The Issue Whether, under section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, Petitioner, Garber Housing Resorts, LLC ("Garber"), is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees incurred because of responding to three specific pleadings filed by Respondent, Glenda Q. Mahaney ("Mahaney"), and if so, the amount of such reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact On March 27, 2019, DEP issued an SRCO after reviewing a limited groundwater assessment dated May 9, 2018, which included a recommendation for risk management option level one. DEP's SRCO stated that the prior conditional SRCO was being replaced because the limited groundwater assessment "demonstrates that conditions on the property have changed and improved such that the [conditional SRCO] is no longer appropriate.” Mahaney's May 13, 2019, petition and Garber's May 23, 2019, motion to dismiss were referred to DOAH on June 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 19-3429. Garber's petition was 77 pages, 654 paragraphs, and contained 56 pages of attachments. 2 The Office Depot email suggested that an email was sent on January 4, 2020, but without the documents attached. The email address to which the document was allegedly sent was "AskDOAH," which is not a proper method for filing pleadings. The November 6, 2019, Notice from DOAH opening this fees case explained that "Parties not represented may file electronically through eALJ, facsimile, or mail. CHOOSE ONE METHOD of filing for each document." On July 18, 2019, Mahaney's petition was dismissed with leave to amend as legally insufficient under Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201(2). The petition also contained irrelevant allegations that were not cognizable in an environmental administrative proceeding. Mahaney was allowed ten days to file an amended petition that "shall comply with the requirements of rule 28-106.201(2) and shall not contain the irrelevant and immaterial allegations discussed in this Order." On August 1, 2019, DEP received from Mahaney a document titled "Petitioner's 7-25-2019 Amended 5-9-2019 Petition for Hearing Regarding SRCO Dated Dated [sic] 3-27-2019 for Lamont Garber and/or Garber Housing Resorts, Inc., and Motion for Summary Proceedings Regarding Issues Admitted by FDEP and/or Motion to Immediately Revoke SRCO or Motion to Abate Proceedings Until Such Time as Petitioner's Property is Tested" ("amended petition"). DEP forwarded Mahaney's amended petition to DOAH on August 5, 2019. The amended petition was 69 pages, 690 paragraphs, and contained 59 pages of attachments. Garber had already filed, on August 2, 2019, its motion to dismiss the amended petition. On August 13, 2019, Mahaney filed her response to Garber's motion to dismiss the amended petition. A Recommended Order of Dismissal was issued on August 19, 2019, finding that the amended petition remained legally insufficient. The amended petition still contained irrelevant allegations concerning issues outside the subject matter of the SRCO. Those issues included a property boundary dispute, trespass and nuisance claims, alleged violations of pollution laws, alleged non-compliance with local land use regulations, flooding issues, and stormwater runoff issues. DEP issued its Final Order on November 1, 2019. Attached to the Final Order provided to DOAH were Mahaney's exceptions and Garber's responses to exceptions that had been timely filed with DEP. The Final Order denied each of Mahaney's exceptions, adopted the Recommended Order of Dismissal, and approved the SRCO. Mahaney is opposed to Garber's plan to develop the property that is the subject of DEP's SRCO. It was clear from Mahaney's testimony and her history of challenging remediation actions taken by Garber and prior property owners, that her primary purpose for bringing the underlying proceeding was her concern for potential contamination of her well and property. In addition, she was concerned that the SRCO did not "certify the entire [Garber] property as clean." Because of Mahaney's stated belief that DEP has not done its job over the years with regard to Garber's property and her property, she had challenged the prior conditional SRCO, and then the replacement SRCO. In addition, Mahaney testified that additional remediation occurred on Garber's property in February 2019, approximately a month before DEP issued the SRCO. She obtained a letter that was from the remediation company to Mr. Lamont Garber describing the remediation activities. Through reasonable inquiry, she learned that the letter was not in DEP's possession at the time of issuing the SRCO. The circumstances surrounding Mahaney's filing of her petition, amended petition, and exceptions show that her pleadings were not filed for an improper purpose. Garber's expert on reasonable attorney's fees reviewed the invoices of legal fees and the filings in the underlying proceeding. He testified that the time spent and legal fees incurred by Garber responding to Mahaney's pleadings and litigating entitlement to fees, were reasonable.3 Mahaney did not present an expert to dispute his testimony. 3 Garber's Composite Exhibit No. 1 consisted of nine invoices for legal services and three prebilling reports dated through January 21, 2020, which was the date of the final hearing. One invoice and one prebilling report addressed a separate matter titled "Maitland Rezone." One invoice did not separate Mahaney's petition from a separate petition filed by Corinne Garrett. The time spent on the underlying proceeding and this fees case reflected in the other seven invoices and two prebilling reports, total $16,621.00.