1. In January of 2003, True Trust Mortgage (the "client") hired Frank Hendrickson ("Hendrickson") to appraise a parcel of property located at 18040 E. 613 Road, Inola, Oklahoma (the "subject property").
2. On or about January 13, 2003, Hendrickson completed an appraisal on the subject property (the "appraisal"). The appraisal's date of appraised value was reported as January 13,2003. Respondent reported a final estimate of value as One Hundred Thousand Dollars and OO/l 00 ($100,000.00). The report was submitted to the client.
3. Said appraisal states in the appraiser's signed certification that the appraiser's analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP").
4. The report contained numerous errors which in the aggregate led to an inflated market value of the subject property. Some of the errors include, but are not limited to, the following paragraphs 5-10.
5. Respondents' comparables were superior to the subject property and Respondent ignored and failed to analyze adequate sales within the subject market area.
6. Respondent reports he uses Marshall & Swift to determine his cost per square foot under the cost approach. However, the amount used per square foot is not consistent with Marshall & Swift, is inflated and is misleading.
Respondent reported that the driveway is concrete when in fact it is gravel.
Information contained in the neighborhood section was not complete and accurate In
that:
a. The neighborhood was rural, not suburban.
b. The values were not stable, but were increasing.
c. The neighborhood property ages should have been reported as new to 50 years of age, rather than new to 100 years as reported by the Respondent.
9. Respondent failed to make appropriate adjustments to the comparables as follows:
a. On comp # 2, Respondent failed to make a required adjustment for site size.
b. On comp #3, Respondent made all insufficient adjustment for site size.
c. On Comps #2 and 3, Respondent made an inadequate adjustment for car storage.
10. Respondent failed to correctly identify the scope of work necessary in that he failed to use the resources that would represent what his peers' actions would be in performing this assignment, thus failing to exercise reasonable diligence in developing the appraisal.
LINK
another one last month:
I. In 2007, Sequoyah Mortgage (the "client") hired Frank Hendrickson ("Hendrickson") to appraise a parcel of property located at 204 South 5th Street, Eufaula, Oklahoma (the "subject property").
2. On or about May 21, 2007, Hendrickson completed an appraisal on the subject property (the "appraisal"). The appraisal's date of appraised value was reported as May 16, 2007. Respondent reported a final estimate of value as Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($85,000.00). The report was submitted to the client and was for the purpose of refinancing the subject property.
3. Said appraisal states in the appraiser's signed certification that the appraiser's analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP").
4. The report contained numerous errors which in the aggregate led to an inflated market value of the subject property. Some of the errors include, but are not limited to, the following paragraphs 5-13.
5. Respondent failed to provide an adequate neighborhood description in the appraisal and failed to explain the om ission of a neighborhood description narrative statement.
6. Respondent's predominate value of properties in the neighborhood was inflated and the highest valued property in the neighborhood was inflated in the appraisal as well.
Respondent failed to list the site dimensions in the appraisal.
Respondent failed to analyze the prior sale of the subject property less than two years
prior to respondent's appraisal and explain the very substantial difference between the prior sale price and his estimate of value.
9. Sales comparable to the subject property were available but not chosen by Respondent.
10. The subject property's appraised value was $80.19 per square foot while the comparables selected all superior to the subject property, ranged from $60.06 per square foot to $65.50 per square foot.
II. There was no support for Respondent's $10 per square foot adjustment for gross living area when Respondent derived $82.00 per square foot of the subject property.
12. Respondent's site value adjustment on comparable number one is unsupported.
13. Respondent's age adjustments are not consistent and Respondent failed to offer explanation or support for the adjustments made.
14. Respondent failed to correctly apply his credential number to the report.
15. Respondent received a copy of the Notice of Disciplinary Proceedings and Appointment of Hearing Panel on February 26, 2009, constituting proper service of notice.
16. The hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct in the preceding paragraphs constitutes gross negligence.
LINK
The first included a fine, suspension for 30 days, and 30 hours remedial education within 6 months before reinstatement. the second requires 60 hours education, a fine, and a suspension for 6 months. Suspensions to be consecutive, not concurrent. Wednesday he voluntarily surrendered his license.
I didn't check the numbering of the clauses, but you can go read the whole thing at the links.
Last weeks decision will be posted after the September meeting.
