The Issue Whether the Respondent, Antonio Prieto, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint involving the standard for the development of or the communication of a real estate appraisal and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding real estate appraisers' licenses in Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this matter the Respondent has been a State-certified residential real estate appraiser holding license number RD0000591. On or about July 6, 1995, the Respondent prepared an appraisal report for property located at 2821 Coacoochee Street, Miami, Florida. The appraisal report completed for this property did not contain a certification page. When the Department requested Respondent's entire appraisal file for the Coacoochee property, the Respondent failed to produce a certification page in connection with the work performed for this appraisal. The Respondent acknowledged that an appraisal report without the certification page is considered incomplete. The Respondent provided no credible explanation for the failure to maintain the certification page for the Coacoochee appraisal report file. On or about September 8, 1998, the Respondent was responsible for a second appraisal report for real property located at 12695 Southwest 92nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. As of the date of the second report, the estimated value of the subject property was noted to be $395,000. In the development of the second report the Respondent acted as a supervisory appraiser to Rita Rindone, a State-registered assistant real estate appraiser. In the Respondent's presence, Ms. Rindone provided the Department with a copy of the entire work file for the second property's appraisal report. Inconsistent and incomplete information in the work file for the second property revealed errors in following USPAP standards. For example, the alleged existence of an unrecorded quit claim deed and the disparity between the subject property's listed price ($268,000) and the appraised value should have been "red flags" to the Respondent. In fact the listing was not even disclosed in the appraisal report (an error the Respondent acknowledged). As the supervisor to Ms. Rindone, the Respondent was responsible to ensure that the standards of USPAP were followed. Based upon the testimony of the expert, DeFonzo, it is determined that the Respondent's failures in connection with the second appraisal report constitute negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, or fraud. The USPAP standards require appraisers to maintain records for at least five years. Some circumstances may warrant a longer retention of records. At the minimum the Respondent should have maintained a complete work file for the relevant period of time for the Coacoochee property. The failure to make that complete file available to the Department is a violation of law. The USPAP standards require that the methodology option used in preparing an appraisal report be prominently stated. The option used for the second property was not so stated. Such failure is a violation of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order determining the Respondent has violated Sections 475.624(14), and (15), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3000.00, together with suspending the Respondent's license for a period of five years. Further, it is recommended that prior to being actively licensed, the Respondent be required to complete a continuing education course to establish familiarity with USPAP and all rules and regulations governing licensees in this state. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Buddy Johnson, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street 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 James R. Mayfield, Esquire 18080 Palm Point Drive Jupiter, Florida 33458 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles N. Lyle is now and was at all times referred to in these Findings Of Fact a licensed real estate salesman having haen issued licensed number 0340311. Between March, 1982 to July, 1982, respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman and in the employ of Pardee-Chappell Realty and Investment Corporation. In May, 1982, respondent entered into an oral rental management agreement with Edward Ingersoll to rent and manage certain residential property located at 2941 Northeast Third Street, Ocala, Florida for a management fee of $15.00 per month, said fee to be paid directly to respondent. In connection with the management agreement, respondent secured a tenant and collected rent each month, depositing the rent into a special account at the First Marion Bank of Ocala maintained in the names of Sharon Lyle, respondent's wife, and Edward Ingersoll, the owner of the property. From approximately May, 1982 to February, 1983, respondent was compensated $15.00 per month as a rental management fee from Edward Ingersoll. Respondent did not deliver the rental payments collected and compensation received to his employing broker, and respondent's employing broker, Pardee- Chappell Realty and Investment Corporation, had no knowledge of and did not consent to respondent's actions. Respondent engaged in the transactions in such a way as to conceal from Mr. Ingersoll and the lessee of Ingersoll's property his association with pardee-Chappell Realty and Investment Corporation; likewise, respondent engaged in the transactions in such a way as to keep Pardee-Chappell Realty and Investment Corporation from earning about the Ingersoll management agreement. The Administrative Complaint in this action could not be served on respondent at the address of his last broker of record because he had left the employ of his last broker of record. A later attempt to serve respondent at his residential address according to the records of the Department of Professional Regulation, 720 Northeast Thirty Street, Ocala, Florida 32670 also was unsuccessful. Thereafter, a notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Ocala area, and respondent telephoned the Department of Professional Regulation from Atlanta, Georgia. Respondent asked that the Administrative Complaint be mailed to him at 720 Northeast Thirty Street, Ocala, Florida 32670. Approximately one month later, on or about March 1, 1984, respondent signed his Election Of Rights acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal hearing. Respondent's Election Of Rights was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 6, 1984. Subsequently all notices of hearing have been returned undelivered, and subsequent efforts to contact respondent by telephone and personally by Department of Professional Regulation investigators have been unsuccessful.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the license of respondent, Charles N. Lyle. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles N. Lyle 720 N.E. Thirty Street Ocala, Florida 32670 Harold Huff, Executive Director Real Estate Legal Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Langford, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order directing Capitol Rental and Realty, Inc. and Lawrence D. Van Ore cease and desist from using non-registrants as real estate salesmen and further from failing to use the full name of the registrant and the term "Broker" or "Realtor" within its classified advertisements. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the registration of the registrant be suspended until the corporate broker and associate broker Lawrence D. Van Ore have complied with said order of the Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Gough, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Don Scarlet, Esquire 801 Magnolia - Suite 317 Orlando, Florida 32803