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joseph A. Kopec, was a candidate on the real estate salesman examination given on December 17, 1984 in Orlando, Florida. The test is administered by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division), and requires a score of 75 to pass. Petitioner received a score of 73. The salesman's licensing examination is developed by Respondent and is based on reference books authorized and published by the Division. It contains 100 questions, each having a value of one point. As noted above, seventy five questions must be answered correctly in order to pass the examination. If a candidate wishes to review his examination after his test score is received, he may request a review session with a Division representative in Orlando. Kopec did so, and was given a copy of examination questions and the appropriate answers in order that he might compare the same with the answers which he gave on the test. After reviewing this material, he notified the Division that he wished to challenge questions 58, 62 and 71, and the grading procedures used on the examination. Thereafter, a validation committee comprised of an attorney, the Division education director, and the Division examination development specialist met and reviewed the three questions, found the Division's answers to be correct, and the grading procedures consistent with Division rules. Petitioner was so notified, thereby triggering this proceeding. Other than his own testimony, Petitioner offered no evidence to show that his answers to the above questions were the most correct. At hearing he conceded that his answer to question 58 was incorrect leaving only two questions under challenge. Uncontroverted expert testimony clearly established that Petitioner's answers to the two remaining questions were incorrect, that the challenged questions were drawn from the authorized reference books, and were not "unclear" or "ambiguous" in any respect. Moreover, the procedures used to grade the examination were consonant with agency rules and instructions on the test booklet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that no change be made to Petitioner's grade on the real estate salesman examination. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph A. Kopec 1107 Live Oak New Smyrna Beach, FL 32069 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esq. 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate appraisers in the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, part II, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaints, Respondent has been a certified residential real estate appraiser, and has been issued license number RD 1226. Respondent has been licensed since 1991 and has no history of disciplinary action taken against his license. He trades as Rhea Appraisals, Inc., located in Gainesville, Florida. For the period from October 23, 2009, through May 12, 2010, Respondent was the supervising appraiser for registered trainee appraiser Leslie Corey Bullard. From October 8, 2009, through at least July 2011, he also supervised registered trainee appraiser Beverly Sanders Archer. Respondent was Mr. Bullard's first supervising appraiser. The Program Alachua County elected to participate in the federally- funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"), which is administered on the state level by the Department of Community Affairs. To that end, Alachua County contracted with Meridian Community Services Group ("Meridian") to assist in the implementation of the program. In a nutshell, the NSP is a program by which the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding for local governments to acquire properties in order to rehabilitate them and re-sell them to low-to-moderate-income households, or to rent them to very low-income households. As explained at hearing, properties that are acquired through the program cannot be sold for more than the costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, and "soft costs." As a result, the local government can only purchase the property at one percent or below the appraised value. In 2010, Alachua County solicited bids for appraisers to appraise properties that it considered buying through the NSP. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., obtained a contract to appraise 20 of the properties for the program. Corey Bullard was involved in the procurement of the contract to perform the appraisals. The listing price for the properties was generally the price listed in the multiple listing service ("MLS"). Alachua County had instructed that the offer for the properties considered for purchase was to be at the listing price. Once the appraisal was performed, if it appraisal did not come in at within one percent of the listing price, then the offer is amended to reflect one percent below the appraisal. If the seller does not agree to the change, that property is not purchased. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., was to be paid $225.00 for each property appraised. Payment for the appraisal was not dependant on the results of the appraisal. At issue in these cases are the appraisals for three properties. For each of these properties, two appraisals were actually performed. The Initial Appraisals An appraisal was communicated by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for a property located at 3009 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 1, related to Case No. 11-3007), on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). The appraisal report is signed by Cory Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Corey Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the report, and the appraisal is signed by both Mr. Bullard and Respondent on April 8, 2010. The appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $52,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $65,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering data into this report." Included in the appraisal's certification are the following statements: 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 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. 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. An appraisal report for a property located at 12017 NW 164th Terrace, Alachua, Florida (Property 2) was communicated on April 6, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, related to Case No. 11- 3008). The appraisal report is signed by Corey Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Mr. Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the appraisal, and the appraisal is signed by both Respondent and Mr. Bullard on April 6, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $75,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $105,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering date into this report. Appraiser won the bid for 20 properties from Meridian Community Services for $225 each." Like the report for Property 1, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., also issued an appraisal report for property located at 2923 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 3, related to Case No. 11-3009), signed by Respondent on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The report indicates that the date of the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales, and effective date of the report, is April 5, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $54,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $69,900. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Beverly Archer, state registered trainee appraiser #RT2255 provided assistance in the gathering of data, measuring and photographing the subject dwelling, and drafting information into the URAR." Like the report for Properties 1 and 2, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. The Second Appraisals Subsequently, a second appraisal was developed by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for each of these properties. Property 1 (11-3007) A second report developed for Property 1 (Petitioner's Exhibit 14), has an invoice attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $66,000, compared to the County's offer of $65,000. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 2, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $52,000. There are no notations in the Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification section of the report, and while the appraiser's certification includes the same statement quoted as paragraph 19 in finding of fact 15, the first statement, although similar, states: 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following additional differences: On page one of the report, in response to the question, "[a]re there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property?", the statement "[s]ubject is not functional in the current state as of inspection date" has been deleted in the second appraisal. In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 1 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition for comparable sale 2 is listed as "average." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 4 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "average." In the first report, the condition of what was described as comparable sale 6 is listed as "average." In the second report, the original comparable sale 5 is deleted and comparable sale 6 is listed as comparable 5. Its condition is described as "inferior." Respondent's work papers to not provide an explanation for the changes made from the first report to the second report for this property. Property 2 (No. 11-3008) The second appraisal for Property 2 has an invoice for $225 attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser, as opposed to Corey Bullard. The opinion of value is $105,000, which matches the initial offer by the County. The report contains two different effective dates: on page 2 the report states that the effective date is April 2, 2010, while the signature block on page 6 indicates that the effective date is April 6, 2010. The date of the signature and report is April 14, 2010. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: In the first report, the estimated cost to cure the stated deficiencies was listed as $20,000.00. In the second report, this amount is reduced to $15,000.00. In the first report, the condition adjustment for comparable sale 1 is -$27,389.00, for a gross adjustment of 41 percent. In the second report, the condition adjustment was -$6,389, for a gross adjustment of 23.2 percent. The location adjustment for comparable sale 1 is changed from -$10,000 in the first report to no adjustment at all in the second report. The condition adjustment in the first report for comparable sale 2 is -$40,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$25,000.00. The location description for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report as "urban/sup." In the second report, it is listed as "suburban/sup." The location adjustment for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report, as -$20,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$10,000.00. The condition for comparable sale 3 is changed from "superior" in the first report to "average" in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$2,000. The location description for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as "suburban/sup" and changed in the second report to "suburban." The location adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as +$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to +$2,000.00. The basement adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00 in the first report, and as -$5,000.00 in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$15,000.00. The location adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$10,000.00. The condition of comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as "superior." It is changed in the second report to "average." The condition adjustment for comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. Respondent's work papers for Property 2 do not provide any explanation for the changes noted above. The second report for Property 3 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) also has an invoice attached, which states "summary complete." The summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $71,000, compared to the County's offer of $69,900. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 5, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $54,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: The first report contains six comparable sales. The second contains only four, and of those four, only two (those with the highest value) from the first report were included in the second report. The property located at 2610 NE 12th Street was listed as comparable sale 4 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The gross living adjustment for this property was listed as -$2,025.00, while in the second report it is listed as -$1,620.00. With respect to this same property, the carport adjustment listed in the first report is +$1,500.00, and is listed as +$2,000.00 in the second report. The property located at 2703 NE 11th Street was listed as comparable sale 6 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The condition adjustment for this property is changed from no adjustment in the first report to +$10,900.00 in the second report. With respect to this comparable sale, the gross living adjustment listed in the first report is -$7,125.00 while it is listed as -$2,340.00 in the second report. In the first report, as part of the cost approach to estimating value, the remaining estimated life for Property 3 is listed as 17 years, while in the second report it is listed as 32 years. Similarly, the depreciation figure listed in the first report is $94,524.00, while in the second report it is listed as $76,797.00. Respondent's work papers for Property 3 provide no explanations for the changes listed above. The Explanations All three of the initial appraisals, as well as all three of the second appraisals, state that the price of the property was to be determined by the appraisals, and that the appraiser had requested a copy of the contract and was told they would be forwarded at a later time. After submission of the first appraisals, Corey Bullard testified that he received a telephone call from Esrone McDaniels from Meridian regarding the opinions of value, indicating that the opinions were too low. Mr. McDaniels does not recall such a conversation. What is clear, however, is that at some point Mr. McDaniels spoke to Mr. Rhea regarding the program to explain the mechanics of the process for the NSP. On April 13, 2010, Mr. McDaniels sent an e-mail to Mr. Rhea with the title "Alachua County Properties." The e-mail contained a table listing nine properties, including Properties 1-3. The table contained columns listing the property addresses; the initial offer amount; the final acquisition amount (if the sale was completed); and the appraised value. The appraised values listed in the chart for Properties 1-3 were the opinions of value listed in the first reports described, i.e., the lower values. Along with the chart was the following message: Mr. Rhea - - per our conversation, please find the information requested. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. As stated, per the program requirements, our properties must be purchased at or below 99% of the appraised value. For example, since HUD won't adjust the purchase price, the initial offer should be a minimum 99% of the appraised value. Therefore, the appraisal should represent 1% above the initial offer price above. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Mr. Bullard was aware of the preparation of the second reports and was not comfortable with them being developed. He made excuses not to return to work, pass protected his electronic signature and filed a complaint against Respondent with the Department. Mr. Bullard also testified that Respondent's electronic signature was not pass-protected, and that all of the office staff had access to it. No evidence was presented to refute this statement. However, there is also no evidence that Mr. Bullard ever used Respondent's electronic signature without his consent, or that he failed to supervise Bullard's work. To the contrary, Mr. Bullard testified that for the two appraisals with which he was involved, Respondent provided supervision and approved the appraisals before they were communicated to the client. While the second appraisal reports for two of the three properties indicate that the date of the signature predated the e-mail from Esrone McDaniels, the only appraisal values listed in the e-mail are for the original, lower values. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that the only plausible explanation is that the appraisals were backdated to reflect an earlier effective date. Mr. McDaniel vehemently denied that he ever told Respondent to "hit a certain value with an appraisal, saying "Absolutely not. I don't have the authority to do that and I would never do that." He believed that the underlined sentence in his e-mail was part of his attempt to "explain the program, period," and was one example to drive across the one-percent federal requirement. Mr. Rhea, on the other hand, in his response to the Department's complaint, stated the following: Let's start with the orders or bids, Alachua County was allotted 3 to 4 million dollars to buy property across all of Alachua County but they had to be foreclosed, bank owned or short sales. . . . The properties in questioned [sic] are HUD or Fannie Mae owned properties. When Fannie Mae has a property listed before it goes on the market, they have 3 BPO's done plus an appraisal, then they set an asking price. Our assignment was to inspect the properties, check the repairs needed and then value the property "as is" knowing the property is contracted at the asking price. With 3 BPO's and appraisal to back it up the Realtor's contracted the house knowing this plus they also knew the county was mandated to purchase at that price. What Mr. Bullard did not understand and still doesn't, the assignment for the 20 appraisals scope of work was to concur with the work and valuation that already had been done. The first appraisal done did not come in at $50,000 and then I change the value. Mr. Bullard said the property is $50,000 and I told him he was wrong and that did not set well with him. . . . * * * About the conversation with Mr. Esrone McDaniel's, [sic] we talk about what the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners was mandated to do with the money. The properties have been contracted and he asked me whether I could come within 1% of the value. I told him I have a range of value of 5% so I said I thought I could. This is when I knew that Mr. Bullard did not get a handle on what the assignment was all about. The e-mail that Mr. Bullard was referring to, stated the program requirements, which is what Esrone and I talked about and Mr. Bullard took it out of context stating that I would help him out. Mr. Bullard told me at the start that he knew what the county wanted and come to find out, he did not have a clue. Although Respondent indicated in his letter that the scope of the project was "to concur with the work and valuation" that had already been performed, this scope is not reflected in the description contained in any of the six appraisals. To the contrary, the appraisals on their face indicate that no predetermined value is at issue. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that Respondent issued the second appraisals in each case for the purpose of confirming a predetermined value, i.e., the list price for each of the properties, as communicated to him in Esrone McDaniels' e-mail of April 13, 2010. The Applicable Standards Property appraisers are required to adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which are developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The USPAP Ethics Rule is divided into four sections: conduct, management, confidentiality, and recordkeeping. The conduct section provides in pertinent part: Conduct: An appraiser must perform assignments with impartiality, objectivity, and independence, and without accommodation of personal interests. An appraiser: must not perform an assignment with bias; must not advocate the cause or interest of any party or issue; must not accept an assignment that includes the reporting of predetermined opinions and conclusions; . . . The management section of USPAP provides in pertinent part: Management: An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following: the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value); a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client; the amount of a value opinion; the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser's opinions and specific to the assignment's purpose. According to Michael Adnot, the Department's expert witness, these USPAP standards require an appraiser to be independent, impartial, and objective, and an appraiser cannot advocate the cause of a client or pre-determine a value. Moreover, concurrence with a prior appraisal cannot be a condition of an assignment. If an appraiser feels pressure to reach a certain result, he or she should not take the assignment. Mr. Adnot's testimony is credited. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent developed and communicated the second reports for all three properties with the intent of providing appraisal reports that came within one percent of the selling price, i.e., a predetermined value. The investigative costs for these three cases were as follows: for Case No. 11-3007, costs are $1,303.50; for Case No. 11-3008, costs of investigation are $1,501.50 and for Case No. 11-3009, costs total $1,336.50.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15) as alleged in Case Nos. 11-3007, 11-3008, and 11-3009; suspending his license to practice as a certified residential real estate appraiser for a period of 3 years, followed by 5 years of probation; imposing a $6,000 fine and imposing costs in the amounts identified in finding of fact number 49, for a total of $4,141.50 in costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 17th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Colin Spruce, was issued a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR-COI5679, in an active status, in June, 1930, as an individual. This license was renewed, as an individual, for the 1981-83 licensing period, which expired on June 30, 1983. This license has not been renewed and is in a delinquent status. Respondent at no time qualified Angle Enterprises, Inc., to engage in contracting in Florida. James D. Roland and his wife own nine low-income family apartment buildings in Melbourne. On November 2, 1981, the Rolands signed a contract with Respondent to rehabilitate these apartments with funds provided on loan from the federal government. Respondent signed the contract on November 3, 1981, and began work on November 9, 1981. He fully completed one of the nine buildings and partially completed one other. He also did some work on the roofs of all. On or about January 13, 1982, Respondent called Mr. Roland's home and left word he would be out of town for several days. He never returned to work on the project. The work was 35 percent complete when Respondent abandoned the project. Later, Mr. Roland completed the project himself at an overrun of approximately $2,500 above the contract price. Aside from one minor modification which cost an additional $261, there were no changes to the plans and specifications when Roland took over. It was only later that Roland got word that the subcontractors had not been paid. He paid off those who filed liens against his property. During the course of his work on the Rolands' property, Respondent, in his own name or as Angle Enterprises, Inc., entered into agreements with several subcontractors, including Scotty's, Berger Roofing, Melbourne Insulation, City Gas Co., and Jackson Electric, all of which provided either materials or services, or both, for this project. Scotty's provided materials valued at $16,513.24, but was paid only $6,751.46, leaving an unpaid balance of $9,761.78 for which the company filed a lien against the Rolands' property. This sum, left unpaid by Respondent, was subsequently paid by Mr. Roland. Berger Roofing, Inc., furnished labor and materials for the porch roofs on each of the project's buildings during late November and early December, 1981, and was due $750 from Respondent for this job. Respondent did not ever pay, and Berger also filed a lien against the property. This lien was also satisfied through payment by Mr. Roland. Melbourne Insulation furnished labor and materials to the project through contract with Respondent for approximately $2,000 of which only one-half was paid by Respondent. The balance has not been paid, though no lien was filed here because of an oversight by claimant's lawyer. City Gas Company is still owed $1,524.75 of the $4,784.33 it billed Respondent for labor and materials (heaters) it provided for the project for a contract