The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Coleman is and was at all times material to this proceeding, a state-certified residential real estate appraiser in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RD-4033 in July 2003. Mr. Coleman has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against him. In March 2007, Mr. Coleman received a request to perform an appraisal on a condominium unit located at 841 Amberjack Circle, Unit 304, Englewood, Florida (Subject Property). The purpose of the appraisal was for mortgage lending, and the lender was J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank, N.A. The Subject Property is a newly-constructed three- bedroom, two-bath condominium unit with 1,903 square feet of gross living area. The Subject Property is located on the third floor and is the first unit in the development to be sold that has a view of a natural body of water and a preserve. On March 10, 2007, Mr. Coleman developed and communicated an appraisal report on the Subject Property. In determining his opinion of value, Mr. Coleman used the sales comparison approach. This approach requires the appraiser to find comparable sales of property similar to the property being appraised and to make adjustments for any differences from the property being appraised and the comparable properties. Mr. Coleman selected three properties to be used as comparable sales for his report. The first property selected as a comparable sale is a third-floor, three-bath condominium unit located at 8520 Amberjack Circle, H2/301, Englewood, Florida (Comparable Sale 1). This unit contains 2,625 square feet of gross living area. Comparable Sale 1 sold for $550,496. The second property selected as a comparable sale is a second-floor condominium located at 8540 Amberjack Circle, H3/203, Englewood, Florida (Comparable Sale 2). This unit contains 1,927 square feet of gross living area. The recorded deed shows that the selling price of Comparable Sale 2 is $408,000. Mr. Coleman was provided information by the developer that in addition to the original selling price of $408,000 that upgrades had been purchased, bringing the total sale price of Comparable Sale 2 to $417,200.2 There was no information in the appraisal report to show why there was a discrepancy between the selling price reported by the developer and the selling price contained in the public records. The third property selected as a comparable sale is a second-floor condominium located at 8560 Amberjack Circle, H4/203, Englewood, Florida (Comparable Sale 3). This unit has 1,927 square feet of gross living area. At the time that Mr. Coleman was preparing the appraisal report, he could not find a listing for Comparable Sale 3 in the county records. It is not clear whether Mr. Coleman relied on online records or whether he actually went to the clerk’s office to check the records. The deed that was recorded for Comparable Sale 3 shows a sale price of $409,000. Mr. Coleman was advised by the developer that in addition to the selling price of $409,000 that upgrades had been purchased, bringing the total sale price of Comparable Sale 3 to $416,000. Mr. Coleman relied upon the sales information from the developer and concluded that the county clerk’s office had erred in recording the total sale prices for Comparable Sale 2 and Comparable Sale 3. There were at least 15 other units that were more similar to the Subject Property than Comparable Sale 1. Mr. Coleman selected Comparable Sale 1, because he wanted a unit that would have a higher price than the contract price for the Subject Property. He stated: I knew that this property [Subject Property] sold for $450,000, and if I was going to make it work at all I would have to use a comparable with a higher sale price. I believed at the time that the subject unit was worth more than $450,000 that it sold for, at least that much. And so in order to show that the subject unit had that value, I used the higher price comparable. I was asking the sales office for-–give me unit that is of similar size that’s sold for a higher price. And he said there weren’t any that he was aware of, and I said, well give me something that shows that there’s value at the subject property. Mr. Coleman argues in his Proposed Recommended Order that he was bracketing when he chose Comparable Sale 1. There was no evidence presented that bracketing was involved in his decision to chose Comparable Sale 1 nor was there any evidence that bracketing was an accepted practice in Charlotte County, Florida, at the time the appraisal report was prepared and communicated. Because Comparable Sale 1 was a larger unit than the Subject Property, Mr. Coleman made an adjustment in the price for Comparable Sale 1 to compensate for the difference in square footage. Mr. Coleman concluded that the value of a square foot of gross living area was $100.3 He did not comment in his appraisal report how he arrived at this price per square foot. The difference in the amount of square footage in the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 1 is 722 square feet. Thus, he adjusted the sale price for Comparable Sale 1 by deducting $72,200. Mr. Coleman also adjusted the price for Comparable Sale 3 by deducting $5,000 for an additional bathroom. None of the comparable sales have a view of a natural body of water or a preserve as does the Subject Property. The comparables have a view of man-made retention ponds, which are referred to as lakes. Mr. Coleman concluded that, based on his professional and personal knowledge, there is a premium for a view of a natural body of water and a preserve and stated in his report: The adjustment for site is based on the list prices for the same unit in Hammock Cove condos versus the subject Preserve condo. The premium for having a view of Lemon Creek and the preserve is estimated at $120,000. The adjustment is less than half the estimated difference. The units in the development in which the Subject Property is located that have a view of the natural body of water or preserve were listed for sale at the time of the appraisal for approximately $120,000 more than similar units without such a view. None of the units with a view of the natural water and preserve had sold at the time of the preparation of the appraisal report; therefore, there were no prior sales which could be used to determine the value of the view. After the appraisal was completed, there were some units with the view of the natural body of water and the preserve which sold for $500,000. There was no evidence presented to show whether these units were similar to the Subject Property in size, upgrades, or floor location. The Department’s expert, Dennis J. Black (Mr. Black), criticized Mr. Coleman for relying on the listing information from the developer, who was an interested party, in determining the value of the view of the natural body of water and the preserve. Mr. Black felt that Mr. Coleman should have gone to other sources for such information, such as other developments which were similarly situated. Mr. Coleman knew from his own experience that units in the development in which he lived that had a similar view of the Subject Property sold for more than units without a view of the preserve. He did try unsuccessfully to find some developments that were similar to the one at issue with some units having a view of a natural body of water and other units having a view of man-made retention ponds. Therefore, Mr. Coleman did try to find sources other than the developer for a valuation of the view. Mr. Coleman concluded that the value of the view was less than half of the $120,000 increase for which other units with a view of natural water and a preserve were being listed for sale. The record does not establish on what basis he made the assumption that the value of the view was less than half of $120,000. Mr. Coleman made an adjustment of $50,000 to the three comparable sales. Based on the adjustments made by Mr. Coleman for the size in the units, the view, and the additional bathroom, the adjusted sale price for Comparable Sale 1 was $523,296. The adjusted sale price for Comparable 2 was $467,200, and the adjusted sale price for Comparable Sale 3 was $466,000. Thus, the range of adjusted sale prices of the comparable sales was from $466,000 to $523,296. He valued the Subject Property at $500,000, which was within the range of the adjusted comparable sales. He testified that he tended to value the Subject Property a little higher because it had upgrades, a superior view, and was located on the third floor. The evidence does not demonstrate why he valued the Subject Property higher when an adjustment had been made for the superior view in computing the adjusted selling prices for Comparable Sales 1 and 2. Additionally, Comparable Sales 2 and 3 also had upgrades, as evidenced by the discrepancies between the recorded deeds and the selling prices provided by the developer. The only difference between the Subject Property and Comparable Sales 2 and 3 was the location of Comparable Sales 2 and 3 on the second floor and the location of the Subject Property on the third floor. Mr. Coleman indicated in his appraisal report that the current condominium trends in the neighborhood of the Subject Property showed that the property values were stable, and the demand/supply was in balance. Based on research that he had done for a book shortly before the effective date of the subject appraisal report, Mr. Black opined that the general market in the area of southern Sarasota County and northern Charlotte County was not stable, but was in a decline, with deteriorating property values and an oversupply of similar properties offered for sale. His opinion was of the overall market trends and not the trends of the particular neighborhood in which the Subject Property is located. In his appraisal report, Mr. Coleman certified that he “performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice [USPAP] that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared.” The following USPAP requirements were applicable to the instant case at the time the appraisal report was prepared. Standards Rule 1-1 In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal; not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. Standards Rule 1-2 In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: * * * (f) identify any extraordinary assumptions necessary in the assignment; . . . Standards Rule 1-4 In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information necessary for credible assignment results. (a) When a sales comparison approach is necessary for credible assignment results, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. Standards Rule 2-1 Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; and clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and limiting conditions used in the assignment. Standards Rule 2-2 Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used: Self-Contained Appraisal Report, Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report. (b) The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * (iii) summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate involved in the appraisal, including the physical and economic