The Issue Whether the Respondent, Antonio Prieto, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint involving the standard for the development of or the communication of a real estate appraisal and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding real estate appraisers' licenses in Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this matter the Respondent has been a State-certified residential real estate appraiser holding license number RD0000591. On or about July 6, 1995, the Respondent prepared an appraisal report for property located at 2821 Coacoochee Street, Miami, Florida. The appraisal report completed for this property did not contain a certification page. When the Department requested Respondent's entire appraisal file for the Coacoochee property, the Respondent failed to produce a certification page in connection with the work performed for this appraisal. The Respondent acknowledged that an appraisal report without the certification page is considered incomplete. The Respondent provided no credible explanation for the failure to maintain the certification page for the Coacoochee appraisal report file. On or about September 8, 1998, the Respondent was responsible for a second appraisal report for real property located at 12695 Southwest 92nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. As of the date of the second report, the estimated value of the subject property was noted to be $395,000. In the development of the second report the Respondent acted as a supervisory appraiser to Rita Rindone, a State-registered assistant real estate appraiser. In the Respondent's presence, Ms. Rindone provided the Department with a copy of the entire work file for the second property's appraisal report. Inconsistent and incomplete information in the work file for the second property revealed errors in following USPAP standards. For example, the alleged existence of an unrecorded quit claim deed and the disparity between the subject property's listed price ($268,000) and the appraised value should have been "red flags" to the Respondent. In fact the listing was not even disclosed in the appraisal report (an error the Respondent acknowledged). As the supervisor to Ms. Rindone, the Respondent was responsible to ensure that the standards of USPAP were followed. Based upon the testimony of the expert, DeFonzo, it is determined that the Respondent's failures in connection with the second appraisal report constitute negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, or fraud. The USPAP standards require appraisers to maintain records for at least five years. Some circumstances may warrant a longer retention of records. At the minimum the Respondent should have maintained a complete work file for the relevant period of time for the Coacoochee property. The failure to make that complete file available to the Department is a violation of law. The USPAP standards require that the methodology option used in preparing an appraisal report be prominently stated. The option used for the second property was not so stated. Such failure is a violation of law.
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 determining the Respondent has violated Sections 475.624(14), and (15), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3000.00, together with suspending the Respondent's license for a period of five years. Further, it is recommended that prior to being actively licensed, the Respondent be required to complete a continuing education course to establish familiarity with USPAP and all rules and regulations governing licensees in this state. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Buddy Johnson, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James R. Mayfield, Esquire 18080 Palm Point Drive Jupiter, Florida 33458 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondents violated the provisions of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-7.001, as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate appraisers pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (2009). Respondent, Fred Catchpole, is a licensed real estate appraiser, having been issued license number RD-7674. Respondent, William E. Woods, is a registered trainee appraiser, issued license RI-4855. At the times relevant to these complaints, Mr. Woods was supervised by Respondent Catchpole. On October 8, 2009, the Department issued Administrative Complaints against both Respondents. At the heart of both Administrative Complaints were allegations related to an appraisal report allegedly prepared by Catchpole and Woods. With the exception of the order in which Respondents are identified, the allegations in paragraphs four and six of the Administrative Complaints are identical. Quoting from the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 09-6822 (DBPR Case No. 2009016581), the Administrative Complaint alleges the following: On or about September 25, 2007, Fred Catchpole (Respondent) and William Woods developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report 1) for property commonly known as 2250 Braxton Street, The Villages, Florida 32162 (Subject Property), and estimated its value at $190,000.00. A copy of Report I is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. * * * 6. Respondent made the following errors and omissions in Report 1: Incorrect effective on the cover of the report, the correct date is September 25, 2007; Incorrect effective date on in the Reconciliation section of the report; Incorrect effective date on the signature page of the Report; Incorrect Subject Property Inspection date on the signature page of the Report; Incorrect Comparable Sales inspection date on the signature page of the report; . . . . The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges the same facts, with the same dates. At hearing, it was established that there is no appraisal report developed or communicated that is dated September 25, 2007. The Report, attached to each Administrative Complaint and each Amended Administrative Complaint, is actually dated February 25, 2007. Once it was established that there was no appraisal report matching the dates alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the Department moved to dismiss the Amended Administrative Complaints in their entirety, with prejudice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Appraiser's Board enter Final Orders with respect to each Respondent dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaints in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fred Catchpole 5449 Marcia Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32210 William Woods 2103 Herndon Street Dover, Florida 33527 Reginald Dixon, 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 N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Omari Murray, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was the state agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the real estate licensing laws found in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a registered trainee appraiser who was subject to the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). As an appraiser trainee, the Respondent was required to perform appraisal services through a fully registered real estate appraiser licensed pursuant to Florida law. On or about December 21, 2002, Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent $550.00 to perform an appraisal for her vacant lot located at 4229 Southwest Jarmer Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent by check drawn on her personal bank account. The check was payable to the Respondent individually. The check was negotiated and the account was debited in the full amount of the check. At the time she tendered the check to the Respondent Ms. Cesar was under the impression that the Respondent was an appraiser who could lawfully perform the appraisal sought. The Respondent did not advise Ms. Cesar that he was only a trainee appraiser and that his supervisor would have to sign any appraisal report generated in connection with the Cesar property. Additionally, at that time, the Respondent’s supervising appraiser, Harvel Gray, was not aware of the appraisal assignment from Ms. Cesar, did not authorize the Respondent to accept the job, and did not authorize the Respondent to accept payment for the appraisal in his individual name. The funds for the Cesar appraisal were not forwarded to Mr. Gray. When Ms. Cesar asked the Respondent for the appraisal she had paid for, the Respondent told her it was illegal for him to give her a copy of the appraisal. She did not understand why she had paid $550.00 and was not provided with a copy of the appraisal. Ms. Cesar had planned to build a house on the vacant lot. She believed the Respondent could facilitate that project as he represented to her that he could get plans drawn, perform the appraisal, and help her through the entire process. In total Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent over $2000.00 to further the construction of the house. On or about July 7, 2003, an authorized representative of the Department, Jonathan Platt, contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent provide a copy of the appraisal performed for Ms. Cesar. On or about August 11, 2003, the Respondent produced a “comparative market analysis” report (the report) dated December 27, 2002, for the subject property (Ms. Cesar’s vacant lot). The report was on a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report form and identified the Respondent as the appraiser. Additionally, the form noted the Respondent’s license number as 0005168. The report did not indicate that the report had been reviewed or approved by a licensed appraiser. The report claimed the analysis was both “as is” and subject to the completion of work as specified in plans and specifications. There were no plans or specifications attached or included with the report. The report was not signed by a licensed real estate appraiser. After review of the report, Mr. Platt asked the Respondent for the work file that supported the appraisal report. Requests for the work file were made on August 12, 2003, September 30, 2003, and October 1, 2003. As of the time of hearing the Respondent had not made such file available to the Department. Harvel Gray is a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Gray appraises real estate and equipment and knows the Respondent. Mr. Gray met the Respondent when he applied to become a trainee appraiser about five years ago. For approximately three or four months Mr. Gray was technically the Respondent’s supervisor but performed no appraisals with the Respondent. In fact, Mr. Gray terminated his relationship with the Respondent before any appraisals could be performed. Mr. Gray did not know anything about the appraisal that was to be performed for Ms. Cesar. Ken Drummond is also a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Drummond knows the Respondent from a Gold Coast continuing education class. Mr. Drummond has never been the Respondent’s supervising appraiser. Mr. Drummond has not performed appraisals with the Respondent. According to licensing records, the only supervising appraiser with whom the Respondent was listed during the pertinent period of time as an appraiser trainee was Mr. Gray. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to perform an appraisal or complete the report for Ms. Cesar. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to accept payment from Ms. Cesar for any work. Jonathan Platt, the investigator assigned to this case, spoke with the Respondent and exchanged written information with him. The Respondent did not provide information requested by Mr. Platt and did not explain how the report was generated. According to Mr. Platt the Respondent maintained that Mr. Drummond was his supervising appraiser during the time the Cesar report was performed.
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 that finds the Respondent guilty of the violations outlined by the Administrative Complaint and revokes his license as a real estate appraiser trainee. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Vieira, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Alpheus C. Parsons, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N801 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Omari Murray 201 Southwest 11th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are, first, whether Respondent, a certified real estate appraiser, committed various disciplinable offenses in connection with three residential appraisals; and second, if Respondent is guilty of any charges, whether she should be punished therefor.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board ("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. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against such appraisers. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Elsa Cartaya ("Cartaya") was a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. Her conduct as an appraiser in connection with the matters presently at issue falls squarely within the Board's regulatory jurisdiction. Case No. 04-1680 In the Administrative Complaint that initiated DOAH Case No. 04-1680, the Department charged Cartaya with numerous statutory violations relating to her appraisal of a residence located at 930 East Ninth Place, Hialeah, Florida (the "Hialeah Property"). Specifically, the Department made the following allegations against Cartaya:1 Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report) for the property commonly known as 930 E. 9 Place, Hialeah, Florida 33010. A copy of the report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. On the Report, Respondent represents that: she signed it on July 27, 2000, the Report is effective as of July 27, 2000. On or about October 26, 2001, Respondent provided a "Report History" to Petitioner's investigator. A copy of the report history is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. On the Report History, Respondent admits that she completed the report on August 7, 2000. On Report, Respondent represents that there were no prior sales of subject property within one year of the appraisal. Respondent knew that a purchase and sale transaction on subject property closed on July 28, 2000. Respondent knew that the July 28, 2000, transaction had a contract sales price of $82,000. A copy of the closing statement is attached hereto as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3. Respondent knowingly refused to disclose the July 28, 2000, sale on Report. On [the] Report, Respondent represented that the current owner of subject property was Hornedo Lopez. Hornedo Lopez did not become the title- owner until on or about July 28, 2000, but before August 7, 2000. On [the] Report, Respondent represents that quality of construction of subject property is "CBS/AVG." The public records reflect that subject property is of mixed construction, CBS and poured concrete. On [the] Report, Respondent represents: "The income approach was not derived due to lack of accurately verifiable data for the mostly owner occupied area." The multiple listing brochures indicate as follows: for comparable one: "Main House 3/2 one apartment 1/1 (Rents $425) and 2 efficiencies each at $325. Live rent free with great income or bring your big family." A copy of the brochure for comparable one is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 4. for comparable three: "Great Rental . . . two 2/1 two 1/1 and one studio. Total rental income is $2,225/month if all rented." A copy of the brochure for comparable three is attached and incorporated as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 5. On or about October 23, 2001, Petitioner's investigator inspected Respondent's work file for Report. The investigation revealed that Respondent failed to maintain a true copy of Report in the work file. On [the] Report, Respondent failed to analyze the difference between comparable one's listing price, $145,000, and the sale price, $180.000. On [the] Report History, Respondent admits to having received a request for appraisal of subject property indicting a contract price of $195,000. On [the] Report History, Respondent admits that the multiple listing brochure for subject property listed the property for $119,900, as a FANNIE MAE foreclosure. On [the] Report History, Respondent also admits that she had a multiple listing brochure in the file, listing subject property for $92,000. On [the] Report History, Respondent admits that she did not report the listings in Report. On [the] Report History, Respondent admits knowledge that comparable three was "rebuilt as a 2/1 with two 1/1 & 1 studio receiving income although zoned residential." On [the] Report, Respondent failed or refused to explain or adjust for comparable three's zoning violations. On the foregoing allegations, the Department charged Cartaya under four counts, as follows: COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes.[2] COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to use reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having accepted an appraisal assignment if the employment itself is contingent upon the appraiser reporting a predetermined result, analysis, or opinion, or if the fee to be paid for the performance of the appraisal assignment is contingent upon the opinion, conclusion, or valuation reached upon the consequent resulting from the appraisal assignment in violation of Section 475.624(17), Florida Statutes.[3] In her Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Cartaya admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, and 23-25 of the Amended Complaint. Based on Cartaya's admissions, the undersigned finds these undisputed allegations to be true. Additional findings are necessary, however, to make sense of these particular admissions and to determine whether Cartaya committed the offenses of which she stands accused. In April 2000, Southeast Financial Corporation ("Southeast") asked Cartaya to prepare an appraisal of the Hialeah Property for Southeast's use in underwriting a mortgage loan, the proceeds of which would be applied by the prospective mortgagor(s) towards the $205,000 purchase price that he/she/they had agreed to pay Hornedo Lopez ("Hornedo") for the residence in question.4 In preparing the appraisal, Cartaya discovered that the putative seller, Hornedo, was actually not the record owner of the Hialeah Property. Rather, title was held in the name of the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). The Hialeah Property was "in foreclosure." Cartaya informed her contact at Southeast, Marianella Lopez ("Marianella"), about this problem. Marianella explained that Hornedo was in the process of closing a sale with Fannie Mae and would resell the Hialeah Property to a new buyer soon after acquiring the deed thereto. Cartaya told Marianella that, to complete the appraisal, she (Cartaya) would need to be provided a copy of the closing statement documenting the transfer of title from Fannie Mae to Hornedo. No further work was done on the appraisal for several months. Then, on July 25, 2000, Marianella ordered another appraisal of the Hialeah Property, this time for Southeast's use in evaluating a mortgage loan to Jose Granados ("Granados"), who was under contract to purchase the subject residence from Hornedo for $195,000. Once again, Cartaya quickly discovered that Fannie Mae, not Hornedo, was the record owner of the Hialeah Property. Once again, Cartaya immediately informed Marianella about the situation. Marianella responded on July 26, 2000, telling Cartaya that the Fannie Mae-Hornedo transaction was scheduled to close on July 28, 2000. On July 27, 2000, Marianella faxed to Cartaya a copy of the Settlement Statement that had been prepared for the Fannie Mae sale to Hornedo. The Settlement Statement, which confirmed that the intended closing date was indeed July 28, 2000, showed that Hornedo was under contract to pay $82,000 for the Hialeah Property——the property which he would then sell to Granados for $195,000, if all the pending transactions closed as planned. Upon receipt of this Settlement Statement, Cartaya proceeded to complete the appraisal. In the resulting Appraisal Report, which was finished on August 7, 2000,5 Cartaya estimated that the market value of the Hialeah Property, as of July 27, 2000, was $195,000. The Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the house at the Hialeah Property was, in fact, constructed from CBS and poured concrete, as alleged.6 At the time Cartaya gave the Department a copy of her workfile for this appraisal assignment, the workfile did not contain a copy of the competed Appraisal Report.7 (The workfile did, however, include a working draft of the Appraisal Report.) The allegation, set forth in paragraph 21 of the Administrative Complaint, that Cartaya "failed to analyze the difference between comparable one's listing price, $145,000, and the sale price, $180,000," was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. First, there is no nonhearsay evidence in the record that "comparable one" was, in fact, listed at $145,000 and subsequently sold for $180,000. Instead, the Department offered a printout of data from the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"), which printout was included in Cartaya's workfile. The MLS document shows a listing price of $145,550 for "comparable one" and a sales price of $180,000 for the property——but it is clearly hearsay as proof of these matters,8 and no predicate was laid for the introduction of such hearsay pursuant to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule (including Section 475.28(2)). Further, the MLS data do not supplement or explain other nonhearsay evidence.9 At best, the MLS document, which is dated July 25, 2000, establishes that Cartaya was on notice that "comparable one" might have sold for more than the asking price, but Cartaya has not been charged with overlooking MLS data. Second, in any event, in her Report History, Cartaya stated that she had analyzed the putative asking price/sales price differential with respect to "comparable one" and