The Issue Should the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (the Board) take action against Respondent, a certified residential appraiser (appraiser) for violations under Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds certificate no. RD-3933, as a certified residential appraiser issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (2005). Respondent's certificate is in an active status. His business address is 2302 Mitchell Place, Jacksonville, Florida, according to Petitioner's records. Kadrina E. Jackson owned property at 4409 Moncrief Road, Jacksonville, Florida, in Washington Heights Estates. A town home was located on the property. James F. Love attempted to purchase the property from Ms. Jackson. As part of the transaction Respondent performed a residential appraisal in relation to the property and rendered a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (report) for which he charged $300. On July 19, 2005, the report was signed. The sales price for the property was $27,000. The appraised value was $27,000. Mr. Love believed that the appraisal was incorrect and filed a complaint with Petitioner. James Pierce is Petitioner's investigator assigned to the case. He has worked with the agency for over 12 years. His background includes several instructional courses sponsored by the Division of Real Estate. He has taken the approved AB-1 appraisal course and successfully completed the program. The AB-1 appraisal course is for persons who wish to become licensed trainee appraisers. He has conducted approximately 50 appraisal investigations. As part of the investigation of the complaint by Mr. Love, Investigator Pierce interviewed Respondent and others. Mr. Pierce conducted a physical inspection of the property in question from the outside and did research concerning the underlying information within the report. Investigator Pierce requested Respondent to provide a true and complete copy of the report under consideration, in addition to a complete copy of the work file of the work done in completing that report. Mr. Pierce also requested Respondent to provide the investigator a complete copy of previous reports that have been conducted by River City Appraiser Services, Inc. (River City) where Respondent worked. As requested, Respondent provided information for the Moncrief property associated with the July 9, 2005 report but not previous reports as completed by River City. In relation to the section of the report dealing with the cost approach, it was commented: Due to the age of the subject improvements, development of reproduction costs (an exact replica) or replacement costs (new construction) could be misleading because the building codes have changed and building labor and material costs fluctuate. This section was used to determine land value only. Estimated remaining economic life: 40 years. The cost approach did not lead to a determination of the appraised value as $27,000. It referred to site value at $5,000 and the "as is" value of site improvements as $5,000. When Mr. Pierce reviewed materials submitted by Respondent, he did not find separate calculations that would support the land value and site improvement estimates listed in the cost approach section found in the report. Three comparable sales are listed in the report. Comparable sale one dates from February 2005. Comparable sale two dates from January 2005. Comparable sale three dates from May 2005. All comparable properties in the report were in the same subdivision where the Subject Property is found. The sale prices ranged from $23,000 to $27,000, with the median sales price being $24,500. Investigator Pierce did not find documentation designed to support a $500 negative adjustment for the screen porch in comparable sale three within the sales comparison section to the report. The report indicates that predominate occupancy in the neighborhood is owner-occupancy with 0 to 5% vacancy. Respondent told Mr. Price that no research had been done in relation to that determination and no supporting documentation was found in the work file that would indicate the predominant occupancy as being owner occupancy. The report indicates information about single-family housing sales and a price range from $12,000 to $216,000, whereas Respondent's work file provided information on several properties that were available and had been sold recently as being a range between $12,000 and $69,000, excluding the $216,000 reference. The report under general description indicated that the house is attached. From his most recent observation Mr. Pierce considered the townhouse to be detached. Investigator Pierce's prior knowledge of the neighborhood is that individual housing units have exterior walls, which when originally built were approximately one inch in separation from the next unit. He is not sure whether that condition (one inch separation) exists today. He cannot attest to it with certainty. The report refers to four window a/c units in the townhouse. Mr. Pierce in his physical inspection of the property from the outside of the property and based upon photos of the property found within the report, believes that there are only three window air-conditioning units. The neighborhood where the subject home is found has several types of property: two-story town home properties with two to four bedrooms; single-story units that have two bedrooms and one bath; and properties that are designed as duplexes with common walls. With the exception of the duplexes, the lots are zero lot line properties. The reference to zero lot line in this case refers to the lot line beginning and ending at the exterior walls of an individual unit. Respondent's reason for describing the property as an attached unit is based upon his observation that the unit exterior wall touches the next door property wall. He observed that when you stand in front of the property you cannot see between those two buildings. In deciding that the property was a townhouse, Respondent used the Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Handbook. The definition within that reference source considers townhouses to be single-family attached residences. Respondent determined that the predominant occupancy in the neighborhood was owner-occupancy based upon by driving through the neighborhood. The determination of predominant occupancy involved looking at some public records and the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). When someone let Respondent in the home that is at issue, he asked the question "Hey are there a lot of renters in here or people own." That person believed that most people in the neighborhood owned the homes. He arrived at an occupancy rate by that same process of driving around the neighborhood. Following the inspection of the Subject Property, Respondent looked into comparables through information pulled from the MLS. The Subject Property had not been renovated. It had not be updated. It had no central heating or air. In trying to locate comparables, Respondent looked for properties that were similar in their condition. The first comparable was half a mile from the Subject Property. In comparing comparable two with the Subject Property, Respondent recognized that each had two bedrooms and a single bath. The reference to the minus $500 within the report for comparable three and the screen porch, was to reflect the fact that the Subject Property did not have a screen porch. It is inferred that Respondent was attempting to reflect similarities for comparison purposes by deleting a feature that is found in the comparable, not found in the Subject Property. The value of the screen porch was determined on the basis of Respondent's experience and use of the Marshall and Swift Handbook. Concerning the lack of documentation in Respondent's work file, Respondent did not believe that it was necessary to do anything other than utilize the reference book to arrive at his determination. As he explained, Respondent determined the $12,000 to $216,000 range of prices in his report by resort to the MLS. The reference source reflected a $216,000 amount at the extreme. The range of prices for sales in neighborhoods like the Washington Heights subdivision were from $12,500 through the $216,000 according to the MLS. The next highest was $69,000. The reference to $216,000 for a sale in the MLS seemed "odd" to Respondent. He did not double check to verify that the sale of the home was $216,000 through a review of public records, not believing that this was necessary in the conduct of his business. The basis for indicating that four a/c units were located at the townhouse, was Respondent's observation that there were two in the front and two in the back. Whether three or four units were found at the home would not affect the appraisal from Respondent's perspective. The a/c units were not part of his determination of $27,000 appraised value. In preparing the report Respondent did not utilize the cost approach. The only reason for referring to the cost approach in the report was that the lender had requested an opinion of the land value for insurance purposes. There was an earlier version of the report on the Subject Property that did not reflect the site value or land value which had been requested to be included later on. The earlier version without the indication of the site value with improvements was not provided to Investigator Pierce. With the change requested by the lender, to include the site value with improvements, Respondent did not maintain the earlier report that did not reflect the site value. The determination of the appraised value did not utilize the income approach either. The basis for determination was the sales comparison approach. Given that there was no determination utilizing the cost approach or income approach, Respondent had no documentation available to explain those approaches. In the addendum to the report under the final reconciliation Respondent did comment, "Investors are active in the area with possible unrecorded sales."
