1
Volume 16 August 2006 Number 2
Earl M. Worsley, Jr. of Wilmington
has been elected Chairman of the
Appraisal Board for 2006- 2007.
Governor Michael F. Easley originally
appointed Mr. Worsley to the Board
in 2003. Mr. Worsley served as Vice-
Chairman of the Appraisal Board for
2005- 2006.
Mr. Worsley is a certified general
appraiser and holds the professional
designation of MAI from the Appraisal
Institute. Mr. Worsley is a North Caro-lina
real estate broker with the CRE
designation and has been active in the
National Association of Realtors
through its local Board in Wilmington.
He is a native of Pitt County and a
graduate of East Carolina University.
Mr. Worsley formed the Worsley Real
Estate Company in 1995 to concentrate
as an advisor and consultant in vari-ous
real estate ventures. Mr. Worsley
has many years of experience in real
estate appraisal, brokerage and also in
real estate investment and develop-ment.
Mr. Worsley also formed
Worsley Investment and Develop-ment,
LLC and is very active in the
investment and development of real
estate in eastern North Carolina.
Mr. Worsley is married to
Charlotte Wilson Worsley and they
have one son, William Earl Worsley.
Henry E. Faircloth has been elect-ed
to Vice- Chairman of the Appraisal
Board for 2006- 2007. Mr. Faircloth was
first appointed to the Board on July 1,
1991 and has served continuously on
the Board to the current date. He led
the Board as Chairman in the Board’s
first year as an autonomous agency in
1995- 1996 and has served as Chairman
on three additional occasions in 1998-
1999, 2001- 2002 and 2004- 2005.
Board Elects Officers Governor Reappoints
Board Members
The many years of planning, dedica-tion
of many Board and staff members
and the wise use of funds have finally
resulted in the Board having a new
owner occupied building. The new
building was occupied on June 26 and
the first Board meeting in the new
building was on July 18, 2006. This
building was designed to serve the
public and appraisers for many years
to come with room for expansion and
is considered to be an outstanding as-set
for the State. You are invited to
visit us anytime at our new location
which is 5830 Six Forks Road, Raleigh,
NC 27609. Our new phone number is
919- 870- 4854 and our new fax number
is 919- 870- 4859. Our email remains the
same at ncab@ ncab. org. 9
Governor Michael F. Easley has
reappointed Earl M. Worsley, Jr. and
Larry N. Wright to three- year terms
until June 30, 2009. This will be the sec-ond
terms for both members with Mr.
Worsley and Mr. Wright being originally
appointed by Governor Easley in June
2003 to terms that expired in June 2006.
Mr. Worsley is from Wilmington and Mr.
Wright is from Candler. Both are certi-fied
general appraisers and Mr. Worsley
holds the professional designation of
MAI and Mr. Wright the SRA designa-tion
from the Appraisal Institute. 9
Mr. Faircloth is the Board’s only
public member, as required by state
statute, and has been appointed to
each term upon the recommendation
of the President Pro Tempore of the
North Carolina Senate. He has a great
deal of real estate appraisal expertise
by having served on the Board for this
record- breaking term.
Mr. Faircloth is a building contrac-tor
with over thirty years of experi-ence
and owns a construction com-pany,
which specializes in commercial
construction. He is on the Board of
Trustees for Sampson Community
College and is very active in both civic
and community affairs. He and his
wife, Faye, make their home in
Salemburg. 9
New Board Building
Appraising a building with
an illegal addition
On occasion an appraiser will receive an assignment to appraise a
property and then discovers that there is an upgrade or addition to the
building for which a permit was never received. Often this is ascertained
by finding a discrepancy between the tax card and physical inspection of
the property. Or, the property owner may inform the appraiser of the
upgrade.
The North Carolina Real Estate Commission takes the position that
unless the upgrade is “ legal,” any additional footage as a result of the ille-gal
addition cannot be listed in the GLA for the property on the MLS.
The North Carolina Appraisal Board takes the position that if the
additional square footage still results in zoning compliance, the square
footage may be used in the appraisal. A comment should be made on
the appraisal report that it appeared that no building permit was
received for the additional area. If the information regarding a building
permit is readily available to the appraiser in the normal course of busi-ness,
the appraiser must check the information. If not, the appraiser
does not have the obligation to make sure that the property received
proper permits. 9
Appraisers are not
pest control inspectors!
The North Carolina Structural Pest Control Act requires that any one
who works in any phase of pest control must be licensed by the
Structural Pest Control Division of the NC Department of Agriculture.
This includes any one who identifies infestations and who inspects
household structures or commercial buildings, as well as outside areas.
Appraisers are often asked to determine the presence of wood- destroying
insects when they inspect a subject property. The only thing an apprais-er
can legally do without a pest control license is to call attention to poten-tial
wood- destroying insect problems in very general terms. An appraiser
cannot say that the property has termites or other wood- destroing insects
or that the property has been damaged by such insects.
When doing an inspection, if you observe the presence of wood destroy-ing
insects, or it appears that the property has had problems in the past
and it has been remedied, the only thing you should note on your
appraisal is that there appears to be some evidence of current or past
insect activity on the property. You should state in the appraisal report
that the property owner should have an inspection by a qualified indi-vidual
to determine whether wood- destroying insects are present and
whether they have caused damage. 9
2
Published as a service to appraisers to promote
a better understanding of the Law, Rules and
Regulations, and proficiency in ethical appraisal
practice. The articles published herein shall not
be reprinted or reproduced in any other publica-tion,
without specific reference being made to
their original publication in the North Carolina
Appraisal Board Appraisereport.
NORTH CAROLINA
APPRAISAL BOARD
5830 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: 919/ 870- 4854
Fax: 919/ 870- 4859
Website:
www. ncappraisalboard. org
Email Address:
ncab@ ncab. org
Michael F. Easley, Governor
APPRAISAL BOARD MEMBERS
Earl M. Worsley, Jr.
Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington
Henry E. Faircloth
Vice- Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salemburg
Charles K. Hinnant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kenly
W. Tom Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raleigh
E. Ossie Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oxford
J. Vance Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elkin
Larry N. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Candler
STAFF
Philip W. Humphries, Executive Director
Roberta A. Ouellette, Legal Counsel
Donald T. Rodgers, Deputy Director
Thomas W. Lewis, III, Investigator
Jeffrey H. Davison, Investigator
Kim N. Giannattasio, Administrative Assistant
Paula Ford, Appraiser Clerk
Christy Henson, Office Assistant
APPRAISER COUNT
( As of August 1, 2006)
Trainees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Licensed Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Certified Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1730
Certified General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Total Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3761
APPRAISER
EXAMINATION RESULTS
November 2005 - June 2006
Examination Total Passed Failed
Trainee 306 224 82
Licensed Residential 28 24 4
Certified Residential 93 62 31
Certified General 36 19 17
Examinations are administered by a national testing
service. For information, please contact the North
Carolina Appraisal Board in writing at 5830 Six
Forks Road, Raleigh, NC 27609.
3
Appraisers know that they cannot
use a land/ home package as a com-parable
sale. The question often
received by Board staff is: How do I
recognize a land/ home package?
Some land/ home package sales
are simple to recognize. A check of
the public records may indicate that
the property transferred was only a
lot, but the HUD- 1 ( settlement form)
shows the sales price of both the land
and the home. If public records indi-cate
that only the land transferred,
this is a land/ home package sale and
cannot be used as a comparable sale.
In other instances, what may look
like a land/ home package is actually a
legitimate sale. In the past several
years, more developers have been
building subdivisions and advertising
the properties on MLS as presales.
The buyer goes to a sales office,
selects a lot, and then selects from a
limited number of the developer’s
floor plans to be built on the lot.
There may be a limited list of custom
features available that adds to the
cost of the package. When the home
is finished, both the lot and the house
convey as one unit, which is reflected
in the public records.
If, however, the buyer goes to a
developer and buys a lot, then selects
his own builder who builds a home
customized to the buyer, this is not a
legitimate sale to use as a comp. The
key is that the combination of the lot
and home has not been exposed to
the market and negotiated between a
willing buyer and seller.
