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 Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a registered assistant rental estate appraiser.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of real estate in Florida pursuant to Sections 475.001 and 475.05, Florida Statutes. On or about May 14, 2003, Petitioner, Ralph D. Jones, Jr., submitted an application for registration as an assistant real estate appraiser. On the application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question on the application regarding criminal history indicating Petitioner had a criminal history. Petitioner disclosed on the application that he had in Virginia two larceny charges, a concealment charge, a driving while license suspended charge, a hit and run charge, three assault charges and an obstruction of law enforcement charge: a total of six felony convictions. On or about October 7, 2004, the FREAB conducted an informal hearing regarding Petitioner's application for licensure and the aforementioned crimes. Petitioner attended the hearing and submitted letters attesting to his good character for the FREAB's consideration. The FREAB issued an order denying Petitioner's application. On or about December 2, 2003, the FREAB conducted a second informal hearing regarding Petitioner's application for registration and his criminal record. Petitioner appeared at this hearing and was questioned by the FREAB about the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's criminal history. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified about the circumstances of his criminal history, with an emphasis on the length of time since his last criminal conviction, and the type of offenses committed by applicants that were approved by the FREAB. He pointed out that it had been over five years since he had been in trouble. It is noted that it had been an even longer time between Petitioner's most recent problems, arising from the breakup of his marriage, and his prior convictions. It is noted that his most recent offenses related to his divorce five years ago. Petitioner has not had his civil rights restored. Petitioner wants to work on his "apprenticeship," so he can become a registered appraiser. Following the hearing, the FREAB issued an order denying the Petitioner's application for a second time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent permit Petitioner to take the examination, and if Petitioner passes the examination, that Respondent issue a license to Petitioner conditioned on the following: Restoration of his civil rights by the Virginia authorities; Practice under the direction of a licensee designated by Respondent with periodic reports on Petitioner's professional conduct for a period of 24 months; and Automatic revocation of Petitioner's license upon the commission of any offense constituting a misdemeanor or felony in Florida Law or any violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph D. Jones, Jr. 781 Begonia Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Jason W. Holtz, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Frank Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, 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 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue The issue is what penalty should be imposed for a violation by Respondent of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraising Practice.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a certified general real estate appraiser, holding license number 000894. He has worked as an appraiser for 14 years and has held his real estate license for 15 years. He has never previously been disciplined. By letter dated March 16, 1995, Respondent sent what he entitled as a "letter of opinion of value for property located at [address omitted]." The letter of opinion states that the document "is not a Real Estate Appraisal Report, rather [it is] an opinion of value." The letter estimates the value of appraised property as $65,000-$70,000. The client for whom the letter of opinion was prepared was satisfied with the process by which Petitioner prepared the letter of opinion and the letter of opinion itself. The letter of opinion caused no one any damage or inconvenience. Standard 2-2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) states: "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 Appraisal Report." SMT-7, which is commentary that accompanies certain standards of the USPAP, provides: Various nomenclature has been developed by clients and client groups for certain appraisal assignments. The development of this Statement on Appraisal Standards is a response to inquiries about several types of appraisal assignments, and it is appropriate to clarify the meaning of these terms for future reference. The term Letter Opinion of Value has been used to describe a one-page letter sent to a client that stated a value estimate and referenced the file information and experience of the appraiser as the basis for the estimate. This type of service does not comply with USPAP, and should be eliminated from appraisal practice. USPAP recognizes that the results of any appraisal assignment may be presented in a letter format provided that the content items in one of the three report options under Standards Rule 2-2 are addressed. The Restricted Report is the minimum report format and replaces the concept of the Letter Opinion of Value. Respondent has stipulated to a violation of USPAP Standard 2-2 in the preparation of the March 15, 1995, letter.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, in the absence of an agreement of the type described in the preceding paragraph, the Board of Real Estate Appraisers enter a final order reprimanding Respondent. ENTERED on September 30, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 September 30, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Attorney Clifford R. Rhoades 227 North Ridgewood Drive Sebring, Florida 33870