Recommendation Based upon 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 3rd 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 3rd day of May, 2007.
The Issue Petitioner's Administrative Complaint dated March 5, 1997, charges that Respondent, Barbara Cogan, obtained a license by means of knowingly submitting false information or engaging in misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.624(12), Florida Statutes. The issue for disposition is whether that violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara E. Cogan is a state-certified residential real estate appraiser, having been issued license no. 0002758 on or about April 22, 1996, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Beverly Ridenauer is presently a complaint analyst, but previously was an administrative assistant in appraiser certification for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). As part of her duties at the time, Ms. Ridenauer reviewed Ms. Cogan's application for state certified residential appraiser in March 1996. The application on its face was complete and the requisite fee was attached. Ms. Cogan achieved the required hours of education and passed the state examination. Her application was, therefore, approved. In the meantime, Ms. Ridenauer, as required by law, commenced an audit of the work experience claimed by Ms. Cogan in support of her application for certification. In response to a letter request from Ms. Ridenauer, Ms. Cogan promptly submitted copies of appraisal reports that she had prepared in her pre- certification employment experience. The appraisal reports submitted by Ms. Cogan were all signed by Thomas M. Hayes, a state certified residential appraiser, with the additional notation "assistance by Barbara E. Cogan." In the course of her review, Ms. Ridenauer determined that Ms. Cogan had no real estate sales or broker's license, nor was she registered or certified as an appraiser. Ms. Ridenauer sent a memo to the DBPR complaint division because she deemed that the experience claimed by Ms. Cogan in the application process was invalid: qualifying appraisal experience may only be obtained when an individual is licensed to perform the appraisals. There are no false statements on Ms. Cogan's application. She did not claim any other professional licenses in Florida and she truthfully answered "no" to the question whether she had ever been registered, licensed, or certified in another jurisdiction. Nor did Ms. Cogan misrepresent her work experience. She did all of the work on the appraisals under the supervision of Thomas Hayes, with whom she worked for 2 and 1/2 years. She successfully completed the required appraisal education courses and was trained by Mr. Hayes. Neither Ms. Cogan nor Mr. Hayes had the slightest notion that Ms. Cogan was performing work for which she was not appropriately licensed. The appraisals signed by Mr. Hayes and submitted by Ms. Cogan to the agency as evidence of her experience include this statement in the appraiser's certification: I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. . . . (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 4, emphasis in original) The emphasized language in the above text of the certification was underlined by hand and an asterisk was placed in the margin. Below Mr. Hayes' signature and next to an asterisk is the notation acknowledging Ms. Cogan's assistance that is described in paragraph 4, above. When she took her appraisal education courses, Ms. Cogan observed that she was the only student who was not a registered appraiser. She asked her teacher if she had to be registered in order to get certified and he said, "no." Ms. Cogan also had obtained, and was thoroughly familiar with, a 2-sided sheet from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, titled "Essential Information for Real Estate Appraiser Applicants." The information sheet provides instructions for completing applications. It also describes the qualifications for registered appraiser (75 classroom hours of approved courses), licensed appraiser (75 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal), certified residential appraiser (120 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal), and certified general appraiser (165 classroom hours plus 2 years' experience in real property appraisal, including non-residential appraisal work). Ms. Cogan correctly noted that neither the information sheet nor her appraiser rules booklet states plainly that a candidate for certification as a residential appraiser must be first registered or licensed as an appraiser, a real estate salesperson, or a broker. When she was notified of the administrative complaint, she was thoroughly surprised and confused. She never intended to obtain her certification under false pretenses. While agreeing that the rules and statute are not perfectly clear, the agency contends that Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, requires that appraisals must be done by appropriately- licensed individuals. The agency concedes that Ms. Cogan did the work she claimed and that it was good, competent work. But for the fact that she was not registered or licensed when she did the work, Ms. Cogan is fully qualified for her residential real estate appraiser certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Barbara Cogan. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara E. Cogan 3745 Oak Lane Melbourne, Florida 32934 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
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 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
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.