There are some instances where
real estate agents report a land/ home
package sale on MLS. There are some
red flags that could indicate such a
sale. Some agents will make a remark
that the sale is for information pur-poses
only and is not to be used as a
comp. Other agents may state that the
sale is for comp purposes only. The
property may show that it was only
on the market for one or two days.
Even if the sale is reported on the
MLS, that does not always make it a
legitimate, arm’s length transaction. It
is the appraiser’s responsibility to
verify the legitimacy of the sale.
Remember, Standards Rule 1- 4 of
USPAP requires that you collect, veri-fy
and analyze the data used in the
report. For example, if you collect
comparable sales information form
MLS, you then verify the information
by calling the listing or sales agent,
the tax office, or another source. If
there is any discrepancy between
these two sources, you must continue
to research the sale until you are con-fident
that the information you will
use in your analysis is correct. This is
especially important if you receive
verbal information or a HUD- 1 that
conflicts with public records.
You should also be careful to cor-rectly
identify both your data source
and verification source, and to keep
in your workfile a copy of the infor-mation
relied upon for the appraisal.
For example, if you use MLS as your
data source and tax records as your
verification source, you should have
a copy of the MLS sheet and tax
record in your file. Sometimes you
may receive information orally, such
as from the listing broker over the
telephone. You should make a note
for the file of your conversation,
including the name and telephone
number of the source of information
and the date, as well as a summary of
the information received. 9
Land Home Packages Defined
A deed must be recorded to be a valid transfer!
The Board has seen an increase in the number of false deeds that have been
presented to appraisers. In many cases, these deeds are part of a flipping
scheme where the middleman dos not actually have title to the property. In a
slipping scheme, the “ flipper,” or middleman, looks for a property to buy at a low
cost. This could be through foreclosure or by checking MLS for distressed prop-erties
on the market. The middleman then finds a buyer for the property at an
inflated price, and then prepares a deed for the original owner that appears to
transfer the property to the middleman. The deed is not recorded. A contract is
prepared between the middleman and the buyer at an inflated price. It is this
contract that is presented to the appraiser to use in the appraisal process.
Since the first deed is not recorded, it has not actually transferred title to the
property and public records will reflect that the original owner is still the owner
of record. If you are given a copy of an unrecorded deed, the owner of record
must be shown as the owner on the appraisal report. You should then make a
comment in an addendum to your appraisal report informing the client of the
unrecorded deed and the contract. As an appraiser, USPAP requires you to ver-ify
ownership of the subject property, as well as any transfers of the subject prop-erty
within the three years prior to the effective date of the appraisal report. This
means that if there is an unrecorded deed, you must attempt to discover the
price paid or to be paid to the original buyer in the unrecorded deed. You must
then report that sales price in your appraisal report in the addendum.
In a flip sale, the owner, client or buyer may tell you that the property is not
listed for sale, and there may not be a “ for Sale” sign on the property. In order to
protect yourself and to comply with USPAP, you must check with your local mul-tiple
listing service to see if the property is actually listed for sale. If so, you must
report this information in your appraisal report.
Remember, not all flip sales involve unscrupulous parties. As an appraiser,
your job is to disclose the facts as you find them, not as someone reports them
to you. 9
The 2006 edition of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice becomes effective on July 1,
2006. To assist with this transition,
the Appraisal Standards Board has
created a document ( available on
The Appraisal Foundation website at
www. appraisalfoundation. org) to
answer some of the most common
questions about the 2006 USPAP and
Scope of Work. We have reprinted
several of those questions and
answers below.
2006 USPAP
& Scope of Work
Question # 1: What are the major
changes in the 2006 USPAP related to
the scope of work and departure
concepts?
Response: The biggest changes are
elimination of the DEPARTURE RULE
and introduction of the SCOPE OF
WORK RULE. The most visible change
in appraisal practice is the discontin-ued
use of the terms “ Complete” and
“ Limited” to describe the appraisal
process. There are numerous related
changes, but these are the main focus.
Question # 2: What is scope of work?
Response: In basic terms, the scope
of work is the work an appraiser per-forms
to develop assignment results.
USPAP defines “ scope of work” as the
type and extent of research and analy-ses
in an assignment. Note that this
definition excludes reporting.
Question # 3: Will the changes in the
2006 USPAP change the steps an ap-praiser
takes in developing assign-ment
results from what is done now?
Response: No. The SCOPE OF WORK
RULE has no requirements that were
not in USPAP before. It’s a matter of
emphasis. The process of problem
identification and the development of
an appropriate scope of work, both
previously existing USPAP require-ments,
are emphasized more in the
SCOPE OF WORK RULE and the 2006
USPAP.
Question # 4: Has any advice been
issued to help understand the SCOPE
OF WORK RULE and its use?
Response: Yes, the ASB issued two
new Advisory Opinions:
• AO- 29 An Acceptable Scope of
Work; and
• AO- 28 Scope of Work Decision,
Performance, and Disclosure
Question # 5: How does an appraiser
know if the scope of work is adequate?
Response: The same way appraisers
know now. Appraisers will continue to
use their training, experience and
judgment to determine a scope of
work that produces credible assign-ment
results.
Question # 6: Who determines the
scope of work?
Response: It is the appraiser’s
responsibility to determine and per-form
the appropriate scope of work.
Question # 7: Is a scope of work spec-ified
by the client acceptable?
Response: It is if that scope of work
allows the appraiser to develop
credible assignment results. If the
scope of work specified by the client
does not allow the development of
credible assignment results, the ap-praiser
needs to discuss changing
the scope of work or withdraw from
the assignment.
Question # 8: What’s important to
know about “ credible”?
Response: Whether or not assign-ment
results are credible is always
measured in the context of the intend-ed
use of the assignment. This means
that credibility is relative, not abso-lute.
Assignment results that are cred-ible
for one intended use may not be
credible for another intended use.
Question # 9: Does the SCOPE OF
WORK RULE introduce any new
reporting requirements?
Response: No. The SCOPE OF WORK
RULE does emphasize that the
appraiser must report the scope of
work performed in the assignment,
but this requirement has been in
USPAP for many years.
The requirement to report the
scope of work takes on greater signifi-cance
because intended users rely on
this disclosure to understand the
research and analyses performed in
the assignment, rather than relying on
the simple ( and potentially mislead-ing)
labels Complete Appraisal and
Limited Appraisal.
Question # 10: Is a separate section in
the report needed for the scope of
work description?
Response: No. USPAP does not dic-tate
where information must be
included in reports. The scope of
work performed may be described in
one section or throughout the report.
Question # 11: Does the report need
to explain what wasn’t done in an
assignment?
Response: Possibly. In addition to
the disclosure of research and analy-ses
performed, disclosure of research
and analyses not performed might be
needed to allow users of the report to
understand your scope of work. The
report must explain why the cost
approach, sales comparison approach
or income approach was not devel-oped.
It may also be necessary to dis-close
other research and analysis not
performed.
Question # 12: Have the reporting
labels been deleted from USPAP?
Response: No. The report types iden-tified
in USPAP have not changed. Self-
Contained Report, Summary Report
and Restricted Use Appraisal Report
are still the report options for real
and personal property appraisals.
Appraisal Report and Restricted Use
Appraisal Report are still the report
options for business or intangible
asset appraisals. 9
4
USPAP
Questions & Answers
Who is my client? What are
my obligations to my client? When
do those obligations end? Can my
client have me reassign the report
to others? Can I appraise the same
property for a different client?
What if the lender hires me but the
homeowner pays my fee at the
door? These are some of the many
questions we receive regarding the
appraiser- client relationship.
Question 1. I recently performed an
appraisal on a subject property for a
lender, and now a mortgage broker
has contacted me to ask me if I can
transfer the report to him. He wants to
have a different lender’s name placed
in the client line. He says he has the
permission of the first lender for me to
do this. Is this okay under USPAP?
Answer— No. Once a report has
been prepared for a named client, the
appraiser cannot readdress or transfer
the report to another party. Simply
changing the client name on the
report cannot change or replace the
original appraiser- client relationship
that was established with the first
client. See Advisory Opinion 26 for
more information.
Question 2. I know that I cannot
transfer a report from one client to
another, but I get calls all the time ask-ing
me to do this. Is there any way I
can accept the assignment and com-ply
with USPAP?