it had with Respondent dated December 1, 1981. No lien was filed for the unpaid amount here, either. Jackson Electric performed electrical work on the project which included removing plates, switches, and fixtures from one of the buildings in November, 1981, based on an agreement with Respondent. The contractor was about to start work on a second building in the project, but due to the fact that Respondent was a slow payer on previous jobs done for him, the additional work was not started and Jackson was never paid for the work done. Respondent also failed to pay the wages he owed to several of his employees, including David Jones and Carl Cramer. Jones worked for Angle Enterprises, the company owned by Respondent and under which he did business from November, 1981, to January, 1982, in a job on Roland's buildings which involved stripping the roofs off the buildings and painting. He was not paid for his final week of work, which ended on January 15, 1982. He is owed for 32 hours work at $5.75 per hour. He considered himself a close personal friend of Respondent who gave no advance notice that he would not pay his employees. Cramer and a third employee (Mr. Kibben) also were not paid their earned wages by Respondent. He was working at the time in question as a carpenter/foreman for Respondent. On the last morning of work, Friday, January 15, 1982, Respondent told him that the accountant would come by and pay him and the other men that afternoon. Respondent then left and was not seen again, nor was the accountant or the wages. Cramer was due 32 hours pay at $7 per hour. During the time he was working on this project, Respondent submitted four draw requests and was paid on three. These draws were submitted to Mr. Grinstead at the Community Development Office for approval and were approved when Grinstead checked to see that the approximate work was done. Mr. Grinstead was at the project site almost every day. The last time he saw Respondent there was on or about January 15, 1982. As of that date, the work was not completed, but Respondent did not go back. Mr. Grinstead approved three draws. These were: December 10, 1981, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's; December 21, 1981, for 54,000, payable to Respondent; and January 8, 1982, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's. A fourth draw request on December 12, 1981, for $2,400 was denied by Y. Grinstead because sufficient additional work was not done to justify it. All three approved checks were cashed. As to the check for $13,000 dated January 8, 1982, Roland signed it and Respondent took it to Scotty's, where he convinced the credit manager to endorse it in exchange for his, Respondent's (Angle Enterprises'), check dated January 11, 1982, in the amount of $7,446.61. Thereafter, the same day, Respondent signed a stop-payment order at his bank on which that check was drawn, listing as his reason for that action a corporate reorganization. Payment was stopped, and Scotty's was not paid by Respondent. On the basis of Respondent's conduct regarding the check, an information charging him with altering a worthless check and grand theft (second degree) was filed in the Circuit Court in Brevard County, Florida, on June 1, 1982. Thereafter, on November 30, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both offenses and was placed on probation for five years. Conditions of probation included full restitution of the $13,000 and a prohibition from engaging in construction or repair services without permission of the court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's certified residential contractor's license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 5th day of April, 1984. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colin Spruce 1001 SW Conover Avenue Palm Bay, Florida 32907 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Fred R. Catchpole is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fred R. Catchpole became a licensed appraiser in the State of Florida in 1993. In 2006 he became a certified residential appraiser in the State of Florida. He is still so licensed. Since 1994 he has maintained offices at 5449 Marcia Court, in Jacksonville, Duval County, and at Unit 202, 533 Seabreeze Boulevard, in Daytona Beach, Volusia County. In 1995 he added an office at 303 Hermitage in Valrico, Hillsborough County. He has maintained all three offices continuously from then through the date of the final hearing in this cause. Since opening these offices, he has provided the addresses for all three offices to Petitioner, and Petitioner's employees have visited all three offices. When the law changed, Respondent registered his corporation Worldwide Appraisal Service, Inc., with Petitioner and specifically registered his corporation at all three addresses. Each of the three offices is a stand-alone operation, with its own separate bank accounts and separate accounting systems. Respondent has, historically, worked two days a week at each of the three offices. He considers each of those offices to be his "primary" office since they operate separately and he spends an equal amount of time in each of them. Over the years Respondent has supervised a number of trainee appraisers, among them Fred C. Bowermaster and William E. Woods. He has supervised Bowermaster from January 24, 1995, through the time of the final hearing except for one four-month time period. He has supervised Woods from August 28, 1995, through the time of the final hearing. It is noted that Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent's supervision of Woods started both in 1995 and in 1998. Bowermaster works in Volusia County at Respondent's Seabreeze Boulevard address. Bowermaster is 71 years old and is described by Respondent as "the oldest living trainee." For a while, Woods worked in Duval County and then moved to Hillsborough County. Respondent describes him as "the second oldest trainee." At all times, all required paperwork and notices of address and changes of address were filed by Respondent, Bowermaster, and Woods. When a licensee has more than one business address, Petitioner requires that the licensee register all addresses. At all times, Respondent has complied with that requirement. There is no prohibition against a licensee having more than one office or more than one business address. At all times material hereto, when Respondent has been present at one of his offices, he has maintained communication with the others. He has also had other certified appraisers assisting him in the training and supervision of his trainees. Duval County is not contiguous to Volusia County or Hillsborough County, and Hillsborough and Volusia Counties are not contiguous to each other. Petitioner has never taken any disciplinary action against Respondent, Bowermaster, or Woods.