The Issue Whether Christopher Wilson (Respondent) violated real estate appraisal license laws as alleged by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner or Department) in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes.1 1 All references to Florida Statutes, the Florida Administrative Code, or other applicable rules are to versions in effect in June 2020. At all material times to this case, Respondent was licensed as a state- certified residential appraiser in the State of Florida. Respondent has been preparing appraisal reports for approximately 31 years and has taken numerous courses over the years in appraisal practice. In June 2020, Respondent received an appraisal assignment from Pennymac Loan Services to appraise real property located at 317 Dreadnaught Court, Tallahassee, Florida (Subject Property). Respondent is very familiar with the area where the Subject Property was located, in that most of his appraisal assignments have been for appraisals in the area of the Subject Property. On or about June 11, 2020, Respondent arranged with the owner of the Subject Property to inspect the Subject Property. The owner of the Subject Property gave him access and Respondent inspected the Subject Property, which included taking numerous pictures of the Subject Property. Prior to his inspection, Respondent attempted, on three occasions, to call the owner of the Subject Property to advise her that he would be at the Subject Property 15 minutes earlier than previously scheduled. Respondent arrived at the Subject Property 15 minutes early and the owner of the Subject Property allowed him access to inspect, measure, and take pictures of the Subject Property. When Respondent took photographs of the Subject Property, he did not notice that somebody was in bed under a blanket when he took a picture of a bedroom. The owner of the Subject Property provided Respondent a list of improvements to the Subject Property. Pursuant to the scope of his appraisal assignment, Respondent researched through the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) comparable sales and listings that were similar in square footage and room count, and located within the same zip code as the Subject Property. Based on his research, Respondent selected nine comparable properties, six sales and three listings. On or about June 15, 2020, with an effective date of June 11, 2020, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report for the Subject Property (Appraisal Report). In the photo addendum section of the Appraisal Report, Respondent inadvertently included a photograph of a resident of the Subject Property asleep in bed. Respondent submitted his Appraisal Report to his client and his client had no objection to Respondent’s opinion of value for the Subject Property. Respondent was paid a fee of $225 for the appraisal. In his Appraisal Report, Respondent indicates Comparable Sale #2 (141 Ivernia Loop, Tallahassee, Florida) was an “arm’s length” transaction.2 Respondent determined Comparable Sale #2 was an “arm’s length” transaction even though it was sold to a tenant of the property. Comparable Sale #2 was identical to his Comparable Sale #1 and sold for the same price as Comparable Sale #1. Petitioner’s expert, Greg Lane, agreed that there was no evidence indicating that Respondent’s Comparable Sale #2 was not an “arm’s length” transaction. Comparable Sale #2 was not a foreclosure or short sale, and the evidence was otherwise insufficient to show that it was not an “arm’s length” transaction. 2 An “arm’s length” transaction is “[s]aid of a transaction negotiated by unrelated parties, each acting in his or her own self-interest; the basis for a fair market value determination.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 100 (5th ed. 1979). Respondent maintained MLS sheets and tax sheets for all of his comparable sales and comparable listings in his workfile for the Subject Property and has them readily available. In his Appraisal Report, Respondent made positive adjustments to the Subject Property appraisal in relation to Comparable Sale #1 ($500), Comparable Sale #4 ($500), Comparable Sale #5 ($500), Comparable Sale #6 ($500), Comparable Sale #7 ($1,000) and Comparable Sale #8 ($1,000). These adjustments were made because the Subject Property had a screen porch and patio, which Comparable Sales #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not have according to Respondent’s MLS sheets and tax records. Respondent based his adjustments on these documents and on his knowledge of the market and his experience in knowing the value of a screen porch and/or patio. Respondent made a negative $2,000 adjustment to the Subject Property appraisal in relation to Comparable Sales #6, 7, 8, and 9 because the Subject Property had a one-car garage and those other comparable sales had a two-car garage. Respondent made his adjustments for a one-car garage versus a two- car garage based on his experience of the subdivision and what the price difference is between similar properties having a one- or two-car garage. While Respondent’s work file contains data on all comparable sales, at the hearing, Petitioner attempted to show that Respondent failed to apply any recognized methods in the development of adjustments in the Appraisal Report. Petitioner’s expert witness, Greg Lane, testified that Respondent’s workfile was thorough in that all of his sales data are in the Appraisal Report, but that there was lack of data indicating how adjustments were made. In explaining that his adjustments were based on the differences in the comparable sales data and listings, Respondent testified that he also used his experience and familiarity with the area in making his adjustments. The fact that Respondent also used his experience in making adjustments does not show that data was missing, that Respondent failed to employ any methods recognized in the industry, or that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing his Appraisal Report. Petitioner’s witness, Joel Salley, performed a second appraisal of the Subject Property and his opinion of value of the Subject Property was higher than Respondent’s opinion of value for the Subject Property. Mr. Salley made a negative $5,000 adjustment to the Subject Property appraisal in relation to his Comparable Sale #3 condition because his Comparable Sale #3 had new countertops and the Subject Property just had resurfaced countertops. Mr. Salley admitted that he had no data in his workfile to support his $5,000 negative adjustment and that his adjustment was made based on his knowledge of what countertops cost. In addition, Mr. Salley made a negative $4,300 adjustment to the Subject Property appraisal for date of sale/time to his Comparable Sale #4, even though Comparable Sale #4 was a listing and not a sale. He made a guess that there was a two-percent downward price adjustment with no data in his workfile to support his guess. In sum, applying reasoning and experience to comparative information in the files does not equate to lack of data supporting adjustments, and the evidence does not otherwise support a finding that Respondent failed to employ methods recognized in the industry or failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing his Appraisal Report of the Subject Property.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Mackenzie K. Medich, Esquire Delhon Braaten, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 5728 Major Boulevard, Suite 535 Orlando, Florida 32819
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. Suite 535 5728 Major Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32819 Delhon Braaten, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David Axelman, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Mackenzie K. Medich, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cristy Conolly, Chair Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Julie I. Brown, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein 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 March 25, 2004, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD 4405. She has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. From 1998 until becoming certified as a residential real estate appraiser, Respondent was a Florida-registered trainee appraiser. At all times material to the instant case, the Subject Property was a single-family residential property, owned by Pablo Perez, housing the residents of an assisted living facility (ALF) operated by South Florida Home Services, Inc., pursuant to a license issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). At all times material the instant case, the Subject Property was zoned by the City of Miami for residential use. The ALF that operated on the premises of the Subject Property was inspected by Miami-Dade County Health Department Code Inspector Manuel Alzugaray on April 6, 2007. This was the only Miami-Dade County Health Department inspection of the premises conducted in April 2007. The "results" of Mr. Alzugaray's April 6, 2007, inspection were "unsatisfactory." The written "inspection report" that Mr. Alzugaray completed following the inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair wall in the 2nd stall of the restroom across from Rm. #5. Repair all holes throughout the facility & floor tiles also. Maintain restrooms & facilities clean. Provide screen for kitchen restroom. Evidence of rodents in the kitchen. Evidence of termites in restroom across from Rm. 5. Mr. Alzugaray noted, during his inspection, that the doors of the residents' bedrooms had removable numbers displayed on them and that the "restroom across from Rm. #5" had two toilets separated