Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent, Linda N. Phillips, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard Fernandez, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license number 0145203. In July and August of 1979, the Respondent was employed as a mortgage solicitor for Southeast Mortgage Company in Broward County, Florida. Alan Edwards was the Respondent's supervisor during this time period. In July, 1979, the Respondent advised Alan Edwards that he was going to purchase property, and requested that Mr. Edwards loan him money for a short period of time. Mr. Edwards loaned the Respondent $4,000 under a verbal agreement that the Respondent would repay the loan within 60 days. When the Respondent failed to repay this loan as agreed, Mr. Edwards had the Respondent sign a promissory note in the amount of $4,000. In an attempt to repay a portion of this note, the Respondent gave Mr. Edwards a check in the amount of $1,800 on or about August 29, 1979. Mr. Edwards presented the check for payment, but it was returned unpaid because the Respondent had stopped payment on it. When Mr. Edwards contacted the Respondent about the check, the Respondent stated that he had expected some funds from a relative, and when he did not receive this money, he stopped payment on the check. The Respondent told Mr. Edwards that he would give him a cashier's check to replace the $1,800 check that had been returned unpaid, but the Respondent never provided the cashier's check. Instead, the Respondent, in September, 1979, gave Mr. Edwards several postdated checks drawn on account number 002312352 at Southeast Bank of Broward County. The purpose of these checks was to repay, the $1,800, after which the Respondent was to pay the remaining debt due under the note. In November, 1979, Mr. Edwards presented the first of the postdated checks, dated November 15, 1979, to Southeast Bank for payment, but was notified that the Respondent's account upon which all the postdated checks had been issued, was closed. When the bank failed to honor this first check, Mr. Edwards sent a notice of dishonored check to the Respondent by certified mail. The return receipt indicates that the Respondent received this notice. In December, 1979, and in January and February of 1980, Mr. Edwards presented to Southeast Bank the postdated checks that Respondent had given him for these months. On each occasion the bank informed Mr. Edwards that the Respondent's account was closed. Mr. Edwards sent the Respondent notices of dishonor of these checks, which the Respondent received. Mr. Edwards never received any payment of the debt owed by the Respondent. On January 7, 1980, in Dade County Circuit Court, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to two counts of conspiracy to sell, deliver or possess with intent to sell or deliver, cocaine, and was found guilty, placed on one year probation, and ordered to pay $2,400 in restitution. On February 29, 1980, the court withheld adjudication on this charge.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0145203 held by the Respondent, Leonard Fernandez, be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Leonard Fernandez 10024 S.W. 2nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33174 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Dir. Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At the hearing Petitioner presented evidence of service of the complaint and notice of hearing by mailing same, to Respondent's last address reported to the Real Esate Commission, by registered mail as provided by s. 475.26 Florida Statutes. Accordingly I find Respondent was duly subjected to the jurisdiction of the hearing officer and of the Real Estate Commission. Thereafter Petitioner presented as Exhibit 4, the Certification of the Executive Director of the Florida Real Estate Commission that registration certificate number 0119992 was issued to Jesse E. Moore as a real estate salesman on January 30, 1974, that a non-active salesman's registration was issued on June 10, 1974 to expire September 30, 1974, and a copy of his application for registration subscribed and sworn to by Moore on July 9, 1973. Thereon Respondent listed only two offenses under question 9, viz. DWI and a bad check offense. Petitioner submitted Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 which were only admitted into evidence. Exhibit 5 shows that on November 20, 1961 Gene Moore was found guilty in the County Judge's Court of destroying personal property and fined $15.00 to include $12.50 costs. Exhibit 6, a Justice of the Peace Docket Sheet purports to show that on September 11, 1969 Jesse E. Moore was charged with failure to report sales tax, and Exhibit 7, a similar docket sheet purports to show that on October 30, 1969 Jesse E. Moore was again charged with failure to report sales tax. Since both Exhibits 6 and 7 show the same amount of sales tax it may be assumed that they relate to the same offense. However, Exhibit 6 indicates that the bond posted in the amount of $12.50 was forfeited and the final entry on Exhibit 7 is that the charge (if such it be) was dismissed by the judge. Although these docket sheets are subject to some question regarding their relevance in proving that the person named thereon was charged with an offense against the laws of Florida, for the purpose of this Recommended Order it is found that they do prove that Jesse E. Moore was charged with such offenses.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, committed the violations alleged in a seven-count Administrative Complaint, filed with the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on June 10, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her Florida real estate appraiser certification.