Answer— Yes. The appraiser can
consider the request a new assign-ment
and establish a new appraiser-client
relationship with the second
client. See Advisory Opinion 27 for
more information.
Question 3. I recently performed an
appraisal on a subject property and a
new lender contacted me to request a
separate but complete appraisal on
the same property. Can I do this new
assignment?
Answer— Yes. As long as the
appraiser does not use any confiden-tial
information given to him or her
by the first client, the appraiser can
accept an assignment to appraise the
same property for a different client.
See Advisory Opinion 27 for more
information.
Question 4. The lender hired me to
do an appraisal, and told me to collect
at the door. The homeowners paid my
fee, and now they want a copy of the
report. What can I do?
Answer:— USPAP defines the client
as “ the party or parties who engage
an appraiser ( by employment or by
contract) in a specific assignment.”
The determining factor is not who
pays for the appraisal or how it is
paid, but who contacted the apprais-er
in the first place and placed the
appraisal order. For a federally- relat-ed
transaction, federal law requires
the lender to be the one to engage
the appraiser’s services. In many, if
not most cases, the homeowner pays
for the appraisal either directly to
the appraiser or indirectly through
the lender, thus payment for serv-ices
is not the determining factor. In
the above scenario, it is the lender
who is the client, not the homeown-er,
and the appraiser cannot give a
copy of the report to the homeowner
without the lender’s consent. You
should inform the homeowner of
this when you collect the fee so
there is no confusion.
Lenders are required by federal
law ( the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act) to furnish a copy of the appraisal
to the borrower if the borrower
requests a copy in writing. This
applies to both consumer and busi-ness
loans for which real estate will be
collateral. If the homeowner wants a
copy of the appraisal, they can be told
to contact the lender directly or the
appraiser can ask the client for per-mission
to send a copy.
Question 5. A mortgage broker hires
me to appraise a property. The broker
asks that his name not be used as the
client, but that I instead identify the
client as a local lender on the written
appraisal report. The mortgage bro-ker’s
name or relationship to the par-ties
is not to be mentioned in the
report. Can I do this?
Answer— Once an appraiser places a
client name on the appraisal report,
that person or company is the client,
resulting in an appraiser- client rela-tionship.
If a mortgage broker wants
an appraiser to perform an appraisal
on a property that will then be offered
to several lenders, the appraiser
should not submit an appraisal report
naming anyone other than the broker
as the client. The appraiser could
state that intended users include lend-ing
institutions, without naming any
one lender. If the appraiser does state
a client name in the appraisal report,
the appraiser cannot simply change
the name of the client and submit the
appraisal to a new lender ( See Ques-tion
1 this page).
Question 6. What if it is the home-owner
who engages my services and
wants me to put a lender’s name on
the report as the client?
Answer— First of all, before the
appraiser accepts the assignment, the
appraiser must disclose to the home-owner
that a lender or its agent is
required to directly engage the serv-ices
of an appraiser in a federally-related
transaction. The appraiser
should make it clear to the homeown-er
that a lender may not accept the
report even if he states on the report
that the lender is the client. Also, the
homeowner should be informed that
once the appraiser states in the report
the name of the client, the appraiser
cannot change the name of the client
on the report.
For more information on these
and other questions, see Advisory
Opinions 26 and 27. 9
5
Reissuing or assigning an appraisal report
6
Alamance Community College
P. O. Box 8000
Graham, NC 27253
336- 578- 2002
Appraising Small Residential Income Prop ( 10/ 10)
Intro to Commercial Real Estate ( 4/ 4)
New Exstg Res Cds Afftng RE Appr ( 10/ 10)
Real Estate Finance ( 4/ 4)
Allen Tate School of Real Estate – A Dan Mohr School
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 206
Charlotte, NC 28217
704- 362- 2296
Mfg/ Mod Homes & Real Property ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
New Fannie Mae Forms ( 7/ 7)
New Rules & Regs FHA/ HUD Appraisal Requirements ( 14/ 14)
Residential Construction Seminar ( 14/ 14)
Staying Out of Trouble – NC App ( 7/ 7)
Allstate Home Inspection Training Institute
14 Merchant Street
Barre, VT 05641
802- 476- 4307
Environmental Awareness ( 8/ 8)
FHA Test Preparation ( 8/ 8)
Introduction to Home Inspection ( 8/ 8)
USPAP Refresher ( 8/ 8)
Allterra Consulting Group LLC
7721 Five Mile Road
Cincinnati, OH 45230
513- 659- 1656
AVM Fundamentals ( 7/ 7)
Best Practices/ Intended Users ( 7/ 7)
Keynote Address/ Appraiser Lia ( 7/ 7)
American School of Real Estate Appraisers
P. O. Box 275
Cherryville, NC 28021
704- 435- 1111
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
Value? What Value? ( 4/ 4)
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers
950 South Cherry Street, Suite 508
Denver, CO 80222
303- 758- 3513
A- 12 Part 1 ASFMRA Code of Ethics ( 7/ 7)
A- 12 ( III) National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
A- 25 Eminent Domain ( 19/ 19)
A- 27 Income Capitalization ( 28/ 27)
A- 29 Highest & Best Use ( 15/ 15)
Advanced Resource Appraisal A- 34 ( 30/ 30)
A- 35 Advanced Appraisal Review ( 49/ 30)
A36 Intro to Appraisal Review ( 14/ 14)
Appraising Agricultural Land in Transition ( 14/ 14)
Appraising Agricultural Land in Transition ( 8/ 8)
Appraising Rural Residential Properties ( 15/ 15)
Conservation Easement Valuation & Case Stud ( 24/ 24)
Conservation Easements ( 16/ 14)
Cost Estimating ( 8/ 8)
Current Environmental Issues ( 8/ 8)
Identifying Intangible Assets ( 16/ 16)
Yllw Bk – Uniform Appr Standards for Fed Land Acq ( 8/ 8)
American Society of Appraisers NC Chapter
121 SE 21st Street
Oak Island, NC 28465
910- 278- 7151
Appraising Rural Residential Part Time Farms ( 7/ 7)
Appraising Small Residential Income Properties ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions ( 7/ 7)
Using Marshall & Swift/ Res Prop ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Schools by M. Curtis West
P. O. Box 947
Zebulon, NC 27597
919- 217- 8040
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
Scope of Work in the Appraisal Process ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Academy ( The)
3802 N. University Street
Peoria, IL 61614
309- 681- 8100
O/ L Limiting Appraiser Liability Exposure ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Tough Residential Appraisal Assignment ( 4/ 4)
O/ L Manufactured Home Appraising ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Fundamentals of Small Business Valuation ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Institute
550 W. Van Buren Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60607
312- 335- 4236
2006 New Techniques for Real Estate Appraisers:
Cool Tools ( 3.5/ 3.5)
2006 Scope of Work & New USPAP ( 3.5/ 3.5)
320 General Applications ( 39/ 30)
330 Apartment Appr: Cncpts & ( 14/ 14)
400 National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
410 National USPAP ( 15/ 16)
420 Business Practice and Ethic ( 7/ 7)
500 Adv Res Form & Narrative ( 40/ 30)
520 High & Best Use & Mkt Anal ( 40/ 30)