The Issue Did the Respondent, Howard Klahr, fail to deliver or communicate appraisals of properties located at 5821 Southwest 20th Street, Miami, Florida and 2761-63 Southwest 31 Place, Miami, Florida 33133? Did Respondent, Howard Klahr, commit or make fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in his business relationship with Jane Asorey. What is the proper discipline, if any, to be imposed on Respondent, Howard Klahr (Mr. Klahr)?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Howard Klahr, is a Florida state certified general real estate appraiser trading as Easthill Valuation and Consulting. He holds license number RZ-2678 and has since August 2003. On January 7, 2007, Jane Asorey, now Jane Zuleta, met with Mr. Klahr and engaged him to provide appraisal evaluations of two properties and to provide expert witness and consulting services for Ms. Asorey’s dissolution of marriage case. One property was the marital home, a single family residence located at 5821 Southwest 20th Street, Miami, Florida. The other property was a duplex located at 2761-2763 Southwest 31st Place, Miami, Florida. The duplex appraisal evaluation was to be “retrospective” and evaluate the worth of the duplex in 1991, 1999, and 2005. The appraisal evaluation of the single family residence was to be for the value in 2005. The evaluations were also to include a review of appraisals prepared by others. Ms. Asorey paid Mr. Klahr a retainer of $1,000.00 for the appraisal evaluation and services on November 7, 2007, including a $500.00 charge for the appraisal evaluation. Ms. Asorey made the check out to Mr. Klahr’s company, Easthill Valuation and Consulting. Mr. Klahr accepted the payment and cashed Ms. Asorey’s check. In a November 5, 2007, e-mail, Ms. Asorey provided Mr. Klahr the telephone number and e-mail address for her attorney. That November 5, 2007, e-mail explained that the work was for dissolution of marriage trial scheduled for December 14, 2007. Mr. Klahr and Ms. Asorey did not enter into a written engagement agreement. Despite repeated efforts by Ms. Asorey to obtain the evaluations, Mr. Klahr never provided her or her attorney the appraisal evaluation he agreed to provide and for which he had been paid. Mr. Klahr attended the deposition of an appraiser in the legal proceeding. Ms. Asorey paid him an additional $750.00 for that service. Ms. Asorey spoke to Mr. Klahr on December 20, 2007, and reminded him of the need for his report and a December 28, 2007, deadline for filing the evaluation in her case. Because Mr. Klahr did not provide the appraisal evaluation, Ms. Asorey missed exhibit deadlines in her case and had to continue the trial. On January 2, 2008, Ms. Asorey sent Mr. Klahr an e- mail importuning him to call her, advising him of her repeated efforts to reach him by telephone since December 20, 2007, and emphasizing the urgent need for the report which was overdue. There is no evidence that Mr. Klahr responded to that e-mail. Because Mr. Klahr did not provide the appraisal evaluation, Ms. Asorey had to engage and pay another appraiser to provide the evaluations. On July 26, 2008, the Department advised Mr. Klahr of its investigation and provided him a copy of the complaint. The complaint specified that Mr. Klahr had not provided the appraisal reports and described Ms. Asorey’s efforts to communicate with him. Bernardo Yepes, the Department Investigator, spoke to Mr. Klahr October 15, 2008. Mr. Klahr stated that he had sent the DBPR documents responding to the complaint. Mr. Yepes advised Mr. Klahr that the Department had not received the documents. He asked Mr. Klahr to send them by facsimile transmission. Mr. Klahr did not send the responsive documents to the DBPR by facsimile transmission or any other means. The first time that Mr. Klahr provided any person copies of the appraisal reports that he maintains he prepared was on December 15, 2009; that was the night before the final hearing when Mr. Klahr submitted them to the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and to the DBPR attorney. Mr. Klahr held a real estate license in 2002 and 2003. He was disciplined for violations of real estate licensing laws in 2002 or 2003. Mr. Klahr had a previous complaint, similar to the complaint in this matter, filed against him. It was dismissed after an administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order that: Dismisses Count III; Finds that Mr. Klahr violated 475.624(2), Florida Statutes, and imposes a fine of $1,000, 90-day suspension of Mr. Klahr’s license, an 18-month term of probation during which Mr. Klahr must satisfactorily complete 15 hours of education coursework in the areas of Florida Law and Ethics; Finds that Mr. Klahr violated Section 475.624 (16), Florida Statutes, and imposes a fine of $1,000, 90-day suspension of Mr. Klahr’s license, an 18-month term of probation during which Mr. Klahr must satisfactorily complete 15 hours of education coursework in the areas of Florida Law and Ethics; Makes the terms of probation and periods of suspension concurrent with the probation beginning after the period of suspension concludes; and Requires Mr. Klahr to pay Jane Zuleta $1,000.00 within 30 days of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 24th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to communicate an appraisal without good cause in violation of Section 475.624(16), Florida Statutes (2001); whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promise, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (2001); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating persons licensed in Florida as real estate appraisers. Respondent is licensed in Florida as a general real estate appraiser pursuant to license number RZ0000252. Petitioner issued the current license