concluded that there was no need to make adjustments for this because available data relating to other sales persuaded her that such differentials were typical in the relevant market. Cartaya's declaration in this regard was not persuasively rebutted. Since the evidence fails persuasively to establish that Cartaya's conclusion concerning the immateriality of the putative asking price/sales price differential as a factor bearing on the value of "comparable one" was wrong; and, further, because the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that an appraiser must, in her appraisal report, not only disclose such information, even when deemed irrelevant to the appraisal, but also expound upon the grounds for rejecting the data as irrelevant, Cartaya cannot be faulted for declining to explicate her analysis of the supposed price differential in the Appraisal Report. The evidence is insufficient to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Cartaya "failed or refused to explain or adjust for "comparable three"'s zoning violations." This allegation depends upon the validity of its embedded assumption that there were, in fact, "zoning violations."10 There is, however, no convincing evidence of such violations in the instant record. Specifically, no copy of any zoning code was offered as evidence, nor was any convincing nonhearsay proof regarding the factual condition of "comparable three" offered. Cartaya cannot be found guilty of failing or refusing to explain or adjust for an underlying condition (here, alleged "zoning violations") absent convincing proof of the underlying condition's existence-in-fact. Case No. 04-1148 In the Administrative Complaint that initiated DOAH Case No. 04-1148, the Department charged Cartaya with numerous statutory violations relating to her appraisals of residences located at 1729 Northwest 18th Street, Miami, Florida ("1729 NW 18th St") and 18032 Northwest 48th Place, Miami, Florida ("18032 NW 48th Place"). These appraisals will be examined in turn. With regard to 1729 NW 18th St, the Department alleged as follows: On or about April 29, 1999, Respondent developed and communicated a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report for the property commonly known as 1729 NW 18th Street, Miami, Florida. A copy of the report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. On or about March 18, 2001, David B. C. Yeomans, Jr., A.S.A., and Mark A. Cannon, A.S.A., performed a field review of the report. A copy of the review is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2. The review revealed that unlike it states in the Report, the subject property’s zoning was not "Legal," but "legal noncomforming (Grandfathered use)." The review further revealed that Respondent failed to report that if the improvements sustain extensive damage or demolishment or require renovation which exceeds 50% of the depreciated value, it is likely that a variance would be necessary to build a new dwelling. The review further revealed that Respondent failed to report that subject property has two underground gas meters. The review further revealed that unlike Respondent states in Report, subject property’s street has gutters and storm sewers along it. The review further revealed that subject property is a part of a "sub-market" within its own neighborhood due to its construction date of 1925. Respondent applied three comparables built in 1951, 1953, and 1948, respectively, all of which reflect a different market, without adjustment. Respondent applied comparables which have much larger lots than the subject, which is of a non-conforming, grandfathered use. Respondent failed to adjust for quality of construction even though subject is frame and all three comparables are of concrete block stucco construction. Respondent failed to note on the Report that comparables 1 and 2 had river frontage. Respondent failed to adjust comparables 1 and 2 for river frontage. The review revealed that at the time of the Report there were at least five sales more closely comparable to Subject than those which Respondent applied. On the foregoing allegations, the Department brought the following three counts against Cartaya: COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to use reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT III Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of culpable negligence in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. Cartaya admitted the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Those undisputed allegations, accordingly, are accepted as true. The rest of the allegations about this property were based upon a Residential Appraisal Field Review Report (the "Yeomans Report") that David B.C. Yeomans, Jr. prepared in March 2001 for his client Fannie Mae. The Yeomans Report is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2, and Mr. Yeomans testified at hearing. Mr. Yeomans disagreed with Cartaya's opinion of value regarding 1729 NW 18th St, concluding that the property's market value as of April 29, 1999, had been at the low end of the $95,000-to-$115,000 range, and not $135,000 as Cartaya had opined. The fact-findings that follow are organized according to the numbered paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 6 and 7. The form that Cartaya used for her Appraisal Report regarding 1729 NW 18th St contains the following line: Zoning compliance Legal Legal nonconforming (Grandfathered use) Illegal No zoning Cartaya checked the "legal" box. Mr. Yeomans maintains that she should have checked the box for "legal nonconforming" use because, he argues, the property's frontage and lot size are smaller than the minimums for these values as prescribed in the City of Miami's zoning code. The Department failed, however, to prove that Cartaya checked the wrong zoning compliance box. There is no convincing nonhearsay evidence regarding either the frontage or the lot size of 1729 NW 18th St.11 Thus, there are no facts against which to apply the allegedly applicable zoning code provisions. Moreover, and more important, the Department failed to introduce into evidence any provisions of Miami's zoning code. Instead, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Yeomans regarding his understanding of the contents of the zoning code. While Mr. Yeomans' testimony about the contents of the zoning code is technically not hearsay (because the out-of-court statements, namely the purported code provisions, consisted of non-assertive declarations12 that were not offered for the "truth" of the code's provisions13), such testimony is nevertheless not clear and convincing evidence of the zoning code's terms.14 And finally, in any event, Cartaya's alleged "mistake" (which allegation was not proved) was immaterial because, as Mr. Yeomans conceded at hearing, in testimony the undersigned credits as true, the alleged "fact" (again, not proved) that 1729 NW 18th St constituted a grandfathered use would have no effect on the property's market value. Paragraphs 8 and 9. The Yeomans Report asserts that "[b]ased on a physical inspection as of March 17, 2001[,] it appears that the site has two underground gas meters and there were gutters and storm sewers along the subject's street." It is undisputed that Cartaya's Appraisal Report made no mention of underground gas meters or storm water disposal systems. While the Department alleged that Cartaya's