by a "divider." Mr. Alzugaray returned to the Subject Property to conduct a follow-up inspection on May 17, 2007. The "results" of Mr. Alzugaray's May 17, 2007, inspection were "unsatisfactory." The written "inspection report" that Mr. Alzugaray completed following this May 17, 2007, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Evidence of rodent droppings in the kitchen. Provide screen for window in the kitchen bathroom. Remove mold & mildew from shower in the kitchen restroom. Repair restroom in the 2nd floor (toilet doesn't flush). During both the April 6, 2007, and May 17, 2007, inspections, there were, by Mr. Alzugaray's count, 14 ALF residents present on the premises. (The facility had a licensed capacity of 14 residents.) Mr. Alzugaray conducted two additional inspections of the ALF in 2007, one on September 12, 2007, and the other on November 2, 2007, with the former yielding "unsatisfactory" "results" (due to "drawers in [the] kitchen [not being] clean" and there being "evidence of roach droppings in the kitchen area") and the latter yielding "satisfactory" "results." In April 2007, Respondent was working as a residential real estate appraiser for Atlantic Appraisal Consultants Corporation, when she received an assignment to conduct a residential appraisal of the Subject Property for Affordable Finance Group (Affordable). Affordable was in the business of making residential mortgage loans, and only residential mortgage loans. It did not make commercial mortgage loans. Affordable had received an application from Adolfina Ortega for a residential mortgage loan to purchase the Subject Property from its owner, Mr. Perez. The purpose of the appraisal was to determine whether the market value of this single-family residential property justified Affordable's making the loan. Affordable had telephoned Respondent's secretary on April 10, 2007, to order the appraisal. Respondent's secretary inputted the information she had received from Affordable "in the [office] computer" and generated a printed appraisal order (Order), which she gave to Respondent. The Order indicated that Affordable was requesting an "SFA" (a shorthand reference to a "single family appraisal") of the Subject Property in connection with a mortgage loan sought by Ms. Ortega. This was an appraisal Respondent was competent and qualified to perform by herself as a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The same day the appraisal was requested (April 10, 2007), Respondent telephoned Affordable and discussed the appraisal assignment with an Affordable representative. During this telephone conversation, Respondent was told that the Subject Property was owner-occupied and that its sale was "pending contract." She was also given the name of the owner/seller, Mr. Perez, and his telephone number. Nothing was said to Respondent to suggest that she was expected to perform anything other than the "SFA" indicated on the Order. No mention was made of any business that was part of the sale. Later in the day on April 10, 2007, Respondent telephoned Mr. Perez and made arrangements to visit the Subject Property on the morning of April 12, 2007, as part of the appraisal process. Before her visit, to find out more information about the Subject Property and to obtain possible "comparable sales" properties, Respondent performed internet-based research using generally accepted data sources (MLS, FARES, and RealQuest) that Florida-certified residential real estate appraisers typically employ for such purposes. According to the data her research uncovered, the Subject Property was a one-story, single-family residence, with three bedrooms and two bathrooms, that was owned by Mr. Perez and had R-4 zoning. There was nothing in any of the data sources that she used to indicate that an ALF or any other business was operating on the premises of the Subject Property. Respondent visited the Subject Property the morning of April 12, 2007, as scheduled. When she arrived (somewhere between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m.), she was greeted by a "gentleman."4 Respondent and this "gentleman" were the only persons present at the Subject Property during the entire time Respondent was there. After measuring the exterior of the structure, Respondent asked for and was granted permission to go inside to do a "very basic" "walk[] through," the purpose of which was to note the number and location of the rooms and the general condition of the residence. Respondent's "walk[] through" took approximately ten minutes, which was an adequate amount of time for her to accomplish what she needed to. As part of the "walk[] through," she "peek[ed] in" the bathrooms. The last thing that Respondent did during her visit was to take photographs outside the residence.5 Respondent witnessed nothing during her visit to suggest that the Subject Property was anything other than a single-family residential property. She had no reason to believe, based on the observations she made,6 that the property was being used as an ALF or to conduct any other business activity. She did discover, however, as a result of the observations she made during her visit, that the on-line information she had obtained about the Subject Property was inaccurate to the extent that it indicated that the Subject Property was a one-story structure with three bedrooms, not a two-story structure with five bedrooms. Appropriately, in completing her appraisal, she relied, not on this erroneous information, but on what she had actually observed during her visit. On her way back from the Subject Property, Respondent drove to, and parked on the street outside of, each of the three possible "comparable sales" properties she had selected before setting out that morning (all of which were located within 1.28 miles of the Subject Property). She looked at and took exterior photographs of each property, but did not go inside any of them. On the Order, which she had taken with her, she wrote notes recording her observations about each property. Thereafter, Respondent sought to verify the information she had gleaned from her internet-based research about these three "comparable sales" properties (as she was professionally required to do, if she wanted to use them for her appraisal). She did so, appropriately, by contacting individuals who had been involved in these "comparable sales" transactions (realtors, in the case of two of the transactions, and the purchasers, in the case of the other). Where there was a conflict between what her research had revealed and what she was told by these individuals, she, again appropriately, relied on the latter in completing her appraisal. Using a pre-printed Fannie Mae form, Respondent completed a Summary Appraisal Report (Report), dated April 30, 2007, containing her opinion that the market value of the Subject Property as of April 25, 2007 (the date Respondent started preparing the Report) was $590,000.00 (which was price Ms. Ortega had agreed to pay Mr. Perez for the Subject Property). Respondent arrived at her opinion by conducting a sales comparison analysis. (She conducted neither a cost analysis nor an income analysis.) As she indicated in the Report, Respondent, appropriately, appraised the Subject Property as a single-family residential property, as she had been asked to do by Affordable. 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: 140 NW 9 AVENUE City: MIAMI State: FL Zip Code: 33128 County: MIAMI DADE Borrower: ORTEGA Owner of Public Record: PEREZ Neighborhood Name: RIVERVIEW * * * Occupant: X Owner _ Tenant _ Vacant * * * Property Rights Appraised: X Fee Simple _ Leasehold _ Other (Describe) * * * Assignment Type: X Purchase Transaction _ Refinance Transaction _ Other (describe) Lender/Client: AFFORDABLE FINANCIAL GROUP . . . . . Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s): PUBLIC RECORDS, MLS TAX ROLLS, REALQUEST The "Contract" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: I _ did X 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. SALE PRICE IS $590,000 AND 4/2007 CONTRACT DATE PER SALES CONTRACT. Contract Price: $590,000 Date of Contract: 4/2007 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: 20,000 SELLER TO PAY $20,000 TOWARDS BUYER[']S CLOSING COST[s]. Respondent did not "analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction" because she was not in possession of a written contract at the time she prepared her Report. She had merely been told (by the Affordable representative) of the purported existence of such a contract and of its salient terms. It was not unreasonable, however, for her to have relied on these oral representations and included in the Report the information with she had been provided, as she did. Following the development and communication of the Report, Respondent received a copy of a written contract, dated May 11, 2007, signed by Mr. Perez, as the seller of the Subject Property, and Ms. Ortega, as the buyer. Respondent maintained this written contract in her work file.7 The contract was a "standard purchase and sale contract for the sale of a residential home." Consistent with the information contained in the "Contract" section of the Report, the "contract price" was $590,000.00, and provision was made in the contract for a $20,000.00 "seller contribution toward closing costs." The contract made clear that what was being purchased and sold was the Subject Property, "together with all improvements and attached items," as well as "all appliances in working condition[]," and nothing else (including any business enterprise that might have been operating on the premises or any items associated therewith).8 In the "Neighborhood" section of the Report, Respondent identified the boundaries of what she considered, in her judgment, to be the "neighborhood" in which the Subject Property was located. She identified these boundaries as follows: "US-1 TO THE SOUTH, I-95 TO THE EAST, SR 836 TO THE NORTH, AND SW 17TH AVENUE TO THE WEST." She then provided the following "Neighborhood Description" and "Market Conditions": Neighborhood Description: Subject is located in a typical neighborhood. Typical neighborhood amenities such as schools, shopping, parks, houses of worship and transportation are within a reasonable distance of the subject but do not intrude on residential areas. No unfavorable factors affect marketability. Subject is convenient to employment centers and is stable at present time. The predominate price for the area does not appear to [sic]. Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions): Property values are stable along with supply and demand. Competitive listings are selling within 3-6 months. Typical sales are at 93-95% of listing price. Sellers need not negotiate financing related concessions as most sales are conventional or FHA/VA financed. Identifying the precise boundaries of a property's "neighborhood" is largely a subjective exercise.9 While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Spool, may have drawn different, narrower "neighborhood" boundaries had he been the one doing the appraisal (as he testified he would have at hearing), it cannot be clearly said that the boundaries identified by Respondent in her Report were "incorrect," as alleged in numbered paragraph 13A. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact." Where the boundaries of the Subject Property's "neighborhood" lie is a matter of judgment about which reasonable people may disagree. The "Site" section of the Report read, in part, as follows: * * * View: RESIDENTIAL Specific Zoning Classification: R-4 (AS PER TAX ROLL). Zoning Description: MULTI-FAMILY HIGH- DENSITY 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. * * * In the "Improvements" section of the Report, Respondent indicated, among other things, that the Subject Property was a one-unit structure built in 1920, with an "effective age" of 30 years. Next to "# of stories," Respondent inadvertently entered, "One," but next to "Design (Style)," she put, "2 Story" (which, as the "Subject Front" photograph appended to the Report plainly showed, was, of these two conflicting entries, the correct one). Other information provided in this section included the following: Finished area above grade contains: 8 Rooms, 5 Bedrooms, 2 Bath(s) 1,971 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade. Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.) THE SUBJECT HAS A COVERED ENTRY, TILE/WOOD FLOORS, CENTRAL AND UNIT A/C, CHAIN LINK FENCE, OPEN PARKING, ALUM. PATIO, AND GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovation, remodeling, etc.). NORMAL PHYSICAL DEPRECIATION FOR AGE. THE SUBJECT APPEARS TO BE IN OVERALL AVERAGE CONDITION. 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 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 sales" properties ("comparables") that she initially examined to estimate (using a sales comparison analysis) the market value of the Subject Property, and she provided information about these "comparables," as well as the Subject Property. The following were the three "comparables" Respondent selected for her sales comparison analysis: Comparable Sale 1, located at 2805 Southwest 4th Avenue in Miami (1.28 miles from the Subject Property); Comparable Sale 2, located at 460 Southwest 18th Terrace in Miami (.92 miles from the Subject Property); and Comparable Sale 3, located at 1285 Southwest 16th Street in Miami (1.18 miles from the Subject Property). It is alleged in numbered paragraph 13D. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact" that Respondent erred in using these "comparables" because none of them were "located in the Subject Property's defined market area."10 It is not at all clear from a review of the evidentiary record, however, what constituted the "Subject Property's defined market area," as that phrase is used in the Administrative Complaint,"11 and it therefore cannot be said, without hesitation, that any of these "comparables" were located outside of this "market area." The Report accurately reflected that the "comparables," as well as the Subject Property, were "Residential" properties. Contrary to the assertion made in numbered paragraph 13E. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact," "Respondent's use of single family Comparable Sales was [not] inappropriate," given that the Subject Property was a single-family residential property (that, according to the information Respondent had obtained from the client, Affordable, was being sold to an individual seeking a mortgage loan from Affordable to finance the purchase transaction), and Affordable had requested, and Respondent was performing, appropriately, an "SFA" to determine the value of this single-family residential property. That an ALF (which was not part of the purchase transaction) was operating on the premises of this single-family residential property did not render "Respondent's use of single family Comparable Sales . . . inappropriate." Comparative information relating to the three "comparables" chosen by Respondent and the Subject Property was set forth in a grid (Sales Comparison Grid) in the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report. On the "Design (Style)" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent indicated that the Subject Property was a "2 Story" structure. On the "Above Grade Room Count" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following with respect to the Subject Property and the three "comparables": Subject Property: 8 (Total); 5 (bdrms.); (Baths). Comparable Sale 1: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); (Baths). Comparable Sale 2: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); 1 (Bath). Comparable Sale 3: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). 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: $595,800.00; Comparable Sale 2: $571,400.00; and Comparable Sale 3: $628,700.00. At the end of the "Sales Comparison Approach" section (beneath the grid) was the following "Summary of Sales Comparison Approach" and "Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach": Summary of Sales Comparison Approach: SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SIMILAR TO ALL THREE COMPARABLE CLOSED SALES WHICH WERE CAREFULLY SELECTED AFTER AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH IN AND OUT OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS SEARCH CONSISTED OF ANALYZING NUMEROUS CLOSED SALES AND NARROWING THIS LIST DOWN TO THE THREE MOST SIMILAR. AFTER CLOSE EVALUATION OF THE THREE COMPARABLE SALES UTILIZED, ADJUSTMENTS TO ALL COMPARABLES[S] WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $590,000. In the first part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report, Respondent reiterated that $590,000.00 was the "Indicated Value by [the] Sales Comparison Approach," and she added that she used this approach in valuing the Subject Property because it "best reflect[ed] [the] action of buyers and sellers in the market place." The second and final part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read, in part, as follows: This appraisal is made x "as is," . . . . . Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, 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 $590,000, as of APRIL 25, 2007, which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal. The "date of inspection" was actually April 12, 2007, not April 25, 2007. On the third page of the Report, Respondent indicated that the "income approach [was] not applied [to determine the Subject Property's value] due to lack of rental data." 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 . . . . The appraisal report is subject to the following scope of work, intended use, definition of market value, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. Modifications, additions, or deletions to the intended use, intended user, definition of market value, or assumptions and limiting conditions are not permitted. The appraiser may expand the scope of work to include any additional research or analysis necessary, based on the complexity of this appraisal assignment. Modifications or deletions to the certifications are also not permitted. However additional certifications that do not constitute material alterations to this appraisal report, such as those required by law or those related to the appraiser's continuing education or membership in an appraisal organization, are permitted. 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, including the following definition of market value, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. The appraiser must, at a minimum: 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 this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he or she considers his or her own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. * * * STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it, except for information that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing this appraisal. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and will not render any opinions about the title. 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 fifth and sixth pages 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": 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.