16-002583PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board vs. Jason Dwight Walker Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 31, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the standards for conducting an appraisal as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint, which should, therefore, be dismissed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, REAL

ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 1 6 - 2583PL

JASON DWIGHT WALKER ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

on July 11, 2016 , in Tallahassee, Florida , before E. Gary Early,

a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Allison Carmine McDonald , Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Office of the Genera l Counsel

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando , Florida 32 801

Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Office of the General Counsel

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Jason Dwight Walker , pro se

547 Mashes Sand Road

Panacea, Florida 32346

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent , Jason Dwight Walker , prepared a

preconstruction appraisal report that was in violation of the

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) ,

and thus section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61J1 - 9.001 , as alleged in the First

Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the sanction s to be

imposed .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 26, 2016 , the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation ( Department or P etitioner ) filed its

First Amended Administrative Complaint (Administrative

Complaint) against David Dwight Walker (Respondent) . The

Administrative Complaint, consisting of three counts, alleged

violations of the USPAP, specifically USPAP Standards

Rule s 1 - 1(b) and 1 - 2(e) (1) and the USPAP Record Keeping Rule

and , th erefore, violations of section 475.624(4) and rule 61J1 -

9.001 , and requested that the Real Estate Appraisal Board

(Board) assess unspecified penalties against RespondentÓs state -

certified residential real estate appraisal license, No. RD 3588

(license).

On March 11, 2016 , Res pondent filed his Petition for Formal

Hearing , in which he disputed material allegations and requested

a formal administrative hearing.

On May 10, 2016, Petitioner referred the petition to the

Division of Administrative Hearings. T he final hearing was

sc heduled for J uly 11, 2016 , and was held as scheduled .

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

James Courchaine, an Investigative Specialist II with the

Department; Stephen Newman, the residential contractor for the

property at issue; and Michael Rogers, a certified appraiser,

who was accepted as an expert in real estate appraising,

appraisal practice, and uniform standards . Petitioner Ós

Exhibits 3 through 8, and 13 through 16 were received in

evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf, and

Respondent's Exhibit 5 was received in evidence. The parties

jointly offered Joint Exhibit 1, which was received in evidence.

On August 1, 2016 , a one - volume T ranscript of the

proceedings was filed , and notice thereof was entered on the

Division of Administrative HearingsÓ on - line docket .

The parties timely filed their post - hearing submittals,

which have been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

The a ction s that form the basis for the Administrative

Complaint occurred in June 2012. This proceeding is governed by

the law in effect at the time of the commission of the acts

alleged to warrant discipline. See McCloskey v. DepÓt of Fin.

Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Accordin gly, all

statutory and regulatory references shall be to the 201 1

versions , unless otherwise specified.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida

having authority, among its other duties and responsibilities,

to regul ate the practice of real estate . The Division of Real

Estate is a legislatively - created division of the Department .

The Board is established within the Division of Real Estate and

is vested with the authority to administer c hapter 475, Part II ,

Florida Statu tes , and to enforce the provisions thereof .

2. Respondent holds a license as a state - certified

residential real estate appraiser , No. RD 3588 .

3. On or about June 20, 2012 , Respondent contracted to

perform a preconstruction appraisal report for a residential

home (the Proposed Home) to be constructed at 14682 Northwest

Pea Ridge Road, Bristol, Florida. The prospective owners were

Thomas Ryan Cherry and Jessica Rogers Cherry (the Owners ).

4 . The Proposed HomeÓs internal area was to be 3,458

square feet in size. The issue that forms the basis for the

Administrative Complaint is t he amount of that area that was to

be built - out as the Gross Living Area (GLA) of the home.

5 . Petitioner has alleged that Respondent failed to

consider the entire eight - page construction contract that

governed the construction of the Proposed Home . As will be

discussed in greater detail herein, the c ontract between the

b uil d ing contractor, Stephen Newman, and the Owner s consisted of

four numbered pages, the fourth page of which contained only a

statutorily - required notice regarding construction defect claim

procedures and the signature blocks . The contract also included

a separately styled, numbered, and signed five - page Description

of Materials. Page five of the Description of Materials

included a provision that Ð[s]econd story will be framed and

left unfinished. Owner to complete at future date. One 36Ñ

exterior doo r t o be installed at head of stairs. Ñ

6 . Respondent was retained to perform a preconstruction

appraisal by the appraisal management company, StreetLinks

Lender Solutions (StreetLinks) , which was acting as the agent

for First Federal Bank of Florida (Lender) . The Lender was the

client for the appraisal, but RespondentÓs selection was

performed at the sole discretion of StreetLinks.