silence regarding these matters constituted disciplinable "failures," it offered no convincing proof that Cartaya defaulted on her obligations in any way respecting these items. There was no convincing evidence that these matters were material, affected the property's value, or should have been noted pursuant to some cognizable standard of care. Paragraphs 10 and 11. The contention here is that Cartaya chose as comparables several homes that, though relatively old (average age: 48 years), were not as old as the residence at 1729 NW 18th St (74 years). Mr. Yeomans asserted that older homes should have been used as comparables, and several such homes are identified in the Yeomans Report. The undersigned is persuaded that Mr. Yeomans' opinion of value with respect to 1729 NW 18th St is probably more accurate than Cartaya's. If this were a case where the value of 1729 NW 18th St were at issue, e.g. a taking under eminent domain, then Mr. Yeomans' opinion might well be credited as against Cartaya's opinion in making the ultimate factual determination. The issue in this case is not the value of 1729 NW 18th St, however, but whether Cartaya committed disciplinable offenses in appraising the property. The fact that two appraisers have different opinions regarding the market value of a property does not mean that one of them engaged in misconduct in forming his or her opinion. Based on the evidence presented, the undersigned is not convinced that Cartaya engaged in wrongdoing in connection with her appraisal of 1729 NW 18th St, even if her analysis appears to be somewhat less sophisticated than Mr. Yeomans'. Paragraphs 12 through 16. The allegations in these paragraphs constitute variations on the theme just addressed, namely that, for one reason or another, Cartaya chose inappropriate comparables. For the same reasons given in the preceding discussion, the undersigned is not convinced, based on the evidence presented, that Cartaya engaged in wrongdoing in connection with her appraisal of 1729 NW 18th St, even if he is inclined to agree that Mr. Yeomans' opinion of value is the better founded of the two. With regard to 18032 NW 48th Place, the Department alleged as follows: On or about August 9, 1999, Respondent prepared and communicated a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report for the Property commonly known as 18032 NW 48th Place, Miami, Florida, 33055. (Report) A copy of the Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 3. On the Report, Respondent incorrectly stated that the property is in a FEMA Zone X flood area. In fact, the property is in an AE Zone. In Report, Respondent states: "Above sales were approximately adjusted per market derived value influencing dissimilarities as noted." Respondent failed to state in Report, that comparables 1 and 3 have in-law quarters. In [the] Report, Respondent represented comparable 1 had one bath, where in fact it has at least two. In [the] Report, Respondent failed to state that comparable 1 has two in-law quarters. In [the] Report, Respondent stated that comparable 3 is a two-bath house with an additional bath in the in-law quarters. On the foregoing allegations, the Department brought the following three counts against Cartaya: COUNT IV Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated a standard for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes. COUNT V Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having failed to use reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of culpable negligence in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes. Cartaya admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 18 and 20 of the Administrative Complaint. Those undisputed allegations, accordingly, are accepted as true. The rest of the allegations about this property were based upon a Residential Appraisal Field Review Report (the "Marmin Report") that Frank L. Marmin prepared in May 2001 for his client Fannie Mae. The Marmin Report is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Mr. Marmin did not testify at hearing, although his supervisor, Mark A. Cannon, did. Mr. Marmin disagreed with Cartaya's opinion of value regarding 18032 NW 48th Place, concluding that the property's market value as of August 9, 1999, had been $100,000, and not $128,000 as Cartaya had opined. The fact-findings that follow are organized according to the numbered paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 19. Cartaya admitted that she erred in noting that the property is located in FEMA Flood Zone "X," when in fact (she agrees) the property is in FEMA Flood Zone "AE." She did, however, include a flood zone map with her appraisal that showed the correct flood zone designation. Cartaya's mistake was obviously unintentional——and no more blameworthy than a typographical error. Further, even the Department's expert witness conceded that this minor error had no effect on the appraiser's opinion of value. Paragraphs 20 through 24. The Department asserts that two of Cartaya's comparables were not comparable for one reason or another. The Department failed clearly and convincingly to prove that its allegations of fact concerning the two comparables in question are true. Thus, the Department failed to establish its allegations to the requisite degree of certainty. Ultimate Factual Determinations Having examined the entire record; weighed, interpreted, and judged the credibility of the evidence; drawn (or refused to draw) permissible factual inferences; resolved conflicting accounts of what occurred; and applied the applicable law to the facts, it is determined that: Applying the law governing violations arising under Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes, to the historical facts established in the record by clear and convincing evidence, it is found as a matter of ultimate fact that Cartaya did not commit culpable negligence in connection with the appraisals at issue. Applying the law governing violations arising under Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, to the historical facts established in the record by clear and convincing evidence, it is found as a matter of ultimate fact that Cartaya did not fail to exercise reasonable diligence in developing the appraisals at issue. Applying the law governing violations arising under Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, to the historical facts established in the record by clear and convincing evidence, it is found as a matter of ultimate fact that, in connection with the Appraisal Report relating to the Hialeah Property, Cartaya did commit one unintentional violation of Standards Rule 2- 2(b)(vi) of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and two unintentional violations of Standards Rule 2-2(b)(ix).