property characteristics relevant to the assignment. Mr. Black opined that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rules 1-1(a), 1-1(b), and 1-1(c). According to Mr. Black, Mr. Coleman did not correctly employ the cost comparison method by giving more weight to Comparable Sale 1, which was the most dissimilar comparison sale. Mr. Black concluded that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 1-1(b), because there was no support to demonstrate how Mr. Coleman arrived at the $50,000 adjustment for the preserve view. Mr. Black opined that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 1-1(c) by giving more weight to Comparable Sale 1 and by failing to demonstrate how he developed the adjustment for the preserve view. Mr. Black opined that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 1-2(f) by failing to identify the $50,000 adjustment for the view in the work file or the report. Mr. Black concluded that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards 1-4(a) for failing to collect, verify, and analyze the information on other units which were more similar to the Subject Property than Comparable Sale 1. Mr. Black opined that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rules 2-1(a), 2-1(b), and 2-1(c). Mr. Black determined that Mr. Coleman’s failure to show how he arrived at the $50,000 adjustment for the view, when the information on which he was relying showed a value of $120,000, constituted a violation of USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(a). Mr. Black concluded that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(b) as follows: [B]y failing to provide the information of the support and rationale for the $50,000 adjustment. He has not provided sufficient information. He’s also failed to explain how he arrives at the $500,000 amount, which is $15,000 above the amount that would have been determined by equal weighting of all comparables. And how he comes up with $500,000 where the most weight would be given to Comparable Sale 1, which the most dissimilar sale. Mr. Black opined that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(c) by failing to disclose the extraordinary assumption that the view of the Subject Property was valued at $50,000. Mr. Black concluded that Mr. Coleman violated USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b)(iii) by failing to support how he came up with the $50,000 positive adjustment and by failing to explain the reasoning behind giving the most weight to the most dissimilar sale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Coleman violated Subsection 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2010.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since January 12, 2005, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD 4946. He has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. During the time he has been licensed, Respondent has supervised various registered trainee appraisers, including Julio Potestad, who worked under Respondent's supervision from March 17, 2006, through February 26, 2007, and has remained "very good friends" with him.4 At all times material to the instant case, the Subject Property has been zoned by the City of Miami as R-1, which allows only single-family residences. In January of 2006, Respondent was working as a residential real estate appraiser for Appraisals of South Florida, Inc., a business owned by Anthony Pena, when he received an assignment to conduct an appraisal of the Subject Property for Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. (Coast). Gustavo Ceballos had agreed to buy the Subject Property from Jorge Vazquez for $395,000, and Mr. Ceballos had applied for a mortgage loan from Coast to make the purchase. The purpose of the appraisal was to determine whether the market value of the Subject Property justified Coast's making the loan. The written appraisal request from Coast was dated January 24, 2006, and directed to Mr. Potestad, who was working for Mr. Pena at the time. It indicated that the "[p]roperty [t]ype" of the Subject Property was "SFR" (meaning single-family residence). Attached to the request was a copy of a signed, but undated, copy of a "[s]ales contract" for the Subject Property. Using a pre-printed form, Respondent completed a Summary Appraisal Report (Report), dated January 31, 2006, containing his opinion that the market value of the Subject Property as of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection" of the Subject Property) was $395,000 (which happened to be the contract price). He arrived at his opinion by conducting a sales comparison analysis and a cost analysis (but not an income analysis). On January 5, 2006, just three weeks and a day prior to the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection," City of Miami Code Enforcement Officer Maria Lugo had inspected the interior and exterior of the Subject Property at the request of the owner, Mr. Vazquez, who had contacted Ms. Lugo after she had "posted on the property" a code violation notice. Ms. Lugo's January 6, 2006, inspection had revealed that the Subject Property was not a single-family residence, but rather a nonconforming four-unit, multi-family structure (with each unit having an exterior door and there being no interior access between units) and, further, that various additions and improvements (including additional bathrooms and kitchens, a metal awning and concrete slab in the rear of the property, a driveway on the west side of the front of the property, and a "garage conversion") had been made without a building permit having been obtained. These were City of Miami code violations for which the owner of the property could be fined. Extensive work (including demolition work), requiring building permits, needed to be done to correct these code violations and reconvert the structure to a legal, single-family dwelling. As of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection"), no building permit to perform work on the Subject Property had been obtained, and the code violations Ms. Lugo had found 22 days earlier had not yet been corrected. As he indicated in the Report, Respondent appraised the Subject Property as a single-family residence (with four bedrooms and three baths), even though, as of January 27, 2006, it was a multi-family structure (as an appropriate inspection by a reasonably prudent residential real estate appraiser would have revealed).5 Doing so was a substantial and fundamental error that was fatal to the credibility of Respondent's market value opinion. The first page of Respondent's Report contained five sections: "Subject," "Contract," "Neighborhood," "Site," and "Improvements." The "Subject" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: Property Address: 7150 SW 5th Street City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: 33144-2709 * * * Occupant: X Owner _ Tenant _ Vacant * * * Assignment Type: X Purchase Transaction _ Refinance Transaction _ Other (describe) Lender/Client: Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. . . . . Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? X Yes _ No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s): The subject property has a prior sale on July 2005 for $349,000. Although he provided the "offering price" and "date" of the "prior sale," Respondent did not reveal, in this section, the "data source(s) [he] used" to obtain this information. He did, however, disclose this "data source" (ISC NET6) in a subsequent section of the Report (the "Sales Comparison Approach" section). The "Contract" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: I X did _ did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. The subject property is under contract for $395,000[;] financial assistance noted. Contract Price: $395,000 Date of Contract: No[t] Provided Is the property seller the owner of public record: X Yes _ No Data Sources: Public Records Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or down payment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? X Yes _ No If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid: 4% seller contribution for closing costs and prepaids. As part of the appraisal development process, "[a]ppraisers are required to obtain a full copy of the contract [for sale] that's signed and dated." The contract for sale that Respondent analyzed, and which he has maintained in his work file on the Subject Property (Work File), however, while signed by Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Ceballos, was incomplete and not dated. Paragraph 21 of this incomplete and undated contract for sale provided as follows: ADDITIONAL TERMS SELLER WILL PAY 4% OF PURCHASE PRICE FOR BUYER CLOSING COSTS PROPERTY SOLD AS IS CONDITIONS In the "Neighborhood" section of the Report, Respondent identified the boundaries of the "neighborhood" in which the Subject Property was located, and he stated that the properties in the neighborhood were either "One-Unit" (95%) or "Commercial" (5%) properties and that the neighborhood had no "2-4 Unit" or other "Multi-Family" structures.7 The following further representations, among others, were made in the "Neighborhood" section: Neighborhood Description: The subject is located in an established neighborhood consisting of 1 story ranch style homes similar to the subject in age, size and appeal. The subject neighborhood provides a good environment for the house being appraised. There are no factors that will negatively affect marketability of the subject property. Employment stability and convenience are reasonable. Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions): The subject is in a market place in which residential properties similar to the subject take approximately 3 months to sell. Demand and [s]upply are in balance with a stable growth rate. These figures were obtained from the appraiser[']s observation of the marketing time for listing and sales within the immediate area and the ratio of the number of listings to sales. The "Site" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * View: Residential Specific Zoning Classification: R-1 Zoning Description: Single Family Residential Zoning Compliance: X Legal _ Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) _ No Zoning _ Illegal (describe) Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use? X Yes _ No If no, describe. * * * Are there any adverse site conditions or external factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land use, etc.)? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe * * * In the "Improvements" section of the Report, Respondent indicated, among other things, that the Subject Property was a one-unit, ranch-style structure built in 1948, with an "effective age" of 20 years. Next to "Roof Surface" Respondent entered, "Shingles/Avg." Other information provided in this section included the following: Finished area above grade contains: 7 Rooms, 4 Bedrooms, 3 Bath(s) 2,249 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade. * * * Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovation, remodeling, etc.). The subject conforms to the neighborhood in terms of age, design and construction. Based upon an inspection performed by the appraiser on the subject property[,] [it] does appear to have roof damage resulting from Hurricane Wilma. The property's roof exhibits many missing and/or detached roof shingles.