7 . The appraisal agreement pro hi bited Respondent from

contacting the Lender prior to delivery of the final appraisal

report, o r from attempting to obtain value or loan information

from the Owners. Thus, of the parties to financing, StreetLinks

was the sole allowable point of contact. The only plausible

inference is that the information provided to Respondent in aid

of the appraisal was provided by StreetLinks, or at StreetLinksÓ

direction.

8 . Respondent was provided with the first three pages of

the contract. The Contract provided that the Proposed Home was

to be constructed Ð from Owner provided p lans , Ñ that Ð[t]he owner

provided plans and BuilderÓs Description of Materials are part

of this contract , Ñ and that Ð[o]wner agrees to not inhabit the

dwelling until all construction is complete, certificate of

occupancy is obtained, and all funds to builder have been paid. Ñ

Respondent included the construction contract provided to him in

his work file.

9 . Respondent was provided with two floor plan sheets that

depicted the two - story home at issue in its fully built - out and

completed form . The floor plans included the lay out of the

Proposed Home , and general depictions of fixtures, counters and

cabinets, lighting, fans and wiring . Respondent included the

floor plan sheets in his work file.

10 . In order to confirm the nature of the building to be

constructed, Respondent called the contractor, Mr. Newman, and

had a conversation with him that lasted approximately 30

minutes. Mr. Newman testified that he provided Respondent with

the dimensions of the second floor and the location of the

various rooms , information that Respondent sought in order to

confirm information contained in the floor plans. Respondent

made a n accurate sketch of the configuration of the second floor

based on his conversation with Mr. Newman. Furthe rmore, access

to the attic was described on RespondentÓs specification sheet

notes as Ðscuttle,Ñ and not Ðstairs , Ñ information that could

only have been gathered from either Mr. Newman or the floor

plans.

11 . Mr. Newman did not have a firm recollection of whether

he provided Respondent with information regarding the materials,

appliances, and finishes to be used in the Proposed Home .

Nonetheless , a preponderance of the evidence, including

RespondentÓs testimon y and contemporaneous notes of the

conversation , indicates that Mr. Newman provided Respondent with

that information , though the evidence also suggests that

Mr. Newman understated the high quality of some of the finishes .

12 . At no time during the conversation did Mr. Newman

indicate that the second floor was not going to be finished as

depicted in the plans , and would instead be considered Ðattic

space.Ñ Mr. Newman denied that he had any responsibility to

advise Respondent that it was not his inte nt to build - out the

second floor in accordance with his described configuration ,

despite the fact that floor plans depicting a completed second

floor were sent to the Owners under his signature, and were

thereafter provided to Respondent . I t is simply not credible

that such would not have been disclosed over the course of a

lengthy and in - depth conversation under the excuse that ÐitÓs

not my job to,Ñ unless there was a n intent to convince

Respondent that the Proposed Home would be built in accordance

with the plans.

13 . Respondent included specification sheet notes and his

second floor sketch from his conversation with Mr. Newman in his

work file. Using the plans, contract, and other information as

to the property independently obtained by Respondent, and taking

into account the information received from Mr. Newman,

Respondent developed and commun icated an appraisal report,

No. 7393A, with an effective date of June 29, 2012. The

appraised value of the P roposed H ome was $ 250,000 . That amount

was consistent with and supported by properties of a size

comparable to a 3,458 square foot home in the area .

14 . The house was constructed in accordance with the

c ontract and Description of Materials . The second floor was

framed and floored, and plumbing was stubbed out, but it was not

finished so as to be considered GLA.

15 . The house as constructed contained a GLA of 2,014

square feet. 1 / However, due to the very high quality (and

expense) of cabinets, flooring, and fixtures , the cost of

construction of the 2,014 square foot GLA home was $ 232,645 , an

amount very close to the $250,000 appraised (and financed)

value. It is surprisingly (or not so surprisingly)

serendipitous that the cost of the smaller home was so close to

the appraised value of the larger home. It seems more than a

happy coincidence that the Owners and the contractor had

sufficient f inancing to account for the luxurious finishes.

16 . Respondent was not retained to do the draw in s pections

or the final inspection . Thus, he could not have known that the

home as constructed was not consistent with the plans provided

to him by StreetLinks , or with the description of the Proposed

H ome as discussed with Mr. Newman.

17 . On or about June 14, 2013, the Lender filed a

complaint with the Division of Real Estate alleging misfeasance

in the preparation of the appraisal . 2 / The documents submitted

to the Division with the co mplaint did not include the two floor

plan sheets that had been provided to Respondent , but did

include the contract signature page and the Description of

Materials that had not been provided to Respondent .