[12] 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. Appended to the Report was a "Supplemental Addendum," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: ALL SALES WERE CLOSED SALES AND CONSIDERED STRONG MARKET VALUE INDICATORS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THEY ARE RELATIVELY SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT IN TERMS OF LOCATION, QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION, RELATIVE SIZE, ROOM COUNT AND MARKET APPEAL. THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE AREA AND ALL SHARE THE SAME IF NOT SIMILAR NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES. ADJUSTMENTS WERE REQUIRED FOR SITE CONDITION, BATH, GLA, CARPORT AND POOL. AFTER EXTENSIVE RESEARCH, THE THREE SALES USED WERE DEEMED GOOD INDICATORS OF MARKET VALUE. EQUAL EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON ALL THREE SALES. * * * 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 used as a basis for the value conclusion. * * * 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. * * * 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. * * * CONDITIONS OF APPRAISAL PERSONAL PROPERTY/INTANGIBLE/NON-REALTY ITEMS Items of personal property and other non- realty items have not been included in the appraisal o[f] the subject property. The indicated Market Value for the subject property does not include items o[f] personal property or other non-realty property. * * * Via the "Supplemental Addendum," Respondent advised the reader of the Report that, where she had "conflicting information," she included in the Report only the data that was, in her view, "most reliable." While she did not, anywhere in the Report, specify or describe how this included data differed from the less reliable data she excluded, she was under no professional obligation to do so (contrary to the allegation made in numbered paragraph 13C. of the Administrative Complaint's "Essential Allegations of Material Fact"). Appended to the Report, in addition to the "Subject Front" photograph referenced above, were five other photographs: two additional photographs Respondent took when she was at the Subject Property on April 12, 2007 (a "Subject Rear" photograph and a "Subject Street" photograph); and an exterior photograph of each of the three "comparables." Also appended to the Report was a sketch of the Subject Property, showing it to be a two-story, five-bedroom, two-bath structure. Approximately two months after Respondent had developed and communicated the Report, Affordable asked her to examine two "additional comparables to support [the determination of] value" she had made. Respondent complied with this request. The two "additional comparables" she selected were Comparable Sale 4, located at 330 Southwest 29th Road in Miami (1.02 miles from the Subject Property), and Comparable Sale 5, located at 441 Southwest 29th Road in Miami (1.29 miles from the Subject Property). According to Respondent's calculations, Comparable Sale 4 had an "Adjusted Sale Price" of $603,800.00, and Comparable Sale 5 had an "Adjusted Sale Price" of $599,200.00. She further determined, and on or about June 25, 2007, reported to Affordable, that her analysis of these two additional comparables "support[ed] [her prior determination of] market value."13
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order finding the record evidence insufficient to support a finding of Respondent's guilt of any of the counts of the Administrative Complaint and, based upon such finding, dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2010, 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 28th day of January, 2010.
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 Should the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (the Board) take action against Respondent, a licensed real estate appraiser (appraiser), for violations set forth in Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (1995)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent is a state-licensed appraiser. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent, Fred Catchpole, and Rhonda Guy developed and communicated an appraisal report for property commonly known as 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida 32819. In developing the subject property appraisal report, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach were utilized. Additional Facts: Eventually the circumstances concerning the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (the Report) at the 693 Broad Street, Pensacola, Florida, property (the Property) came to Petitioner's attention upon a complaint. On February 13, 2001, the complaint was made. The complaint was made by Daniel Alvin Ryland, a Florida-licensed appraiser who has provided appraisal services in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in Florida. The investigation of the complaint covered the period February 20, 2001, through December 26, 2001. Benjamin F. Clanton was the principal investigator. At present, he is an investigator supervisor for Petitioner. He has held that position since 2002. Mr. Clanton started investigating appraisal cases in 1995, when he retired from the Birmingham Police Department in Birmingham, Alabama. In that year, he was employed by the Alabama Real Estate Appraisal Board. While there, he took three courses: the Appraisal of Real Estate, a 45-hour course; the Basic How to Appraise, a 25-hour course; and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP), a 16-hour course. He took an update in USPAP in 1997, a four-hour course. Mr. Clanton continued with Appraisal Institute courses or courses involving appraisal principles and procedures, basic income capitalization, residential case studies and a national USPAP course and other updates. As part of the investigation, Mr. Clanton interviewed Respondent Harrison. Mr. Clanton sought documentation from the Respondent in the interest of the recreation of the Cost Approach in the Report. Mr. Clanton asked for the work files supporting the Report. Respondent provided work files. Discrete information concerning recreation of the Cost Approach was not received by Mr. Clanton. From his observations related to the Cost Approach within the Report, Mr. Clanton describes problems with the calculations of the Cost Approach where the stated effective age in the comments on the Cost Approach was 25 years. That calculated to be significantly different, in his understanding, than the number used in the depreciation in the Cost Approach. The Report reflected a remaining economic life of 35 years and a total life expectancy of 60 years. He refers to the Report's statement of the effective age of the Property as 15 years. In his testimony, Mr. Clanton describes the age life depreciation method leading to establishment of the effective age but he was never qualified as an expert to allow consideration of the testimony on the age life depreciation method or other issues related to the Cost Approach. Therefore, no further facts are found on that topic. When interviewed by Mr. Clanton, Respondent Catchpole in DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL acknowledged that there were errors in the Cost Approach formulations attributed to Respondent Harrison. The nature of any errors was not explained. Without that explanation they become inconsequential. More particularly, the Property neighborhood is slightly north of Interstate 10 in Pensacola, Florida, west of Pine Forrest Road, to the west side of Highway 29, and south of Alternate 90. The Property is located in what is referred to as the Ensley area. The Property is one of the largest residences in the Ensley area, in particular in Ensley Gardens. Immediately off of Highway 29 are rows of commercial buildings. Behind those rows is a railroad track. The Property is about 200 feet from the railroad track. An Escambia County utilities substation, pumping station, is located north of the Property. The Escambia County public utilities facility is about 200 feet from the Property. The Property is located north of Broad Street. The Property is on a large lot. Homes across from the Property on Broad Street are located on smaller lots. The property is not in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The area of the subject property is not homogenous, in that the homes vary widely in quality, design, age and size. By choice of the appraiser, the Sales Comparison Approach was used in determining the appraisal for the Property. There were three comparable sales. At the time the Report was written the Property was 27 years old. Comparable sale one was two years old. Comparable sale two was 12 years old. Comparable sale three was 9 years old. The Property site was 120 feet by 260 feet according to the Report. This was larger than the comparable sales sites. Respondent, in providing information from the work file related to the Report, included information from a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for January 1997 from the Pensacola Association of Realtors. In reference to comparable sale one, the MLS refers to the location as Creekside Oaks Subdivision, a luxury home under construction and a Parade Home entry. It refers to a sprinkler system, pantry, cathedral ceilings, security alarm, two+ closets in the master bedroom, separate shower in the master bedroom, an open patio, laundry/utility room, on a golf course, with a two-car garage. It has a whirlpool for the master bedroom bath. It has double pane glass. In relation to comparable sale two, the MLS refers to soaring cathedral ceilings with a fireplace in living room and screen porch, a hot tub and gorgeous yard with pool. The pool is described as an in-ground pool. There is a reference to a unique atrium, an inside laundry, walk-in