530 Adv Sales Comp & Cost Appr ( 40/ 30)
600 Inc Val of Sm Mixed- Use Prop ( 15/ 15)
610 Cst Val of Sm Mixed- Use Prop ( 15/ 15)
620 Sls Comp Val Sm Mixed- Use ( 15/ 15)
700 Appraisers as Expert Witness ( 15/ 15)
705 Litigation Appr: Spclzd Topics & ( 16/ 16)
710 Condemnation Appr: Basic Prin & ( 15/ 15)
720 Condemnation Appr: Adv Topics & ( 15/ 15)
810 Computer- Enhanced Cash F ( 15/ 15)
Adv Res Applctns & Case Studies ( 14/ 14)
Adv Res Report Writing Pt 2 ( 28/ 28)
Analyzing Commercial Lease C ( 7/ 7)
Appr Consulting: A Solutions Appr ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Review - General ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Review - Single Fam Resid ( 7/ 7)
Appraising Convenience Stores ( 7/ 7)
Appraising Manufactured Housing ( 7/ 7)
Appraising the Tough Ones ( 7/ 7)
Avoiding Liability as a Residential Appr ( 7/ 7)
Case Studies in Residential Highest & Best Use ( 7/ 7)
Case Studies in Limited Partnership &
Common Tenancy Valuation ( 14/ 14)
Condominiums Co- Ops & PUDS ( 7/ 7)
FHA & the New Residential Appraisal Forms ( 7/ 7)
Forecasting Revenue ( 7/ 7)
Gen Demo Appr Rpt Writing Sem ( 7/ 7)
General Market Analysis & Highest & Best Use ( 28/ 28)
Intro to Income Capitalization ( 7/ 7)
Liability Management for Residential Appraisers ( 7/ 7)
Mkt Analy & the Site to Do Business ( 7/ 7)
Mthmtclly Modeling Real Est ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Course 400: 7- Hr National USPAP Equivalent Course ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Course 420: Business Practices & Ethics ( 8/ 7)
O/ L Analyzing Distressed RE ( 4/ 4)
O/ L Analyzing Operating Expen ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraisal of Nursing Facilities ( 9/ 9)
O/ L Appraising from Blueprints ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Apartment Appraisal, Concepts & Applications ( 15/ 15)
O/ L Internet Search Strategies for R ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Intro to GIS Apps for RE App ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Professional’s Guide to the URAR ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Res Design & Functional Uti ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Res Property Construction & In ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Sm Hotel/ Motel Val: Lmtd S ( 7/ 7)
O/ L The Cost Approach to Commercial Appraising ( 7/ 7)
O/ L The FHA and the Appr Proce ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Using Your HP12C Financial ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Val of Detrimental Conditions ( 7/ 7)
Opportunities for Appr: Consultants Under the
Brownsfield Act of 2002 ( 7/ 7)
Quality Assurance in Residential Appraisals ( 7/ 7)
Professional’s Guide to the URAR ( 7/ 7)
Rd Less Traveled: Spcl Purpose Pr ( 7/ 7)
RE Finance, Stats, Valuation M ( 14/ 14)
RE Finance, Value, Invest Model ( 7/ 7)
Res Demo Appr Report Writing S ( 7/ 7)
Res Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use ( 14/ 14)
Residential Report Writing & Case Stud ( 14/ 14)
Reviewing Residential Appr Rpt ( 7/ 7)
Residential Sales Comparison & Income Approaches ( 28/ 28)
Residential Site Valuation & Cost Approach ( 14/ 14)
Scope of Work: Expanding Range ( 7/ 7)
Subdivision Valuation ( 7/ 7)
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions ( 16/ 15)
Washington Appraisal Summit ( 6/ 6)
What Clients Want Apprs to Know ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Institute NC Chapter
2306 W. Meadowview Road, Suite 101
Greensboro, NC 27407
336- 297- 9511
Evaluating Commercial Construction ( 16/ 16)
RE Development: How to Increase Profits ( 4/ 4)
Understanding & Testing DCF Valuation Models ( 4/ 4)
Yellow Book: Uniform Appraisal Standards
of Federal Land Acquisition ( 8/ 8)
Asheville- Buncombe Technical Community College
340 Victoria Road
Asheville, NC 28801
828- 254- 1921
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
PDH RE – Basic Surveying ( 5/ 5)
The UDO: Regulating RE Use & Dev ( 4/ 4)
Bob Ipock & Associates, Inc.
1218 Heatherloch Drive
Gastonia, NC 28054
704- 867- 1985
Appraising in NC ( 4/ 4)
Back to Basics ( 4/ 4)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
Career Webschool
1395 S. Marietta Pkwy., Bldg. 400, Suite 107
Marietta, GA 30067
770- 919- 9191
O/ L A URAR Form Review ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraisal Methods ( 14/ 14)
O/ L FHA Single Family Appraisal ( 14/ 14)
O/ L Overview of Appr Process ( 14/ 14)
O/ L Residential Report Writing & Cases ( 14/ 14)
O/ L Uniform Resid Appr Rpt ( 14/ 14)
CCIM Institute
430 N. Michigan Avenue, 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60611- 4092
312- 321- 4473
C1101 Financial Analysis of Commercial Invest. ( 30/ 30)
C1102 Market Analysis Comm Inv. ( 30/ 30)
C1103 Lease Analysis Comm Inv. ( 30/ 30)
C1104 Invest Analysis Comm Inv. ( 30/ 30)
Intro to Com Investment RE An ( 12/ 12)
CLE International
1620 Gaylord Street
Denver, CO 80206
303- 377- 6600
Eminent Domain ( 12/ 12)
Columbia Institute ( The)
8546 Broadway, Suite 235
San Antonio, TX 78217
800- 460- 3147
Analyzing the Subject No. 012 ( 4/ 4)
Fundamentals of Appraisal Review No. 105 ( 8/ 8)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 8/ 7)
Using the New Forms No. 103 ( 8/ 8)
Dan Mohr Real Estate Schools
1400 Battleground Avenue, Suite 150
Greensboro, NC 27408
800- 639- 9813
Depreciation Workshop ( 7/ 7)
Environmental Hazards- Res Prop ( 7/ 7)
Extraction of Data from Market Res ( 7/ 7)
HP 12C Course ( 7/ 7)
Intro to Residential Construction ( 30/ 30)
Mfg/ Mod Homes & Real Prop App ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New Fannie Mae Forms ( 7/ 7)
Res Appr & Conv Underwriting Guide ( 7/ 7)
Residential Construction Cost ( 7/ 7)
Residential Construction Seminar ( 14/ 14)
Rules & Regs FHA/ HUD Rqrmnt ( 14/ 14)
Staying Out of Trouble – NC App ( 7/ 7)
The Narrative Appraisal Report ( 7/ 7)
Dynasty School
2373 S. Hacienda Boulevard
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
800- 888- 8827
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Real Estate Appraisal ( 14/ 14)
Edgecombe Community College
225 Tarboro Street
Rocky Mount, NC 27801
252- 446- 0436
Appr Mfg, Mod & Mobile ( A) ( 7/ 7)
Appr Mfg, Mod & Mobile ( B) ( 7/ 7)
Cst Appr Marshall & Swift Res & Co ( 7/ 7)
Income Capitalization ( 14/ 14)
Income Capitalization ( A) ( 7/ 7)
Income Capitalization ( B) ( 7/ 7)
Mfg, Modular & Mobile ( 4/ 4)
Narrative Appraisal Report Writing ( 14/ 14)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Multifamily ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Single Family ( 7/ 7)
Pricing Small Income Properties ( 4/ 4)
Principles & Techniques Val 2- 4 Units Res Prop ( 14/ 14)
Principles & Techniques for Determining Market Adjustments ( 7/ 7)
RE Finance for Appraisers ( 14/ 14)
Rural Valuation Seminar ( 14/ 14)
Single Fam Res App ( 14/ 14)
Standards of Professional Practice ( 15/ 15)
USPAP & NC Board Rules & Regs for ( 15/ 15)
Approved Continuing Education Courses
( As of July 10, 2006)
Listed below are the courses approved for appraiser continuing education credit as of date shown above. Course sponsors are listed alphabetically
with their approved courses. Shown parenthetically beside each course title are sets of numbers [ for example: ( 15/ 10)]. The first number indicates the
number of actual classroom hours and the second number indicates the number of approved continuing education credit hours. You must contact the
course sponsor at the address or telephone number provided to obtain information regarding course schedules and locations.