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Division is charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license number 4120. The last license issued to Ms. Rodriguez is now an inactive Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser license at 12071 Southwest 131st Avenue, Miami Florida 33166. Appraisal of 6496 Southwest 24th Street. On or about June 1, 2007, Ms. Rodriguez developed, signed and communicated an appraisal report (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal”), for property located at 64967 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida 33155 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). At the time the Appraisal was made, Ms. Rodriguez was a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The Subject Property, however, was zoned BU-1, a commercial district. The Administrative Complaint entered against Ms. Rodriguez, however, does not allege that Ms. Rodriguez committed any violation by performing an appraisal on commercially zoned property. Errors and Omissions in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez on her sketch of the Subject Property contained in the Appraisal indicates that the total square footage of the Subject Property is 2,105 square feet. On the sketch, she breaks down the property into a 34.0 x 55.6 area of 1890.4 square feet, and a 5.0 x 43.0 area of 215 square feet. In her documentation for the Appraisal, Ms. Rodriguez notes that the adjusted square footage of the Subject Property is 1,890 square feet and that the property appraiser reported the square footage at 1,709 square feet. Ms. Rodriguez failed to verify that the reported 2,105 square feet contained in the Appraisal was accurate. Ms. Rodriguez admitted in her Answer and Response to Administrative Complaint, Respondent’s Exhibit 1, that she failed to verify that a rear addition to the Subject Property, most likely the 5.0 x. 43.0 additional area she measured, had not been permitted through Miami-Dade County. This unpermitted addition would account for the discrepancy in the square footage of the Subject Property noted in Ms. Rodriguez’s notes. Had she investigated the discrepancy in square footage, it is possible she would have discovered the unpermitted addition and reported it in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez indicates in the Appraisal that the Subject Property has a “porch.” The “porch” she was referring to is a rather small area in the front of the Subject Property which has an overhang. The evidence failed to prove that this area, which is depicted in photos accepted in evidence, does not constitute a “porch.” Ms. Rodriguez incorrectly indicated in the Appraisal that the Subject Property had a “patio.” Her suggestion that a “grass area” constituted a patio is rejected as unreasonable. While the Subject Property has a small “yard,” it does not have a patio. Ms. Rodriguez failed to indicate in the Appraisal that the Subject Property did not have any “appliances.” The fact that appliances were to be installed after closing fails to excuse this omission. Ms. Rodriguez did not make any adjustment for, or any explanation of, the 13-year age difference between the Subject Property and comparable sale 3. The Supplemental Addendum section of the Appraisal incorrectly reports that the Subject Property had wood floors and that it had a new pool deck. Ms. Rodriguez has admitted these errors, indicating that they are “[t]ypographical error[s] but did not effect value since no monetary adjustment was made.” Failure to Document. Ms. Rodriguez’s documentation for the Appraisal lacked a number of items, all of which Ms. Rodriguez admits were not maintained. The missing documentation included the following items which were not contained in her work file: Support for a $40 per square foot adjustment for comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a site size adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $1,500.00 “bathroom” adjustment to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $5,000.00 “good” location adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $4,000.00 garage adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $15,000.00 pool adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $350,000.00 Opinion of Site Value in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $10,000.00 adjustment for the “As Is” Value of Site Improvements in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $20,000.00 adjustment for Appliances/Porches/Patios/Etc. in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; and Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Appraisal was completed to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section lf the Appraisal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission: Finding that Ms. Rodriguez is guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One through Seven of the Administrative Complaint as found in this Recommended Order; Placing Ms. Rodriguez’s appraiser license on probation for a period of two years, conditioned on her successful completion of the 15-hour USPAP course; Requiring that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00; and Requiring that she pay the investigative costs incurred in this matter by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Ainslee R. Ferdie, Esquire Ferdie & Lones, Chartered 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 223 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jessalyn Rodriguez 9972 Southwest 