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 The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing grade on the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination. He was subsequently advised that he had correctly answered 74 out of the 100 questions and had therefore achieved a score of 74. A score of 75 is the passing score on that examination. In the development of the state certified residential appraiser examination, a job analysis was performed by Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, a national psychometric company. From that job analysis, a list of tasks routinely performed by appraisers was developed. From that list of tasks, the uniform examination content outline was developed specifying the areas to be covered by the examination. From that uniform content outline, Educational Testing Service then developed a bank of questions to be utilized in the examinations for licensure or certification. Each item in the bank was validated by Educational Testing Service. Once Respondent received that bank of validated test items, it sent all of the items to the Appraiser Qualifications Board of the Appraisal Foundation, an entity involved in establishing uniform standards on a national level for real estate appraisers. Respondent's examination bank was also validated by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. In addition, Respondent has its own validation committee which meets prior to the administration of an examination to review the items on that examination to again verify that the test items are valid, are not ambiguous, and are correct and proper for a residential appraiser certification examination. The five questions challenged by Petitioner are part of the bank that was approved by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. Those five questions have been used on past examinations and have previously been determined to be valid. The five questions challenged by Petitioner ranged from moderately difficult to extremely easy. Subsequent to the filing of Petitioner's examination challenge, Respondent reviewed the questions challenged and performed a statistical item analysis. All of the questions had a positive point biserial correlation. The number of candidates correctly answering each of those questions was approximately the same as the number of candidates correctly answering those questions on previous examinations. For example, 94% of the candidates correctly answered question numbered 4. On previous examinations, 93% to 95% of the candidates had correctly answered that same item. Sixty-seven per cent of the candidates taking the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination achieved a passing grade. Their examination was a typical examination in that the usual percentage of candidates achieved a passing score. Question numbered 4 required the examinee to identify the item which was not a fixture. The correct answer was "D," which answer specified that the personalty was "unattached." Petitioner chose answer "C," which answer specified that the personalty was attached to the structure. Petitioner's answer was not correct. Question numbered 73 required the examinee to name the cost method defined in the question. The correct answer was "B." Petitioner chose answer "A," which was not a correct answer. Question numbered 32 tested the examinee's understanding of valuing property containing superadequacies and was written in the negative. The correct answer was "C." Petitioner's choice of "D" was not correct since that was one of the approaches that can be used. Question numbered 76 tested the examinee's understanding of the difference between reproduction costs and replacement costs. The correct answer was "B." Petitioner chose answer "D." Petitioner's answer was wrong. Although the testimony at the final hearing indicated that answer "A" may also have been a correct answer to this question, Petitioner did not choose answer "A." Question numbered 93 tested the examinee's knowledge of proper appraisal practices. Answer "A" was the correct answer. Petitioner chose answer "C," which was not correct. Although Petitioner questioned the propriety of this question as part of the residential appraiser examination, the expert testimony indicates that the question was appropriate. Further, the question has been validated as being appropriate by the Appraiser Qualifications Board applying national standards. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner meets all of the requirements for licensure as a certified residential appraiser except for achieving a passing grade on the certification examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petitioner's examination question challenges and finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1992. Copies furnished: Mr. Stephen Metro 1841 Northwest 22nd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Fred H. Wilsen, Chief Staff Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are essentially whether Respondent failed to use reasonable diligence on four appraisals of residential condominiums in Orlando done in 2007, and whether he failed to register his appraisal business with Petitioner; and, if so, how he should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified Florida real estate appraiser, holding DBPR license 5422. In 2007, Respondent was appraising through Rush Realty Appraisal Services, LLC (Rush Realty), which he owned and operated. Rush Realty was registered with the Florida Department of State as a limited liability company, but it was not registered with DBPR. The Appraisals In 2007, Rush Realty, through Respondent and a trainee he supervised, appraised four condominium units in a residential complex in Orlando called the Residences at Millenia (Millenia). Three of the appraisals were done in January and the other in June. In January, Rush Realty appraised two of the condos at $279,500 and appraised the third at $258,500; in June, it appraised the fourth condo at $279,500. Respondent is responsible for these appraisals. One January appraisal was based on five comparables, three of which were sales of Millenia condos; one of those three was a pending sale. The other two January appraisals were based on four comparables, two of which were sales of Millenia condos, both of which were pending sales. One of the pending Millenia sales used for the January appraisals was for $290,000 ($282 per square foot, abbreviated psf). The other Millenia pending sale used for the January appraisals was for $279,500 ($272 psf). The closed sales used in the January appraisals included one at Millenia for $209,800 ($204 psf), another at Millenia for $207,400 ($202 psf), two at nearby Sunset Lake Condos for $275,900 ($265 psf), one at Sunset Lake for $259,900 ($251 psf), and one at Sunset Lake for $254,900 ($256 psf). According to the January appraisal reports, the sources of the comparables used by Respondent were the public records and the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for the closed sales and the Millenia sales office for the pending sales. The June appraisal was based on two Millenia condo sales. These were the two sales that were pending at the time of the January appraisals. According to the June appraisal, those sales closed in March 2007, one at $280,000 and the other at $279,900. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office as the source of the data on the two Millenia closed sales used as comparables for that appraisal. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office as the source of the data on the two Millenia closed sales used as comparables for that appraisal. Respondent's January appraisal reports stated that the price range of properties similar to the subject property sold within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000 to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the range was $25,000 to $313,000. Only seven of the 186 comparable sales were over $250,000. Respondent's June appraisal report also stated that the price range of properties similar to the subject property sold within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000 to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the range was $102,000 to $313,900. Only four of the 88 comparable sales were over $250,000. Whether Respondent Used Reasonable Diligence The information provided by the Millenia sales office for the pending sales used as comparables for the January appraisals was unverifiable at the time. It was inappropriate for Respondent to use the Millenia sales office as the source of comparables for the January appraisals (or to use it to verify other sources) because Millenia was interested in the transaction for which the appraisals were done. Respondent testified that he and his trainee used a research tool called Microbase to obtain public records information on comparable sales for the appraisals. He testified that the information from the public records used for the January appraisals, and from the Millenia sales office for the June appraisal, was verified by the MLS, HUD-1 closing statements, and contracts. The use of MLS for verification for the closed sales in the January appraisals is indicated by the inclusion of MLS in the part of those appraisal report forms used to indicate data source(s). Although the data and verification sources other than the Millenia sales office and MLS were not indicated on the report forms for the January appraisals, and no source other than the Millenia sales office was indicated on the report form for the June appraisal, Respondent testified that his work files document the use of all of these sources for the closed sales used as comparables in the four appraisals. DBPR questions the veracity of Respondent's testimony regarding his work files and the use of these data and verification sources based on his failure to replicate his work files when asked to do by Petitioner's investigator. DBPR points to no requirement for Respondent to replicate his work files upon request. It appears from the evidence that Respondent understood he was being asked to produce the files, not to replicate (i.e., recreate) them. His response was in the negative based on his explanation that the files had been confiscated by and remained in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI has not returned Respondent's work files. Neither party attempted to subpoena the work files in this case, and the work files were not placed in evidence. DBPR also questions the veracity of Respondent's testimony regarding his work files and the use of these data and verification sources based on his failure to use any of the numerous other comparable sales that were available from those sources, most of which were sold for considerably less money than the comparables used by Respondent. For example, for the January appraisals, there were 37 comparable sales in the preceding six months available through MLS that ranged from $39,000 to $235,000; and, for the June appraisal, there were 16 comparable sales in the preceding six months available through MLS that ranged from $134,900 to $190,000. DBPR's expert utilized these comparables in MLS and reached value conclusions that were approximately $90,000 lower than Respondent's. According to MLS, other closed sales at Millenia between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $180,000 ($184.82 psf) to $205,000 ($207.49 psf), with an average of $198,472 ($196.96 psf) and a median of $205,000 ($199.42 psf). Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that closed between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $39,000 ($38.24 psf) to $306,000 ($275.93 psf), with an average of $187,279 ($183.82 psf) and a median of $188,500 ($189.95 psf). Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that closed between January 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $25,000 ($30.56 psf) to $317,900 ($256.28 psf), with an average of $168,468 ($152.69 psf) and a median of $169,650 ($159.49 psf). Respondent testified that he rejected the comparables he did not use based on the properties' relative poor condition, effective age, and lack of amenities. He also testified that, in some cases, the sellers appeared to be in financial distress and extremely motivated to sell, even at lower than market value; or, in other cases, the sellers did not raise their prices as the market rose. Taking all the evidence into account, DBPR did not prove that Respondent did not use any data and verification sources other than the Millenia sales office for the closed sales used as comparables in the four appraisals; however, Respondent inappropriately used pending sales instead of the available comparables and did not diligently review the available comparables before choosing the comparables he used. Instead, he quickly focused on sales at Millennia and Sunset Lakes that were significantly higher than the predominant prices of other comparable sales available to him through MLS and other sources. Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing the appraisals and preparing the appraisal reports. If pending sales had not been used as comparables in the January appraisals, or if other available comparables had been used, the appraised values would have been significantly lower. The June appraisal would have been lower if other available comparables had been used. Other Errors in Appraisal Reports For two of the closed sales, in the part of the appraisal report form for describing sales and financing concessions, Respondent mistakenly entered MLS, with an official public records book and page number. This labeling error could have been confusing, but there was no evidence that anyone was misled by the error. The report forms used by Respondent included an addendum indicating that closed sales were used for comparables. This language was inconsistent with the indications elsewhere in the January appraisal reports that pending sales were used for that purpose. While potentially confusing, there was no evidence that anyone actually was misled by the addendum language. The addendum language also stated that all comparables were given equal consideration. Actually, in one of the January appraisals, the higher comparables were given greater weight. In that report, the property appraised for approximately $30,000 more than it would have if all comparables had been given equal consideration. This language was misleading in that computations would have been required to determine that it was in error. USPAP Rule 1-1(a) of the 2006 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires a real property appraiser to be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-1(b) prohibits substantial errors of omission or commission that significantly affect an appraisal. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-1(c) of USPAP prohibits rendering appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, including making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of the results. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-4(a) of USPAP requires that, when a comparable sales approach is necessary for a credible result, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 2-1(a) of USPAP requires that written and oral appraisal reports be set forth in a manner that is clear and accurate and not misleading. Respondent violated this rule. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Respondent had not been disciplined and had not received a letter of guidance prior to the four appraisal reports at issue in this case. His license was in good standing at the time. When an appraiser does not exercise reasonable diligence in doing an appraisal and preparing the appraisal report and the result is an unreasonably high value conclusion, as happened in the four appraisal reports at issue in this case, and a lender relies and acts on the appraisal report, the lender is harmed ipso facto, and the borrower and public may also be harmed, notwithstanding that many residential loans defaulted after 2007 besides the loans made based on these four appraisals. There was no evidence as to the specific extent of the actual harm to this lender. Although DBPR filed a separate administrative complaint for each of the four appraisals, the conduct complained of in each administrative complaint was similar. Each administrative complaint has three counts: one for not using reasonable diligence in doing the appraisal and preparing the appraisal report; another for not registering Rush Realty; and a third for violating USPAP provisions. Respondent testified without contradiction that revocation or suspension of his appraisal license, and even a substantial fine, would be a devastating financial hardship to him and his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DBPR enter a final order finding Respondent subject to discipline under sections 475.624(4) (through violations of section 475.623, USPAP, and rule 61J-9.001) and 475.624(15); suspending his license for three months, subject to probation upon reinstatement for such a period of time and subject to such conditions as the Board may specify; fining him $2,000; and assessing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the cases in accordance with section 455.227(3)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of October, 2012.
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 issue is whether either Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts I through VIII of their respective Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board is the state agency charged with regulating real estate appraisers who are, or want to become, licensed to render appraisal services in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent, Ms. Green was licensed as a certified residential real estate appraiser. Ms. Green held license number 3236 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Moody was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser. Ms Moody held license number 16667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. In October 2008, Ms. Moody received a license as a certified residential appraiser, license number RD 7444. On March 8, 2007, Ms. Moody signed an appraisal of real property located at 11735 Chanticleer Drive, Lot 16, Block B Grand Lagoon, in Pensacola, Florida. She signed as appraiser. Ms. Green signed the report as supervisory appraiser. The listed borrower was James W. Cobb, and the lender was Premier Mortgage Capital. Respondents developed, signed, and communicated this report. Subsequently, the borrower, Mr. Cobb, who was also the buyer, complained to the Division with regard to the appraisal on the property, and the Division investigated the matter. The investigation resulted in an investigative report dated December 21, 2007. According to the appraisal, the property was listed for $1,030,000 in the multiple listing service, and the contract price was $790,000. The appraisal report valued the property using both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach. Both approaches resulted in a value of $1,030,000. These facts were reported in a six-page Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. At the time of the hearing, the property was the subject of a foreclosure action. The USPAP provides guidance to those involved in the business of conducting real estate