Elliott & Company Appraisers
3316- A Battleground Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27410
336- 854- 3075
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
The Changing World of Appraising ( 7/ 7)
Erick Little & Company
PO Box 4267
Cary, NC 27519
919- 460- 8823
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New Forms Old Problems ( 7/ 7)
Foundation of Real Estate Appraisers
2140 W. Chapman Avenue, # 107
Orange, CA 92868
714- 935- 1161
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
Hignite Training Service
208 Gloria Street
Greenville, NC 27858
888- 506- 9515
Changes in FHA ( 7/ 7)
Fannie Mae Forms & Regulations ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
Hondros College
4140 Executive Parkway
Westerville, OH 43081
614- 508- 7200
Sales Comparison Approach ( 3.5/ 3.5)
Institute of Government, UNC, Chapel Hill
Knapp Building, CB# 3330
Chapel Hill, NC 27599- 3330
919- 966- 4157
Appr of Commercial Property in a Declining Market ( 7.5/ 7)
Appraisal of Land ( 30/ 30)
Assessment Administration ( 30/ 7)
Fund of Assessment Ratio Studies ( 16/ 16)
Fundamentals of Mass Apprais ( 30/ 30)
IAAO 101: Fundamentals of Real Property ( 30/ 30)
IAAO 102: Income Approach to Valuation ( 30/ 30)
IAAO 402: Property Tax Policy ( 30/ 30)
Marshall & Swift – Commercial ( 13/ 13)
Principles & Techniques of Cadastral Mapping ( 30/ 30)
Residential Modeling Concepts ( 30/ 30)
International Right of Way Association
One Forest Lake Drive
Simpsonville, SC 29681
864- 918- 5033
103 Ethics & Right of Way Prof ( 8/ 8)
403 Easement Valuation ( 8/ 8)
801 Land Titles ( 10/ 10)
JVI
951 Market Promenade Ave., Suite 2101
Lake Mary, FL 32746
407- 531- 5333
Appraising REO Properties ( 7/ 7)
Lenoir Community College
P. O. Box 188
231 Hwy. 58 South
Kinston, NC 28502- 9946
252- 527- 6223
Appr Mfg, Mod, & Mobile ( A) ( 7/ 7)
Appr Mfg, Mod, & Mobile ( B) ( 7/ 7)
Cost Approach Marshall & Swift R ( 7/ 7)
Income Capitalization ( A) ( 7/ 7)
Income Capitalization ( B) ( 7/ 7)
Narrative Appraisal Report Writing ( 14/ 14)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
NC Rules & Regulation Update ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Single Family ( 7/ 7)
Principles & Techniques for Determining Market Adjustments ( 7/ 7)
Prin/ Tech Val 2- 4 Unit Res ( 14/ 14)
USPAP & NC Rules & Regs for Appraisers ( 15/ 15)
Marshall & Swift
915 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213- 683- 9000
O/ L Cost Appr, Commercial Appraisals ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Cost Appr, Residential Appraisals ( 7/ 7)
McKissock Appraisal Schools
P. O. Box 1673
Warren, PA 16365
800- 328- 2008
2- 4 Family Finesse: Appraising Multi- Family Properties ( 7/ 7)
Appr For the Secondary Market ( 7/ 7)
Appraising High Value Residential Properties ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Review ( 7/ 7)
Appraisal Trends ( 7/ 7)
Appraising FHA Today ( 7/ 7)
Appraising REO & Foreclosure Properties ( 7/ 7)
Appraising the Oddball ( 7/ 7)
Cost Approach ( 7/ 7)
Disclosures and Disclaimers ( 7/ 7)
Does My Report Comply with USPAP ( 7/ 7)
Fannie Mae Revisions ( 7/ 7)
Lmtd Apprs & the Scope of Wk ( 7/ 7)
Made in America: Appraising Factory Built Housing ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 Equivalent ( 7/ 7)
O/ L 2- 4 Family Finesse ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appr for the Secondary Market ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraisal Trends ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraiser Liability ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraising FHA Today ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Appraising Historic Properties ( 4/ 4)
O/ L Appraising the Oddball ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Construction Details & Trends ( 7/ 7)
O/ L FHA Appraising Today ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Made in America ( 7/ 7)
O/ L National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Relocation Appraisal is Dif ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Technology for Todays Appraiser ( 7/ 7)
O/ L The Cost Approach ( 7/ 7)
Private Appraisals ( 7/ 7)
Relocation Appraisal is Differ ( 7/ 7)
Residential Construction ( 7/ 7)
Scope of Work ( 7/ 7)
Mel Black/ NCREEI
P. O. Box 459
Cherryville, NC 28021
704- 435- 9191
2- 4 Family Properties ( 7/ 7)
2006 National USPAP Update Course ( 7/ 7)
Board Rules and Laws ( 7/ 7)
Current Issues & Problem Solving in Res Appraising ( 14/ 14)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New 2055 & 1075 Drive- By Forms ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Income Approach ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Intro to Commercial Appraisal ( 3.5/ 3.5)
O/ L Residential Cost Approach ( 7/ 7)
O/ L Sales Comparison Approach ( 7/ 7)
Sales Comp Analy Based on Mk ( 7/ 7)
Technical Writing for Appraisers ( 7/ 7)
The New URAR ( 7/ 7)
Top Appraisal Questions & Their Answers ( 7/ 7)
Trainees & Supervisors ( 7/ 7)
Value? What Value? ( 4/ 4)
Mingle School of Real Estate
P. O. Box 35511
Charlotte, NC 28235
704- 372- 2984
Appraising in NC ( 4/ 4)
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
NC Real Estate Education Foundation ( NCAR)
4511 Weybridge Lane
Greensboro, NC 27407
800- 443- 9956
Legal Issues in Real Estate ( 7/ 7)
Residential Construction ( 7/ 7)
Residential RE as an Investment ( 7/ 7)
Tax Planning for the Real Estate Agent ( 7/ 7)
Perry Residential Appraisal School
PO Box 1172
Granite Falls, NC 28630
828- 396- 7811
Mathematical Analysis of a Residential Appraisal ( 7/ 7)
North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT)
1605 Westbrook Plaza Drive, Suite 301
Winston- Salem, NC 27103
336- 760- 1925
Apply Marshall & Swift and Valuing Medical/
Assisted Living Facilities ( 7/ 7)
Appr of Residue & Spcl Use Prop ( 7/ 7)
Sales Comp Grid/ Appr of Trans ( 7/ 7)
Trending Via Demographics/ Appraising Land
for Development Potential ( 7/ 7)
NCSU Forestry Education Outreach Program
NCSU Campus Box 8003
Raleigh, NC 27695
919- 515- 3184
Accurate Forest Inventory ( 16/ 16)
Applied Intermediate GIS - Foresters ( 15/ 15)
Conservation Design: Greener Comm ( 14/ 7)
Dlntn of Pdmnt & Cstl Pln Jrsd ( 30/ 30)
Intro to Applied GIS - Foresters ( 15/ 15)
Intro to Applied GPS - Foresters ( 13/ 13)
NCSU Soil Science Dept
Campus Box 7619
Raleigh, NC 27695
919- 515- 1678
Basics of On- Site Sewage ( 7/ 7)
Getting the Dirt on Soils ( 7/ 7)
On- Site System Tech Refresh ( 7/ 7)
Septic System Options for Diff ( 14/ 14)
Wastewater in the Environment ( 7/ 7)
Wells & Septic Systems ( 4/ 4)
Pitt Community College
PO Box 70070
3107 S. Memorial Drive
Greenville, NC 27835
252- 493- 7625
Narrative Appraisal Report Writing ( 14/ 14)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Single Family ( 7/ 7)
REALETECH. COM
2520 Delaney Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
910- 352- 9693
Appraisers and Residential Reviews ( 7/ 7)
Fannie Mae Guidelines for Appraisers ( 7/ 7)
Introduction to Environmental Risk Screenings ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
What the NC Appraisal Board Expects From You ( 4/ 4)
Samaritan’s House, Inc.
PO Box 690609
Charlotte, NC 28227
704- 545- 2340
Cost Approach ( 7/ 7)
Loan Offic & Appr Relationship ( 7/ 7)
School of Real Estate Appraising, Inc.
