost per square foot for construction. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the Form 1004 issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue after February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. "Failure to complete the PUD information section of the Report, when Subject Property, as noted by Respondent in Report, is located in a PUD." The Division acknowledged during the hearing that there was no support for this allegation, and withdrew it. AA) "Failure to date when Respondent inspected the Subject Property and comparable sales listed in the Report." (This allegation was made in the case of Ms. Green, but not in the case of Ms. Moody.) In the blocks on the Form 1004, below the Supervisory Appraiser's signature, Ms. Green signed statements indicating that she inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property and that she inspected the exterior of the comparable sales properties. She did not date either of these statements. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $40,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 1. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $60,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $25,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $50,000 "view" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Comparable Sale 1 is on Big River. The Form 1004 notes that Big River is similar to Big Lagoon. A $50,000 downward adjustment was made in the "view" category. Ms. Storm stated that she had searched for documentation and did not find it. The work file does not have documentary support for the adjustments. Respondents and Ms. Storm agreed that the lack of sales in the area made such adjustments like this problematic. As Ms. Storm said, "I know there haven't been that many sales of waterfronts so it's really difficult to arrive at that data." Nevertheless, the lack of any information in the work file to support the adjustment means that this factual allegation is proven. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $5,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $3,000 "triple garage" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $3,000 was made to Comparable Sale 3 because of its triple garage. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, includes Marshall and Swift data for garages. Although exactly how the $3,000 adjustment was calculated is not clear, the Marshall and Swift information was in the file and provided a method for making the calculation. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "dock/pier" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $10,000 was made to Comparable Sale 1 because of the presence of a "dock/pier." No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $15,000 "pool" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $15,000 was made to Comparable Sale 2 because of the presence of a pool on the property. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $39/square foot adjustment for gross living area made tocomparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. The Division has not directed the attention of the Administrative Law Judge to any reference in the record to a "$39/square foot adjustment for gross living area." An independent search of Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, did not reveal documentation for this adjustment or any documentation mentioning it. Accordingly, this allegation is not proven. The work file lacks current Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Reports were completed, as well as any local builder information, to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section of the Report. Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information for use in the cost approach. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides information used to calculate the construction cost per square foot. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the report issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue subsequent to February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $30,000 As-Is Value of Site Improvements adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report. As-is value of site improvements adjustment, in the cost approach section, is a positive value of $30,000. There is no explanation in the record as to what an "as-is value of site improvements adjustment" is or from what source came the $30,000 value. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $60,000 Porches/Appliances adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, contains Marshall and Swift information for porches and appliances. Thus, documentation is present.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board find Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to document adjustments made to comparable sales and reprimand Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Brady, Esquire 3250 Navy Boulevard, Suite 204 Post Office Box 12584 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2584 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank K. Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Fred Catchpole and Gwendolyn Barker (Respondents) should be subject to disciplinary action as licensed residential real estate appraisers by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) for failure to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.623(15), Florida Statutes (2004).