closets, sprinkler systems, laundry/utility room and security alarm. The MLS pertaining to comparable sale three refers to the Kings Road Subdivision in Cantonment, whereas the Report refers to the location as Pensacola. In relation to comparable sale three on Kings Road in Cantonment, that neighborhood has deed restrictions limiting the type of homes and the size of homes. It has a public sewer. It has underground utilities. It has a concrete curb and gutter. The house is described as having a fireplace, sprinkler system, screen porch, high ceilings, security alarm, two-car garage, with a garden tub in the master bath. It refers to a laundry inside. There is a pool. The Report in the section under the Comparable Sales Approach, under the sales comparison analysis that refers to design and appeal described the Property and the comparables as ranch/average. The Property and the comparable sales properties were all described as suburban-average as to location. The sites were described as average for the Property and inferior for the comparables with a $3000 positive adjustment in each comparable sale to compensate for the difference. The Property did not have a pool. Two of the comparable sales had pools. Mr. Clanton asked the Respondent to provide him with a second appraisal report on the Property. Respondent agreed to provide it and mailed it to Mr. Clanton. A second appraisal report was not received by Mr. Clanton. Nothing more is known about a second appraisal report. In the appraiser certification signed by Respondent as appraiser and signed by Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06- 3389PL, as supervisory appraiser, under item 8 it was stated: "I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property . . . ." Within item 8 to the appraisers certification, it went on to say that there was a personal inspection of " . . . the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report " Respondent in this case did not inspect the interior of the Property as part of the appraisal, by contrast to an awareness of the exterior. Respondent Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, served as the supervisory appraiser and as such did not inspect the Property in any respect. Respondent Fred R. Catchpole, DOAH Case No. 06-3389PL, reviewed comparable property data in relation to the sales comparison analysis but was not involved in the selection process in choosing comparable sales. The form used in preparing the Report is referred to variously as Freddie Mac Form 70 6/93 and Fannie Mae Form 1004 6/93. In the Report in the section involving subject matter, Fred and Juanita Hicks were listed as borrowers and the current owner of the Property. The property rights being appraised were under the heading "fee simple." There was a reference to a lender/client as Home Star Mortgage Lending. The results of the Report did not lead to any direct harm to a consumer, in particular, the listed borrowers, Fred and Juanita Hicks.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 30th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, committed the violations alleged in a seven-count Administrative Complaint, filed with the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on June 10, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her Florida real estate appraiser certification.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Division is charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license number 4120. The last license issued to Ms. Rodriguez is now an inactive Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser license at 12071 Southwest 131st Avenue, Miami Florida 33166. Appraisal of 6496 Southwest 24th Street. On or about June 1, 2007, Ms. Rodriguez developed, signed and communicated an appraisal report (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal”), for property located at 64967 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida 33155 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). At the time the Appraisal was made, Ms. Rodriguez was a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The Subject Property, however, was zoned BU-1, a commercial district. The Administrative Complaint entered against Ms. Rodriguez, however, does not allege that Ms. Rodriguez committed any violation by performing an appraisal on commercially zoned property. Errors and Omissions in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez on her sketch of the Subject Property contained in the Appraisal indicates that the total square footage of the Subject Property is 2,105 square feet. On the sketch, she breaks down the property into a 34.0 x 55.6 area of 1890.4 square feet, and a 5.0 x 43.0 area of 215 square feet. In her documentation for the Appraisal, Ms. Rodriguez notes that the adjusted square footage of the Subject Property is 1,890 square feet and that the property appraiser reported the square footage at 1,709 square feet. Ms. Rodriguez failed to verify that the reported 2,105 square feet contained in the Appraisal was accurate. Ms. Rodriguez admitted in her Answer and Response to Administrative Complaint, Respondent’s Exhibit 1, that she failed to verify that a rear addition to the Subject Property, most likely the 5.0 x. 43.0 additional area she measured, had not been permitted through Miami-Dade County. This unpermitted addition would account for the discrepancy in the square footage of the Subject Property noted in Ms. Rodriguez’s notes. Had she investigated the discrepancy in square footage, it is possible she would have discovered the unpermitted addition and reported it in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez indicates in the Appraisal that the Subject Property has a “porch.” The “porch” she was referring to is a rather small area in the front of the Subject Property which has an overhang. The evidence failed to prove that this area, which is depicted in photos accepted in evidence, does not constitute a “porch.” Ms. Rodriguez incorrectly indicated in the Appraisal that the Subject Property had a “patio.” Her suggestion that a “grass area” constituted a patio is rejected as unreasonable. While the Subject Property has a small “yard,” it does not have a patio. Ms. Rodriguez failed to indicate in the Appraisal that the Subject Property did not have any “appliances.” The fact that appliances were to be installed after closing fails to excuse this omission. Ms. Rodriguez did not make any adjustment for, or any explanation of, the 13-year age difference between the Subject Property and comparable sale 3. The Supplemental Addendum section of the Appraisal incorrectly reports that the Subject Property had wood floors and that it had a new pool deck. Ms. Rodriguez has admitted these errors, indicating that they are “[t]ypographical error[s] but did not effect value since no monetary adjustment was made.” Failure to Document. Ms. Rodriguez’s documentation for the Appraisal lacked a number of items, all of which Ms. Rodriguez admits were not maintained. The missing documentation included the following items which were not contained in her work file: Support for a $40 per square foot adjustment for comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a site size adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $1,500.00 “bathroom” adjustment to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $5,000.00 “good” location adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $4,000.00 garage adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $15,000.00 pool adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $350,000.00 Opinion of Site Value in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $10,000.00 adjustment for the “As Is” Value of Site Improvements in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $20,000.00 adjustment for Appliances/Porches/Patios/Etc. in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; and Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Appraisal was completed to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section lf the Appraisal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission: Finding that Ms. Rodriguez is guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One through Seven of the Administrative Complaint as found in this Recommended Order; Placing Ms. Rodriguez’s appraiser license on probation for a period of two years, conditioned on her successful completion of the 15-hour USPAP course; Requiring that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00; and Requiring that she pay the investigative costs incurred in this matter by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Ainslee R. Ferdie, Esquire Ferdie & Lones, Chartered 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 223 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jessalyn Rodriguez 9972 Southwest 125th Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.624(2), 475.624(14), and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the duty of licensing and regulating real estate appraisers in the State of Florida. Respondent is and was at all times material here a state-certified residential real estate appraiser. In January 1998, Petitioner issued Respondent residential real estate appraiser certificate number RD-0002524, with a business location of 2607 South Woodlawn Boulevard, No. 271, Deland, Florida, 32720. On or about March 5, 1998, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, as the buyer, and United Capital of Central Florida, Inc. (UCCF), as the seller, entered into a contract for sale and purchase of residential property ("the property") located at 236 Steward Terrace, Deltona, Florida. The contract lists