[8] The appraiser bases these findings only upon a visual inspection of the subject. A thorough roof inspection should be done to properly assess the full extent of the damage. The Hurricane does not appear to have negatively affected the subject area's economic base. Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)? X Yes _ No If No, describe[9] The second page of Respondent's Report contained two sections: "Sales Comparison Approach" and "Reconciliation." In the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report, Respondent identified the three "comparable" properties that he examined to estimate (using a sales comparison analysis) the market value of the Subject Property, and he provided information about these comparables, as well as the Subject Property. The following were the three "comparables" Respondent selected for his sales comparison analysis: Comparable Sale 1, located at 7140 Southwest 7th Avenue in Miami (.14 miles from the Subject Property); Comparable Sale 2, located at 240 Southwest 69th Avenue in Miami (.28 miles from the Subject Property); and Comparable Sale 3, located at 7161 Southwest 5th Terrace in Miami (.06 miles from the Subject Property). According to the Report, these "comparables," as well as the Subject Property, were 56 to 58-year-old, single-family (one- unit) ranch-style residences in "average condition" situated on lots ranging in size from 6,000 square feet (the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 3) to 6,565 square feet (Comparable Sale 1). Comparative information relating to these "comparables" and the Subject Property was set forth in a grid (Sales Comparison Grid). On the "Date of Sale/Time" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: December 2005 Comparable Sale 2: November 2005 Comparable Sale 3: Sept. 2005 On the "Sale Price" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $395,000 Comparable Sale 1: $380,000 Comparable Sale 2: $387,000 Comparable Sale 3: $390,000 On the "Sale Price/Gross Liv" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $236.39 sq. ft.[10] Comparable Sale 1: $254.01 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: $195.65 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: $195.00 sq. ft. On the "Data Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: ISC NET/MLX[11] Comparable Sale 2: ISC NET Comparable Sale 3: ISC NET/MLX On the "Verification Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: Observation from street Comparable Sale 2: Observation from street Comparable Sale 3: Observation from street "Observation from street" is an unacceptable means of verifying sales price information. An appropriate "Verification Source" would be an individual involved in some way in the transaction or, alternatively, a public record. On the "Above Grade Room Count" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 1: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 2: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); 2 (Baths). Comparable Sale 3: 8 (Total); 5 (bdrms.); 4 (Baths). Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "+3,000." Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "-3,000." On the "Gross Living Area" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 2,249 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 1: 1,496 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: 1,978 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: 2,000 sq. ft. Because its "Gross Living Area" was 753 square feet (or approximately one-third) less than that of the Subject Property, Comparable Sale 1 was "way too small in comparison to the Subject Property to [have] be[een] utilized as a comparable sale." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 1, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+18,825." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,775." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,225." The upward adjustments Respondent made to the "comparables'" sales prices to account for the Subject Property's larger "Gross Living Area" amounted to $25 for each square foot that the "Gross Living Area" of the Subject Property exceeded that of the "comparables." Nowhere in the Report, or in Respondent's Work File, is there any indication of how or why Respondent selected this $25 a square foot price adjustment. While ISC NET/FARES provides "Gross Living Area" square footage information (that is gleaned from public records), MLX does not. In his appraisal of the Subject Property, Respondent appropriately used "Gross Living Area" square footage information from ISC NET/FARES for Comparable Sales 1 and 2; however, for Comparable Sale 3, rather than using the ISC NET/FARES "Gross Living Area" square footage (which was 1,512 square feet), he instead inappropriately relied on the square footage figure (2,000) for "Total Area" (which is different than "Gross Living Area") found in the MLX listing for the property. This was a substantial error negatively impacting the soundness of the adjustment he made for "Gross Living Area" to obtain an "Adjusted Sale Price" for Comparable Sale 3. The MLX listing for Comparable Sale 3 also contained the following "remarks": DON'T MISS THIS BEAUTY. PLENTY OF SPACE FOR THE IN-LAWS. CALL LISTING AGENT. CAN USE LIKE 2 IN LAWS AND MAIN HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 2000 SF. HOUSE HAVE 3 BEDROOMS 2 BATHS. YOU CAN USE 2 EFFICIENCIES AND THE HOUSE. HOUSE TOTALLY REMODELED NEW BATH, NEW KITCHEN. These "remarks" suggest that Comparable Sale 3 actually consisted of not one, but three separate dwelling units ("2 efficiencies" and a "main house"), contrary to the representation made by Respondent in the Report, and it therefore should not have been used as a "comparable" to appraise a single-family residence (which Respondent, in his Report, mistakenly represented the Subject Property to be). The following "Adjusted Sale Price[s]" for the three "comparables" were set forth on the last line of the Sales Comparison Grid: Comparable Sale 1: $398,825; Comparable Sale 2: $396,775; and Comparable Sale 3: $393,225. At the end of the "Sales Comparison Approach" section (beneath the grid) was the following "Summary of Sales Comparison Approach": The subject property is similar to all of the comparable sales which were carefully selected after an extensive search in and out of the subject's defined market. This search consisted of analyzing numerous closed sales and narrowing the list down to the most similar. After close evaluation of the comparable sales utilized, equal consideration was given to all comparable sales in formulating an opinion of market value. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000. In arriving at this appraised "value" of $395,000, Respondent made no adjustments for the damage to the Subject Property's roof noted in the "Improvements" section of the Report or for the "4% seller contribution for closing costs" mentioned in the "Contract" section of the Report; neither did he provide an explanation as to why he had not made such adjustments. The first part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000; Cost Approach (if developed): $395,614; Income Approach (if developed): N/A Final reliance is given to the Sales Comparison Analysis due to the reliability of market data and which represents the motives of the typical purchaser [sic]. The Cost Approach although not as accurate, supports value. The Income Approach was not appropriate for this assignment. In developing his "Cost Approach" estimate of the market value of the Subject Property (referenced in the first part of the "Reconciliation" section), Respondent used a "replacement cost new" figure of $90 a square foot. There was nothing in the Report or Work File to support or explain his use of this figure. The second and final part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: This appraisal is made x "as is," _ subject to completion per plans and specifications on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the improvements have been completed, _ subject to the following repairs or alterations on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the repairs or alterations have been completed, or _ subject to the following required inspection based on the extraordinary assumption that condition or deficiency does not require alteration or repair: Subject to the Statement of Limiting Conditions and Appraiser's Certification attached. Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property,[12] defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and appraiser's certification, my (our) opinion of the market value, as defined, of the real property that is the subject of this report is $395,000, as of January 27, 2006, which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal. The fourth page of the Report contained pre-printed boilerplate, including the following: This report form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property or a one- unit property with an accessory unit . . . . * * * SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the reporting requirements of this appraisal report form . . . . The appraiser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the comparable sales from at least the street, research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or privates sources, and report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report. INTENDED USE: The intended use of this appraisal report is for the lender/client to evaluate the property that is the subject of the appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client. * * * STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: * * * 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements. The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. * * * The appraiser has noted in this appraisal any adverse conditions (such as needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in this appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent physical deficiencies or adverse conditions of the property (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) that would make the property less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist and for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, this appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusions for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that the completion, repairs, or alterations of the subject property will be performed in a professional manner. The fifth page of the Report contained additional pre- printed boilerplate in the form of an "Appraiser's Certification," wherein "the Appraiser [Respondent] certifie[d] and agree[d] that," among other things: I have, at a minimum, developed and reported this appraisal in accordance with the scope of work requirements stated in this appraisal report. I performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property. I reported the condition of the improvements in factual, specific terms. I identified and reported the physical deficiencies that could affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity of the property. I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared. I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value. I have adequate comparable market data to develop a reliable sales comparison approach for this appraisal assignment. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value but did not develop them, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on any current agreement for sale for the subject property, any offering for sale of the subject property in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal, and the prior sales of the subject property for a minimum of three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the prior sales of the comparable sales for a minimum of one year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale, unless otherwise indicated in the report. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property. I have not used comparable sales that were the result of combining a land sale with the contract purchase price of a home that has been built or will be built on the land. I have reported adjustments to the comparable sales that reflect the market's reaction to the differences between the subject property and the comparable sales. I verified, from a disinterested source, all information in this report that was provided by parties who have a financial interest in the sale or financing of the subject property. I have knowledge and experience in appraising this type of property in this market area. I am aware of, and have access to, the necessary and appropriate public and private data sources, such as multiple listing services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct. I have taken into consideration factors that have an impact on value with respect to the subject neighborhood, subject property, and the proximity of the subject property to adverse influences in the development of my opinion of market value. I have noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that I became aware of during research involved in performing this appraisal. I have considered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value, and have reported on the effect of the conditions on the value and marketability of the subject property. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from this appraisal and, to the best of my knowledge, all statements and information in this appraisal report are true and correct. I stated in this appraisal report my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appraisal report. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in this appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owner or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property or on any other basis prohibited by law. My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report (or present analysis supporting) a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report.[13] I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. I identified the lender/client in this appraisal report who is the individual, organization, or agent for the organization that ordered and will receive this appraisal report. The lender/client may disclose or distribute this appraisal to the borrower; another lender at the request of the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; mortgage insurers;; government sponsored enterprises; other secondary market participants; data collection or reporting services; professional appraisal organizations; any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States; and any state, the District of Columbia, or other jurisdictions; without having to obtain the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's (if applicable) consent. Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party, including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. I am aware that any disclosure or distribution of this appraisal report by me or the lender/client may be subject to certain laws and regulations. Further, I am also subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that pertain to disclosure or distribution by me. The borrower, another lender at the request of the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, government sponsored enterprises, and other secondary market participants may rely on this appraisal report as part of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties. If this appraisal was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws. Directly beneath the foregoing boilerplate was Respondent's signature. No one else signed the Report, nor was any individual identified in the Report as having assisted Respondent. Appended to the Report was an pre-printed "Addendum," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: SCOPE OF APPRAISAL The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales within the market area. The original source of the comparables is shown in the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source of confirmation, if available. The original source is presented first. The sources and data are considered reliable. When conflicting information was provided, the source deemed most reliable has been used. Data believed to be unbelievable was not included in this report nor was [it] used as a basis for the value conclusion. The Reproduction Cost is based on published cost indexes, such as Marshall Valuation Service, and supplemented by the appraiser's knowledge of the local market. * * * HIGHEST AND BEST USE The Highest and Best Use of a site is that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. For improvements to represent[] the highest and best use of a site, they must be legally permitted, be financially feasible, be physically possible and provide[] more profit than any other use of the site would generate. SITE The improvements on the property are legal and conform to current zoning regulations. In the event of a loss by fire [] all improvements could be rebuilt without obtaining a zoning variance. The opinion of zoning compliance requirements expressed in this appraisal is based on the appraiser's inspections of the subject property and comparison to the appropriate zoning ordinance. This opinion does not represent a certification which can only be obtained from the proper jurisdictional authority. * * * ROOM LISTS The number of rooms, bedrooms, baths and lavatories is typical of houses in this neighborhood. Foyers, laundry rooms and all rooms below grade are excluded from the total room count. * * * CONDITION OF COMPONENTS Any opinion expressed in this appraisal pertaining to the condition of the appraised property's, or comparable property's components, is based on observation[s] made at the time of inspection. They rely on visual indicators as well as reasonable expectations as to adequacy and dictated by neighborhood standards relative to marketability. These observations do not constitute certification of condition, including roof or termite problems, which may exist. If certification is required, a properly licensed or qualified individual should be consulted. COST APPROACH The Cost Approach includes a land value analysis and the estimated replacement cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the building being appraised, using modern materials, design, layout and current construction standards. Rates for the Cost Approach were calculated using Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook. Physical, functional and external inadequacies, as measured in the market, are deducted accordingly. The "as is" value of site improvements (driveway, Landscaping, etc.). represents their market contributory value as measured by a paired sales analysis. The Cost Approach is considered a supportive indicator of value. The subject[] site['s] value has been derived from market abstractions techniques applied to improved land sales from the subject market area, land sales as well as analysis of assessed value. [S]ubject[] land['s] total value ratio is common for properties in the subject[] market area and does not adversely affect marketability and/or value. DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on the comparison of the subject with sales of similar type properties. Adjustments are made to these sales for differences with the subject. [T]his is generally considered the best indicator of value. * * * ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LIVING AREAS: The appraisal uses actual living area in the market analysis for both the subject and comparable sales properties. The living area utilized for the sales data has been abstracted from the Public Records/Tax Rolls listed square foot area data and may have been further modified by the field appraiser's observation of the actual improvements. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS Digital photographs taken of the subject property and sales comparables were not enhanced or altered in any way, shape, or form. * * * ITEMS LEFT BLANK For the purpose of this appraisal report, an item left blank indicates this item does not apply to the subject property, indicates a (No or None) response, or indicates that the appraiser is not able to ascertain and/or is not qualified to furnish this information. * * * DATE OF APPRAISAL The date of the appraisal is the date of the last site inspection of the subject property. SUBJECT'S SKETCH All measurements of the subject's improvements have been rounded and the appraiser has tried to determine actual measurements as accurately as possible. This is not a survey and is not to be interpreted as a survey of the subject property. * * * The "sketch" of the Subject Property that Respondent appended to the Report did not accurately reflect the configuration and layout of the property, as of the effective date of the appraisal. On or about February 13, 2009, notwithstanding that Respondent had indicated in the Report (in the "Reconciliation" section thereof) that the appraisal was "made 'as is'" and not "subject to completion per plans and specifications," nor subject to any "repairs or alterations" being made, Respondent inexplicably issued an "Appraisal Update and/or Completion Report" (Supplemental Report) containing a "Certification of Completion," which read as follows: INTENDED USE: The intended use of this certificate of completion is for the lender/client to confirm that the requirements or conditions stated in the appraisal report referenced above have been met. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this certification of completion is the lender/client. HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL APPRAISAL REPORT? X Yes _ No If No, describe any impact on the opinion of market value. The subject property has been ready per plans and specifications. APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have performed a visual inspection on the subject property to determine if the conditions or requirements stated in the original appraisal have been satisfied. According to the Supplemental Report, Respondent conducted this "visual inspection" of the Subject Property on February 13, 2006. Contrary to the assertions made in the "Intended Use" and "Appraiser's Certification" sections of the "Certification of Completion," there were no "conditions" or "requirements" "stated in the original appraisal [report]." Any "plans and specifications" referenced in an original or updated appraisal report must be maintained in the appraiser's work file. Respondent's Work File contains no "plans and specifications," nor any other indication as to what, if any, post-Report repair or renovation work had been done on the Subject Property at the time of the issuance of the Supplemental Report.