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the licensing authority for real estate appraisers in Florida with revocation and disciplinary authority over its licensees pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On or about September 16, 2004, Respondents Fred Catchpole and Gwendolyn Barker prepared, signed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for the property, including a manufactured home, located at 209 Ponderosa Pine Court, Georgetown, Florida 32139 (Subject Property). At the time of the Report, Respondent Catchpole was licensed by Petitioner as a State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, and Respondent Barker was licensed by Petitioner as a State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser. Both Respondents are currently licensed by Petitioner as State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers. The Report was prepared for Pass and Associates in connection with refinance of a loan secured by the Subject Property. Respondents issued a corrected version of the Report (Corrected Report) with changes and additions requested by the client in 2004, prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. In October 2004, a One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review (Field Review) of the Report was conducted on behalf of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., who was listed in the Field Review as the “Lender/Client.” Between 2004 and 2009, Respondents provided rebuttal and rebuttal materials to address the Field Review. In 2009, Chase Home Lending (Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. and Chase Home Lending are both referred to herein as “Chase”) filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding the Report. The complaint consisted of a cover letter from Larry Handley with Chase Home Lending, a copy of the Report, and a copy of the Field Review. The complaint was found legally sufficient and forwarded to Petitioner’s investigator. Petitioner’s investigator did not receive a copy of the Corrected Report. T. 15, 204. Following the investigation, the Administrative Complaints were filed against Respondents. Count I of the Administrative Complaints relies on a number of alleged problems with the Report or the supporting workfiles (Workfiles), as detailed in the “Essential Allegations of Material Fact” section of the Administrative Complaints. After dismissing Counts 2 through 12 of the Administrative Complaints at the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner did not provide an Amended Administrative Complaint for either Respondent. Count I of the Administrative Complaints is based solely upon Respondents’ alleged failure “to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15).” Instead of providing Amended Administrative Complaints, during the final hearing and in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner addressed the following alleged problems with the Report or Workfiles: The address of comparative sale 2, listed in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report, was incorrect. The Subject Property has a zoning classification of R-2, which is mixed residential, which was incorrectly stated in the Report. The Workfiles for comparable sales 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 listed in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report are not supported by documentation contemporaneous to the effective date of the Report. Multiple Listing Services (MLS) is listed as a data source in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report for comparable sales 3, 5 and 6, but the Workfiles lack MLS documentation for those comparative sales. The Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report failed to identify features for comparable sale 2 that were noted in the Workfiles. The Workfiles lack data to support the gross living area for comparable sale 6 noted in the Sales Comparison Analysis of the Report. The Report failed to note fences on the comparable sales, failed to make adjustments for the fences in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report, and failed to address whether the fences had an influence on the price. The Report contains inconsistent Cost Approach data. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the Estimated Site Value, Lump Sum, and As-Is Value data for the Subject Property in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the Site Value for the Subject Property listed in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The Workfiles lack documentation supporting the market trends outlined in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report. The Report lacks internal consistency. At the final hearing, Respondents addressed each of the above-listed allegations. Alleged Incorrect Address in Comparable Sale 2 The incorrect address was a minor typographical error. The address listed for comparable sale 2 was only one number off the actual street address. The Report listed the street address as 815 CR 309B instead of the correct street address of 815 CR 308B. [underlines added]. The Corrected Report corrected the typographical error in the street address. Alleged Wrong Zoning Classification for the Subject Property The Subject Property is zoned “R-2, mixed residential” in the public records of Putnam County. Page one of the Report, consisting of the first page of the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Freddie Mac Form 70, revised 6-93, the Report lists as the specific zoning classification and description, “single family residential R-2.” At the final hearing, Respondent’s investigator, who pointed out the alleged error in the Report, admitted that he had not had training in filling out the Freddie Mac Form 70. The description used in the Report is consistent with the public tax record information on the web, which describes the Subject Property as “residential” with a zoning of “R-2.” Exhibit R-18. In addition, the One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report of the Report, which was prepared to determine the correctness of the procedures used by the original appraisal, specifically stated, “The zoning is correct.” Exhibit R-37. Alleged Lack of Contemporaneous Documentation Supporting Comparative Sales Petitioner’s witness, Francois K. Gregoire, a real estate appraiser who reviewed the Report, provided testimony to support a number of the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaints. Based upon his credentials, Mr. Gregoire was allowed to offer opinions on the Report as an expert in residential real estate appraisals. An appraiser’s workfile must be contemporaneous with the development and communication of the appraisal report. In addressing this allegation, Mr. Gregoire referenced