the purchase price of the property as $54,500. Testimony developed at hearing indicates that UCCF did not own the property in fee simple. Instead, UCCF had an assignable contract to purchase the property. UCCF eventually assigned this contract to Ms. Palfrey. In March 1998, John E. Parrot owned both UCCF and Realnet USA. Both companies were located at the same address in Orlando, Florida. Both companies were involved to some extent in the real estate investment business. Competent evidence indicates that Realnet USA was a mortgage broker. Michael Mullvain was vice-president of UCCF and, as such, had signature authority for that company. Mr. Mullvain, a licensed real estate broker, also was the general manager of Realnet USA. On or about March 5, 1998, Mr. Mullvain and/or his assistant at Realnet USA, Tammie Wright, faxed a request for an appraisal of the property to Certified Appraisal Service (CAS), which was located in Winter Park, Florida. The appraisal request was made on behalf of USCCF and directed to the attention of Cecil and Teresa Wright. UCCF and Realnet USA were frequent clients of CAS. Realnet USA had requested CAS to provide as many as 200 similar appraisals in the past. The appraisal request for the property stated that the projected sale price was $79,000. The request contained the following comments: "House to be brought up to FHA specifications with central A/C, new kitchen, and baths." The request also included the following statement: "Cecil: Paul said you have already done some research on the property for him. Please go ahead with drive-by appraisal as usual." In requesting a drive-by appraisal, Mr. Mullvain intended for the appraiser to take note of needed repairs. He wanted an estimate of what the property would be worth based on the repairs being requested. At the time that the appraisal request was made, Mr. Mullvain knew that the property was distressed. His purpose in requesting the appraisal was to determine what the property would be worth if it was brought up to minimum Federal Housing Administration (FHA) standards. These standards require that all surface areas be serviceable. They also require anything that functions to function properly. FHA specifications take into consideration paint, carpet, kitchen, central air conditioning, windows, etc. In other words, the house must be habitable to pass an FHA appraisal inspection. Mr. Mullvain understood that he was ordering a proposed appraisal based on a comparable market analysis of the property's future value after repairs. He did not expect an appraisal based on a cost approach and an income approach, as well as a sales comparison approach. When Mr. Mullvain ordered the appraisal, he did not intend for it to be used by anyone other than UCCF. However, Mr. Mullvain testified that a salesperson would have given the appraisal to potential buyers upon request or in a package to provide additional information about the property. According to its normal business practice, Realnet USA prepared a rehabilitation summary for the property, showing the expected cost of repair. This document listed the following repair items and costs: (a) landscape, $100; (b) roof, $0.00; (c) exterior, $600; windows/doors, $100; (d) kitchen, $200; (e) plumbing-bath, $200; (f) paint & ceilings, $650; (g) carpet, $200; (h) subcontractors, $500; (i) central A/C, $100; (j) termite, $100; (k) appliances, $250; and (l) other, $0.00. The total expected repair cost was $3,000. Realnet USA kept this rehabilitation summary in its file for the property. No one provided a copy of the document to Respondent. Respondent occasionally worked for CAS as an independent contractor. Cecil Wright would call Respondent and ask her to prepare appraisals for Realnet USA. Respondent understood that all appraisal reports for Realnet USA should produce a proposed estimate of value based on the assumption that improvements were to be "better than new" when repairs and renovations were complete. Respondent prepared these reports on forms specified by Mr. Wright and sent them to him without signing her name under her typed signature and without identifying her state-certified residential appraiser number. In March 1998, Mr. Wright requested Respondent to prepare an appraisal report on the property for Realnet USA. He asked her to use a Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) form contained in his computer software. Respondent understood that she would be using the forms to prepare a "restricted appraisal," showing the estimated market value of the property as it would exist after improvements were made to bring the house up to FHA specifications, including central air conditioning, a new kitchen, and new baths. Respondent also understood that the appraisal was intended only for Realnet USA's use. After accepting the assignment, Respondent went to the property. She observed the neighborhood and the exterior and interior of the house. She took pictures of the property. As to the exterior of the house, Respondent observed wood damage. She concluded that the damage was probably the result of termites or some other kind of pest infestation. There were little holes in the back of the house. As to the interior of the house, Respondent noted that the kitchen needed new cabinets and appliances. One of two baths needed repairs because the toilet shared plumbing with the kitchen refrigerator's icemaker, which was located on the other side of the wall. The other bathroom had a brick shower stall. Respondent saw that someone had renovated a one-car garage, changing it into living space, but leaving the supporting roof beams exposed. After visiting the property, Respondent performed the necessary research to complete her assignment. This research included performing a computer search of the local multiple listing service and public records to find comparable properties. Respondent did not make and file copies of documents that supported any of her research results. She did take pictures of the properties that she chose as comparable. On March 9, 1998, Respondent produced the report described below. The computer-generated cover page identifies Realnet USA as the entity requesting the appraisal and provides a file number. The following is the only other information on the cover page: In accordance with your request, I have personally made an exterior inspection from the street in front of the real property at: 235 Steward Terrace Deltona, Florida 32738 The purpose of this report is to estimate the market value of the subject property observed. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of March 7, 1998, is: $79,000 Seventy-Nine Thousand The attached report contains the description, analysis, and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Next, Respondent filed in the two-page Freddie Mac form. The form states as follows at the top: "This form may be used if the second mortgage will not exceed $15,000 and value is based on 'as is' condition." On the form, Respondent typed in UCCF as the borrower. She indicated that the 1,556 square-foot house had six rooms, including three bedrooms, two baths, a family room, and no garage/carport. She noted that the house had central air conditioning. In the Field Report section of the form, Respondent provided information regarding the neighborhood, adding the following comments: "The subject is located in well-established neighborhood conveniently located to schools, shopping, employment, places of worship, and major arteries. There are no apparent adverse factors which would affect the subject's marketability." Respondent also typed information about the property, indicating that it was a detached, rambler-style, building with frame/siding exterior walls and a composite shingle roof material. In the section for favorable or unfavorable comments including any deferred maintenance, Respondent stated as follows: "When renovated to meet FHA/HUD standards, the subject will be a well built dwelling that projects good eye appeal. Functional utility will be average. The subject will meet expectations of purchases in this price range." In a section of the form labeled "Market Comparable Analysis Prior to Improvement," Respondent used the data she had collected from the local multiple listing service and public records to describe four pieces of property that she considered comparable. The four houses that Respondent listed as comparable were located one to fifteen miles from the subject property. Respondent listed the sale price of each house all of which sold between September 1997 and December 1997. Comparable one through four sold for $79,000; $77,700; $85,700; and $77,200, respectively. Respondent included the following general comments about her sales comparable approach: "Sale 3 is located more than one mile from the subject but was included for support purposes to the report. Depreciation is based on the subject being renovated and having an effective life of 3 years. Depreciation is calculated using 1% per year of effective age." Under the general comments in very fine print, the form states as follows: The information shown in this report is derived from an inspection of the neighborhood and exterior inspection of the subject property and market comparisons. The estimated market value is based upon this information and the knowledge of the undersigned. This report is not to be construed as an appraisal report. Respondent filled in the blank for the estimated value of the subject property as $79,000 as of March 7, 1998. She typed in her name as the person completing the report without signing her name under her typed signature and without identifying her state-certified residential appraiser