to Respondent at 410 Cortez Road West, Suite 405, Bradenton, Florida 34207. On or about October 12, 2002, Respondent met with Ms. Pauline Ney, the sole owner, at the time, of real property that included a single family residence located at 11001 25th Street East, Parrish, Florida (the property). The property is one of several large, estate-type parcels along the Manatee River. Each parcel in the area ranges greatly in size and quality. The property includes a dock and approximately 242 feet of "river frontage" along the back of the property. The property also includes a spring-fed, freshwater pond to the front; a brackish saltwater lagoon to the rear; a tennis court; a semi-private guest suite with a kitchenette, living room, bedroom, and bathroom; and other amenities. Respondent learned at the meeting with Ms. Ney on October 12, 2002, that Ms. Ney intended to sell the property and wanted an appraisal from Respondent in order to determine a market value for the property. Respondent agreed to develop, communicate, and deliver an appraisal of the property. The real estate broker (broker) with whom Ms. Ney intended to list the property was present during part of the meeting between Ms. Ney and Respondent and testified at the hearing. Ms. Ney asked Respondent for an estimated market value of the property. Respondent physically inspected the property and obtained the information needed for an appraisal. Ms. Ney provided Respondent with floor plans and a survey of property and paid Respondent $500. Respondent stated to Ms. Ney that an appraisal would require some time. Respondent explained, "This is a very unique property, and it's going to be hard to find comparables." Ms. Ney pressed Respondent for a "ballpark" figure because Ms. Ney wanted to place the property on the market at the earliest opportunity. Respondent admits he stated, "I would not sell it for less than a million." Respondent testified at the hearing that he verbally appraised the property at a value of $750,000 to $850,000, but further stated that he would not sell the property for less than $1 million. Respondent further testified that he provided a written appraisal to Ms. Ney by e-mail while Ms. Ney was out of town on an extended vacation. Respondent's testimony concerning the alleged oral appraisal of $750,000 to $850,000 on October 12, 2002, and subsequent appraisal by e-mail is neither credible nor persuasive to the trier of fact. The statements Respondent claims he made do not constitute an appraisal within the meaning of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The statements do not satisfy relevant requirements in Standard 2 Real Property Appraisal, Reporting, page 21, USPAP-2001 (Standard 2). The purported statement that the property is worth $750,000 to $850,000, but that Respondent would not sell the property for less than $1 million is misleading within the meaning of Standard 2. Respondent's statements did not contain sufficient information to enable the intended users to understand the information properly. Finally, the statements by Respondent did not clearly and accurately disclose limiting conditions, including the shared use of water supply with an adjacent property owner, and the impact of those conditions on the value of the property. Respondent never delivered an appraisal to Ms. Ney, either oral or written. Respondent failed to communicate an appraisal without good cause in violation of Section 475.624(16), Florida Statutes (2001). Respondent asserts that he provided Ms. Ney with a verbal appraisal on October 12, 2002, and later provided a written appraisal to Ms. Ney by e-mail while Ms. Ney was out of town on an extended vacation. Respondent's failure to provide a written appraisal to Ms. Ney constitutes culpable negligence and a breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (2001). The business purpose of the transaction was to obtain a written appraisal suitable for the broker to show potential purchasers of the property and thereby facilitate the sale of the property. It would be credulous to find, as Respondent testified, that Ms. Ney paid Respondent $500 for the verbal statements Respondent provided to Ms. Ney on October 12, 2002. Respondent's testimony demonstrated ample business acumen for him to understand the business purpose for the $500 he received from Ms. Ney. Respondent's failure to provide an appraisal to Ms. Ney caused Ms. Ney to suffer financial harm, including the cost of a second appraisal and the delay in the sale of the property. Ms. Ney subsequently obtained a written appraisal from a second appraiser. The written appraisal valued the property as of November 25, 2002, at $775,000. The appraiser signed the appraisal on January 7, 2003. The written appraisal contains approximately 10 limiting conditions not included in the verbal statements Respondent claims in his testimony that he provided to Ms. Ney on October 12, 2002. Ms. Ney listed the property with the broker sometime in February or March of 2003. The broker listed the property at a listing sale price based on the written appraisal provided by the second appraiser. Ms. Ney eventually completed the sale of the property. Between October 12, 2002, and January 7, 2003, Ms. Ney was unable to sell the property. The property was unusual, and the broker needed an appraisal to establish a listing price. Respondent understood that Ms. Ney wanted to list the property as soon as possible but could not do so without a written appraisal. On several occasions, during November and December of 2002, the broker's assistant attempted to contact Respondent to obtain a written appraisal. Respondent did not respond. Respondent testified unpersuasively that he was unaware that Ms. Ney had not received the appraisal by e-mail or that the broker had tried to contact Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(16) and 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (2001); imposing an administrative fine of $2,000; and suspending Respondent's license for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Alan Moore Post Office Box 1339 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Alfonso Santana, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801, North Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jason Steele, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801-1772