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Martin A. Pedata, Esquire Martin Pedata, P.A. 150 Wildwood Road Deland, Florida 32720 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay $216 in grant funds expended in a manner inconsistent with Department regulations. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Suite 117-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Agnes Miramontes 301 North Oklahoma Street Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert T. Sharkey (Sharkey), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0079702. Sharkey was the qualifying broker of Respondent, Appraisal Associates & Consultants, Inc. (Appraisal Associates), a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0238854. The Real Estate Seminar In 1985 Respondents placed numerous advertisements in the help wanted section of local newspapers seeking to employ real estate appraisers, experienced or inexperienced, and offering to train the inexperienced. Elizabeth Townsend (Townsend) and Robert Newman (Newman) responded to such advertisements. The experiences of Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman, both licensed real estate salespersons, were similar. Upon responding to the advertisement they were advised that a meeting would be held at Appraisal Associates, and the program would be explained. At the meeting, Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman were advised that Appraisal Associates was conducting a seminar in residential property appraising and that a fee, $150.00 in the case of Ms. Townsend and $200.00 in the case of Mr. Newman, would be charged. Each paid their fee and executed a "Seminar Reservation and Employment Conditions" agreement which provided: SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE PRESCRIBED COURSE OF STUDY THE TRAINEE WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO PLACE THEIR CURRENT REAL ESTATE LICENSE, UPON ACCEPTANCE BY THE MANAGEMENT, WITH APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES .... FOR THE APPRAISER TRAINEE TO OBTAIN EMPLOY- MENT WITH APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES OR ANOTHER ASSIGNED BROKER IN THE FIRM THEY MUST: SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE THE PRESCRIBED SEMINAR AND/OR COMPLETE A WRITTEN EXAM ADMINISTERED BY APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES AND CONSULTANTS, INC. 2 COMPLETE SATISFACTORILY AT LEAST FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION REPORTS. HAVE A CURRENT FLORIDA REAL ESTATE LICENSE. COMPLETE AN APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OR DESIGNATION TO ANY APPRAISAL ORGANIZATION FOR CANDIDACY OR ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP .... The seminars attended by Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman were similar. Each consisted of 16 hours of class work dedicated to filling out a standardized Fanny Mae form for single family residences, a drive by appraisal of a residential home, and an on site inspection and appraisal of a residential home. While Mr. Newman felt that not enough time was devoted to actual appraising, and Ms. Townsend felt the seminar was terminated prematurely, there was no proof offered that the seminars were not adequate to instruct the participants in the basics of real estate appraisal, or that they were otherwise a sham. Mr. Newman did not take the final examination, did not complete the five single family residential demonstration reports, and never requested employment with Respondents. Ms. Townsend conceded she was familiar with the requirements for employment and that, while she received a "Certificate of Seminar Completion", she never applied for membership in any appraisal organization and never requested employment with Respondents. Sharkey's Qualifications At hearing the Department introduced into evidence a document, titled "Qualifications of R. T. Sharkey, MRA, CRA", which its investigator had secured from Respondent Sharkey. (Exhibit 6) Pertinent to this case' the document provided: AFFILIATES * * * AMERICAN RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATION * * * LICENSED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER EXPERIENCE * * * APPRAISER RIGHT OF WAY CONDEMNATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1972-1975 The foregoing qualifications attributed to Sharkey are inaccurate, misleading or false. The organization known as the American Right of Way Association has not been known by that name for 3-4 years; the State of Florida does not license real estate appraisers; and Sharkey was never employed by the Florida Department of Transportation as an appraiser for right-of-way condemnation. While the document included qualifications attributed to Sharkey that were inaccurate, misleading, or false, there was no proof that the document was ever presented to any person in the conduct of Respondents' business, or that any person placed any reliance on such document.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX Respondents proposed findings of Fact Consisted of 8 unnumbered paragraphs. These paragraphs have been designated paragraphs 1-8, and addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraphs 2-3. Addressed in paragraphs 4. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 3-5. Addressed in paragraphs 6-8. Addressed in paragraphs 6-8. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James G. Kincaid, Esquire 4331 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate/DPR 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