62 North Chapel Street, Suite 6
Newark, DE 19711
302- 368- 2855
The New Fannie Mae Appraisal ( 7/ 7)
Surry Community College
P. O. Box 304
Dobson, NC 27017
336- 386- 8121
Fannie Mae Updated Prop & App ( 8/ 8)
Home Inspections & Common De ( 4/ 4)
Is the Comparable Comparable ( 8/ 8)
Mobile Mfg Homes & Types of M ( 4/ 4)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
Prep 2- 4 Sm Resid Income Prop ( 8/ 8)
Preparation of a Quality URAR ( 8/ 8)
Reviewing a Residential Appraisal ( 8/ 8)
Testing Highest & Best Use ( 8/ 8)
Triangle Appraisal & Real Estate School
2801- 3V Ward Boulevard
Wilson, NC 27693
252- 291- 1200 or 919- 971- 1887
Changes in NC’s Rules & Regs ( 3.5/ 3.5)
Changes in Standards ( 3.5/ 3.5)
Manufactured Home Construction ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms ( 7/ 7)
North Carolina Rules ( 7/ 7)
Wendell Hahn & Associates
PO Box 5245
Columbia, SC 29250
803- 779- 4721
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms ( 7/ 7)
Property Inspection for Appraisers ( 7/ 7)
Six Critical Problems that Appraisers ( 7/ 7)
Western Piedmont Community College
200 East College Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
828- 438- 6100
Appr Mfg, Modular & Mobile ( A) ( 14/ 14)
Income Capitalization ( A) ( 7/ 7)
Income Capitalization ( B) ( 7/ 7)
Maximizing Value ( 4/ 4)
Mfg, Modular & Mobile ( 7/ 7)
Narrative Appraisal Report Writing ( 14/ 14)
National USPAP Update 2005 ( 7/ 7)
National USPAP Update 2006 ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Multifamily ( 7/ 7)
New FNMA Forms - Single Family ( 7/ 7)
Pricing Complex Properties ( 4/ 4)
Principles & Techniques for Determining Market Adjustments ( 7/ 7)
USPAP & NC Rules & Regs for Appraisers ( 15/ 15)
Worlld Saviings
4101 Wiseman Boulevard
San Antonio, TX 78251
210- 543- 5464
Appraisal Review 2 ( 8/ 8)
Appraising in a Changing Mark ( 4/ 4)
National USPAP Update ( 7/ 7)
Worldwide Employee Relocation Council
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW # 800
Washington, DC 20006- 4665
202- 857- 0857
O/ L The Relocation Appr Training Program ( 6/ 6)
7
Approved Continuing Education Courses
8
The following is a summary of recent
disciplinary actions taken by the
Appraisal Board. This is only a sum-mary;
for brevity, some of the facts and
conclusions may have not been includ-ed.
Because these are summaries only,
and because each case is unique, these
summaries should not be relied on as
precedent as to how similar cases may
be handled.
Thomas Anderson A5383 ( Skyland)— By consent,
the Board suspended Mr. Anderson’s general certifica-tion
for a period of 6 months. The first three months of
the suspension shall be active and the remainder
stayed until December 31, 2006. If Mr. Anderson com-pletes
a course in the income approach and the sales
comparison approach, or the G- 2 course, by that date,
the remainder of the suspension will be inactive. The
Board found that Mr. Anderson and another appraiser
appraised a property located in Asheville, North
Carolina as of November 19, 2004 indicating a value of
$ 1,025,000. The subject property is a 0.86- acre site
improved with a 5,049 square foot building constructed
in 1976 and currently occupied as a medical office. Mr.
Anderson used three approaches to value in the analy-sis.
In the Cost Approach, he used five sales in the land
value analysis. The three sales were actually purchases
of more than one tract. Although each contained im-provements
at the time of the sale, there was no men-tion
of the improvements and large adjustments were
taken for functional utility with no explanation. Another
sale is a 6,098 square foot site, and Mr. Anderson adjust-ed
this sale down 10% for functional utility with no
explanation of the adjustment. The fifth sale involved
the purchase of approximately 4.04 acres with buildings
that have subsequently been removed from the site.
There is no explanation in the report that the site was
larger than indicated and no explanation for the func-tional
utility adjustment. There were sales of vacant
sites that were more similar in size and would have
required fewer adjustments than those used in the
report. In the Cost Approach, Mr. Anderson indicates
the subject’s lot value to be $ 15.50 per square foot or
$ 675,180. The lot size is shown as 37,462 square feet,
which would calculate to $ 580,661 rather than $ 675,180.
The total value shown by the Cost Approach in the
report was $ 1,029,396. Mr. Anderson used three im-proved
sales in the Sales Comparison Approach. He
extracted out the building value of one of the sales with
no explanation as to how the building value was extract-ed
in the report. In his Income Approach, Mr. Anderson
used estimated figures with no real support or explana-tion.
All three of the approaches produced value results
that are not credible either due to flawed data, poor
methodology or lack of support.
Jack Baber Jr. A51 ( Asheville)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Baber’s residential certification
for one month and ordered him to take a sales compar-ison
course. If he fails to take the course, the one- month
suspension will be extended to six months beginning
October 1, 2006. The Board alleged that a trainee work-ing
under Mr. Baber’s supervision appraised a property
located in Marshall, North Carolina in December 2003.
The subject property is a 1,460 square foot dwelling
with a 546 square foot finished basement. The appraisal
report contained erroneous data with regard to the sub-ject’s
zoning, flood zone, and census tract. The sales
locator map was incorrect with regard to the distances
between the subject property and comparable sales.
The first three comparable sales have significantly larg-er
lot sizes, and inadequate adjustments were made for
this difference. There were other sales available that
would have led to a lower value for the subject proper-ty.
The certification attached to the appraisal report
indicated that Mr. Baber had personally inspected the
interior of the subject property and the exterior of the
comparable sales, but in fact Mr. Baber did not inspect
the subject property prior to the report being issued.
Rodney Billowitz A5279 ( Matthews)— By consent,
the Board suspended Mr. Billowitz’s residential license
for a period of six months. The suspension is stayed
until October 1, 2006. If Mr. Billowitz completes a course
in scope of work and a course in sales comparison by
that date, the suspension shall be inactive. While a
trainee and working under the supervision of a licensed
appraiser, Mr. Billowitz appraised a property located in
Charlotte, North Carolina in February 2003, finding an
estimate of value of $ 120,000. The subject property is a
103- year- old dwelling containing 1,599 square feet. It
sold on May 16, 2002 for $ 101,000. The subject had been
remodeled on the interior and freshly painted on the
exterior. Mr. Billowitz’s report stated that the subject
was listed for $ 120,000 within the past 30 days according
to the MLS and public records, although in fact it was
not listed. He used three sales in his Sales Comparison
Approach. He indicates that Sale 1 closed on September
5, 2002 for $ 120,500, but in fact this sale involved three
separate and improved properties that sold together
and not the single property as shown in the report. His
adjusted value for this sale was $ 125,640. The report
indicates that most weight was given to this sale; how-ever,
this sale was not a valid comparable. The report
indicates that Sale 2 closed on February 8, 2002 for
$ 110,000. According to public records, this property
sold twice on the same day, first for $ 70,000 and then
$ 110,000. Mr. Billowitz provides no explanation as to
why Sale 2 sold twice on the same day. The adjusted
value for this sale was $ 115,584. Sale 3 sold on March 15,
2002 for $ 107,000. This sale was located in a superior
area, which Mr. Billowitz failed to adjust for; however,
this sale appears to be the most reasonable sale used in
the appraisal. There were other sales in the area that
would have supported a lower value than indicated in
the report. Mr. Billowitz was a trainee when he per-formed
this report, and he has since upgraded to
licensed residential. His supervisor surrendered his
license to the Board in 2004 in another matter.
Jeffrey Burns A4971 ( Fayetteville)— The Board
accepted the voluntary surrender of Mr. Burns’ resi-dential
license.
Craven Casper A71 ( Rocky Mount)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Casper’s residential certification
for a period of five years with the first six months of the
suspension to be active, subject to the following provi-sions.
Mr. Craven’s wife will accompany him on all ap-praisal
inspections. He will send a log of all appraisals
performed during the month to the Appraisal Board by
the 5th day of the following month. The log will include
the telephone number for the property owner. He will
undergo evaluation and assessment at a mental health
facility or with a licensed mental health provider. Once
the assessment is completed, a copy will be sent to the
Appraisal Board. Mr. Casper will undergo treatment as
determined by the facility or provider. Once treatment
has ended, the provider will send a statement to the
Appraisal Board that he poses no threat to the public. If
at any time in the future it is shown to the satisfaction of
the Board after a hearing or upon admission of Mr.