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Amended Administrative Complaint and revoking his residential real estate appraiser license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.624(2), (14) and (15), Florida Statutes (2006)1/, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of property appraisers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, James Lester, Jr., is a Florida state certified general appraiser, holding license number RZ2783. He has been licensed by the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board since 1991, initially holding a certified residential appraisal license and then a general appraisal license. Kenneth Ardire and Bradley Scott Bozeman formerly worked in the office referred to as J. Lester Company. The business was owned by Respondent's father. Bozeman was a residential appraiser and Ardire was a registered trainee appraiser supervised by Bozeman. During the time material to this Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent did not act in a supervisory capacity with respect to either Bozeman or Ardire. Neither man currently works for the firm, and Bozeman's appraiser's license has been revoked. In February 2006, Ardire and Bozeman prepared a vacant land appraisal report (Report 3) related to property located on Highway 71 in White City, Florida, for Vision Bank. Respondent was not involved in the preparation of the vacant land appraisal and did not sign the report. Vision Bank also requested a subdivision analysis of the property. Ardire and Bozeman were assigned the report regarding the subdivision analysis because they had prepared the prior report on the same property. They were assigned to this task by an employee in the office other than Respondent. Preparation of a subdivision analysis is considered a commercial appraisal, as opposed to a residential appraisal. Neither Ardire nor Bozeman is licensed to prepare commercial appraisals. For reasons that are unclear, Ardire provided a "draft" report to Vision Bank, which shall be referred to as Report 2. Report 2 is unsigned and contains only the names of Bozeman and Ardire. Report 2 was provided by Vision Bank to Donald Giles, another licensed appraiser. Based on his review of Report 2, Giles filed a complaint with the Department. The complaint was identified as DBPR Case No. 2007-3522. In response to a request from the Department, Bozeman supplied to DBPR a copy of what is now referred to as Report 1 and its supporting work papers. This report indicates that it was prepared by Respondent, Bozeman and Ardire. Based on this report and workfile, DBPR Case No. 2008-1566 (the current proceeding) was initiated against Respondent. Neither report has numbered pages. Reports 1 and 2 differ in the following ways: Report 1 lists all three appraisers, with purported signatures for each. Report 2 lists only Ardire and Bozeman and contains no signatures. However, both reports state on the second page of the cover letter that "the appraisals attached were written, valued, analyzed and concluded by Kenneth Ardire and Bradley Scott Bozeman." The cover letter for Report 1 is on company letterhead, and is addressed to Vision Bank. The cover letter for Report 2 is on plain paper, and is addressed to Capital City Bank, at the same address listed for Vision Bank. The first page of Report 2 lists Vision Bank as the intended user. On the page labeled "Extraordinary Assumptions," Report 2 contains a sixth assumption which states: "The appraiser completing this assignment has a small interest in the property. However, the appraiser was not biased in his final conclusion of value." This assumption is omitted in Report 1. The certification page in Report 2 also lists Bozeman as having a minor interest in the property, lists Ardire and Bozeman but contains no signatures. The certification page for Report 1 has no reference to Bozeman's interest and has three purported signatures (Ardire, Bozeman and Respondent). On the page entitled Certificate of Value, Report 1 has three signature blocks and three purported signatures (Ardire, Bozeman, and Respondent). Report 2 contains two signature blocks (for Ardire and Bozeman) but no signatures. The third paragraph of the section entitled "Approaches to Value Omitted" in Report 2 contains the following sentences: "The market approach is unique since not all properties are alike. In this case the appraiser compared an area in Lands Landing in Wewahitchka and Honey Hill Subdivision in Wewahitchka." These two sentences are omitted from this section of the report in Report 1. With respect to the Highest and Best Use Discussion, the first two pages in both reports are identical. Report 1 includes an additional two pages entitled "Introduction to the Appraisal Process," which appears to be general information related to the appraisal process as opposed to specific information related to the appraisal performed. The written information contained in the "Public and Private Restriction" section is identical. However, Report 1 also includes maps and pictures of the area. Both reports contain the Land Appraisal Report (Report 3) signed by Ardire and Bozeman. Report 1 contains additional information with respect to the vacant land report not included in Report 2. On the page labeled "Land Sales Comparison Chart," under the Section entitled "Reconciliation and Land Value Estimate," Report 2 contains the sentence, "All the sales are zoned for similar use and felt to have the same potential for use as the subject." This sentence is omitted from Report 1. On the page labeled "Income Approach," Report 2 contains the sentence, "Method 2 is the financing and development method." This sentence is omitted in Report 1. Report 1 contains a blank page entitled "Addendum" followed by pages from a book with a heading "Subdivision Analysis." While there are differences between Report 1 and Report 2, they do not make a significant difference in terms of the quality and usefulness of the reports. Section 475.628, Florida Statutes, requires that appraisers comply with the USPAP. Section 475.628 was last amended in 1998, and was enacted in 1991. USPAP is adopted by the Appraisal Foundation, which is authorized by Congress as the Source of Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Qualifications. Pursuant to Section 475.611(1)(q), Florida Statutes, "Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice" means the most recent standards approved and adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Section 475.611 was also enacted in 1991, and the language of this subsection has been unchanged, although renumbered, since that time. To this end, the Department has submitted as Exhibit 5 the USPAP Standards that became effective January 1, 2005. The most recent amendments for each section of the Standards is reflected on page four of the exhibit. None of these amendments relevant to these proceedings occurred prior to 1998. The Department alleges that Report 1 and the workfile for the report do not conform to several components of the USPAP standards in effect in 2005. Specifically, the Conduct portion of the Ethics Rule provides in part that "[a]n appraiser must not communicate assignment results in a misleading or fraudulent manner. An appraiser must not use or communicate a misleading or fraudulent report or knowingly permit an employee or other person to communicate a misleading or fraudulent report." Report 1 violated this section of the Ethics Rule contained in USPAP in that it was difficult for a reader of the report to determine exactly what was being appraised. Moreover, the inclusion of the gross sell-out amount on the first page, described as "potential gross income" in bold type is also misleading, because non- appraisers would infer that the potential gross income was the concluded value of the property. The Recordkeeping portion of the Ethics Rule addresses the need for appraisers to keep a workfile for each appraisal. The rule provides in pertinent part: An appraiser must prepare a workfile for each appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment. The workfile must contain: the name of the client and the identity, by name or type, of any other intended users; true copies of any written reports, documented on any type of media; summaries of any written reports or testimony, or a transcript of testimony, including the appraiser's signed and dated certification; and all other data, information, and documentation necessary to support the appraiser's opinions and conclusions and to show compliance with this Rule and all other applicable Standards, or references to the location(s) of such other documentation. With respect to Report 1, the workfile does not include documentation regarding marketing information for Gulf County, as listed in the report, and also lacks documentation to support any highest and best use analysis, including the four criteria necessary to establish the highest and best use for the property. It also lacks documentation to support the statements in Report 1 regarding the respective public and private restriction section, and lacks any plans or specifications to indicate the type of infrastructure proposed for the subdivision. The workfile also lacks documentation to support the income approach used, and contains no information to support the construction costs, closing costs, real estate taxes, expenses or other calculations used in the Calculations and Comments Section of Report 1. Also missing is any documentation from the identified engineers to support the data used for construction costs. Finally, there is also no documentation to support the data or calculations in the two-year discounted cash flow analysis in Report 1. With respect to Report 3, the workfile lacks documentation to support the single family price ranges in the neighborhood section of the report; lacks documentation to support the information in the Market Data Analysis Section; and lacks any multiple listing services (MLS) data or public records for the comparable sales used in the report. The Amended Administrative Complaint refers to the Scope of Work Rule. This rule is in actuality entitled Standard 1: Real Property Appraisal, Development and states: "In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must identify the problem to be solved and the scope of work necessary to solve the problem, and correctly complete research and analysis necessary to produce a credible appraisal." Report 1 identifies the problem as "estimating the value of the proposed subdivision and determines [sic] a value on a typical lot." However, the Report does not identify the scope of work and does not complete the research and analysis necessary to complete the