125th Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, on or about January 15, 1979 pled guilty to four counts of grand larceny in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Case No. 77-4457A. Count II of the instant Administrative Complaint apparently was based upon the transaction acts alleged in the Information, (Exhibit 1) . The Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Count I of the Administrative Complaint. In support of the allegations in Count II, the Petitioner presented Exhibit 1 consisting of the State Attorney's Information, the Order withholding adjudication in that criminal case, and the Order granting probation. The Petitioner contends that the fact of the plea of guilty to the larceny charges in Circuit Court is sufficient to prove the allegations of misrepresentation, dishonest dealing, and the numerous other acts proscribed by subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) as amended. The Respondent's plea of guilty to the criminal charges was entered into in the Circuit Court as a result of negotiations with the State Attorney whereby the Respondent was assured that adjudication would be withheld, he would be placed on probation, and no felony conviction would appear on the Respondent's criminal record. The negotiations reached fruition in the order of the Circuit Judge dated January 15, 1979 allowing that result. The Petitioner's exhibit 1 does not contain the guilty plea itself, although it is referred to in the judge's order. The State Attorney's Information contained in that exhibit, to which the guilty plea was directed, merely recites the statutorily derived language necessary to make out charges of larceny, but does not refer to the Goldbergs as victims, mentions no specific amounts of money, makes no mention of a purported mortgager-mortgagee relationship, nor does it relate the charges to a real estate transaction in any way. No other evidence in support of the alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1977) was adduced.
Recommendation Having considered the evidence in the record, the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and arguments of counsel, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty and that the Adiainistrative Complaint filed in this cause be dismissed, and Case No. 80-1721 be closed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julian R. Benjamin, Esquire Executive Suite DuPont Plaza Center 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Omari Murray, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was the state agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the real estate licensing laws found in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a registered trainee appraiser who was subject to the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). As an appraiser trainee, the Respondent was required to perform appraisal services through a fully registered real estate appraiser licensed pursuant to Florida law. On or about December 21, 2002, Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent $550.00 to perform an appraisal for her vacant lot located at 4229 Southwest Jarmer Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent by check drawn on her personal bank account. The check was payable to the Respondent individually. The check was negotiated and the account was debited in the full amount of the check. At the time she tendered the check to the Respondent Ms. Cesar was under the impression that the Respondent was an appraiser who could lawfully perform the appraisal sought. The Respondent did not advise Ms. Cesar that he was only a trainee appraiser and that his supervisor would have to sign any appraisal report generated in connection with the Cesar property. Additionally, at that time, the Respondent’s supervising appraiser, Harvel Gray, was not aware of the appraisal assignment from Ms. Cesar, did not authorize the Respondent to accept the job, and did not authorize the Respondent to accept payment for the appraisal in his individual name. The funds for the Cesar appraisal were not forwarded to Mr. Gray. When Ms. Cesar asked the Respondent for the appraisal she had paid for, the Respondent told her it was illegal for him to give her a copy of the appraisal. She did not understand why she had paid $550.00 and was not provided with a copy of the appraisal. Ms. Cesar had planned to build a house on the vacant lot. She believed the Respondent could facilitate that project as he represented to her that he could get plans drawn, perform the appraisal, and help her through the entire process. In total Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent over $2000.00 to further the construction of the house. On or about July 7, 2003, an authorized representative of the Department, Jonathan Platt, contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent provide a copy of the appraisal performed for Ms. Cesar. On or about August 11, 2003, the Respondent produced a “comparative market analysis” report (the report) dated December 27, 2002, for the subject property (Ms. Cesar’s vacant lot). The report was on a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report form and identified the Respondent as the appraiser. Additionally, the form noted the Respondent’s license number as 0005168. The report did not indicate that the report had been reviewed or approved by a licensed appraiser. The report claimed the analysis was both “as is” and subject to the completion of work as specified in plans and specifications. There were no plans or specifications attached or included with the report. The report was not signed by a licensed real estate appraiser. After review