The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent's Florida Appraisal License should be disciplined upon the charge that the Respondent performed appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner in violation of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Rule 1-l(c), Florida Administrative Code, and in violation of Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Michael B. Limanti, is now and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser having been issued license number RZ000708, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Petitioner as a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser listed his address as 807 St. Johns Avenue, Palatka, Florida 32177. On or about March 26, 1996, the Respondent conducted an appraisal of residential property owned by John and Carol Sherer for a fee of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00), paid by the Sherers. The Respondent's residential appraisal report, which was received as Exhibit 1, indicated that the real property being appraised was located at 115 Shoreside Trail, in Crescent City, and estimated the market value of the real property at Fifty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($53,500.00). The appraisal report contained the following factual assertions which were the subject of the controversy concerning the descriptions of the subject property: A private road adjoining the property was marked as being public on the appraisal form. There were no notes in the comments about the road. The road was a private road with a public easement. There was no clear evidence of the road's status. The appraisal form specifically referenced paragraph six of the form, which is a general disclaimer provision. The age of the house was stated as an effective age of twenty (20) years. The house was built in 1979. The appraisal was in 1996. The effective age of the house takes into consideration maintenance and other conditions. Another appraiser appraised the house subsequent to the Respondent's appraisal. The opinion of the Department's expert at hearing is that the age of the house was not inordinately different from the Respondent's opinion, and was not a major factor. The Petitioner's appraisal report contained several mix-statements regarding the characteristics of the house. The full bathroom was mix-characterized as .75 of a bathroom. The floors of the house were erroneously indicated as being carpeted, when in fact they were vinyl tile at the time of the appraisal. The walls were characterized as sheet rock, when in fact they were wooden paneling. The appraisal also referenced a scuttle hole, which does not exist. The Department's investigator interviewed the Respondent who stated that he had made a mistake in entering data from his notes regarding the property. However, the Respondent felt that the errors were inconsequential and did not affect the value of the property. The Department's expert opined that the aforementioned errors indicated carelessness; however, the Department's expert agreed that they did not impact the ultimate value of the property. The photographs, purportedly of the subject property, were identified by the owner and the Department's expert as not being of the lakefront on the subject property. The Department's expert opined that the difference in square footage of the Respondent's appraisal and the second appraisal was negligible and within limits. The principal objection of the Department's expert was to the location of the properties selected as comparables. One of the properties was on a smaller lake, another on a larger lake, and the third on a canal adjoining the St. Johns River. However, in each instance the price of the other properties has been adjusted by Respondent with regard to the site location. Upon cross-examination, the Department's expert indicated that there were few sales of property due to a depressed market at the time the appraisal was conducted and there were a limited number of "comparables" from which to select. The Department's expert was most concerned about the Respondent's choice of comparable sales which the expert felt were inappropriate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter its Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, and fine him $1,000 and place him on probation for one(1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1997.
The Issue Should the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (the Board) take action against Respondent, a licensed real estate appraiser (appraiser), for violations set forth in Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (1995)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent is a state-licensed appraiser. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent, Fred Catchpole, and Rhonda Guy developed and communicated an appraisal report for property commonly known as 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida 32819. In developing the subject property appraisal report, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach were utilized. Additional Facts: Eventually the circumstances concerning the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (the Report) at the 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida, property (the Property) came to Petitioner's attention upon a complaint. On February 13, 2001, the complaint was made. The complaint was made by Daniel Alvin Ryland, a Florida-licensed appraiser who has provided appraisal services in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in Florida. The investigation of the complaint covered the period February 20, 2001, through December 26, 2001. Benjamin F. Clanton was the principal investigator. At present, he is an investigator supervisor for Petitioner. He has held that position since 2002. Mr. Clanton started investigating appraisal cases in 1995, when he retired from the Birmingham Police Department in Birmingham, Alabama. In that year, he was employed by the Alabama Real Estate Appraisal Board. While there, he took three courses: the Appraisal of Real Estate, a 45-hour course; the Basic How to Appraise, a 25-hour course; and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP), a 16-hour course. He took an update in USPAP in 1997, a four-hour course. Mr. Clanton continued with Appraisal Institute courses or courses involving appraisal principles and procedures, basic income capitalization, residential case studies and a national USPAP course and other updates. As part of the investigation, Mr. Clanton interviewed Respondent Harrison. Mr. Clanton sought documentation from the Respondent in the interest of the recreation of the Cost Approach in the Report. Mr. Clanton asked for the work files supporting the Report. Respondent provided work