appraisal properly. Standards 1-1(a), (b) and (c) require the following: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal; not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as by making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. Report 1 violates these standards because, as discussed more fully below, the report contains several significant errors, including the failure to discuss the four criteria for analyzing highest and best use. Standards Rule 1-2(d) requires that in developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must identify the effective date of the appraiser's opinions and conclusions. Report 1 stated that the value date of the report and the date of the report itself, were the same as the date of the inspection of the property, June 7, 2006. Mr. Grimes, the Department's expert, explained that this was a violation of the standard because in a situation where the appraiser is estimating a value for a project that is not now in existence, the hypothetical nature of the valuation must be adequately explained, and the effective date of the appraisal should reflect the date in the future when the subdivision is scheduled to be completed. Mr. Grimes' testimony is credited. Standards Rule 1-3 requires the following: When the value opinion to be developed is market value, and given the scope of work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f), an appraiser must: identify and analyze the effect on use and value of existing land use regulations, reasonably probable modifications of such land use regulations, economic supply and demand, the physical adaptability of the real estate, and market area trends; and develop an opinion of the highest and best use of the real estate. Report 1 does not provide an analysis of the highest and best use of the property. While the factors related to such an analysis are defined, there is no discussion of these factors related to the actual property being appraised. Standards Rule 1-4(a),(c) and (g) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze all information applicable to the appraisal problem, given the scope of work identified in accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f). (a) When a sales comparison approach is applicable, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available to indicate a value conclusion. * * * When an income approach is applicable, an appraiser must: analyze such comparable rental data as are available and/or the potential earnings capacity of the property to estimate the gross income potential of the property; analyze such comparable operating expense data as are available to estimate the operating expenses of the property; analyze such comparable data as are available to estimate rates of capitalization and/or rates of discount; and base projections of future rent and/or income potential and expenses on reasonably clear and appropriate evidence. Comment: In developing income and expense statements and cash flow projections, an appraiser must weigh historical information and trends, current supply and demand factors affecting such trends, and anticipated events such as competition from developments under construction. * * * (g) An appraiser must analyze the effect on value of any personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property but are included in the appraisal. While the Amended Administrative Complaint refers to all three subparagraphs listed above, the evidence presented dealt solely with the deficiencies related to Standards Rule 1- 4(c). Mr. Grimes opined that with respect to Report 1, the income approach to the cash flow analysis did not support the conclusions, projections on income, and with respect to this project, the sale of lots over a period of time. The statements made in the report are conclusory in nature, with little or no explanation of the basis for forming the conclusions. Standards Rule 1-6(a) and (b) provides: In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: reconcile the quality and quantity of data available and analyzed within the approaches used; and reconcile the applicability or suitability of the approaches used to arrive at the value conclusion(s). Report 1 indicates that there are three traditional approaches to value in the valuation process: the cost approach, the direct sales comparison approach, and the income capitalization approach. While the report states that all three approaches will be considered, the appraisal report omits any discussion of the cost approach and the direct sales comparison approach. By omitting these approaches from the analysis, the report omits an important "check and balance" process that would have caught what Mr. Grimes considered to be a substantial error in the discounted cash flow analysis. Standards Rule 2-1 provides: Each written or oral real property appraisal report must: clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; contain sufficient information to enable intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly; and clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and limiting conditions used in the assignment. Hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions are considered to be two different things. As noted in Report 1, an extraordinary assumption is defined as an assumption that presumes certain information to be factual. If found to be false, the information could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. A hypothetical condition is something that assumes conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the property being appraised, or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends, or about the integrity of data used in the analysis. Hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions should be explained separately in an appraisal report, so that the intended user is in a better position to understand the true value of the appraisal. Report 1 lists 6 conditions and assumptions all together. They are that the proposed subdivision is based on 21 lots; that all plans and specs (unidentified) are to be approved and accepted by all governmental authorities; all work will be completed in a quality workmanship manner with quality materials; assumed the subject property can be developed as proposed; and information on the number of lots was made available by the engineer Bailey, Bishop and Lane. The report does not differentiate which are considered hypotheticals and which are considered extraordinary assumptions. The report does not contain sufficient information to enable the intended user of the appraisal to understand the report and to use it for its intended purpose, i.e., to determine whether the highest and best use for the land is subdivision development. Standards Rule 2-2(b) provides in pertinent part: Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following three options and prominently state which option is used; Self-Contained Appraisal Report, Summary Appraisal Report, or Restricted Use Appraisal Report. * * * (b) The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum: * * * state the intended use of the appraisal; summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate involved in the appraisal, including the physical and economic property characteristics relevant to the assignment; * * * (vi) state the effective date of the appraisal and the date of the report; * * * summarize the information analyzed, the appraisal procedures followed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions; state the use of the real estate existing as of the date of value and the use of the real estate reflected in the appraisal; and, when reporting an opinion of market value, summarize the report and rationale for the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the real estate; . . . Report 1 states that the intended use of the appraisal is to determine the fair market value of the property. It also provides sufficient information to identify the real estate involved. However, as noted at finding of fact 18, the effective date of the appraisal, the date of the property inspection and the date of the report are the same. Where, as here, the appraisal is determining value of a proposed subdivision as completed at some future time, the date of the report cannot be the effective date of the appraisal. The report fails to have any discussion or analysis with respect to the property's highest and best use, and has little or no reasoning or analysis to support the opinions and conclusions contained in the report. Report 1 contains what purports to be Respondent's signature. Clearly, by signing an appraisal report, a property appraiser takes responsibility for the contents of that report. When speaking with the investigator during the investigation of this case, Respondent stated that he had little recollection of the appraisal, but given that his signature was on it, he acknowledged responsibility for whatever errors it contained. However, at hearing, Respondent disputed that it was actually his signature. Respondent's testimony that the signatures contained in Report 1 are not his is credited. Included in the record of this proceeding are other documents, including past appraisals prepared by Respondent, that contain what he acknowledges to be his signature. After carefully reviewing all of the signatures in evidence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the signatures included in Report 1 are indeed the signatures of Respondent.2/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, 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 24th day of November, 2009.