comparable sales data in the Workfiles taken from Win2Data and Putnam County tax rolls in 2008, approximately four years after the effective date of the Report, which was issued in September 2004. Although Petitioner’s expert opined that since the data was retrieved in 2008, it could not be contemporaneous, the 2008 data included comparable sales contemporaneous with the Report. The fall 2004 issue of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board News & Report included a question and answer from the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) relating to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The question and pertinent parts of the answer stated: Question: Recently I have considered maintaining only electronic workfiles (i.e. saving only electronic versions of my reports and supporting data, and scanning any paper documents used so that copies may be stored on electronic media). Is this prohibited by USPAP? Response: No. There is nothing in USPAP that would prohibit an appraiser from maintaining only electronic versions of workfiles. The Record Keeping section of the ETHICS RULE states, in part: The workfile must include: the name of the client and the identity, by name or type, of any other intended users; true copies of any written reports, documented on any type of media; summaries of any oral reports or testimony, or a transcript of testimony, including the appraiser’s signed and dated certification; and all other data, information, and documentation necessary to support the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions and to show compliance with this Rule and all other applicable Standards, or references to the location(s) of such other documentation. As long as an electronic workfile contained these items, it would be sufficient. An appraiser must also be mindful of the requirement to have access to the workfile for the applicable required time period. The appraiser must ensure that the proper software is maintained to allow access to the electronic files. (Italics in original.) October 2008, the ASB issued a sequel its 2004 opinion, in the following response to the following question: Question: In the course of preparing my appraisals, I often research Multiple listing Service (MLS) and other data sources. I use this information to develop conclusions regarding neighborhood value ranges and market trends. Is it necessary for me to include copies of this information in my workfile? Alternatively, can I simply reference the data sources in my workfile. Response: References in the workfile to the location of documentation used to support an appraiser’s analysis, opinions, and conclusions can be adequate. It is not always necessary for the appraisal workfile to include all the documentation provided the referenced material is retrievable by the appraiser throughout the workfile retention period. Care should be exercised in the selection of the format and location of documentation. The Workfiles reflect that Respondents used MLS, Win2Data, and MLS public records to support the Report. While contemporaneous paper copies may not have been maintained of all the data, they were retrievable as reflected in the workfiles. Alleged failure to include MLS Listings in the Workfiles When Listed as a Source for Comparative Sales 3, 5 and 6 As noted in Finding of Fact 21, supra, while MLS and other supporting data contemporary with comparative sales 3 and 5 listed in the Report may not have been kept in the Workfiles, they were retrievable. See, e.g., Exhibit R-20, pp. 74-75 (listing 2009 tax data showing comparative sale 5 on 6/8/2004 for $92,000 and MLS data retrieved on 2/28/10 showing subsequent sale of the property on 7/20/05 for $110,000). Moreover, contrary to the allegation, the Report does not list MLS as a data source for comparative sale 6. Rather, the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report lists “WINDAT/PUB REC/DRIVEBY” as the data and/or verification source for comparative sale 6. See Exhibit P-2, p. 3. Alleged Failure of Report to Identify Features for Comparable Sale 2 Noted in the Workfiles Paragraphs 6(R) and 6(S) of the Administrative Complaints allege that the Report failed “to note that comparable sale 2 had a hot tub,” and failed “to note the renovated status of comparable sale 2, as outlined in workfile documentation.” According to Mr. Gregoire, “in Comparable Sale Number 2, the MLS printout indicates some features that were not described in the appraisal report. There’s inconsistency between the work file data and what was reported in the appraisal.” T. 93-94. While the MLS listing in the Workfiles provided additional information, there is no indication that the information was “inconsistent” with the Report. At the final hearing, Respondent Catchpole explained their rating in the Report of comparative sale 2 as “good,” accurately reflected recent renovations in that sale when compared to the “good” rating given to the Subject Property, which, at the time of the Report, had new floors, new carpets, and a new AC system. T. 202. Alleged Lack of Data in the Workfiles to Support Gross Living Area Listed in Report for Comparable Sale 6 The gross living area reported in the Report for comparable sale 6 is 840 square feet. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gregoire, testified that there is no contemporaneous data to support that figure, and noted that the contemporaneous Win2Data in the Workfiles lists the square footage for comparable sale 6 as 2,380 square feet. In making his observation, however, Mr. Gregoire conceded that Win2Data sometimes rolls non-living areas into the reported living area. T. 99. The 2008 tax data in Respondents’ Workfiles for comparative sale 6 shows that the “base” square footage for the mobile home on comparative sale 6 was 840 square feet, which is the same square footage reported in the Report. Exhibit P-3, p. 60 While the tax data print-out is not contemporaneous with the sale, the tax data on that print-out reflects the 2003 sale for $89,000 listed in the Report, and provides a basis for the reported 840 square feet for comparable sale 6. As noted above, electronic data that has retrievable information contemporaneous with the Report is acceptable. Alleged Failure of the Report to Note or Make Adjustments for Fences on the Comparable Sales Respondent Catchpole explained at the final hearing that, in addition to reviewing public sources and MLS listings, Respondents based their Report on actual drive-bys of the comparative sales. According to Mr. Catchpole, as memory served him from six years before when the Report was written, only one fence was visible from the road. Mr. Catchpole further explained that they did not add any value to the comparative sales for the fences which they saw because they considered them to be personal property and were not a 100 percent sure that the fences they observed belonged on the comparative sale property, as opposed to adjacent land. According to Mr. Gregoire, whether or not comparative sales had fences should have been reported in the Report, “because to some buyers, that may have had an influence on the price.” T. 101. Mr. Gregoire conceded, however, that “I can’t say whether or not there should have been an adjustment, because I haven’t done an appraisal in this area.” Id. Alleged Inconsistent Cost Approach data in the Report Petitioner’s expert witness, Mr. Gregoire, noted during his direct examination that there were inconsistent values between the Estimated Site Value of $15,000 set forth on page 2 of the Report and the Market Value of Subject Site reported as $10,000 on page 5 of the Report. He also noted that the value for “Lump Sum” of $8,000 set forth on page 2 of the Report was different from the $5,000 value for “Lump Sum” reported on page 5 of the Report. Finally, he noted that the “As is” value of $15,000 for site improvements set forth on page 2 of the Report was different from the $10,000 value reported on page 5 of the Report for “other depreciated site improvements.” Exhibit P-2, pp. 2, 5. According to Mr. Gregoire, these internal inconsistencies made the Report misleading and demonstrated a lack of due diligence in its preparation. T. 107-110. Mr. Gregoire’s observations, however, did not take into account the fact that Respondents issued a Corrected Report with changes and additions requested by the client in 2004, prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. T. 15; Exhibit R-1. The Corrected Report corrected the inconsistencies pointed out by Mr. Gregoire. Exhibit R-1, pp. 2, 9 (the Corrected Report lists both “Estimated Site Value” and “Market Value of Subject Site” as $15K; reports the “Lump Sum” value consistently as $8K; and consistently reports both “As is Value of Site improvements” and “Market Value of Subject Site” as $15K). Alleged lack of documentation in Workfiles supporting the Estimated Site Value, Lump Sum, and As-Is Value data for the Subject Property in the Cost Approach sections of the Report. The record citations provided in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Petitioner do not clearly indicate the alleged problem with the estimated site value, other than the inconsistency, which was corrected in the Corrected Report. Petitioner’s PRO, ¶ 22. Nevertheless, there were six comparable sales listed in the Report, and Corrected Report, with supporting data in the Workfiles from which estimated site cost data could be derived. As further noted by Respondent Catchpole, site data was addressed in an addendum to the Workfiles noting: Where difference in the size of the site did not afford additional utility, there was no adjustment taken, it was considered excess land. (P-3, p. 4) Mr. Gregoire also stated that there was no identification as to what “lump sum” is, either in the Report or the Workfiles. T. 109. At the final hearing, in his cross- examination of Mr. Gregoire, Respondent Catchpole indicated that the lump sum figure included porches and the air-conditioning system. In response, Mr. Gregoire stated that, if that was the case, it should have been disclosed. T. 139. There is no evidence, however, in the Field Review, that the “lump sum” category was criticized. In fact, the Field Review reported that “the data in the improvements section [is] complete and accurate.” Exhibit R-37, p. 1, § II, ¶ 4. Further, there is no evidence that the lender asked for further explanation prior to refinancing the loan on the Subject Property. As far as the alleged failure of supporting documentation for the “as is” value of site improvements on page 2 of the Report, although noting that it was not specifically identified in the report, Mr. Gregoire conceded that the value “easily corresponds with the way it’s described on Page 5 of [the Report] as Other Depreciated Site Improvements. But there is no explanation as to why in one - - it goes from $15,000 [on page 2] to $10,000 [on page 5 of the Report].” T. 110. As noted above, however, the Corrected Report, which Mr. Gregoire did not review, corrected the inconsistency between the two “as is” values set forth in the Report. Alleged Lack of Support for the Site Value for the Subject Property listed in the Cost Approach sections of the Report As noted in Finding of Fact 30, supra, the Workfiles contain comparable sales supporting the site value for the Subject Property, with an explanation in an addendum in the Workfiles. In addition, the Field Review of the Report prepared in 2004 marked “Yes” to the inquiry, “Did the appraisal report contain the appropriate prior sale(s) and/or prior listings(s) of the subject property and comparable sales?” Exhibit R-37, p. 1. Aside from the comparative sales, there was also data in the Workfiles showing other land sales in the area. Exhibit P-3, pp. 64-65. Alleged lack of documentation supporting the Market Trends outlined in the Sales Comparison Analysis section of the Report. The Neighborhood section of the Report indicates that the subject property is in a suburban area with 25 to 75 percent build-up and stable growth, and with stable property values, demand and supply in balance, and a marketing time of three to six months. Exhibit P-3, p. 1 (top third); T. 110. The Report finds