number. Respondent attached the following to the report before she sent it to Cecil Wright at CAS: (a) subject property photo addendum containing three pictures that Respondent took of the property; (b) comparable property photo addendum containing pictures that Respondent took of the four comparable houses described in the report; (c) sketch/area table addendum of the subject property that Respondent prepared. Respondent testified that she also attached some certification pages to her report. However, the record contains no such documents. Respondent expected Mr. Wright to complete the report and sign his name as her supervising/review appraiser. Respondent did not keep a copy of the report she sent to Mr. Wright. The record contains two copies of Respondent's report, the first of which was eventually sent to Realnet USA. The first report contains the following alterations from the work personally prepared by Respondent: (a) An unidentified individual added Respondent's alleged hand-written initials under her typed name at the end of the Freddie Mac form; and (b) An unidentified individual added the alleged signature of Cecil Wright and his alleged state-certified residential appraiser number at the end of the Freddie Mac form. The first copy of the report includes only the cover page and the Freddie Mac form described above that Respondent prepared. It does not include the pictures or sketch prepared by Respondent or any other addendum. Respondent copied the second copy of the report from CAS's files after the initiation of Petitioner's investigation in this case. The second copy of the report includes the pictures and sketch prepared by Respondent but does not contain hand-written initials under Respondent's typed name or Mr. Wright's alleged signature and appraiser number at the end of the Freddie Mac form. Instead, it contains the following additions: (a) three maps prepared by an unidentified individual showing the location of the subject property and the four comparable properties; (b) a CAS certification page, attached by an unidentified individual; and (c) a page setting forth a certification and statement of limiting conditions together with contingent and limiting conditions, attached by an unidentified individual. The first certification page, attached to the second copy of the report, states as follows in relevant part: CERTIFIED APPRAISAL SERVICE CERTIFICATION * * * The appraiser has inspected all improvement on this property, but does not warrant the condition of the roof, floors, appliances, plumbing, electrical, heating and air conditioning. Only a visual inspection has been made and it is assumed that all are in serviceable condition for the purpose of this appraisal. Unless noted, it is assumed the subject property is free from termite infestation. * * * The value estimate is -as is- unless otherwise stated. Certification of Appraiser/Review Appraiser (If applicable) As of the date of this report, Cecil Wright, SRA has completed the requirement of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Cecil Wright is a State-Certified Residential Appraiser-No.RD 0000219. Additional Certification of the Appraisal Institute The appraisal analysis and opinion were developed and this appraisal report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Apraisal [sic] Foundation, and the requirements of the code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. * * * Definition of Client Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser's or firm's client (the client is defined as the person or firm ordering the appraisal from the appraiser), through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent or approval of the authors, particularly as to valuation conclusions. . . . Termite information The appraiser makes a cursory inspection of the exterior wood on the dwelling for the purpose of determining whether there is wood rot, possible termite damage or any other wood related problems. The appraiser is not qualified to determine if any damage is caused by termites as this is beyond our expertise. Should we find any rotted wood damage that requires attention it will be mentioned in the appraisal report. . . . The last certification page attached to the second copy of the report, states as follows in relevant part: CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS Certification: The drive-by inspector certifies and agrees that: * * * The drive-by inspector has inspected the exterior of the property only and that inspection may be limited to what can be seen from the street. To the best of the drive-by inspector's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct and that the drive-by inspector has not knowingly withheld any significant information. It is assumed that the interior is in good condition but it must be noted that a more complete exterior inspection and/or an interior inspection could produce a substantial change in value from that value indicated in this report. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the undersigned affecting the analyses opinion, and conclusions contained in this report). All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the report were prepared by the drive-by inspector whose signature appears on the report, unless indicated as 'reviewer.' No change of any item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the appraiser or the reviewer whose names appear on the report, and the appraiser, the reviewer, or their firm shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the drive-by inspector is subject to the following conditions in addition to any other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the drive-by inspector in the report: * * * 5. The inspector assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The inspector assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. * * * Disclosure of the contents of the report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organization with which the inspector is affiliated. Neither all, not any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value . . .) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns . . . without the previous written consent of the inspector, nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public . . . without the written consent and approval of the inspector. On all reports, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alteration, the report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a professional workmanlike manner. At the end of this last certification page, an unidentified individual signed Respondent's alleged initials as the drive-by inspector. Mr. Wright's alleged signature and appraiser number also appears at the bottom of the page. Respondent's three-page appraisal report did not include the following or state why these factors were not considered: (a) a label or title indicating that the report was restricted in scope as opposed to a conventional summary report; (b) an accurate statement regarding the report's intended use or purpose; (c) a statement regarding the property's highest and best use; (d) a cost approach analysis including an estimate of site value and an estimate of the value of the improvement, together with comments describing the sources used to compute the cost estimate, site value, and square footage; (e) an income approach analysis; (f) a history of prior sales or listing information for the property even though Respondent knew it had been on the market for 18 months for $61,500 and had not sold for that price; (g) an addenda explaining relevant information and including any departures from USPAP not otherwise included in the report; (h) a standard language explaining the scope of appraisal and the appraisal process; (i) a standard language of additional comments, explanations and limiting conditions; (j) a statement of contingent and limiting conditions and appraiser's certification, including the supervisory appraiser's certification; and (k) the signature of appraiser and/or supervisory appraiser, together with their respective state certification numbers. On or about August 12, 1998, William Wynn, inspected the subject property. He prepared a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report on August 17, 1998. Mr. Wynn's report lists Deborah Palfrey as current owner and borrower. It lists Pinnacle Financial Corp. as lender/client. Mr. Wynn's report describes the neighborhood of the property. The report includes comments describing market conditions and factors that affect the marketability of the properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Wynn's report described the property's site, stating that its highest and best use was its present use. It also includes a description of improvements on the property, indicating that the interior floors, walls, trims/finish, bath floor, bath wainscot, and doors were in good condition. Mr. Wynn added the following comments about the condition of the improvement: "The improvements are of average quality construction maintained in good condition. No repairs required at the time of inspection. The garage has been converted into living area." Mr. Wynn's report provides an estimate of the property's value using the cost approach. Regarding the cost approach, Mr. Wynn made the following comments: See attached sketch. Cost calculations are based on Marshall and Swift Guidelines and information for local contractors. Physical depreciation is based on observed conditions and estimated by the age/life method. Land [is] valued by abstraction, sales comparison, and typical ratio of land to improvement for the area. The estimated remaining economic life is 49 years. Mr. Wynn's report