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since January 12, 2005, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD 4946. He has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. During the time he has been licensed, Respondent has supervised various registered trainee appraisers, including Julio Potestad, who worked under Respondent's supervision from March 17, 2006, through February 26, 2007, and has remained "very good friends" with him.4 At all times material to the instant case, the Subject Property has been zoned by the City of Miami as R-1, which allows only single-family residences. In January of 2006, Respondent was working as a residential real estate appraiser for Appraisals of South Florida, Inc., a business owned by Anthony Pena, when he received an assignment to conduct an appraisal of the Subject Property for Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. (Coast). Gustavo Ceballos had agreed to buy the Subject Property from Jorge Vazquez for $395,000, and Mr. Ceballos had applied for a mortgage loan from Coast to make the purchase. The purpose of the appraisal was to determine whether the market value of the Subject Property justified Coast's making the loan. The written appraisal request from Coast was dated January 24, 2006, and directed to Mr. Potestad, who was working for Mr. Pena at the time. It indicated that the "[p]roperty [t]ype" of the Subject Property was "SFR" (meaning single-family residence). Attached to the request was a copy of a signed, but undated, copy of a "[s]ales contract" for the Subject Property. Using a pre-printed form, Respondent completed a Summary Appraisal Report (Report), dated January 31, 2006, containing his opinion that the market value of the Subject Property as of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection" of the Subject Property) was $395,000 (which happened to be the contract price). He arrived at his opinion by conducting a sales comparison analysis and a cost analysis (but not an income analysis). On January 5, 2006, just three weeks and a day prior to the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection," City of Miami Code Enforcement Officer Maria Lugo had inspected the interior and exterior of the Subject Property at the request of the owner, Mr. Vazquez, who had contacted Ms. Lugo after she had "posted on the property" a code violation notice. Ms. Lugo's January 6, 2006, inspection had revealed that the Subject Property was not a single-family residence, but rather a nonconforming four-unit, multi-family structure (with each unit having an exterior door and there being no interior access between units) and, further, that various additions and improvements (including additional bathrooms and kitchens, a metal awning and concrete slab in the rear of the property, a driveway on the west side of the front of the property, and a "garage conversion") had been made without a building permit having been obtained. These were City of Miami code violations for which the owner of the property could be fined. Extensive work (including demolition work), requiring building permits, needed to be done to correct these code violations and reconvert the structure to a legal, single-family dwelling. As of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection"), no building permit to perform work on the Subject Property had been obtained, and the code violations Ms. Lugo had found 22 days earlier had not yet been corrected. As he indicated in the Report, Respondent appraised the Subject Property as a single-family residence (with four bedrooms and three baths), even though, as of January 27, 2006, it was a multi-family structure (as an appropriate inspection by a reasonably prudent residential real estate appraiser would have revealed).5 Doing so was a substantial and fundamental error that was fatal to the credibility of Respondent's market value opinion. The first page of Respondent's Report contained five sections: "Subject," "Contract," "Neighborhood," "Site," and "Improvements." The "Subject" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: Property Address: 7150 SW 5th Street City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: 33144-2709 * * * Occupant: X Owner _ Tenant _ Vacant * * * Assignment Type: X Purchase Transaction _ Refinance Transaction _ Other (describe) Lender/Client: Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. . . . . Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? X Yes _ No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s): The subject property has a prior sale on July 2005 for $349,000. Although he provided the "offering price" and "date" of the "prior sale," Respondent did not reveal, in this section, the "data source(s) [he] used" to obtain this information. He did, however, disclose this "data source" (ISC NET6) in a subsequent section of the Report (the "Sales Comparison Approach" section). The "Contract" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: I X did _ did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. The subject property is under contract for $395,000[;] financial assistance noted. Contract Price: $395,000 Date of Contract: No[t] Provided Is the property seller the owner of public record: X Yes _ No Data Sources: Public Records Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or down payment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? X Yes _ No If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid: 4% seller contribution for closing costs and prepaids. As part of the appraisal development process, "[a]ppraisers are required to obtain a full copy of the contract [for sale] that's signed and dated." The contract for sale that Respondent analyzed, and which he has maintained in his work file on the Subject Property (Work File), however, while signed by Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Ceballos, was incomplete and not dated. Paragraph 21 of this incomplete and undated contract for sale provided as follows: ADDITIONAL TERMS SELLER WILL PAY 4% OF PURCHASE PRICE FOR BUYER CLOSING COSTS PROPERTY SOLD AS IS CONDITIONS In the "Neighborhood" section of the Report, Respondent identified the boundaries of the "neighborhood" in which the Subject Property was located, and he stated that the properties in the neighborhood were either "One-Unit" (95%) or "Commercial" (5%) properties and that the neighborhood had no "2-4 Unit" or other "Multi-Family" structures.7 The following further representations, among others, were made in the "Neighborhood" section: Neighborhood Description: The subject is located in an established neighborhood consisting of 1 story ranch style homes similar to the subject in age, size and appeal. The subject neighborhood provides a good environment for the house being appraised. There are no factors that will negatively affect marketability of the subject property. Employment stability and convenience are reasonable. Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions): The subject is in a market place in which residential properties similar to the subject take approximately 3 months to sell. Demand and [s]upply are in balance with a stable growth rate. These figures were obtained from the appraiser[']s observation of the marketing time for listing and sales within the immediate area and the ratio of the number of listings to sales. The "Site" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * View: Residential Specific Zoning Classification: R-1 Zoning Description: Single Family Residential Zoning Compliance: X Legal _ Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) _ No Zoning _ Illegal (describe) Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use? X Yes _ No If no, describe. * * * Are there any adverse site conditions or external factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land use, etc.)? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe * * * In the "Improvements" section of the Report, Respondent indicated, among other things, that the Subject Property was a one-unit, ranch-style structure built in 1948, with an "effective age" of 20 years. Next to "Roof Surface" Respondent entered, "Shingles/Avg." Other information provided in this section included the following: Finished area above grade contains: 7 Rooms, 4 Bedrooms, 3 Bath(s) 2,249 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade. * * * Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovation, remodeling, etc.). The subject conforms to the neighborhood in terms of age, design and construction. Based upon an inspection performed by the appraiser on the subject property[,] [it] does appear to have roof damage resulting from Hurricane Wilma. The property's roof exhibits many missing and/or detached roof shingles.[8] The appraiser bases these findings only upon a visual inspection of the subject. A thorough roof inspection should be done to properly assess the full extent of the damage. The Hurricane does not appear to have negatively affected the subject area's economic base. Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)? X Yes _ No If No, describe[9] The second page of Respondent's Report contained two sections: "Sales Comparison Approach" and "Reconciliation." In the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report, Respondent identified the three "comparable" properties that he examined to estimate (using a sales comparison analysis) the market value of the Subject Property, and he provided information about these comparables, as well as the Subject Property. The following were the three "comparables" Respondent selected for his sales comparison analysis: Comparable Sale 1, located at 7140 Southwest 7th Avenue in Miami (.14 miles from the Subject Property); Comparable Sale 2, located at 240 Southwest 69th Avenue in Miami (.28 miles from the Subject Property); and Comparable Sale 3, located at 7161 Southwest 5th Terrace in Miami (.06 miles from the Subject Property). According to the Report, these "comparables," as well as the Subject Property, were 56 to 58-year-old, single-family (one- unit) ranch-style residences in "average condition" situated on lots ranging in size from 6,000 square feet (the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 3) to 6,565 square feet (Comparable Sale 1). Comparative information relating to these "comparables" and the Subject Property was set forth in a grid (Sales Comparison Grid). On the "Date of Sale/Time" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: December 2005 Comparable Sale 2: November 2005 Comparable Sale 3: Sept. 2005 On the "Sale Price" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $395,000 Comparable Sale 1: $380,000 Comparable Sale 2: $387,000 Comparable Sale 3: $390,000 On the "Sale Price/Gross Liv" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $236.39 sq. ft.[10] Comparable Sale 1: $254.01 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: $195.65 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: $195.00 sq. ft. On the "Data Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: ISC NET/MLX[11] Comparable Sale 2: ISC NET Comparable Sale 3: ISC NET/MLX On the "Verification Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: Observation from street Comparable Sale 2: Observation from street Comparable Sale 3: Observation from street "Observation from street" is an unacceptable means of verifying sales price information. An appropriate "Verification Source" would be an individual involved in some way in the transaction or, alternatively, a public record. On the "Above Grade Room Count" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 1: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 2: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); 2 (Baths). Comparable Sale 3: 8 (Total); 5 (bdrms.); 4 (Baths). Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "+3,000." Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "-3,000." On the "Gross Living Area" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 2,249 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 1: 1,496 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: 1,978 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: 2,000 sq. ft. Because its "Gross Living Area" was 753 square feet (or approximately one-third) less than that of the Subject Property, Comparable Sale 1 was "way too small in comparison to the Subject Property to [have] be[een] utilized as a comparable sale." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 1, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+18,825." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,775." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,225." The upward adjustments Respondent made to the "comparables'" sales prices to account for the Subject Property's larger "Gross Living Area" amounted to $25 for each square foot that the "Gross Living Area" of the Subject Property exceeded that of the "comparables." Nowhere in the Report, or in Respondent's Work File, is there any indication of how or why Respondent selected this $25 a square foot price adjustment. While ISC NET/FARES provides "Gross Living Area" square footage information (that is gleaned from public records), MLX does not. In his appraisal of the Subject Property, Respondent appropriately used "Gross Living Area" square footage information from ISC NET/FARES for Comparable Sales 1 and 2; however, for Comparable Sale 3, rather than using the ISC NET/FARES "Gross Living Area" square footage (which was 1,512 square feet), he instead inappropriately relied on the square footage figure (2,000) for "Total Area" (which is different than "Gross Living Area") found in the MLX listing for the property. This was a substantial error negatively impacting the soundness of the adjustment he made for "Gross Living Area" to obtain an "Adjusted Sale Price" for Comparable Sale 3. The MLX listing for Comparable Sale 3 also contained the following "remarks": DON'T MISS THIS BEAUTY. PLENTY OF