that the following factors affect the marketability of the properties in the neighborhood: MSA 3600 the area located in south Putnam County, is convenient to major transportation routes which offer easy access to employment opportunities, schools, and most residential services. The homes in the area exhibit average to good quality and appeal and are typically frame, manufactured or masonry construction and are generally well maintained. P-3, p. 1. The Report states as market conditions in the subject neighborhood: The market is currently stable with mortgage funds available to qualified buyers at competitive rates. There is no evidence of concessions, buydowns, or discounts which would affect market value. Property values are relatively stable with no changes expected in the market in the near term. Recent fluctuations in mortgage lending rates do not appear to have affected market values in the subject market. Exhibit P-3, p. 1. According to Mr. Gregoire, referring to the Workfiles, he “couldn’t develop any trend here based on the way it’s maintained, whether it’s stable or not.” In addition, Mr. Gregoire opined that the Workfiles contain poor support for the reported single-family price range. T. 111. Mr. Gregoire acknowledged, however, that the Workfiles include, “in addition to the comparable sales that we discussed, some what I call on-line printouts.” Mr. Gregoire also acknowledged that the Workfiles contained several sales in the above $200,000 price which are indicated as being the high price. According to Mr. Gregoire, however, “it doesn’t necessarily show a predominant value there.” T. 110-111. The on-line printouts referenced by Mr. Gregoire appear on pages 26 through 30 of the Workfiles for improved property, and pages 64 and 65 of the Workfiles for land sales. Exhibit P-1, pp. 26-30, 64-65. The on-line printouts were derived from Win2Data, which Mr. Gregoire admitted was a recognized service for extracting market data. While Mr. Gregoire suggested that the “RealQuest” data source he utilizes was superior because it has updated on-line data, on- line Win2Data is also available and was utilized by Respondents. T. 150. The evidence did not show that the market data utilized by Respondents was deficient. Respondent Catchpole is also expert in real estate appraisal. He has a master’s degree in business administration, has testified as an expert before Congress, the United States District Courts in Georgia and Florida, and before the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida. He has testified in numerous circuit courts in Florida. He has been a member of the Appraisal Institute. He has appraised nuclear power plants, been an advisor for real estate investment trusts, and has been an appraiser for Whirlpool, Citi Corp and Shearson Lehman. In the exchange during Mr. Gregoire’s cross- examination by Respondent Catchpole, it was clear that they had a difference of opinion as to how to best support an appraisal. See T. 115-167; see also T. 196-198. The evidence was insufficient to show that Mr. Gregoire’s approach was superior to the method utilized by Respondents in conducting the appraisal reflected in the Report or that Respondents did not use reasonable diligence in its preparation. Alleged Failure of Respondents to Maintain Internal Consistency in the Report In support of this allegation, Petitioner cites to Mr. Gregoire’s testimony at the final hearing that “it is the appraiser’s responsibility to ensure internal consistency and to ensure that the report reflects their opinions and conclusion before they affix their name to the report or certification. Petitioner’s PRO, p. 12; T. 135. Aside from the fact that Mr. Gregoire’s opinion did not reflect the Corrected Report, it is apparent his opinion did not consider other information provided by Respondents in support of the Report. While the Field Review was critical of a number of aspects of the Report, Respondents provided rebuttal to that Field Review prior to the complaint by Chase initiating this action. Some of the rebuttal included information indicating that the reviewer who prepared the Field Review had used comparable sales that were not arm’s length transactions. Although Petitioner’s investigator saw the information provided by Respondent Catchpole indicating that the reviewer’s comparables were not arm’s length transactions (T. 53), Mr. Gregoire did not review that information. Mr. Gregoire admitted that he was aware that Respondents provided a written rebuttal with documentation to Chase to the Field Review conducted in 2004. At the time of his testimony in this case, however, Mr. Gregoire had not reviewed any correspondence related to the rebuttal. T. 117-118. One document in particular, Exhibit R-30, that was provided to Petitioner’s investigator from Respondents’ Workfiles, contained notes from Respondent Catchpole contemporaneous to the Report indicating that Respondent Catchpole had contacted the property appraiser’s office to resolve differences in comparable sale 2 between the MLS listing and public records. T. 65-66. Mr. Gregoire was not provided this further evidence of Respondents’ diligence prior to his testimony. T. 121-122. In addition, the Workfiles submitted as Exhibits P-3 and P-7, were offered as the same documents. T. 25. It is clear, however, that a number of documents in P-7 were not in P-3. P-3 consists of 78 pages, whereas P-7 has 94 pages. It is apparent from Mr. Gregoire’s testimony and reference to Exhibit P-3, that his opinions were based upon his review of P-3. There was also evidence that there were a number of documents provided to Petitioner’s investigator, but not placed in Exhibit P-3 for review by Mr. Gregoire for his analysis. Exhibits RA-1 through RA-12, RB-1, and RC-1 through RC-8. While ultimately not used as comparative sales, the documents are additional evidence of Respondents’ efforts and diligence in preparing the Report. In addition, the refinanced loan for which the Report was provided has never gone into default. In sum, the evidence adduced at the final hearing was far less than convincing that Respondents did not use reasonable diligence in preparing the Report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 2010.