provides an estimate of the property's value using a sales comparison analysis. In making this analysis, Mr. Wynn compared the subject property to three comparables. Regarding the sales comparison approach, Mr. Wynn made the following relevant comments: The subject and the three comparable sales are located in Deltona Lakes. See the addendum for additional comments explaining the adjustments for the differences in gross living area and explanation for sales dated over six months. The three closed sales used in the sales comparison approach provide a reliable range of value for the appraiser property. *See Addendum. * * * The subject was listed at $57,500, in the first part of 1998. The subject sold for $50,000 March 1998. Mr. Wynn's report states that the appraisal was made "as is" and not subject to repairs. As part of the final reconciliation, the report states as follows: Emphasis is on the sales comparison approach because it reflects current market trends for similar properties. Typically homes in the subject's neighborhood are not purchased for income; therefore, the income approach was not applied. Cost approach is not required. Mr. Wynn concluded in his report that the property's estimated value was $60,000 as of August 12, 1998. He then signed his name and identified his state certification number. Mr. Wynn attached a General Text Addendum to his report, which states as follows: The comparables are closed sales in the subject's market area. All three sales are considered to be reasonable substitutes for the appraised property. Sale #2 and #3, although dated over six months is [sic] considered a reliable value indicator due to stable market conditions for the time period covered. The subject has a family room 19.9 x 19.8 that is a garage converted to heated and air-conditioned living area. The adjustments for the differences in living area are made at a lower than typical amount ($20 per sq. foot) because the ceiling in the family room has exposed roof trusses (painted). There is no finished drywall ceiling in the family room to cover the roof trusses. The appraiser was not able to bracket the subject in gross living area with a similar comparable sale. Mr. Wynn attached the following additional information to his report: (a) two maps showing the location of the subject property and the comparables; (b) three pictures of the subject property and pictures of the comparables; (c) a sketch/area table addendum; (d) a copy of his curriculum vitae; (e) a definition of market value; (f) a statement of contingent and limiting conditions; (g) an appraiser's certification; and (h) a supervisory appraiser's certification. Mr. Wynn then signed his name to the report and identified his state certification number. Mr. Wynn did not have a supervisory appraiser in making his report. In September 1998, Peter T. Woods, a state-certified general appraiser, requested his employee, Walter A. Drumb, a state-certified residential appraiser, to perform an appraisal of the subject property. Subsequently, Mr. Drumb prepared a Summary Appraisal Report using the form for a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report. The report lists Jean Palfrey as the borrower and Pinnacle Financial Corp. as the lender/client. Mr. Drumb's report states that "[t]he intended use of the appraisal is to aid in mortgage loan negotiations." Mr. Drumb's report also comments that "[t]he dwelling appears to be of average quality construction and in good physical condition with no functional inadequacies noted." In making his report, Mr. Drumb used two approaches: (a) the cost approach; and (b) the sales comparison analysis. The report states that the income approach was not used "due to a lack of reliable market rental data in the subject neighborhood." Regarding the cost approach, Mr. Drumb included the "as is" value of site improvements and made the following comments: "No functional or external obsolescence noted. Cost approach was prepared using Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Handbook and local cost estimates. See attached addendum for measurements. Estimated remaining economic life: 52 years." Regarding the sales comparison analysis, Mr. Drumb made the following comments: "The subject conveyed in March 1998 for $50,000. The public records reveal no prior sales of the comparable sales within the past year." Mr. Drumb concluded that the property had an estimated market value of $63,000 as of September 11, 1998. His report indicates that the appraisal was made "as is" and not subject to repairs and alterations. Mr. Drumb signed his report and identified his state-certified residential appraiser number. Mr. Woods also signed the report as the supervising appraiser and identified his state-certified general appraiser number. Mr. Drumb included an addendum to his report that explained his choice of comparables. He included a floor plan, pictures of the subject property and the properties used as comparables, a map showing the locations of the subject property and comparables, and a subdivision plat. Mr. Drumb included a page in his report that explained the scope of the appraisal and the appraisal process in detail. Finally, Mr. Drumb attached three pages to his report, setting forth additional comments, explanations, and limiting conditions. Included in these comments was a statement of limiting conditions and appraiser's certification. Mr. Drumb and his supervisory appraiser, Mr. Woods, signed the final certification page and identified their state-certified appraiser numbers. Petitioner's investigator, Robert Baird, has personal knowledge of the property as he resided on the same street as the property at all times material here. In late 1997 or early 1998, prior to investigating the complaint, Mr. Baird viewed the property and thought that it was in a state of disrepair. Mr. Baird inspected the property for second time on or about May 17, 1999, as part of his investigation. At that time, the property appeared to have been renovated as compared to its condition in early 1998. In the course of the investigation, Mr. Baird interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent stated that her estimated value of the property included "with improvements." Respondent later admitted that she "could understand how individuals could misunderstand her estimate of value if they were not aware that it was based on proposed renovations." In either case, Respondent was unable to furnish Mr. Baird with documentation to support her estimated value of the property with or without improvements. Respondent admitted in the hearing that the cost of renovating the house could have been more than the renovated house would have been worth. She admitted that, based on her personal experience, the proposed renovations could cost in excess of $20,000, excluding any termite or wood rot. Respondent knew Realnet USA wanted the appraisal to help it "determine whether the house was worth it to purchase or not." If Respondent's estimated value of the property was $79,000 as it existed on March 7, 1998, and as stated on the cover page of her report, then her estimated value was substantially higher than the property's "as is" market value. If Respondent's estimated value of the property was $79,000, taking into consideration the appraisal request for an estimate of the market value after proposed renovations to meet minimum FHA standards, then Respondent failed to place a stated value on the estimated cost for each proposed renovation. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that USPAP required her to prepare an addendum to include necessary information such as prior sales history when the restricted form she was using did not include that information. She acknowledged that she was required to comply with 1998 USPAP even if she was unfamiliar the publication's contents and despite her client's request for something less than a conventional appraisal. Competent evidence indicates that appraisal reports by state-certified residential appraisers are seldom, if ever, free of errors. Certain information is always subjective as it is based upon the appraisers' personal experience and expertise. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion in the profession as to the precise information that a "restricted appraisal" must include. Nevertheless, USPAP requires the all appraisal reports prepared by state-certified residential appraisers to contain certain basic information or an explanation as to any departures from those requirements. At times, a supervisory/review appraiser will make changes to an appraiser's report. Knowing that a supervisory appraiser has this prerogative, does not mean that an appraiser is allowed to submit an incomplete appraisal report with the expectation that the review appraiser will complete the report and sign the appraiser's name. Clear and convincing evidence in this case indicates that the three-page appraisal report prepared by Respondent and submitted to Mr. Wright was substantially deficient and resulted in Realnet USA's receipt of an ambiguous, contradictory, and misleading appraisal based on unverifiable data.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order, suspending Petitioner's certification for one year followed by one year of probation in which Respondent shall be required to complete 30 hours of continuing education courses in addition to the courses required to maintain licensure and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Steven W. Johnson, P.A. 1801 East Colonial Drive Suite 101 Orlando, Florida 32803 Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Herbert R. Fisher, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