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding that: As to Case No. 04-1148, Cartaya is not guilty on Counts I through VI, inclusive; As to Case No. 04-1680, Cartaya is not guilty on Counts I, II, and IV; she is, however, guilty, under Count III, of one unintentional violation of Standards Rule 2-2(b)(vi) and two unintentional violations of Standards Rule 2-2(b)(ix). As punishment for the violations established, Cartaya's certificate should be suspended for 30 calendar days, and she should be placed on probation for a period of one year, a condition of such probation being the successful completion of a continuing education course in USPAP. In addition, Cartaya should be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of November, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Vincent A. Riggio was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0206262, effective in 1978, and as such was authorized to prepare real estate appraisals. Respondent completed basic real estate appraisal classes and attended seminars relating to property appraisal. Respondent was an associate with Grover H. Vass & Associates, Inc., 414 West Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida from July 11, 1986 to December 21, 1988. Respondent's appraisal services were retained by United Mortgage Company on an ongoing basis for the purpose of granting second mortgage loans. In September, 1986, Respondent was requested by United Mortgage Company to prepare the subject appraisal for property located in Lake County, Florida, that was owned by Floyd Bush and his wife. The subject property consisted of land, a single family residential structure, and plant nursery structures and equipment. Pursuant to the request of United Mortgage Company, Respondent undertook the subject appraisal and performed reasonable and necessary investigations and reviews to prepare the same. Respondent had appraised the subject property once before and was aware of the property's unique character. Respondent visited and viewed the property. He observed the nursery business in operation at the time of the inspection. He also attempted to obtain comparable sales and market data but found that , due to the location and uniqueness of the property, he would be required to use, in part, an appraisal method based on the cost approach. Respondent determined the current market value of the property to be $136,800 and prepared his written appraisal report accordingly. The report was transmitted to United Mortgage Company as directed by and with the limitations imposed by them. Respondent had no financial interest in the real estate being appraised nor in any other aspect of the subject transaction. George Jeknavorian loaned $23,500 to Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Bush. The loan was secured by a second mortgage on the subject property, which was processed through United Mortgage Company in September, 1986. At the time of the loan, George Jeknavorian had neither seen the subject appraisal report nor the subject real estate. He relied on persons other than Respondent for his information relating to this loan transaction. The property was apparently encumbered by a first mortgage in the approximate amount of $64,800 at the time of the second mortgage which made a total debt on the property of approximately $88, 300. After two payments had been made subsequent to the closing of the second mortgage loan transaction, the Bushs defaulted on the required payments. Thereafter, Jeknavorian opted to accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure instead of proceeding forward with the foreclosure. Jeknavorian became the owner of the subject property in March of 1988. Jeknavorian listed the property for sale with Ms. Jean Williams, a licensed real estate salesperson. She determined the value of the property to be between $100,000 and $110,000, and with the concurrence of the new owner, she listed it for sale at $110,000. When she inspected the property in 1988, before listing it, Williams observed it to be in serious disrepair. The property as listed consisted of a house, land and plant nursery with all equipment, but with no inventory and no warranty as to the equipment. The price was reduced, but the property did not sell. In late 1988, the holder of the first mortgage took back the property. At that time, Jaknavorian had invested or was owed a total of $33,000. His losses consisted of the amounts due and owing on the second mortgage, payments to the holder of the first mortgage after he became the owner of the subject property and the costs of trash removal after he became the owner of the property in March, 1988. The most credible testimony indicates that the appraisal had several technical defects, but, as a whole, was acceptable to the requirements of United Mortgage Company for which it was prepared.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted: paragraphs 1,2 (in substance),3,4(in part),6 and 7(in substance) Rejected: paragraphs 5 and 4 (that portion of paragraph 4 which proposes that the complaining witness relied upon the appraisal to his detriment and also that the property was worth no more than $95,000 at the time of the appraisal) as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted: paragraphs 1,2 (in part) ,3,4 (in substance) ,5,7 (sentence 1), 8, 10, 11(in substance), 13(in substance), 14(in substance) Rejected: paragraphs 6(witness not credible),7(several sentences not relevant), 9 (argument). COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Robert L. Taylor, Esquire 225 E. Robinson Street Suite 445 Orlando, FL 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, committed the violations alleged in a seven-count Administrative Complaint, filed with the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on June 10, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her Florida real estate appraiser certification.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Division is charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license number 4120. The last license issued to Ms. Rodriguez is now an inactive Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser license at 12071 Southwest 131st Avenue, Miami Florida 33166. Appraisal of 6496 Southwest 24th Street. On or about June 1, 2007, Ms. Rodriguez developed, signed and communicated an appraisal report (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal”), for property located at 64967 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida 33155 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). At the time the Appraisal was made, Ms. Rodriguez was a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The Subject Property, however, was zoned BU-1, a commercial district. The Administrative Complaint entered against Ms. Rodriguez, however, does not allege that Ms. Rodriguez committed any violation by performing an appraisal on commercially zoned property. Errors and Omissions in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez on her sketch of the Subject Property contained in the Appraisal indicates that the total square footage of the Subject Property is 2,105 square feet. On the sketch, she breaks down the property into a 34.0 x 55.6 area of 1890.4 square feet, and a 5.0 x 43.0 area of 215 square feet. In her documentation for the Appraisal, Ms. Rodriguez notes that the adjusted square footage of the Subject Property is 1,890 square feet and that the property appraiser reported the square footage at 1,709 square feet. Ms. Rodriguez failed to verify that the reported 2,105 square feet contained in the Appraisal was accurate. Ms. Rodriguez admitted in her Answer and Response to Administrative Complaint, Respondent’s Exhibit 1, that she failed to verify that a rear addition to the Subject Property, most likely the 5.0 x. 43.0 additional area she measured, had not been permitted through Miami-Dade County. This unpermitted addition would account for the discrepancy in the square footage of the Subject Property noted in Ms. Rodriguez’s