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.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 3, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints filed against registered, licensed, or certified real estate appraisers and for prosecuting disciplinary actions against such persons. § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2005). The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board ("Board") is the state agency charged with regulating, licensing, and disciplining real estate appraisers registered, licensed, or certified in Florida. § 475.613(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida, having been issued a license numbered RD 2791. Mr. Rutan had been a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida for approximately 10 years. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, Mr. Rutan was employed by Excel Appraisal. Mr. Rutan interviewed and hired Frank Delgado, Juan Carlos Suarez, and Ricardo Tundador to work at Excel Appraisal as state-registered assistant real estate appraisers. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was Mr. Suarez’s supervisor and was responsible for Mr. Suarez’s appraisals. On or about June 16, 1999, Mr. Suarez prepared an appraisal for property located at 9690 Northwest 35th Street, Coral Springs, Florida, in which he valued the property at $325,000. The property is a multi-family, four-plex property. Mr. Rutan signed Mr. Suarez's appraisal as the supervisory appraiser and certified on the appraisal that he had inspected the property by placing an “X” in the "Inspect Property" box. The appraisal form signed by Mr. Rutan contains a "Supervisory Appraiser's Certification" that provides: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, her or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. It is the custom in the industry that a supervisory appraiser who certifies that he or she has inspected the property in question must inspect the property inside as well as outside before he or she can sign the appraisal. Mr. Rutan inspected the property the day after he signed the appraisal and only inspected the property from the outside. The appraisal report on the property at issue herein listed a prior sale of the property from Rodney Way to Doyle Aaron for $325,000 on April 28, 1999. The appraisal failed to list the sale of the property on the same day from Julius Ohren to Rodney Way for $230,000. Mr. Rutan did not investigate the relevant sales history of the property and was unaware, therefore, that the property had been “flipped” and was considerably overvalued in the appraisal report.2 Mr. Rutan admitted that he did not investigate prior sales and that the property was substantially overvalued. Mr. Suarez listed in the appraisal report three "comparable sales," that is, sales of properties similar in type and location to the property being appraised, to support the valuation of $350,000. The first comparable property used in the appraisal was property located at 4102 Riverside Drive, Coral Springs, which was listed in the appraisal report as being previously sold for $315,000. Earlier on the day that the Riverside Drive property was sold for $315,000, however, it had been sold for $185,000. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the sales of the comparable properties that were included in Mr. Suarez's appraisal report, and the "comparable sale" of property on Riverside Drive was not properly used to value the property that was the subject of the appraisal report at issue herein. Mr. Suarez failed to make the proper adjustments in value on the Riverside Drive property based on the features of that property that were superior to the features of the subject property. The Riverside Drive property was located on a canal and should have had a negative adjustment with respect to the subject property, which was not on a canal. Mr. Suarez included a positive adjustment in the comparable sales data for the Riverside Drive property. Mr. Rutan failed to review the comparable property adjustments submitted by Juan Carlos Suarez for the appraisal of the subject property. Mr. Suarez overstated the rental income of the subject property in his appraisal report. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the rental figures Mr. Suarez submitted. When Mr. Rutan was notified by Brokers Funding, a company that purchased the loans on the subject property, that there were problems with the appraisal done by Mr. Suarez, Mr. Rutan checked additional comparable sales and interviewed the tenants in the building. He also hired another appraiser to conduct an appraisal of the subject property. Based on his investigation and Mr. Salimino’s appraisal, Mr. Rutan discovered the problems in Mr. Suarez's appraisal and report of the subject property. Mr. Salimino’s appraisal for the subject property was $290,000, but Mr. Rutan estimated that his appraisal would have been approximately $250,000. Mr. Rutan fired Mr. Suarez, as well as Frank Delgado, and Ricardo Tundador, all three of whom were subsequently indicted on federal charges relating to real-estate-appraisal scams. In a Final Order entered on April 22, 2002, Mr. Rutan was found guilty by the Board of violating Sections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and was ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Mr. Rutan trusted Mr. Suarez to do an honest and competent appraisal and was rushed by Mr. Suarez to approve the appraisal on the subject property. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Rutan failed to carry out his responsibilities as Mr. Suarez's supervisory appraiser, failed to review Juan Carlos Suarez’s appraisal for accuracy, and failed to inspect the inside of the subject property, which caused or contributed to the substantially over-stated valuation of the subject property.
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 finding that William Rutan is guilty of violating Section 475.624(10), (14), and (15), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Mr. Rutan's Florida certification as a real estate appraiser. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent had failed to maintain records for at least five years, committed culpable negligence in the preparation of an appraisal report, or failed to exercise reasonable diligence in the preparation of an appraisal report.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified residential real estate appraiser since 1998. He holds license RD-3106, and his license has not previously been disciplined. He has worked in the real estate appraisal business since high school and full-time for the past 12 years. In November 2000, Respondent was employed by Southeast Property Appraisers as an independent contractor. Customers of Southeast Property Appraisers would contact the company and request a residential real estate appraisal. With a secretary often making the assignment, Southeast Property Appraisers would then subcontract the work to an independent contractor, such as Respondent. Upon completion of the appraisal report, Southeast Property Appraisers would split the fee with the independent contractor, pursuant to their contractual arrangement. In November 2000, Countryside Mortgage contacted Southeast Property Appraisers and requested a residential appraisal for a residence located in Delray Beach. The secretary assigned the file to Respondent, who undertook the responsibility of preparing the necessary appraisal report. Respondent researched the subject property, but found it a difficult assignment in one respect: the 3407 square-foot, one-story, single-family residence comprises seven bedrooms. Single-family residences with seven bedrooms are not present in great numbers in the vicinity of the subject property. On November 20, 2000, Respondent issued the appraisal report, under his own name. The appraisal report estimates the value of the subject property as $188,000, based primarily on the sales comparison approach. The report states that it did not use the income approach because of insufficient sales/rental data. The appraisal report identifies the name of the borrower and lists the sales price of $188,000, although the report cautions that the appraiser did not receive a copy of the sales contract. The report lists, under a table on the form, 18 rooms by type, including seven bedrooms and three bathrooms. Immediately beneath this table, the report states that the subject property consists of 13 rooms: seven bedrooms and three bathrooms. Both the table and the information beneath the table agree that the total area of the house is 3407 square feet. The appraisal report analyzes three comparables. According to the report, Comparable 1 is eight blocks northwest, Comparable 2 is eight blocks southeast, and Comparable 3 is one mile northeast. Petitioner's problems with the appraisal report concern two matters. First, the report omits any mention that Comparable 1 abuts a canal and is within a gated community. However, Respondent observed the canal, which is a narrow waterway leading into a nearby, small lake. Respondent reasonably determined that the canal did not warrant mention because it did not affect the sales price of the comparable. Respondent underwent a similar process with the gate, which the community association no longer manned or operated, at least during the daylight hours. Therefore, this omission from the report was also reasonable. Second, Comparable 3 is about one mile from the subject property, not more than two miles as alleged. Driving distance is 1.6 miles, and, as the crow flies, the distance is almost exactly one mile. According to Petitioner's expert witness, the proper way to measure the distance between comparables is as the crow flies. Petitioner's witnesses claimed several other deficiencies with the work papers: no copy of the assignment sheet from the customer indicating the scope of the appraisal, no copy of the purchase contract, no notes of conversations with parties to the documents, no copy of the signed, finished appraisal report, and no documentation of the search for comparables. Respondent's work files in fact lacked these documents. Petitioner's remaining issue with Respondent is that he did not retain his work file after he left Southeast Property Appraisal, which was shortly after the completion of the subject appraisal report. However, Respondent contacted Southeast Property Appraisal and cooperated with Petitioner's investigator in obtaining these materials within a reasonable period of time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Small, Chairman Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business an Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32808-1900 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Alfonso Santana, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donald S. Rose, Attorney 622 Courthouse Tower Building 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Florida law related to real estate appraisal professionals as alleged in the administrative complaint; and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate appraisal pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed as a state certified general real estate appraiser in the state of Florida, having been issued license number RD 6606. Respondent is also certified as an appraiser in Texas. Respondent has no prior discipline. At all times material to this matter, Respondent’s address of record was 11 Racetrack Road Northeast, Suite F4, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547. Respondent has a 15-year history of practicing in the area of appraising property and preparing appraisal reports. She has appraised approximately 15 properties in Santa Rosa County, and has significant knowledge of the geographical area to perform appraisals in Santa Rosa County. Respondent has taken college courses to develop her education of appraisal practice, and she has taken courses on proper supervision of an appraisal trainee. In this case, Respondent was retained by Value Links, an appraisal management company to appraise a residential real estate property located at 6839 Gordon Evans Road, Navarre, Florida 32566 in Santa Rosa County (“Subject Property”). Value Links was serving as the agent for George Mason Mortgage, LLC (“Intended User” or “Lender”). The engagement letter required that the final appraisal report include original photos of all comparable sales. Multiple Listing Services (“MLS”) photos were acceptable if original photos were not available, so long as the report includes a comment disclosing that MLS photos were used. The final appraisal report was required to be submitted to the Intended User. First Appraisal Report At the outset of receiving the appraisal assignment, Respondent assigned the appraisal to herself and had her appraiser trainee, Stephanie Lanette