of the report, Mr. Platt asked the Respondent for the work file that supported the appraisal report. Requests for the work file were made on August 12, 2003, September 30, 2003, and October 1, 2003. As of the time of hearing the Respondent had not made such file available to the Department. Harvel Gray is a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Gray appraises real estate and equipment and knows the Respondent. Mr. Gray met the Respondent when he applied to become a trainee appraiser about five years ago. For approximately three or four months Mr. Gray was technically the Respondent’s supervisor but performed no appraisals with the Respondent. In fact, Mr. Gray terminated his relationship with the Respondent before any appraisals could be performed. Mr. Gray did not know anything about the appraisal that was to be performed for Ms. Cesar. Ken Drummond is also a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Drummond knows the Respondent from a Gold Coast continuing education class. Mr. Drummond has never been the Respondent’s supervising appraiser. Mr. Drummond has not performed appraisals with the Respondent. According to licensing records, the only supervising appraiser with whom the Respondent was listed during the pertinent period of time as an appraiser trainee was Mr. Gray. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to perform an appraisal or complete the report for Ms. Cesar. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to accept payment from Ms. Cesar for any work. Jonathan Platt, the investigator assigned to this case, spoke with the Respondent and exchanged written information with him. The Respondent did not provide information requested by Mr. Platt and did not explain how the report was generated. According to Mr. Platt the Respondent maintained that Mr. Drummond was his supervising appraiser during the time the Cesar report was performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order that finds the Respondent guilty of the violations outlined by the Administrative Complaint and revokes his license as a real estate appraiser trainee. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Vieira, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Alpheus C. Parsons, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N801 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Omari Murray 201 Southwest 11th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified residential real estate appraiser. His license number is RD-4163. Respondent was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser in December 2001. He passed the certification exam and received his current license in November 2003. Respondent has not previously had any disciplinary action taken against him by the Division or the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board). On June 14, 2005, Respondent was engaged by a mortgage company to appraise the single-family residence located at 620 Adirondack Avenue in Orlando (“the subject property”). The subject property was owned at the time by Cosme Abreu and his wife. The Abreus also owned a single-family residence located at 623 Adirondack Avenue, which is across the street from the subject property. The subject property was at the time of the appraisal under contract for sale to Jose Ciro, who was a co-worker of Mr. Abreu's. Respondent previously conducted an appraisal of the subject property in March 2005. His firm also conducted several appraisals of the Abreus' property at 623 Adirondack Avenue, including an appraisal on June 14, 2005. Respondent went to the subject property on June 14, 2005, and walked around the inside and outside of the residence taking measurements and observing the condition of the property. He testified that at the time of the appraisal the subject property was in good overall condition; that all of the appliances were in place; that the air conditioner was working; that the carpet and flooring were in place; and that there was no readily observable water damage or rotten wood on the interior or exterior of the residence. Respondent prepared an appraisal report of the subject property on June 14, 2005. Respondent estimated in his report that the market value of the subject property as of the date of the appraisal was $185,000. Respondent used the cost approach and the sales comparison approach to arrive at that valuation. The Division’s expert appraiser, Ben Cole, III, did not take issue with the methodology used by Respondent in his appraisal of the subject property. Indeed, Mr. Cole stated in his report that: “The [comparative] sales were legitimate transactions, pertinent and in close proximity to the subject. The home was measured correctly and the square footage correctly computed with the room count and placement shown properly.” Nevertheless, Mr. Cole testified that the appraisal report prepared by Respondent was misleading because it did not disclose the actual condition of the subject property as of the date of the appraisal. Mr. Cole did not have any personal knowledge as to the condition of the property as of the date of the appraisal; his opinion regarding the misleading nature of Respondent’s appraisal report was based upon the assumption that the condition of the subject property at the time of the appraisal was as reflected in the photographs taken in August 2005. However, as discussed below, the validity of that assumption was not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent did not take photographs of the subject property in connection with the June appraisal. The exterior photographs of the subject property included in his appraisal report were the