Casper that he has made any sort of inappropriate com-ment
during the course of an inspection, he will face
revocation of his certification. Mr. Casper will send a
written letter of apology to the Complainant, with a
copy of that letter to be delivered to the Appraisal
Board. The Board found that Mr. Casper was engaged to
appraise a property located in Rocky Mount in 2005.
The owner of the subject property, a single mother, was
present when Mr. Casper inspected the property. While
the owner was outside the home, she and Mr. Casper
conversed about the prior flood and elevations in the
area. During the course of that conversation, Mr. Casper
made inappropriate comments to her. He asked the
owner not to tell the bank that he had ordered the ap-praisal.
Mr. Casper also told her he would give her a
good price on the appraisal if she did not tell the bank.
He completed the appraisal and charged $ 200 for it.
There were no problems noted with the appraisal or the
appraised value.
Tracee Chance A4903 ( Charlotte)— By consent, the
Board suspended Ms. Chance’s residential license for a
period of six months. The two months of the suspen-sion
is active and the remainder is stayed until
December 1, 2006. If Ms. Chance completes a course in
appraiser liability ( or a similar course) and the 15- hour
National USPAP course by that date, the remainder of
the suspension shall be inactive. The Board found that
Ms. Chance appraised a property located in Bessemer
City, North Carolina, finding an estimate of value of
$ 129,000. The subject was a one- story doublewide man-ufactured
home with 1,890 square feet of gross living
area. When Ms. Chance issued the appraisal report, she
included 5 comparable sales that were all doublewide
manufactured homes. After she issued the report, her
client sent her an email stating that he had a letter from
the county stating the subject was not manufactured,
but was modular. Based on that email, she changed the
description of the subject to state that it was not a man-ufactured
home. Tax data in the work file indicates that
the subject is a manufactured home. Ms. Chance did
not take any steps to confirm the client’s assertion that
the subject was modular. She also changed the descrip-tion
of one of the comparable sales in the original
report to say that it was a ranch, not a doublewide. She
then chose other comparable sales that were modular.
The final opinion of value was the same as her original
appraisal. There were several sales of manufactured
homes in the subject subdivision one year prior to the
appraisal report. They ranged in year built from 1995 to
1999, in square footage from 1,103 to 1,652, and in sales
price from $ 41,500 to $ 75,000. Ms. Chance over valued
the subject property.
James L. Chappell, Jr. A5069 ( West Jefferson)— By
consent, the Board suspended Mr. Chappell’s residen-tial
certifications for a period of 3 months. The suspen-sion
is stayed until July 1, 2006. If Mr. Chappell com-pletes
both a course in sales comparison and a course
in appraiser liability by that date, the suspension will be
inactive. The Board found that Chappell and another
appraiser appraised a property located in North
Wilkesboro, North Carolina in January 2003, finding an
estimate of value of $ 88,000. The appraisal was per-formed
“ as is.” The report indicates a sales price of
$ 88,000; however, an order form in the work file indi-cates
a sales price, estimated value and loan amount of
$ 75,000. There was no contract in the work file. The
appraisal report states that the site contains 3 +/- acres.
An addendum attached to the report states that an addi-tional
2.1 acres is being purchased.
The subject site actually contains 0.42 acre and a
dwelling. Mr. Chappell used the tax card information
and an additional 2.1 acres to the rear of the site in the
report. He used three sales in the report. While there
were few sales available, the sales used should have
been adjusted down for location differences.
Daniel C. Covington A5763 ( Dawsonville,
Georgia)— By consent, Mr. Covington surrendered his
residential certification.
Dexter Davis A3235 ( Rocky Mount)— By consent,
the Board issued an inactive suspension to Mr. Davis for
a period of three months. If Mr. Davis fails to complete
courses in narrative report writing, appraiser liability,
and the income approach by October 1, 2006, the sus-pension
will become active on that date. The Board
alleged that Mr. Davis appraised a proposed 32- room
motel located in Scotland, Neck North Carolina in April
2004, finding an estimate of value of $ 1,292,000. Mr.
Davis works full time for the U. S. Department of Agri-culture
and does occasional appraisal work outside of
his employment with the USDA. Although he is a certi-fied
general appraiser with commercial experience, he
had never appraised a proposed motel before this time.
Since Mr. Davis was not familiar with the appropriate
appraisal methodology to appraise a proposed motel,
he used another appraisal of a motel as a guide in doing
Disciplinary Actions
9
his appraisal. Mr. Davis utilized all three approaches to
value. In the Sales Comparison Approach he used six
sales of motels located at various locations throughout
North Carolina and Tennessee. He made inadequate ad-justments
for his comparable sales and did not ade-quately
describe the sales with the exception of the
data shown in the grid. Mr. Davis relied on Marshall and
Swift Valuation Service in the cost approach. Although
the land value was determined by direct comparison
with vacant land sales from within the immediate mar-ket
area, there was no sales grid provided or discussion
of the sales making the land value estimate suspect. In
the income approach, Mr. Davis used an income ap-proach
software program. He did not adequately sum-marize
and disclose his methodology, nor did he ex-plain
how he obtained the rates that were plugged into
the capitalization program. Although his appraisal
methodology was limited and his report lacking in
detail, the value was supported.
Jason Garlow T2615 ( St. Pauls)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Garlow’s trainee registration for a
period of six months. The suspension is stayed until
October 1, 2006. If Mr. Garlow completes a course in
scope of work and a course in tough appraisal assign-ments
by that date, the suspension shall be inactive.
The Board found that Mr. Garlow and his supervisor
appraised a property located in Fayetteville, North
Carolina in October 2005, finding an estimate of value of
$ 367,000. The subject was under contract for $ 380,000
on the effective date of the report. The subject had
transferred through foreclosure one month before the
report for $ 248,500, which was noted in the report.
Several improvements had been made to the subject
since the sale. The subject is located on a small cul- de-sac
that backs up to a city power substation and water
tower. Mr. Garlow used three sales in the report that
were all superior to the subject in quality of construc-tion
and appeal, yet he did not make any adjustments
for these differences. Had he made appropriate adjust-ments
to their sales, the estimate of value would have
been lower.
Patricia Grant A1225 ( Charlotte)— By consent, the
Board suspended Ms. Grant’s residential certification
for a period of one month. The suspension is stayed
until December 1, 2006. If Ms. Grant completes a course
in sales comparison by that date, the suspension will be
inactive. The Board found that Ms. Grant appraised a
property located in Charlotte, North Carolina in April
2001, finding an estimate of value of $ 710,000. The ap-praisal
was done subject to completion per plans and
specifications. The subject consisted of 3,727 square
foot of gross living area and was treated as having excel-lent
quality of construction. There were no sales in the
subject development within one year of the report, so
Ms. Grant used three comparable sales that were locat-ed
outside the subject development. She made inade-quate
adjustments for the differences between the sales
and the subject property. Had she made proper adjust-ments,
her final opinion of value would have been
lower.
Christopher Groce A3505 ( Yadkinville)— By con-sent,
the Board issued a reprimand to Mr. Groce. Mr.
Groce also agrees to complete a course in condemna-tion
or expert witness appraisal and a sales comparison
course by September 30, 2006. The Board alleged that
on November 5, 2000, Mr. Groce issued a written ap-praisal
report on a property located in Hamptonville,
NC, with an effective date of June 14, 1999. The subject
property consisted of approximately 18 acres of unde-veloped
land. About 11 acres of that land had been
taken by the North Carolina Department of Trans-portation
on June 14, 1999 for highway expansion. In
this appraisal report, Mr. Groce valued the 11 acres at
$ 14,000 per acre, for a total of $ 154,658, and stated that
the highest and best use of the subject property was for
smaller tracts for single- family home sites or for small
business. He later stated at the condemnation trial and
at the hearing that, at all times, he believed that the
highest and best use for the property was actually for
small commercial purposes, and that he had prepared
this appraisal report for use of the attorney for the
landowner upon the attorney’s instructions value the
property as residential. Mr. Groce did not state in the
appraisal report that he was appraising the property as
residential based on the attorney’s instructions. He tes-tified
at a condemnation trial in Yadkin County in
October 2002 regarding the valuation of the subject
property as of June 14, 1999. During his testimony in
October 2002, Mr. Groce gave a value of $ 458,250 to the
18 acres of the subject property in the before condition
and a value of $ 138,250 for the 7.9 acres in the after con-dition.