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes (1995); (b) whether Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (1995); and (c) whether Respondent is guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the duty of licensing and regulating real estate appraisers in the State of Florida. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a state-certified general real estate appraiser, having been issued License RZ0001233 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II of the Florida Statutes. Respondent has been appraising real property in the State of Florida since 1985 and has conducted over 5,000 appraisals. During that period of time, Respondent has not been charged with any disciplinary action or proceeding as an appraiser other than with respect to this particular case. Respondent is the sole shareholder of McCall Realty and Investment, Inc. (McCall Realty). Eighty percent of McCall Realty’s business is appraisals, while 20 percent is attributable to real estate sales, rentals and property management. Respondent is the sole appraiser in his office, but does have two trainees. Imposition of a fine or suspension of Respondent’s license would cause a great degree of financial hardship in that the Respondent and McCall Realty would have to file bankruptcy. On or about March 10, 1996, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for property identified on the cover page as 5600 Bubba Lane, Milton, Florida 32570 (Subject Property) to Ward Brewer. In his Report, Respondent estimated the market value of the subject property as of February 20, 1996, as $1,095,000.00. The Report contained three separate appraisal form reports as follows: (a) an appraisal of parcel 1, an alleged 160-acre vacant land site valued at $800,000 (Appraisal 1); (b) an appraisal of parcel 2, an alleged 7-acre site with a 1,508 square-foot residence valued at $95,000 (Appraisal 2); and an appraisal of parcel 3, an alleged 25-acre vacant land site valued at $200,000 (Appraisal 3) (the Park Property). Each of the form reports indicated that Respondent was appraising a fee simple interest. On November 28, 1995, Ward Brewer called Respondent’s secretary and indicated that he needed Respondent to do an appraisal. Mr. Brewer indicated that the Subject Property was between 159 and 200 acres and owned by J. W. Hawkins. According to Mr. Brewer, there also was an alleged 25-acre park that was owned by J. W. Hawkins but leased to the State of Florida. Shortly after receiving this message from his secretary, Respondent returned Ward Brewer’s call and confirmed that Mr. Brewer wanted Respondent to appraise the property owned by J. W. Hawkins totaling between 159 to 200 acres, as well as an adjacent park owned by J. W. Hawkins and leased to the State of Florida. Also in that conversation, Mr. Brewer indicated he needed this property to be worth $1 million. In making his investigation for the appraisal, Respondent determined that the Park Property was actually owned by the State of Florida. Respondent then called Mr. Brewer and informed him that Mr. Hawkins did not own the Park Property. Mr. Brewer indicated that the owner, Mr. Hawkins, had donated the Park Property to the State, but that Mr. Hawkins was going to get it back through a reversionary interest because he was having problems with the State of Florida. Mr. Brewer then instructed Respondent to appraise the Park Property as if Mr. Hawkins owned the property in fee simple. Respondent also contacted the property owner, Mr. Hawkins, to determine Mr. Hawkins’ understanding of the reversionary interest. Mr. Hawkins confirmed that he was expecting to get the property back from the State through the reversionary interest. Respondent also inquired of the owner, Mr. Hawkins, as to the size of the property, and Mr. Hawkins indicated that it was somewhere between 150 and 200 acres. Respondent walked the Subject Property on two separate occasions. During his physical inspection of the Subject Property, Respondent walked all over the property except for the island portion. He only viewed the island from the shoreline. He then used an aerial photograph to confirm his understanding of the island. Respondent asked Mr. Brewer if he had a survey of the Subject Property. Mr. Brewer indicated that he did not have a survey. Respondent was not aware that Mr. Brewer was in the process of obtaining a survey. In fact, Appraisal 2 in the Report states that no survey was available. Additionally, the Report contains a disclaimer, which states as follows: This appraiser is not qualified to, nor does the appraisal warrant, the following: * * * 6. The actual location of its designated flood hazard or designated area without a current survey. . . . * * * It is recommended that these items and areas be checked by professionals who specialize in these various fields. It is also recommended that any and all reports prepared by others be made available to this appraiser for consideration in the appraisal process. This appraiser reserves a right of review and/or revision subject to any outside reports submitted on the property appraised. Respondent then began the process of compiling comparable sales. After receiving the Report from the Respondent, Mr. Brewer and others obtained title to a portion of the Subject Property. The purchase price for this phase of the purchase was $300,000. Mr. Brewer and his counsel had the Report and a survey before closing on the Subject Property. Neither Mr. Brewer nor his counsel provided the Respondent with a copy of the survey. Thereafter, Mr. Brewer and the other owners decided to finance the purchase of the remaining portion of the Subject Property. The bank requested Mr. R. Shawn Brantley, to prepare an appraisal of a portion of the Subject Property. Mr. Brantley valued a portion of the Subject Property as of May 2, 1997, at $380,000. Thereafter, Mr. Brantley prepared two additional appraisals of the balance of the Subject Property for $69,000 and $70,000, respectively. Accordingly, Mr. Brantley’s