photographs that he took in connection with the March appraisal. Respondent testified that the March photographs accurately depicted the condition of the subject property as he observed it in June, and he stated in his appraisal report that the subject property has been “maintained in good overall condition.” Mr. Abreu testified that subject property was in good condition at the time of the appraisal, which was consistent with and corroborated Respondent’s assessment of the condition of the subject property.3 Mr. Ciro had no direct personal knowledge about the condition of the subject property in June 2005. He did not take possession of the property until mid-August 2005, even though the closing occurred in mid-July 2005. Mr. Ciro had only visited the subject property twice before August 2005. One of those visits occurred prior to the three hurricanes that hit the Orlando area in August and September of 2004. Mr. Ciro could not recall the date of his other visit to the property, but it was before June 2005. Mr. Ciro testified that the subject property was in good condition at the time of his visits, although he acknowledged that he did not closely examine the outside of the house because it was nighttime when he was at the subject property. The condition of the subject property in August 2005 was not good, as reflected in the photographs and videotape that were received into evidence. For example, the carpet in the family room was missing, appliances were missing, the kitchen sink and cabinets had been removed and were on the back patio, there was a stain of some kind on the ceiling in at least one of the rooms, the backyard was overgrown and full of trash, and there was damage to the soffit on the right-front of the house. Mr. Abreu testified that some of the damage depicted in the photographs and videotape -- e.g., removal of the sink from the kitchen, floor damage caused by a plumbing problem -- occurred between the time of the appraisal and the time that Mr. Ciro took possession of the subject property, and that he was in the process of fixing the damage when Mr. Ciro took possession of the property. Mr. Abreu attributed the remainder of the damage to Mr. Ciro. Mr. Ciro and the Abreus are currently in litigation regarding the sale of the subject property and its condition in August 2005. Respondent is not a party to that litigation. Respondent and Mr. Abreu testified that the August 2005 photographs do not reflect the condition of the property as of the time of the appraisal on June 14, 2005. That testimony is called into question by the photograph in the appraisal report that appears to show that the soffit damage observed in August 2005 on the right-front corner of the house was present at the time of the March appraisal,4 but the evidence was not clear and convincing on that issue. In October 2005, the Division received a complaint from Mr. Ciro regarding Respondent’s appraisal of the subject property. Beverly Ridenauer was assigned to investigate the complaint. It took Ms. Ridenauer several months to make contact with Respondent because the address that the Division had on file for him was incorrect. Respondent was not able to produce his work file for the subject property when it was initially requested by Ms. Ridenauer.5 When the original work file could not be located, Respondent “reconstructed” the file and provided it to Ms. Ridenauer. The original work file was subsequently located and provided to the Division during discovery. There is no evidence of any discrepancies between the “reconstructed” file and the original file. The work file was not offered into evidence, but Respondent testified that it included the property appraiser records, Multiple Listing Service print-outs, and other information he reviewed and considered in his appraisal of the subject property. Respondent required his trainees to take interior photographs of the property they appraised for his use in reviewing and signing-off on their work, but he did not take interior photographs of properties that he appraised unless the lender specifically requested such photographs. As a result of this case, however, Respondent now takes interior photographs as a standard practice in order to “protect [him]self.” There is no statute, rule, or USPAP standard that requires interior photographs to be taken as part of an appraisal. The Division’s expert appraiser, Mr. Cole, did not know whether it was even typical for appraisers to take interior photographs; he simply testified that such photographs “would have been helpful” in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 22nd day of August, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Park Place Associates, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0207158. The Respondent Jerry W. Brown is the sole active broker for Park Place Associates, Inc., having been issued license number 0010364 by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In December, 1981, James B. Morgan was a sales associate with the office of Park Place Associates, Inc. On approximately December 1, 1981, he secured a listing for the sale of a residence located at 4737 Kempston Drive in Orlando, Florida. During December, 1981, and January, 1982, Nancy M. Unser was a sales associate with the office of Park Place Associates, Inc. On January 9, 1982, at approximately 11:00 A.M., Mrs. Unser advised Mr. Morgan that she had secured a written offer to purchase the residence on Kempston Drive, and she wanted to set-up an appointment with the owners to present the offer. On January 9, 1982, after he was informed that Mrs. Unser had an offer to purchase the Kempston Drive