18 . By letter dated August 14, 2013, the Lender , through

its counsel, advised Respondent that it believed Respondent to

have negligently prepared the appraisal, with the negligent act

being RespondentÓs failure to recognize that the second floor of

the home was to remain unfinished. The letter p rovided, in

part, that:

Via the appraisal, you represented that you

reviewed the construction contract between

the builder and the Property owner. I have

attached a copy of that contract for your

ease of reference as Exhibit ÐBÑ hereto.

However, the cons truction contract clearly

indicates that the second story of the home

would be left unfinished. Your appraisal

failed to recognize this fact and now the

home, as built, is nowhere near your

appraised value.

The letter did not include Exhibit ÐB . Ñ Respon dent kept the

letter and other communication with the Lender in his work file.

19 . On September 4, 2013, Respondent sent an email to the

Lender Ós counsel, asking that ÐExhibit BÑ of the LenderÓs letter

be provided to him. In response, the letter with all of the

exhibits was sent to Respondent by email that same day.

20 . Exhibit ÐAÑ of t he Lender Ós letter consisted of a

Certificate of Compliance from the Lender Ós agent , StreetLinks ,

and a complete copy of RespondentÓs appraisal report.

21 . E xhibit ÐBÑ of the LenderÓs letter included the same

three - page construction contract that was contained in

RespondentÓs work file. It contained the same letter from

Mr. Newman to the property owners. Finally, it contained floor

plans for the home but , surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) ,

it included only the floor plan sheet for the first floor of the

Proposed Home . The LenderÓs Exhibit ÐBÑ did not include the

floor plan for the second floor of the Proposed H ome that had

been originally provided to Respondent by or on behalf of its

agent, StreetLinks . Exhibit ÐBÑ of the LenderÓs letter to

Respondent did not include the Description of Materials with the

provision that the s econd story of the home would be left

unfinished .

22 . At the hearing, Petitioner offered what was

represented to be the complete contract as an exhibit. The

c ontract offered was four pages and , but for the statutorily

required notice regarding construction defect claim procedures

and the signature blocks, was identical to the c ontract in

RespondentÓs workfile. The e xhibit also included the separately

styled and signed Description of Materials . As set forth

herein, t he Description of Materials was not provided to

Respondent by or at the direction of StreetLinks , or otherwise .

23 . In analyzing the issues in this case, the undersigned

pa id close attention to the opinion of PetitionerÓs expert

witness, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers opined that Respondent should

have engaged in greater inquiry that would have revealed that

the second floor was to remain unfinished , and as a result the

GLA was stated , melodramatically, to be Ðtragically overstated.Ñ

24 . In his testimony, and his report which was received in

evidence, Mr. Rogers no ted that Mr. NewmanÓs cover letter to the

Owners referenced a description of materials, estimate, and

legal description. He noted that Ðit is actually atypical for

the owner or lender to supply all of the information about the

subject property the appraiser will need to produce credible

assignment results.Ñ In instances of insufficient

documentation, Mr. Rogers testified that among the options for

dealing with that occurrence is for th e appraiser Ð to go find

that documentation and complete the assignment. Ñ

25 . Mr. Rogers believed that Respondent should have made

Ða request to the lenderÑ for the referenced materials,

apparently being unaware that the terms of RespondentÓs

engagement with StreetLinks prohibited such contact. He further

opined that RespondentÓs communication with Mr. Newman Ðwas

insufficient . . . to an accurate description of the proposed

home , Ñ and that Ð[e]xpansion of the conversation with the

builder . . . was nece ssary. Ñ How he was able to determine the

sufficiency of a conversation to which he was not privy was not

explained, and his opinion in that regard is given no weight.

26 . Based on the totality of the evidence in this case,

Respondent obtained information that was reasonably calculated

to identify the relevant characteristics of the subject

property. The contract, the complete floor plans for the first

and second floors of the home, and the lengthy conversation with

the buil der were sources that were objectively reasonable and

reliable , and consistent with USPAP and the DepartmentÓs

statutory and regulatory authority.

27 . Mr. Rogers acknowledged that complete floor plans are

an appropriate source for information regarding t he

characteristics of an appraised property. However, he

discounted RespondentÓs reliance on such floor plans in this

case. His explanation for doing so was not compelling or

persuasive , and is not accepted. Rather, the information used

by Respondent, as described herein, was sufficient to identify

the extent and character of the proposed improvements.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction

28 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

t he parties thereto pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (201 6 ) .