appraised value of the Subject Property a little more than a year after the Report was $519,000. Mr. Brewer and others completed the purchase of the remaining property by paying an additional $270,000, for a total of $570,000. Thereafter, Mr. Brewer and others filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and McCall Realty. In a settlement of the lawsuit, Mr. Brewer and the other owners received a $300,000 settlement. According to Mr. Brewer, one-half of the settlement amount paid attorneys' fees and costs. The other half of the settlement amount was to offset their losses. Because of the disparity in the appraised values, Mr. Brantley’s client, SunTrust Bank, insisted on knowing why there was a difference in the values. Mr. Brantley subsequently prepared a Review Appraisal Report. Respondent asserts that he had developed one prior appraisal involving wetlands or property with similar characteristics. Respondent did not produce this prior appraisal as requested by Petitioner's investigator. As a result of this entire experience, the Respondent has limited his appraisal practice to single-family residential. Respondent identified the Subject Property in the Report by tax identification numbers, metes and bounds descriptions, aerial photographs and a depiction of the property on a zoning map. Tax identification numbers are found in the Report on the tax roll assessment information sheet. With regard to parcel 2, the assessor’s parcel number is identified as 35-2N-28-0000-00500-0000 on the form report itself. On parcels 1 and 3, the property is identified on the first page of each form appraisal by metes and bounds in Section 35, Township North, Range 28 West and by reference to the “attached aerial photograph.” On the aerial photograph, the Respondent wrote in 1, 2 and 3 corresponding to the separate parcel numbers that he was appraising. Additionally, the Report includes a zoning map that identifies the Subject Property with 1, 5, or 5.3, corresponding to the respective tax identification numbers for the three parcels being appraised. The tax roll assessment information sheet in the Report provides a tax identification number of 35-2N-28-0000- 00100-0000 for parcel 1. One can then go to the zoning map, which identifies parcel 1 by a no. 1 on the zoning map. Parcel is also identified in the Report as containing assessor’s parcel no. 35-2N-28-0000-00500-0000. Here again, this property can be seen on the zoning map and is depicted with a number 5. Finally, parcel 3, the Park Property, is identified as being zoned P-2 and then further identified as the property on the zoning map where the zoning is indicated as P-2. Respondent's effort to identify and describe the Subject Property is inadequate in at least two important respects. First, the Report described the property as 192 acres when it is in fact much smaller, approximately 99 acres. Correct acreage is a fundamental way to describe and identify a property. Second, the Report fails to reveal the existence of wetlands, which were readily apparent. The Report states that the alleged 160-acre tract is bordered by the Blackwater River to the East but fails to specify the following: (a) the property contains seven ponds; (b) a bayou intersects the property; and (c) over half of the property is an island surrounded by at least 50 feet of water. When reading the Report, the only way to discern these characteristics is by reference to the Report's attachments. At the very least, Respondent should have made some attempt to describe the portion of the property that is dry upland and the portion that is covered with water. Respondent did not physically walk the entire length of the island. Instead, he viewed the island across the river and then used an aerial photograph to become familiar with the island. The use of aerial photographs in some instances may be a valuable resource where an appraiser finds it impossible to penetrate every square yard of the property. In this case Respondent did not make an effort to gain access to the island or to navigate around it by boat. Mr. Brewer specifically requested that Respondent appraise the Park Property as if J. W. Hawkins owned it in fee simple. Respondent and Mr. Hawkins discussed the donation of the Park Property and the alleged reversionary interest under which Mr. Hawkins expected to get the property back. Respondent's report failed to disclose the basis of his appraisal of the Park Property. The Report did not mention that the State of Florida had any kind of interest in the land. The report did not refer to a lease or a warranty deed with a reversionary interest. In complying with Mr. Brewer's request regarding the estimated market value of the Park Property, Respondent should have made these disclosures. Respondent failed to provide an adequate analysis and overvalued the Subject Property in part because he failed to consider the impact that wetlands would have on the value of the Subject Property. Respondent did not have to be an environmental or ecological expert to know that property covered by so much water would contain wetlands. Respondent’s Report contains a statement of limitations regarding adverse conditions "such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc." This statement does not refer to wetlands. The multi-purpose appraisal addendum for federally regulated transactions contained in the Report, provides as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLAIMER The value estimated is based on the assumption that the property is not negatively affected by the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions unless otherwise stated in this report. The appraiser is not an expert in the identification of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions. The appraiser’s routine inspection and inquiries about the subject property did not develop any information that indicated any apparent significant hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions which would affect the property negatively unless otherwise stated in this report. It is possible that tests and inspections made by