notes. Had she investigated the discrepancy in square footage, it is possible she would have discovered the unpermitted addition and reported it in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez indicates in the Appraisal that the Subject Property has a “porch.” The “porch” she was referring to is a rather small area in the front of the Subject Property which has an overhang. The evidence failed to prove that this area, which is depicted in photos accepted in evidence, does not constitute a “porch.” Ms. Rodriguez incorrectly indicated in the Appraisal that the Subject Property had a “patio.” Her suggestion that a “grass area” constituted a patio is rejected as unreasonable. While the Subject Property has a small “yard,” it does not have a patio. Ms. Rodriguez failed to indicate in the Appraisal that the Subject Property did not have any “appliances.” The fact that appliances were to be installed after closing fails to excuse this omission. Ms. Rodriguez did not make any adjustment for, or any explanation of, the 13-year age difference between the Subject Property and comparable sale 3. The Supplemental Addendum section of the Appraisal incorrectly reports that the Subject Property had wood floors and that it had a new pool deck. Ms. Rodriguez has admitted these errors, indicating that they are “[t]ypographical error[s] but did not effect value since no monetary adjustment was made.” Failure to Document. Ms. Rodriguez’s documentation for the Appraisal lacked a number of items, all of which Ms. Rodriguez admits were not maintained. The missing documentation included the following items which were not contained in her work file: Support for a $40 per square foot adjustment for comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a site size adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $1,500.00 “bathroom” adjustment to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $5,000.00 “good” location adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $4,000.00 garage adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $15,000.00 pool adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $350,000.00 Opinion of Site Value in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $10,000.00 adjustment for the “As Is” Value of Site Improvements in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $20,000.00 adjustment for Appliances/Porches/Patios/Etc. in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; and Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Appraisal was completed to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section lf the Appraisal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission: Finding that Ms. Rodriguez is guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One through Seven of the Administrative Complaint as found in this Recommended Order; Placing Ms. Rodriguez’s appraiser license on probation for a period of two years, conditioned on her successful completion of the 15-hour USPAP course; Requiring that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00; and Requiring that she pay the investigative costs incurred in this matter by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Ainslee R. Ferdie, Esquire Ferdie & Lones, Chartered 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 223 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jessalyn Rodriguez 9972 Southwest 125th Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Fred J. Will was a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0142418, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32014. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard P. Pollock was a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0139861, c/o Fred J. Will, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, with a last listed home address of Post Office Box 2085, Flagler Beach, Florida 32036. Either in late December 1987 or early January 1988, Pollock approached Will with the idea of opening a real estate office using Will's real estate broker's license wherein Pollock would run the office since Will was currently employed managing the self storage facility of Regency Health Care Centers, Inc. In late January 1988, Will filed a Request For License or Change of Status Form using license number 0142418 wherein he advised the Petitioner that he would be operating under Will Realty located at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. Upon opening the offices at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Will opened an operating or business bank account and an escrow bank account for the Will Realty at the Commercial National Bank (Commercial) Only Will was authorized to write checks on the excrow account. There was insufficient evidence to show whether any funds were ever deposited in the business or escrow account at Commercial. Once the office and bank accounts were opened, Will left the daily operation of the office to Pollock and was at the office only a couple of times between the time it was opened in late January 1988 and when it was closed around April 23, 1988. The "agreement", as such, between Will and Pollock was a 50/50 "split" once the business "got going". Will did not receive any compensation from Pollock for the "use of his license". Will did not receive any money from Pollock in regard to Will Realty, personally or for deposit in either bank account at Commercial. The "agreement" was that Will would allow Pollock to "work under" his real estate broker's license. Will did not have any knowledge of the advertising being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as newspaper ads or business cards until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of the forms being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as contracts or agreements for advance fee arrangements or receipts evidencing payment of such fee until just before the office closed in April 1988. Additionally, Will did not have any knowledge of the advance fee arrangement which Pollock may have had with prospective tenants as payment for securing rentals until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of Pollock opening the bank accounts at Coast Federal Savings and Loan Association (Coast) in the name of Will Realty until just before the office closed in April 1988. None of the funds received by Pollock from prospective tenants while with Will Realty were deposited in the accounts at Commercial. Nor did any of the funds collected by Pollock from prospective tenants while he was with Will Realty go to Will personally. During the latter part of March 1988, Donna Elliott approached Pollock through Will Realty for the purpose of finding a home to rent. Pollock arranged for Edward R. Brown to show Elliott a home he had for rent. Elliott eventually rented this home and gave Pollock a check in the amount of $100.00 dated March 26, 1988 as a deposit on the home. On March 31, 1988 Elliott mailed Pollock another check in the amount of $1,000.00 as rent for the Brown home. The funds from these two checks were deposited in the account at Coast. Brown experienced some difficulty in getting Pollock to pay the deposit and rent collected from Elliott. However, once Will became aware of the situation he demanded that Pollock pay over the deposit and rent and, as a result of Will's effort Brown received $575.00 from Pollock. After paying Brown the $575.00 Pollock