files. Discrete information concerning recreation of the Cost Approach was not received by Mr. Clanton. From his observations related to the Cost Approach within the Report, Mr. Clanton describes problems with the calculations of the Cost Approach where the stated effective age in the comments on the Cost Approach was 25 years. That calculated to be significantly different, in his understanding, than the number used in the depreciation in the Cost Approach. The Report reflected a remaining economic life of 35 years and a total life expectancy of 60 years. He refers to the Report's statement of the effective age of the Property as 15 years. In his testimony, Mr. Clanton describes the age life depreciation method leading to establishment of the effective age but he was never qualified as an expert to allow consideration of the testimony on the age life depreciation method or other issues related to the Cost Approach. Therefore, no further facts are found on that topic. When interviewed by Mr. Clanton, Respondent Catchpole in DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL acknowledged that there were errors in the Cost Approach formulations attributed to Respondent Harrison. The nature of any errors was not explained. Without that explanation they become inconsequential. More particularly, the Property neighborhood is slightly north of Interstate 10 in Pensacola, Florida, west of Pine Forrest Road, to the west side of Highway 29, and south of Alternate 90. The Property is located in what is referred to as the Ensley area. The Property is one of the largest residences in the Ensley area, in particular in Ensley Gardens. Immediately off of Highway 29 are rows of commercial buildings. Behind those rows is a railroad track. The Property is about 200 feet from the railroad track. An Escambia County utilities substation, pumping station, is located north of the Property. The Escambia County public utilities facility is about 200 feet from the Property. The Property is located north of Broad Street. The Property is on a large lot. Homes across from the Property on Broad Street are located on smaller lots. The property is not in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The area of the subject property is not homogenous, in that the homes vary widely in quality, design, age and size. By choice of the appraiser, the Sales Comparison Approach was used in determining the appraisal for the Property. There were three comparable sales. At the time the Report was written the Property was 27 years old. Comparable sale one was two years old. Comparable sale two was 12 years old. Comparable sale three was 9 years old. The Property site was 120 feet by 260 feet according to the Report. This was larger than the comparable sales sites. Respondent, in providing information from the work file related to the Report, included information from a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for January 1997 from the Pensacola Association of Realtors. In reference to comparable sale one, the MLS refers to the location as Creekside Oaks Subdivision, a luxury home under construction and a Parade Home entry. It refers to a sprinkler system, pantry, cathedral ceilings, security alarm, two+ closets in the master bedroom, separate shower in the master bedroom, an open patio, laundry/utility room, on a golf course, with a two-car garage. It has a whirlpool for the master bedroom bath. It has double pane glass. In relation to comparable sale two, the MLS refers to soaring cathedral ceilings with a fireplace in living room and screen porch, a hot tub and gorgeous yard with pool. The pool is described as an in-ground pool. There is a reference to a unique atrium, an inside laundry, walk-in closets, sprinkler systems, laundry/utility room and security alarm. The MLS pertaining to comparable sale three refers to the Kings Road Subdivision in Cantonment, whereas the Report refers to the location as Pensacola. In relation to comparable sale three on Kings Road in Cantonment, that neighborhood has deed restrictions limiting the type of homes and the size of homes. It has a public sewer. It has underground utilities. It has a concrete curb and gutter. The house is described as having a fireplace, sprinkler system, screen porch, high ceilings, security alarm, two-car garage, with a garden tub in the master bath. It refers to a laundry inside. There is a pool. The Report in the section under the Comparable Sales Approach, under the sales comparison analysis that refers to design and appeal described the Property and the comparables as ranch/average. The Property and the comparable sales properties were all described as suburban-average as to location. The sites were described as average for the Property and inferior for the comparables with a $3000 positive adjustment in each comparable sale to compensate for the difference. The Property did not have a pool. Two of the comparable sales had pools. Mr. Clanton asked the Respondent to provide him with a second appraisal report on the Property. Respondent agreed to provide it and mailed it to Mr. Clanton. A second appraisal report was not received by Mr. Clanton. Nothing more is known about a second appraisal report. In the appraiser certification signed by Respondent as appraiser and signed by Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06- 3389PL, as supervisory appraiser, under item 8 it was stated: "I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property . . . ." Within item 8 to the appraisers certification, it went on to say that there was a personal inspection of " . . . the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report " Respondent in this case did not inspect the interior of the Property as part of the appraisal, by contrast to an awareness of the exterior. Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, served as the supervisory appraiser and as such did not inspect the Property in any respect. Respondent Fred R. Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, reviewed comparable property data in relation to the sales comparison analysis but was not involved in the selection process in choosing comparable sales. The form used in preparing the Report is referred to variously as Freddie Mac Form 70 6/93 and Fannie Mae Form 1004 6/93. In the Report in the section involving subject matter, Fred and Juanita Hicks were listed as borrowers and the current owner of the Property. The property rights being appraised were under the heading "fee simple." There was a reference to a lender/client as Home Star Mortgage Lending. The results of the Report did not lead to any direct harm to a consumer, in particular, the listed borrowers, Fred and Juanita Hicks.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 30th day of May, 2007.