SPACE FOR THE IN-LAWS. CALL LISTING AGENT. CAN USE LIKE 2 IN LAWS AND MAIN HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 2000 SF. HOUSE HAVE 3 BEDROOMS 2 BATHS. YOU CAN USE 2 EFFICIENCIES AND THE HOUSE. HOUSE TOTALLY REMODELED NEW BATH, NEW KITCHEN. These "remarks" suggest that Comparable Sale 3 actually consisted of not one, but three separate dwelling units ("2 efficiencies" and a "main house"), contrary to the representation made by Respondent in the Report, and it therefore should not have been used as a "comparable" to appraise a single-family residence (which Respondent, in his Report, mistakenly represented the Subject Property to be). The following "Adjusted Sale Price[s]" for the three "comparables" were set forth on the last line of the Sales Comparison Grid: Comparable Sale 1: $398,825; Comparable Sale 2: $396,775; and Comparable Sale 3: $393,225. At the end of the "Sales Comparison Approach" section (beneath the grid) was the following "Summary of Sales Comparison Approach": The subject property is similar to all of the comparable sales which were carefully selected after an extensive search in and out of the subject's defined market. This search consisted of analyzing numerous closed sales and narrowing the list down to the most similar. After close evaluation of the comparable sales utilized, equal consideration was given to all comparable sales in formulating an opinion of market value. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000. In arriving at this appraised "value" of $395,000, Respondent made no adjustments for the damage to the Subject Property's roof noted in the "Improvements" section of the Report or for the "4% seller contribution for closing costs" mentioned in the "Contract" section of the Report; neither did he provide an explanation as to why he had not made such adjustments. The first part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000; Cost Approach (if developed): $395,614; Income Approach (if developed): N/A Final reliance is given to the Sales Comparison Analysis due to the reliability of market data and which represents the motives of the typical purchaser [sic]. The Cost Approach although not as accurate, supports value. The Income Approach was not appropriate for this assignment. In developing his "Cost Approach" estimate of the market value of the Subject Property (referenced in the first part of the "Reconciliation" section), Respondent used a "replacement cost new" figure of $90 a square foot. There was nothing in the Report or Work File to support or explain his use of this figure. The second and final part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: This appraisal is made x "as is," _ subject to completion per plans and specifications on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the improvements have been completed, _ subject to the following repairs or alterations on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the repairs or alterations have been completed, or _ subject to the following required inspection based on the extraordinary assumption that condition or deficiency does not require alteration or repair: Subject to the Statement of Limiting Conditions and Appraiser's Certification attached. Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property,[12] defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and appraiser's certification, my (our) opinion of the market value, as defined, of the real property that is the subject of this report is $395,000, as of January 27, 2006, which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal. The fourth page of the Report contained pre-printed boilerplate, including the following: This report form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property or a one- unit property with an accessory unit . . . . * * * SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the reporting requirements of this appraisal report form . . . . The appraiser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the comparable sales from at least the street, research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or privates sources, and report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report. INTENDED USE: The intended use of this appraisal report is for the lender/client to evaluate the property that is the subject of the appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client. * * * STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: * * * 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements. The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. * * * The appraiser has noted in this appraisal any adverse conditions (such as needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in this appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent physical deficiencies or adverse conditions of the property (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) that would make the property less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist and for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, this appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusions for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that the completion, repairs, or alterations of the subject property will be performed in a professional manner. The fifth page of the Report contained additional pre- printed boilerplate in the form of an "Appraiser's Certification," wherein "the Appraiser [Respondent] certifie[d] and agree[d] that," among other things: I have, at a minimum, developed and reported this appraisal in accordance with the scope of work requirements stated in this appraisal report. I performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property. I reported the condition of the improvements in factual, specific terms. I identified and reported the physical deficiencies that could affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity of the property. I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared. I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value. I have adequate comparable market data to develop a reliable sales comparison approach for this appraisal assignment. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value but did not develop them, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on any current agreement for sale for the subject property, any offering for sale of the subject property in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal, and the prior sales of the subject property for a minimum of three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the prior sales of the comparable sales for a minimum of one year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale, unless otherwise indicated in the report. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property. I have not used comparable sales that were the result of combining a land sale with the contract purchase price of a home that has been built or will be built on the land. I have reported adjustments to the comparable sales that reflect the market's reaction to the differences between the subject property and the comparable sales. I verified, from a disinterested source, all information in this report that was provided by parties who have a financial interest in the sale or financing of the subject property. I have knowledge and experience in appraising this type of property in this market area. I am aware of, and have access to, the necessary and appropriate public and private data sources, such as multiple listing services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct. I have taken into consideration factors that have an impact on value with respect to the subject neighborhood, subject property, and the proximity of the subject property to adverse influences in the development of my opinion of market value. I have noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that I became aware of during research involved in performing this appraisal. I have considered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value, and have reported on the effect of the conditions on the value and marketability of the subject property. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from this appraisal and, to the best of my knowledge, all statements and information in this appraisal report are true and correct. I stated in this appraisal report my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appraisal report. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in this appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owner or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property or on any other basis prohibited by law. My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report (or present analysis supporting) a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report.[13] I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. I identified the lender/client in this appraisal report who is the individual, organization, or agent for the organization that ordered and will receive this appraisal report. The lender/client may disclose or distribute this appraisal to the borrower; another lender at the request of the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; mortgage insurers;; government sponsored enterprises; other secondary market participants; data collection or reporting services; professional appraisal organizations; any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States; and any state, the District of Columbia, or other jurisdictions; without having to obtain the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's (if applicable) consent. Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party, including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. I am aware that any disclosure or distribution of this appraisal report by me or the lender/client may be subject to certain laws and regulations. Further, I am also subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that pertain to disclosure or distribution by me. The borrower, another lender at the request of the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, government sponsored enterprises, and other secondary market participants may rely on this appraisal report as part of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties. If this appraisal was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws. Directly beneath the foregoing boilerplate was Respondent's signature. No one else signed the Report, nor was any individual identified in the Report as having assisted Respondent. Appended to the Report was an pre-printed "Addendum," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: SCOPE OF APPRAISAL The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales within the market area. The original source of the comparables is shown in the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source of confirmation, if available. The original source is presented first. The sources and data are considered reliable. When conflicting information was provided, the source deemed most reliable has been used. Data believed to be unbelievable was not included in this report nor was [it] used as a basis for the value conclusion. The Reproduction Cost is based on published cost indexes, such as Marshall Valuation Service, and supplemented by the appraiser's knowledge of the local market. * * * HIGHEST AND BEST USE The Highest and Best Use of a site is that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. For improvements to represent[] the highest and best use of a site, they must be legally permitted, be financially feasible, be physically possible and provide[] more profit than any other use of the site would generate. SITE The improvements on the property are legal and conform to current zoning regulations. In the event of a loss by fire [] all improvements could be rebuilt without obtaining a zoning variance. The opinion of zoning compliance requirements expressed in this appraisal is based on the appraiser's inspections of the subject property and comparison to the appropriate zoning ordinance. This opinion does not represent a certification which can only be obtained from the proper jurisdictional authority. * * * ROOM LISTS The number of rooms, bedrooms, baths and lavatories is typical of houses in this neighborhood. Foyers, laundry rooms and all rooms below grade are excluded from the total room count. * * * CONDITION OF COMPONENTS Any opinion expressed in this appraisal pertaining to the condition of the appraised property's, or comparable property's components, is based on observation[s] made at the time of inspection. They rely on visual indicators as well as reasonable expectations as to adequacy and dictated by neighborhood standards relative to marketability. These observations do not constitute certification of condition, including roof or termite problems, which may exist. If certification is required, a properly licensed or qualified individual should be consulted. COST APPROACH The Cost Approach includes a land value analysis and the estimated replacement cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the building being appraised, using modern materials, design, layout and current construction standards. Rates for the Cost Approach were calculated using Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook. Physical, functional and external inadequacies, as measured in the market, are deducted accordingly. The "as is" value of site improvements (driveway, Landscaping, etc.). represents their market contributory