B. Standards

29 . Section 475.624 provides, in pertinen t part, that:

The board may deny an application for

registration or certification of an

appraiser; may investigate the actions of

any appraiser registered, licensed, or

certified under this part; may reprimand or

impose an administrative fine not to exceed

$5,000 for each count or separate offense

against any such appraiser; and may revoke

or suspend, for a period not to exceed 10

years, the registration, license, or

certification of any such appraiser, or

place any such appraiser on probation, if

the board finds that the registered trainee,

licensee, or certificateholder:

* * *

(4) Has violated any provision of this part

or any lawful order or rule issued under

this part or chapter 455.

3 0 . Rule 61J1 - 9.001 , as amended on January 30, 2012,

provided that:

All registered, licensed, or certified

appraisers shall comply with the 2012 - 2013

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal

Practice (USPAP), effective January 1, 2012,

which is incorporated by reference.

3 1 . USPAP Standards Rule 1 - 1(b) provides that:

In developing a real property appraisal , an

appraiser must:

* * *

(b) not commit a substantial error of

omission or commission that significantly

affects an appraisal[.]

3 2 . The USPAP ÐCommentÑ that accompanies Standards Rule

1 - 1(b) provides that:

An appraiser must use sufficient care to

avoid errors that would significantly affect

his or her opinions and conclusions.

Diligence is required to identify and

analyze the factors, conditions, data, and

other information that would have a

significant effect on the credibility of the

assignment results.

3 3 . The USPAP Record Keeping Rule prov ides , in pertinent

part, that:

An appraiser must prepare a workfile for

each appraisal , or appraisal review , or

appraisal consulti ng assignment. . . .

The workfile must include:

* * *

¤ all other data, information, and

documentation necessary to support the

appraiserÓs opinions and conclusions and

to show compliance with USPAP, or

references to the location(s) of such

other documentation [.]

3 4 . USPAP Standards Rule 1 - 2 ( e ) (1) provides that:

In developing a real property appraisal, an

appraiser must:

* * *

(e ) identify the characteristics of the

property that are relevant to the type

and definition of value and intended

use of the appraisal, including:

* * *

(i) its location and physical, legal, and

economic attributes [.]

3 5 . The USPAP ÐCommentÑ that accompanies Standards Rule

1 - 2 provides that:

Comment on (i) Î (v): The information used by

an appraiser to identify the property

characteristics must be from sources the

appraiser reasonably believes are reliable .

An appraiser may use any combination of a

property inspection and documents, such as a

physical legal description, address, map

reference, copy of a survey or map, property

sketch, or photographs, to identify the

relevant characteristics of the subject

property.

When appraising proposed improvements, an

appraiser must examine and have avail able

for future examination, plans,

specifications, or other documentation

sufficient to identify the extent and

character of the proposed improvements .

Identification of the real property interest

appraised can be based on a review of copies

or summarie s of title descriptions or other

documents that set forth any known

encumbrances.

An appraiser is not required to value the

whole when the subject of the appraisal is a

fractional interest, a physical segment, or

a partial holding. (emphasis added).

C. The Burden and Standard of Proof

3 6 . The Division bears the burden of proving the specific

allegations that support the charges alleged in the First

Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing

evidence. DepÓt of Banking & Fin. , Div. of Sec. & Inv . Prot. v.

Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Pou v. DepÓt of Ins. &

Treasurer , 707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

3 7 . Clear and convincing evidence Ðrequires more proof

than a Òpr eponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and

to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.ÓÑ In re Graziano ,

696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). The clear and convincing

evidence level of proof

[E] ntails both a qualitative and

quantitative standard. The evidence must be

credible; the memories of the witnesses must

be clear and without confusion; and the sum

total of

the evidence must be of sufficient weight to

convince the trier of fact without

he sitancy.

Clear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be

precise and explicit and the witnesses

must be lacking in confusi on as to the

facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction, without hesitancy, as to

the truth of the allegations sought to

be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 4 04 (Fla. 1994) (quoting, with

approval, Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983)); see also In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005).

"Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence

is in conflict, it seems to precl ude evidence that is

ambiguous." W estinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So.

2d 986, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

3 8 . The provisions of law upon which this disciplinary

action has been brought are penal in nature, and must be

strictly construed , with any ambiguity construed against the

Petitioner. Penal statutes must be construed in terms of their

literal meaning and words used by the Legislature may not be

expanded to broaden the application of such statutes. Elmariah

v. DepÓt of Bus. & ProfÓ l Reg . , 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1990); see also Beckett v. DepÓt of Fin. S erv s. , 982 So.