appraisals. Real estate appraisers typically use both a "sales comparison approach" and a "cost approach" in attempting to arrive at a value. A "sales comparison approach" uses data obtained from sales of similar properties and adjusts for differences. A "cost approach" starts with the cost of an empty building site and adds to that the cost of building an identical structure and adjusts for enhancements and depreciation. Both approaches were used by Respondents and were reported on the Form 1004. The Division's expert witness, Sylvia G. Storm, reviewed the Form 1004 and all of the available supporting data. She did not make an appraisal herself and did not visit the property in question. Ms. Storm was accepted as an expert as provided by Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, because she had "specialized knowledge" regarding real estate appraisals. This was the first time that Ms. Storm testified as an expert witness in a case involving appraisals. The same was true in the case of the expert witness presented by Respondents, Victor Harrison. It is noted that these experts were only minimally qualified, and their testimony is given little weight. Ms. Storm commented on the fact that the property was called "new" in the improvements section yet on the following sales comparison approach it was listed under actual age, "27/E New-2." This suggests the property with improvements is 27 years old, but has an effective age of new to two years. In fact, in the improvements section it was noted that the property has been completely reconstructed. It is clear from the Form 1004, and the hearing record, that the property was essentially destroyed during Hurricane Ivan and was rebuilt above the surviving foundation. It is found that the house was essentially new at the time of the appraisal. Ms. Storm believes some of the deficiencies she noted in the Form 1004, discussed in more detail below, and the supporting documentation contained in the work file, affect the credibility of the report. She believes that some of these deficiencies amounted to a violation of USPAP. Ms. Storm stated that an appraiser should do a complete analysis of the contract and that if it is not done the appraiser is not being reasonably diligent. She also testified that an appraiser, who failed to discuss the large difference between the contract price and appraised value, and who failed to document the analysis, is not being reasonably diligent. Mr. Harrison, on the other hand, testified that after his analysis of the report he found no indication at all of a lack of reasonable diligence. Ms. Storm opined that two or more appraisers, appraising the same property may arrive at two or more numbers and that there is nothing unusual when that occurs. Ms. Moody testified under oath that the supporting information contained in the work file was adequate and that references to other documents, such as public records, were plentiful and complied with the requirements of USPAP. This testimony was adopted by Ms. Green. In order to provide clarity, actual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints will be discussed in seriatim. As will be addressed more fully in the Conclusions of Law, the Division must prove its factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, that standard will be used below. The factual allegations will be presented in bold face type, and the discussion of the proof will be in regular type: Respondent made the following errors and omission in the Report:"Failure to discuss or explain why the Subject Property was listed for sale for $1,030,000 and the contract price was $790,000." Ms. Storm opined that the discussion of the contract price did not go into the details as to the history of the property, or list price history, or who the contracting parties were or any fees to be paid by either party. She believes the Form 1004 should have reported when the property was listed and how many days it had been on the market. She believes that USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the contract completely. She believes the Form 1004 should have commented on the large difference between the sales price and the appraised price. The Form 1004 states, "I did analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction." Ms. Moody testified under oath that they analyzed the difference between the appraisal price and the selling price. She stated that there was no requirement to discuss it in the Form 1004. Ms. Green adopted this testimony. Ms. Moody also stated that the contract price of a piece of property does not affect the value of the property as reported in the Form 1004. This factual allegation was not proven. "Use of an outdated FEMA map for the Subject Property." Respondents used a FEMA flood map that was outdated. This occurred because the computer program Respondents were using, InterFlood.com, presented an out-of-date map. The map used in the appraisal was dated February 23, 2000, but the most current edition of the map available at the time of the appraisal was dated September 26, 2006. The later map was no different from the map Respondents used. The Form 1004 notes, with regard to the flood status, "It appears to be located in FEMA Flood Zones X and AE. A survey would be needed to confirm flood zones." In sum, there is nothing incorrect or misleading with regard to flooding potential. The Division's expert witness, Ms. Storm, concluded that Respondents did not err with regard to the FEMA flood map. This factual allegation was not proven. "Misstatement of PUD Homeowner's Association Fees for the Subject Property." Respondents asserted the homeowner's association fee to be $100 annually. The by-laws of the Grande Lagoon Community Association, Inc., in effect during all times pertinent, state unequivocally that annual dues of the Association are $100. The Division's investigator stated that he learned through a telephone call with a "Mr. Broome," who was possibly an officer in the homeowner's association, that at the time of the appraisal there was an annual assessment by the homeowner's association of $250 for canal maintenance, and that this amount was to increase to $500 annually in 2008. Information about this assessment was not readily available to Respondents. An assessment is different from a homeowner's fee. The Division's expert witness stated that if there is a homeowner's fee it should be stated on the Form 1004, but that it is not a USPAP requirement. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to differentiate view of Subject Property and comparable sale 2, when the Subject Property is located on a canal and the comparable had an open water location." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a small, lagoon- like body of water with access to Pensacola Bay, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note financial assistance in the sales contract, where seller was to pay all closing costs." The agreement whereby seller would pay $20,000 in closing costs was not made until March 28, 2007, 20 days after the appraisal was completed. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note consulting fee to Investor's Rehab in the sales contract." This allegation is true in that the consulting fee was not mentioned. Ms. Storm opined that it should be analyzed in the appraisal report. She asserted that persons who were not privy to the contract might make decisions in reliance upon the appraisal report and, therefore, the Form 1004 should mention the consulting fee. However, Ms. Moody pointed out that the consulting fee had no effect on the value of the property and stated that it was intentionally omitted. This factual allegation was proven to the extent that the consulting fee was not mentioned, but this omission did not affect the accuracy or credibility of the appraisal report. "Failure to explain range of effective age dates for the Subject Property and comparable sale 1." As discussed in Finding of Fact 8, the subject property was essentially new at the time it was appraised. As pointed out by Mr. Harrison, the effective age was new. Effective age is an estimate of the physical condition of a building. The actual age of the building may be shorter or longer than the effective age. The determination of effective age is largely a matter of judgment. In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5 years. The Form 1004, therefore, presented a one year error as to actual age, which is insignificant. The allegation is that Respondents failed to explain the range of effective age dates. However, it is found that the Form 1004 adequately informs anyone reading it. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its effective age difference." No evidence supporting this allegation was presented. The unrebutted testimony of Ms. Moody, adopted by Ms. Green, was that there was no market data suggesting that there was a need for adjustment. There was no evidence that an explanation for no adjustment was required. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Incorrect site size adjustment for comparable sale 1; the $17,000 should be in the positive direction." The site size adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 is in the amount of $40,000. It appears that the intentions of the Administrative Complaints were to allege an error in gross living area. The result is that the record provides no proof of this allegation. "Adjustment for both the room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 1." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 1." In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5. The Form 1004 therefore presented a one-year error. This error is insignificant. "Failure to explain inconsistent site size adjustments made to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The subject property was located on a site (or lot) that was .3 acres. Comparable Sale 1 was located on a site that was .52 acres. Respondents subtracted $40,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 1. Comparable Sale 2 was located on a site that was .7 acres. Respondents subtracted $60,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 2. Comparable Sale 3 was located on a site that was .44 acres. Respondents added $25,000 to the sale price of Comparable Sale 3. It is the appraiser's duty to value a comparable in such a way that differences between the comparable and the subject property are accounted so that a common denominator may be found. For example, Comparable Sale 1 was approximately .2 of an acre larger than the subject property and thus more valuable solely because it is on a larger site. To equalize the situation, the price of Comparable Sale 1 must be reduced, and it was. Comparable Sale 2 also was reduced, but Comparable Sale 3 that was on a larger lot than the subject property, was credited with a $25,000 addition to its price. Nothing in Respondents' work file provides how the figures for the comparables were found. Moreover, if two of the comparables experienced a downward adjustment because of a larger lot size, then the third comparable, having a larger lot size, should have been adjusted downward also. Therefore, there were inconsistencies requiring explanation, and no explanation was found in the file. "Failure to note that comparable sale 1 has a fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." Comparable Sale 2 was built in 1990. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 17 years old. It last sold November 2006. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of five years on the Form 1004. This is both incorrect and insignificant. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 2." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." This allegation repeats that stated in "O" above. "Failure to not [sic] that comparable sale 2 has three fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its multiple fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its lake view." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a lagoon-like body of water with access to open water, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age of comparable sale 3." Comparable Sale 3 was built in 1989. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 18 years old. It last sold in August of 2005. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of 10 years on the Form 1004. This age was reported incorrectly. "Use of comparable sale 3 which sold 19 months prior to the Report." The Form 1004 noted that finding comparables was difficult due to market disruption caused by Hurricane Ivan. As noted by Ms. Storm, the change in the real estate market during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, have been profound everywhere. Primarily, market prices have declined during those years. She was of the opinion that the August 18, 2005, sale date of Comparable Sale 3 was too remote. She stated, correctly, that a market condition adjustment should have been made to the price reported for Comparable Sale 3. Ms. Storm found in the work file analyst listings of the comparables that were utilized, and pages from the Marshall and Swift, but did not see any actual paired sale analyses for any of the adjustments that were used in the report. She could not determine from where they obtained these sales and the adjustments for differences. She opined that this made the report less credible. According to Ms. Storm, the insufficient analysis runs afoul of USPAP. The opinion of Ms. Storm, however, fails to take into account the insufficient data in the Pensacola area that resulted from hurricane-induced market disruption and the consequent lack of sales. Because of the lack of viable alternatives, using this property as a comparable was necessary. This factual allegation was not proven. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to calculate and list the net adjustment and gross adjustment totals for comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to utilize current Marshall & Swift information for the Cost Approach section of the Report." Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information in the cost approach analysis. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides "local multipliers" for the cost per square foot for construction. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the Form 1004 issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue after February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. "Failure to complete the PUD information section of the Report, when Subject Property, as noted by Respondent in Report, is located in a PUD." The Division acknowledged during the hearing that there was no support for this allegation, and withdrew it. AA) "Failure to date when Respondent inspected the Subject Property and comparable sales listed in the Report." (This allegation was made in the case of Ms. Green, but not in the case of Ms. Moody.) In the blocks on the Form 1004, below the Supervisory Appraiser's signature, Ms. Green signed statements indicating that she inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property and that she inspected the exterior of the comparable sales properties. She did not date either of these statements. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $40,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 1. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $60,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $25,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $50,000 "view" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Comparable Sale 1 is on Big River. The Form 1004 notes that Big River is similar to Big Lagoon. A $50,000 downward adjustment was made in the "view" category. Ms. Storm stated that she had searched for documentation and did not find it. The work file does not have documentary support for the adjustments. Respondents and Ms. Storm agreed that the lack of sales in the area made such adjustments like this problematic. As Ms. Storm said, "I know there haven't been that many sales of waterfronts so it's really difficult to arrive at that data." Nevertheless, the lack of any information in the work file to support the adjustment means that this factual allegation is proven. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $5,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $3,000 "triple garage" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $3,000 was made to Comparable Sale 3 because of its triple garage. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, includes Marshall and Swift data for garages. Although exactly how the $3,000 adjustment was calculated is not clear, the Marshall and Swift information was in the file and provided a method for making the calculation. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "dock/pier" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $10,000 was made to Comparable Sale 1 because of the presence of a "dock/pier." No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $15,000 "pool" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $15,000 was made to Comparable Sale 2 because of the presence of a pool on the property. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $39/square foot adjustment for gross living area made tocomparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. The Division has not directed the attention of the Administrative Law Judge to any reference in the record to a "$39/square foot adjustment for gross living area." An independent search of Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, did not reveal documentation for this adjustment or any documentation mentioning it. Accordingly, this allegation is not proven. The work file lacks current Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Reports were completed, as well as any local builder information, to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section of the Report. Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information for use in the cost approach. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides information used to calculate the construction cost per square foot. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the report issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue subsequent to February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $30,000 As-Is Value of Site Improvements adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report. As-is value of site improvements adjustment, in the cost approach section, is a positive value of $30,000. There is no explanation in the record as to what an "as-is value of site improvements adjustment" is or from what source came the $30,000 value. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $60,000 Porches/Appliances adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, contains Marshall and Swift information for porches and appliances. Thus, documentation is present.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board find Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to document adjustments made to comparable sales and reprimand Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Brady, Esquire 3250 Navy Boulevard, Suite 204 Post Office Box 12584 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2584 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank K. Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