disappeared and Brown demanded the balance from Will since Pollock was working under Will's real estate broker's license. At first, Will agreed but later on advice of counsel declined to pay on the basis that it was not his responsibility. Brown filed suit and was awarded a judgment for the balance which Will paid. Around the middle of April 1988 Diane Smith approached Pollock for the purposes of renting a home. Smith paid Pollock an advance fee of $75.00 for service to be rendered by Pollock in securing her a rental home. However, before Pollock found a rental home for Smith he disappeared without returning Smith's fee. Within a short period after Smith paid the advance fee she went to the office of Will Realty only to find it closed and Pollock gone. There was no evidence that Smith made a demand on Will for the return of the advance fee paid to Pollock. After Will became aware of the situation he called Petitioner's Orlando office and was informed by Judy Smith that he should close the office immediately. Will followed this advice and closed the office sometime around April 23, 1988. As soon as Will began to receive complaints from Pollock's clients he got involved with Pollock and attempted to correct the problems but Pollock disappeared before Will could correct the situation. There was insufficient evidence to show that while Pollock was at Will Realty, any of his prospective tenants, other than Smith, specifically Catherine Vick, failed to receive reimbursement for any advance fee paid to Pollock where rentals were not obtained for the prospective tenant. Will was not directly involved with any of the transactions between Pollock and the prospective tenants and did not have any knowledge of these transactions until shortly before Pollock disappeared and Will Realty was closed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the mitigating circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Fred J. Will guilty of violating Section 475.25(1) (d) and (e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $500.00 and issue a reprimand. In recommending the reprimand I have taken into consideration the harshness of a suspension or revocation and feel that under the circumstances of this case that a reprimand and a fine is more appropriate. See: Webb v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 351 So.2d 71 (2 DCA Fla. 1977). It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts VI, IX and XIV of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 22nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert W. Elton, Esquire 648 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 Fred J. Will 2281 Carmen Daytona Beach, Florida 32119
The Issue Whether respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds: (1) that he operated as a real estate broker without holding a valid and current license, and (2) that he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Background By administrative complaint dated October 30, 1981, petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission 1/ ("Department"), charged respondent William A. Canty ("respondent") with six violations of the Florida Real Estate Law, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) proceeding. On November 30, 1981, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Hearing was thereafter set for April 23, 1982. At hearing, the Department voluntarily dismissed Count Nos. Three through Six, inclusive, leaving only Count Nos. One and Two. Count One alleges that respondent's broker's license expired; that he then negotiated a real estate transaction in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Count Two alleges that in connection with this real estate transaction, respondent signed a sales contract incorrectly acknowledging receipt of a $5,000 earnest money deposit, when, in fact, he had received a demand note; that the seller was led to believe that he held a $5,000 earnest money deposit in escrow; that such actions constituted misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Department called Robert S. Harrell and Alfred C. Harvey as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 was received in evidence. The transcript of hearing was received on April 27, 1982. Neither party has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact As to Count One Respondent is a licensed Florida real estate broker. He holds license No. 0012715 and his business address is 988 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) Since obtaining his broker's license in the early 1970s, respondent has earned a livelihood as a real estate broker. He has been a sole practitioner, having never employed any other person in connection with his practice. (Testimony of Canty.) A real estate broker's license must be renewed every two years. Effective April 1, 1978, respondent paid the requisite fee and renewed his then existing broker's license the new expiration date was March 31, 1980. (P-1.) On March 31, 1980, respondent's broker's license expired for failure to renew. His failure to timely renew was due to simple inadvertence; he admits that it was an oversight on his part. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) As soon as he realized his omission, he filed a renewal application and paid the requisite $40 fee in addition to a $15 late fee. His license renewal became effective on July 25, 1980. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) In May, 1980, respondent negotiated, prepared, and assisted in the execution of a written contract for the sale and purchase of 1.6 acres, including a 21,000 square-foot warehouse, located at 315 West Grant Street, Orlando, Florida. The seller was Alfred Harvey, the buyer was Preferred Services, Inc., and the purchase price was $208,000. The contract called for the buyer to pay the sales commission under separate agreement with respondent. The commission agreement never materialized since the sales transaction failed to close. But, the buyer understood that he had an obligation to pay a real estate commission, and respondent fully expected to receive one. (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) As to Count Two Prior to the parties' execution of the sales agreement mentioned above, respondent and the buyer, Robert Harrell, of Preferred Services, Inc., discussed with Alfred Harvey, the seller, the acceptability of using a demand note as the $5,000 earnest money deposit required by the agreement. (The buyer wished to avoid tying up his funds in escrow during the extensive time required to obtain Small Business Administration approval for assuming the existing mortgage loan.) The seller agreed to the depositing of a $5,000 demand note. 3/ (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) When the sales contract was executed by the parties, respondent acknowledged on page 2 that he held the specified earnest money deposit in escrow. The deposit was a $5,000 demand note. He did not indicate on the face of the contract that the deposit was in the form of a demand note. But, neither did he indicate that the deposit was in cash or check form. Respondent acknowledges that he was "sloppy" in failing to indicate on the contract that the deposit was a demand note. (Testimony of Canty.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.42(1) and 475.25(1)(a), F.S., and reprimanded. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1982.