Hansen, assist her with the assignment. Ms. Hansen, a state registered trainee appraiser, has been issued license number RI24220. It is customary that an appraiser trainee under the supervision of a certified residential appraiser is permitted to perform all aspects of an appraisal assignment including inspecting and measuring the Subject Property with or without their supervisor present. Respondent’s appraiser trainee, Ms. Hansen, who did not testify at the hearing, has been training with Respondent since 2014. Ms. Hansen performed a physical inspection including taking pictures of the interior and exterior of the Subject Property. Respondent did not physically visit the property, but rather she visually examined the photographs Ms. Hansen took during her inspection. A material issue of dispute in this matter is whether Respondent’s review of the photographs taken by her trainee could be considered an inspection of the property. Petitioner’s expert testified that the term “visual” inspection is known within the real estate appraisal industry to mean “personal” inspection. Petitioner also pointed to the language of USPAP Standards Rule 2-3 for guidance regarding the meaning requirement of a personal inspection. USPAP Rule 2-3 provides a standard certification that the appraiser shall indicate whether he or she made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of the report. The language of the rule does not require a personal inspection. Moreover, the certification cites to an advisory opinion regarding Inspection of Subject Property. See USPAP Advisory Opinion 2 (AO-2). The advisory opinion regarding minimum level of inspection provides as follows: “An appraiser may use any combination of property inspection, plans and specifications, asset records, photographs, property sketches, recorded media, etc., to gather information about the relevant characteristics of the subject property….” On or about September 5, 2019, with an effective date of August 23, 2019, Respondent prepared and transmitted the first appraisal report for the Subject Property, with the assistance of her trainee. Respondent assessed the market value of the property at $388,000. In the appraisal report, Respondent indicated in the additional certification comments section that: “State Registered Trainee Appraiser Florida License Number RI 24220, Stephanie Lanette Hanson has contributed significant assistance in this report. The extent of the assistance includes: inspecting, gathering, analyzing, and verifying data of the [Subject Property] and comparable properties, data entry, market adjustments, reporting and reconciliation of market value.” In the first appraisal report, Respondent did not identify the presence of any fireplace. Respondent used MLS photos for the comparable properties. However, she did not disclose in the report that the photos were not original. Respondent’s appraisal report included a standard Fannie Mae certification form. The certification form listed a provision regarding performance of a complete “visual” inspection of the interior and exterior of the Subject Property. Respondent testified that she performed a visual inspection of the property by examining the photographs, which, according to her experience, is permitted in the appraisal industry. Respondent signed the first appraisal report as the primary appraiser, instead of as the supervising appraiser. Respondent’s signature on the report was her attestation that she certified the representations in the report. Respondent also maintained a work file for her appraisal of the Subject Property. Respondent’s work file contained all documentation required to comply with USPAP rules, including the name of the Intended User, copies of all written reports, all data, and documentation necessary to support her opinion and conclusions. After transmission of the first appraisal report, the Intended User contacted Respondent and advised her that the buyer, sellers, and listing agent wanted reconsideration of the value of the property. Respondent agreed to amend her report. Second Appraisal Report Respondent revised her first appraisal report as requested and addressed the concerns in the second report, including a comparable sales assessment for a comparable property, the absence of a fireplace, and the value assessment of the property. In her second appraisal report, Respondent addressed the requested revisions. First, she noted that the comparable sale assessment as a Q3 construction rating and supported her reason for assessing the Subject Property as a Q4 rating because it was located in a superior neighborhood with amenities. Respondent also addressed the omission of the fireplace. She testified that she inadvertently missed the permanent fireplace. She further explained that the second alleged fireplace was electric and, thus, considered personal property. As a result, she did not give the electric fireplace consideration in the assessment. She provided this same support for her decision in the second appraisal report. Based on her identification of the permanent fireplace, Respondent corrected the assessment of the property to reflect a $2,000 increase in value. Respondent’s $2,000 increased adjustment for the fireplace was also supported in Respondent’s work file that she maintained for this appraisal assignment. In determining the value of the Subject Property’s fireplace, Respondent considered the cost stated in Marshall Swift Cost Handbook that she maintains in her office, the local builders in the area, consultation with her father who is a general contractor, and her peers in the area where the Subject Property is located. Respondent testified that she did not intend to mislead anyone when she transmitted the report. She inadvertently failed to include the fireplace in the first report, but corrected her mistake when she revised the report. On or about September 16, 2019, with an effective date of August 23, 2019, Respondent submitted the amended appraisal report for the Subject Property. In that report, Respondent assessed the value of the property at $390,000. As she did with the first report, she signed the second report as the primary appraiser. Petitioner’s Expert Petitioner’s expert, Joel Salley, a State Certified Residential Appraiser, reviewed Respondent’s report to determine compliance with USPAP rules. Mr. Salley was critical of Respondent’s performance in appraising the property and her reports. He was critical of Respondent’s omission of the fireplace from her first report. He credibly testified that the omission of the fireplace impacted the assessed value of the property. Mr. Salley also credibly testified that Respondent’s work file included a description compliant with a Q3 quality rating for comparable property No. 4. He further testified that the alleged lack of inspection resulted in omission of other things, which will not be addressed as a violation in this matter, as they were not alleged in the Administrative Complaint.1 Respondent’s Testimony Respondent asserted that she did not intend to mislead the Intended User by using MLS photographs of the comparable sale, the Intended User never complained about Respondent’s use of MLS photographs, and the use of MLS photographs had no overall effect on the credibility of the appraisal report. Respondent testified that she signed both appraisal reports as the primary appraiser to demonstrate that she was accepting full responsibility for the appraisal reports. She also indicated in both of her reports that her appraiser trainee provided significant assistance with the appraisal. She asserted that when more than one appraiser is involved in an assignment, USPAP allows for only one appraiser to sign the certification as long as it is disclosed that another appraiser provided significant assistance and the 1 The allegations of fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint are the grounds upon which this proceeding is predicated. Trevisani v. Dep’t of Health, 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also Cottrill v. Dep’t of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Thus, the scope of this proceeding is restricted to those matters as framed by Petitioner. M.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 977 So. 2d 755, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). nature of the assistance. The undersigned does not find Respondent’s explanation for signing the appraisal reports as the appraiser instead of the supervisory appraisal persuasive. The undersigned finds that the competent substantial evidence demonstrates that she signed both appraisal reports as the appraiser when she actually served as the supervising appraiser. Although the Intended User was aware of the errors made regarding the appraisal assignment, it did not file the complaint against Respondent and Value Link continues to retain Respondent to perform appraisals. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not inspect the property as the term is used under the USPAP rules, which governs appraisers. Respondent included a description and support in her work file to support the Q3 quality construction rating for comparable property No. 4. Respondent failed to identify a fireplace in the Subject Property in the first appraisal report, but corrected her error in the second report. The competent substantial evidence demonstrated that Respondent was reasonably diligent in her preparation of the appraisal reports to meet the needs of the Intended User. While there may have been errors in the initial report, the competent substantial evidence demonstrates that Respondent exercised reasonable diligence in preparing the appraisal reports to meet the needs of the Intended User.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Respondent not guilty of Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing a penalty against Respondent’s real estate appraisal license RD 6606 as follows: Placing Respondent on probation for a period of 12 months from the effective date of the Board’s Final Order in this case; Requiring attendance, virtually or in person, at three complete Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board meetings within the probationary period; completion of four (4) corrective Continuing Education courses within six (6) months from the effective date of the Board’s Final Order in this case as follows: Appraiser Self-Protection: Documentation and Record Keeping; Report Certifications: What Am I Signing and Why?; Residential Report Writing vs. Form Filling; and Scope of Work: Appraisals and Inspections. Requiring Respondent to pay stipulated costs in the amount of $1,000 within the probationary period; and Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500 within the probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mackenzie K. Medich, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. Suite 535 5728 Major Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32819 Delhon Braaten, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie I. Brown, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Cristy Conolly, Chair Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 David Axelman, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