a qualified hazardous substance and environmental expert would reveal the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions on or around the property that would negatively affect its value. Considering the general description of the Subject Property, Respondent was remiss in not directly addressing the existence of wetlands in his Report and in not expressly stating his expertise (or lack thereof) in appraising wetland property in his statement of limitations and/or disclaimers. The Petitioner did not present the testimony of an ecological or environmental expert to establish the existence of wetlands on the Subject Property. Instead, Petitioner relied on the testimony of Mr. Brantley, who is an expert in the appraisal of wetland property. In his own appraisal performed on a portion of the Subject Property, Mr. Brantley expressly stated with respect to jurisdictional wetlands that: This appraisal is based upon the special assumption that the appraiser’s estimates regarding this matter, as set forth herein, are correct. The reader is expressly notified that the appraiser does not hold himself out to be an environmental or ecological consultant, nor a surveyor, and the reader is encouraged to employ such experts for further confirmation of the conclusions and estimates rendered herein, if they should so desire or should consider it practical to do so. Mr. Brantley went on to qualify his own appraisal further with the following language: Certain portions of the subject property consist of jurisdictional wetlands, which are subject to the rights exercised by the various environmental agencies and governments. This appraisal is subject to the special assumption that that appraiser’s estimates of the amount of area subject to environmental scrutiny is accurate. The appraiser has based these estimates upon observation of topography and wetlands species upon the property, as well as review of various soil and aerial maps. While, the appraiser is of the opinion that these estimates are reasonably accurate, he can assume no responsibility for variations that may be identified by an environmental audit and survey of lines established by an ecological expert. The reader is encouraged to consult experts in these fields for professional verification of the appraiser’s assumptions. During the hearing, Mr. Brantley admitted that he does not warrant his conclusions and assumptions regarding jurisdictional wetlands as a qualified ecologist or environmentalist. He acknowledged that the Subject Property possibly was only seasonally wet and could appear dry for as much as six months out of the year. However, Mr. Brantley's persuasive testimony leaves no doubt that Respondent should have recognized the existence of wetlands in his report and calculated their impact on the value of the Subject Property. In all three appraisals, Respondent used the sales comparison approach to determine the value of each of the three parcels. In making the comparisons, Respondent asked his administrative assistant to calculate the acreage of the Subject Property using the scale on the aerial photograph. Respondent failed to adequately calculate the area of certain comparable sales used in the Report. For example, Respondent used the wrong acreage for each of the comparable sales used in Appraisal 1, the alleged 160-acre parcel, and one comparable sale used in Appraisal 3, the Park Property. Comparable 1 for the alleged 160-acre parcel should have been closer to 51 acres instead of the 40 acres reported by the Respondent. With regard to comparable no. 2 on the alleged 160-acre parcel the acreage is closer to 38.5 acres instead of the 15 acres reported by Respondent. As for the acreage on comparable no. 3 on the alleged 160-acre parcel, the actual acreage was 551 acres and not the 303 acres reported by the Respondent. As for the acreage for comparable number 1 on parcel 3 (Park Property), the acreage was 20.4 acres rather than the 6 acres reported by the Respondent. Respondent should not have relied on the owner's assertion that the comparable property contained 6 acres when Respondent knew the tax identification card indicated 12.91 acres. Apparently, Respondent did not attempt to confirm either of these numbers by checking the deed, which indicated 20.4 acres. Respondent relied on inaccurate acreage for each comparable referenced above. The discrepancies increased the cost of comparable price per acre. The final result was a highly inflated value for the Subject Property. Respondent appraised the value of the Subject Property as $1,095,000.00 as of February 20, 1996. Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Brantley, in his own appraisal of the Subject Property, a little over a year later, valued the property at $519,000. Respondent's and Mr. Brantley's opinions of value are different. In response to questioning from the Court as to whether the removal of a levee on the Subject Property between the time the Respondent appraised the Subject Property and the time that Mr. Brantley appraised the Subject Property affected the value of the property, Mr. Brantley acknowledged that it would have decreased the value. Mr. Brantley indicated that the effect would be the approximate cost that it would take to bridge that particular area where the levee was removed. Petitioner never provided any evidence as to the exact amount or approximate cost that it would take to bridge that particular area. Accordingly, there is no evidence from which the Court can determine that there is a drastic difference in the reported value opinions. Even so, the foregoing facts are sufficient to determine that Respondent's report was misleading and inaccurate.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for one year and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: S. L. Smith, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802N Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert E. Thielman, Jr., Esquire Baker & Hostetler, LLP Post Office Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32801-0112 Jason Steele, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