value as measured by a paired sales analysis. The Cost Approach is considered a supportive indicator of value. The subject[] site['s] value has been derived from market abstractions techniques applied to improved land sales from the subject market area, land sales as well as analysis of assessed value. [S]ubject[] land['s] total value ratio is common for properties in the subject[] market area and does not adversely affect marketability and/or value. DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on the comparison of the subject with sales of similar type properties. Adjustments are made to these sales for differences with the subject. [T]his is generally considered the best indicator of value. * * * ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LIVING AREAS: The appraisal uses actual living area in the market analysis for both the subject and comparable sales properties. The living area utilized for the sales data has been abstracted from the Public Records/Tax Rolls listed square foot area data and may have been further modified by the field appraiser's observation of the actual improvements. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS Digital photographs taken of the subject property and sales comparables were not enhanced or altered in any way, shape, or form. * * * ITEMS LEFT BLANK For the purpose of this appraisal report, an item left blank indicates this item does not apply to the subject property, indicates a (No or None) response, or indicates that the appraiser is not able to ascertain and/or is not qualified to furnish this information. * * * DATE OF APPRAISAL The date of the appraisal is the date of the last site inspection of the subject property. SUBJECT'S SKETCH All measurements of the subject's improvements have been rounded and the appraiser has tried to determine actual measurements as accurately as possible. This is not a survey and is not to be interpreted as a survey of the subject property. * * * The "sketch" of the Subject Property that Respondent appended to the Report did not accurately reflect the configuration and layout of the property, as of the effective date of the appraisal. On or about February 13, 2009, notwithstanding that Respondent had indicated in the Report (in the "Reconciliation" section thereof) that the appraisal was "made 'as is'" and not "subject to completion per plans and specifications," nor subject to any "repairs or alterations" being made, Respondent inexplicably issued an "Appraisal Update and/or Completion Report" (Supplemental Report) containing a "Certification of Completion," which read as follows: INTENDED USE: The intended use of this certificate of completion is for the lender/client to confirm that the requirements or conditions stated in the appraisal report referenced above have been met. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this certification of completion is the lender/client. HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL APPRAISAL REPORT? X Yes _ No If No, describe any impact on the opinion of market value. The subject property has been ready per plans and specifications. APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have performed a visual inspection on the subject property to determine if the conditions or requirements stated in the original appraisal have been satisfied. According to the Supplemental Report, Respondent conducted this "visual inspection" of the Subject Property on February 13, 2006. Contrary to the assertions made in the "Intended Use" and "Appraiser's Certification" sections of the "Certification of Completion," there were no "conditions" or "requirements" "stated in the original appraisal [report]." Any "plans and specifications" referenced in an original or updated appraisal report must be maintained in the appraiser's work file. Respondent's Work File contains no "plans and specifications," nor any other indication as to what, if any, post-Report repair or renovation work had been done on the Subject Property at the time of the issuance of the Supplemental Report.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Amended Administrative Complaint and revoking his residential real estate appraiser license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered salesman with the Commission since November 2, 1972. On or about June 14, 1979, Respondent submitted to the Commission an application for registration as a salesman which contained the following questions: 17. (a) Has any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been denied, revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law; or is any proceeding now pending? (b) Have you ever resigned or withdrawn from, or surrendered, any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation, while such charges were pending? Respondent responded negatively to both the above quoted questions on his application form. In reliance on these statements, the Commission registered the Respondent as a real estate salesman on November 22, 1972. Prior to his submission of an application for registration as a Florida real estate salesman, Respondent had been a practicing attorney in the State of New York. In the course of his practice of law, Respondent had been investigated by the Brooklyn Bar Association and charged with defrauding clients of proper shares of settlements; failing to maintain a special escrow account, and commingling personal funds with those of his clients; giving false testimony before a Grievance Committee of the Brooklyn Bar Association; failing to obtain court approval of infants' settlements; filing numerous retainer and closing statements which he knew to contain false information; failing to file retainer and closing statements with the Judicial Conference; grossly neglecting the prosecution of clients' cases; concealing the infancy of clients and failing to have guardians appear for infants in court action; representing conflicting interests; and engaging in systematic solicitation of negligence cases. While the above-mentioned charges were pending, Respondent submitted his resignation as a member of the Bar of the State of New York, effective February 1, 1971. Respondent's resignation was accepted by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Opinion issued March 1, 1971. On February 24, 1970, Respondent applied for membership in the Florida Bar. In his application for membership in the Florida Bar, Respondent answered falsely to an inquiry concerning whether any charges or complaints, formal or informal, had ever been made or filed, or proceedings instituted against him while practicing law in any other jurisdiction. Subsequently, Respondent's license to practice law in Florida was revoked by Opinion of the Florida Supreme Court dated July 21, 1971.