property on which he had secured a listing, Mr. Morgan telephoned the owners to arrange an appointment for presentation of the offer. Thereafter, on January 9, 1982, Mr. Morgan was advised that his employment as a sales associate with Park Place was terminated. On January 11, 1982, the Respondent Jerry W. Brown signed a notification form advising the Florida Real Estate Commission that Mr. Morgan was no longer associated with Park Place. On January 11, 1982, Mr. Morgan submitted to the Florida Real Estate Commission a form notification of change of employer, advising that his license was being placed with another broker. Accordingly, on January 11, 1982, the change in Mr. Morgan's employment from Park Place Associates, Inc., to another broker, was accomplished. On January 9, 1982, in the evening, Mrs. Unser and another sales associate in the Park Place office, Beverly Noble, presented the offer to the owners of the Kempston Drive property. On January 10, 1982, both the buyers and the sellers had executed the contract on the Kempston Drive property, and on approximately January 20, 1982, the closing of this transaction took place. There was in effect at Park Place Associates, Inc., during the months of December, 1981, and January 1982, a Policy Statement which established the rates of compensation for associates of the office. Under the terms of this Policy Statement Mr. Morgan was entitled to 30 percent of the total real estate commission paid, amounting to approximately $700. Mr. Morgan has made demand on the Respondent Jerry W. Brown for payment of the share of the commission to which he was entitled as a result of the sale by the brokerage office of property upon which he had secured the listing. Neither Respondent Park Place Associates, Inc., nor its active broker, Respondent Jerry W. Brown have made payment to Mr. Morgan of the share of the real estate commission due upon closing of the subject transaction. Respondent Brown contends that when he discharged Mr. Morgan no compensation for the listing secured by Mr. Morgan was payable. Respondent Brown also contends that he did not know that Mrs. Unser had informed Mr. Morgan that an offer to buy the property listed by Mr. Morgan had been obtained. The Respondent Jerry W. Brown has held the sum of $700 in escrow since it was paid to him in January of 1982, but he has not notified the Florida Real Estate Commission that a dispute has existed relative to what person is entitled to it, in accordance with the "escape procedure" established by Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent Jerry W. Brown asserts that this is the first problem he has had of an ethical nature during the 10 years he has been in the real estate business, and that he had no intent to steal money from anyone. There was no evidence presented to contradict this assertion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Park Place Associates, Inc., and the Respondent, Jerry W. Brown, be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000, to be reduced to $300 upon payment of the $700 commission due James B. Morgan. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 16th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jerry W. Brown Park Place Associates, Inc. 936 Versailles Circle Maitland, Florida 32751 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of property appraisers in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this action, Respondent was a State of Florida certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD-5554. From January 23, 2006, through September 20, 2006, and again from February 8, 2007, through December 3, 2007, Respondent was responsible for supervising Harvey Diaz, a registered trainee appraiser. During 2008, Brian Piper, who is employed by Petitioner as an investigations manager, received a complaint package from a lender. The complaint involved an appraisal of a residential property located at 1850 North Congress Avenue, F103, West Palm Beach, Florida, that Respondent and Harvey Diaz allegedly completed on June 5, 2007. On October 20, 2008, Investigator Piper visited Respondent's registered business location in an effort to investigate the complaint. During this initial visit, Investigator Piper spoke with Respondent's husband, Carlos Garcia, and requested a copy of the entire working file associated with the 1850 North Congress Avenue property. Several days later, Investigator Piper returned to Respondent's place of business. At that time, Respondent advised Investigator Piper that she had no record associated with the 1850 North Congress Avenue address, and had not been involved with the preparation of an appraisal for that property. During this second visit, Respondent produced numerous boxes for Investigator Piper's inspection. No work file related to the 1850 North Congress Avenue property was located. During the final hearing, Respondent credibly testified that she had no knowledge of, or involvement with, the appraisal under investigation. Respondent offered further testimony (which was corroborated by two exhibits) that she discovered in 2007 that her electronic signature had been stolen. The theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency, as well as the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The undersigned concludes, as an ultimate finding of fact, that Respondent was not aware of, and had no involvement with, the appraisal of 1850 North Congress Avenue. As an additional ultimate finding, the undersigned concludes that Respondent did not hinder or obstruct Investigator Piper's investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 22nd day of December, 2010.