2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008 ) ; Whitaker v. DepÓt of Ins. , 680

So. 2d 528 , 531 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Dyer v. DepÓt of Ins. &

Treasurer , 585 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

D. Analysis

C ount I

39 . Having weighed and considered the testimony and

evidence presented at the final hearing , and based upon the

findings of fact made herein, the undersigned concludes that

P etitioner did not prove , by clear and convincing evidence , that

Respondent failed to use sufficient care to avoid errors that

would significantly affect his or her opinions and conclusions.

Rather, Respondent exercised d ili gence to identify and analyze

the factors, conditions, data, and other information that would

have a significant effect on the credibility of his appraisal

report . Thus, although the appraisal was not accurate due to

substantial errors of omission or comm ission on the part of

S treetLinks and Mr. Newman, RespondentÓs reasonable reliance on

the information provided to him demonstrates that Respondent did

not fail to use sufficient care or diligence in developing the

real property appraisal .

4 0 . For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner failed to

prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent

violated USPAP Standards Rule 1 - 1(b) , r ule 61J1 - 9.001 , or

s ection 475.624 (4) as alleged in Count I of the First Amended

Administrative Complaint.

C ount II

4 1 . Having weighed and considered the testimony and

evidence presented at the final hearing, and based upon the

findings of fact made herein, the undersigned concludes that

Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Responden t failed to prepare a workfile for the subject

appraisal. Rather, Respondent prepared and maintained a

workfile that included data, information, and documentation ,

including , but not limited to, the two - story floor plans and his

notes of the conversation with Mr. Newman, that was reasonably

and objectively necessary to support his opinions and

conclusions and to show compliance with USPAP .

4 2 . For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner failed to

prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent

violated the USPAP Record Keeping Rule , rule 61J1 - 9.001, or

section 475.624(4) as alleged in Count I I of the First Amended

Administrative Complaint.

C ount II I

4 3 . Having weighed and considered the testimony and

evidence presented at the final hearing, and based upon the

findings of fact made herein, the undersigned concludes that

Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent failed to identify the characteristics of the

Proposed Home relevant to the type and definition of v alue and

intended use of the appraisal , including its location and

physical, legal, and economic attributes . Rather, Respondent

identif ied the property characteristics from sources that he

reasonably believe d, and which objectively should have been ,

reliable. Under the facts of this case, Respondent examined and

maintained the plans, specifications, or other documentation ,

including , but not limited to, the two - story floor plans and his

notes of the conversation with Mr. Newman, that were reasonably

and objectively sufficient to identify the extent and character

of the Proposed Home .

4 4 . For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner failed to

prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent

violated the USPAP Standards Rule 1 - 2 ( e ) (1) , rule 61J1 - 9.001, or

section 475.624(4) as alleged in Count II of the First Amended

Administrative Complaint.

C onclusion

4 5 . The evidence in this case suggests that there may have

been effort s on the part of persons other than Respondent to

inflate the valuation of the Proposed Home in order to provide

the financing necessary for the construction of a smaller home

with more luxurious and expensive fixtures and finishes than

normal. Regardless, Respondent was provided with information

that was objectively reliable and sufficient for him to perform

the appraisal , and his reliance on that information was not a

violation of USPAP, or the statutes and rules under which

Petitioner exercises its authority.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of t he facts found and conclusions of

law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board , enter a

f inal o rder dismissing the First Amended Administrative

Complaint .

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

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 31st day of August , 2016 .

ENDNOTES

1 / The completed GLA figure was derived by subtracting the area

of the 38Ó x 38Ó second floor (1,444 square feet) from the 3,458

Proposed Home total square feet.

2/ The complaint was filed on behalf of the Lender by Kenneth

Hart. Prior to the filing of the complaint, Mr. Hart worked for

the Division of Real Estate . He left that position and went to

work for the Lender for a time . B y the time the investigation

became active, Mr. Hart had returned to the employ of the

Division of Real Estate . Though the interview process must have

been made easier by Mr. HartÓs presence in t he DivisionÓs

office s , there was no evidence of undue pressure or favoritism

resulting from the complainant Ó s employment by the Division .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Jason Dwight Walker

547 Mashes Sand Road

Panacea, Florida 32346

(eServed)

Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Office of the General Counsel

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Allison Carmine McDonald, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Office of the General Counsel

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Roy Pechello, Chair

Real Estate Appraisal Board

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

400 W est Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Jason Maine, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.