In the oral testimony at trial, Mr. Groce stated that
the highest and best use of the subject property was for
small commercial purposes. He was not allowed to testi-fy
at the trial to his reasoning and opinions and conclu-sions
as to how he arrived at the appraisal figures.
Michael Howard A4930 ( Cary)— By consent, the
Board issued a reprimand to Mr. Howard and ordered
him to take a course in North Carolina Appraisal Board
Rules. The Board found that Mr. Howard appraised a
property located in Durham, North Carolina in January
2002, finding an estimate of value of $ 287,000. The
appraisal was performed “ as is.” At the time of the
appraisal report, the subject was listed in the local MLS
for $ 285,000, and the subject had a “ pending” date of
January 6, 2002. No mention was made of the listing in
the appraisal report. Mr. Howard had previously ap-praised
the house in January 2001 for $ 285,000 when
the prior owner was refinancing. In that report, he stat-ed
that there were no prior sales of the subject within
the past year, but the current owner had purchased the
property in February 2000 for $ 200,000. Mr. Howard was
a trainee at the time of that appraisal.
Timothy Howard A4806 ( Leland)— By consent, the
Board suspended for a period of one year. Mr. Howard’s
residential license is currently lapsed. The first four
months of the suspension shall be active, at which
point Mr. Howard may apply for renewal of his license
as long as he has taken a course in sales comparison by
that date. The Board found that Mr. Howard appraised a
property located in Littleton, North Carolina in October
2003, finding an estimate of value of $ 81,000. The subject
was a thirty- one year old 1,178 square foot brick ranch
style home that is located in a rural section of the coun-ty.
The report included three comparable sales that
were all twelve to fifteen miles from the subject. Two of
the sales were located in superior areas, but Mr.
Howard did not adjust for this. Even though the subject
was in a rural area and there were no sales in the imme-diate
area, there were sales available in other rural
areas like the subject that would have indicated a lower
value. Mr. Howard had in his field notes in the neigh-borhood
section “ rents for $ 500/ month,” and the order
form in his work file indicated that the subject was an
investment property. Another note in the work file from
the homeowners indicated that the owners would
reside in the property once repairs were made, instead
of renting it. Mr. Howard checked that the house was
owner occupied, but he did not discuss these factors in
his report and he did not perform an income approach.
Behind the subject there is a separate lot owned by the
homeowners that has a tennis court, which appeared to
be in poor condition on the date of inspection. Al-though
this lot was not part of the subject lot as
described in the report, Mr. Howard included the tennis
court in the appraisal and gave it over $ 3,000 in contrib-utory
value.
Thomas Johnson A5083 ( Wilson)— By consent, the
Board issued a reprimand to Mr. Johnson and ordered
him to take a course in sales comparison. If he fails to
complete the course by July 1, 2006, the reprimand will
be vacated and a one- month active suspension imposed
on that date. The Board found that Mr. Johnson ap-praised
a property located in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina in May 2005, finding an estimate of value of
$ 140,000. He previously appraised the property in
August 2004, finding an estimate of value of $ 130,000.
The subject property is a manufactured home contain-ing
2,200 square feet of gross living area. It has had sev-eral
upgrades and additions including a covered porch,
rear patio and double detached garage. In addition, the
lighting and plumbing fixtures had been upgraded. Mr.
Johnson stated in the both reports that the subject was
a modular home house, but that it previously had HUD
tags that would indicate it was a manufactured home.
The tax office classified the subject as of modular con-struction.
The home has been resided and the HUD tags,
if they are still there, are no longer visible. The appraisal
reports indicated that all his sales were modular homes,
but one of the sales was in fact a manufactured home.
All of the sales were located outside of the subject sub-division.
There were sales in the subject subdivision
that could have been used as comparables. Those prop-erties
were smaller and would have required substantial
adjustments. Mr. Howard should have noted these sales
in his appraisal reports.
J. Paul Jones T3445 ( Clay)— By consent, the Board
suspended Mr. Jones’ trainee registration for a period of
six months. The suspension is stayed until December 1,
2006. Mr. Jones agrees to complete courses in complex
properties and report writing. If he fails to complete the
courses by December 1, 2006, the suspension will be-come
active on that date. Mr. Jones and his supervisor
appraised a property located in Whittier, North Carolina
as of January 26, 2005, finding a value of $ 185,000. The
subject property consisted of a 58- year- old 1- story
dwelling located upon a 5- acre tract. The adjustment grid
indicates that the comparables were all between 6 and
26 years old. Mr. Jones said that the subject was remod-eled
and gave an effective age of 15. The comparable
sales are superior to the subject in appeal and quality,
yet no adjustments were made for either of those char-acteristics.
The work file was insufficient as there was lit-tle
information that appeared to support the value con-clusion.
Mr. Jones and his supervisor also appraised a
property located in Hayesville, North Carolina as of June
1, 2004 finding a value of $ 265,000. The subject is a forty-four
year old 1,520 SF dwelling with a view of and adja-cent
to a lake. There is also a smaller dwelling on the
subject that is utilized as a rental cottage. Mr. Jones con-sidered
the secondary dwelling to be linked to the pri-mary
dwelling as the total property was considered in
one deed and contained only one tax card. The sales
comparison approach indicated a value of $ 185,000. It
then states that a value of $ 80,000 was assigned to a sec-ond
house on the property, which Mr. Jones said was
obtained from the county tax record value of $ 71,980.
The $ 80,000 was added to the $ 185,000 to arrive at an
appraised value of $ 265,000. The cost approach was not
developed or even considered within the scope of the
appraisal. Mr. Jones and his supervisor appraised a
property located in Cliffside, North Carolina, finding a
value of $ 31,000. The subject property is a 7.26- acre
vacant tract of land, and the comparables were all
between 20 and 30 miles away. There was nothing noted
in the report that would indicate that this was a unique
property; the report stated only that the search was
extended over 10 miles due to the limited availability of
sales. The sales used were from different counties and
one was from out of state, yet there were no adjustments
for location. Mr. Jones and his supervisor appraised a
property located in Haysville, North Carolina as of
September 1, 2004, finding a value of $ 400,000. The sub-ject
property is a 2,223 square foot restaurant. Mr. Jones
did not develop an income approach, but did not dis-cuss
departure in the appraisal report. The cost
approach shows only a value of $ 73.00 per foot, $ 55,574
of depreciation, $ 20,000 of site improvements and a lot
value of $ 175,000. This gives an indicated value of
$ 306,151. The sales comparison approach shows no
adjustments, just five sales ranging between $ 300,000
and $ 450,000, even though there are extensive differ-ences
between the subject and the sales. Although the
comments state that Sales 1 and 3 are the best sales,
they sold for $ 300,000 and $ 340,000 and the value by
sales comparison was $ 400,000. The report contains little
explanation or support for the cost and sales compari-son
approaches that are developed within the report.
Mr. Jones is a trainee. His supervisor has surrendered
his certification.
Merrell Kanipe T2152 ( Morganton)— By consent,
the Board issued an inactive suspension to Ms. Kanipe
and ordered her to take a course in appraiser liability
by May 1, 2006. The Board found that Ms. Kanipe, while
working under the supervision of a licensed residential
real estate appraiser, performed at least six appraisals
of properties located in Forest City, North Carolina.
Two of those appraisals were of the same property,
Disciplinary Actions
which was located at 314 Old Castle Lane. The first
appraisal was done in 2002 and the second was done in
2003. In the first report of that property, the appraisal stat-ed
that the subject had 1,490 square feet, and Ms. Kanipe
appraised it for $ 99,800. In the second report, Ms. Kanipe
said that the owners had added a room, and the proper-ty
now contained 1,695 square feet. The property was ap-praised
for $ 93,300. The sales used in both reports were
in superior locations, with no adjustment made for loca-tion.
The other four properties were of properties all
located in the same neighborhood. They were very sim-ilar
in amenities and appraised for similar amounts. The
same comparables were used for all of these properties.
Three of these four appraisals were completed for the
same owner and were completed on the same day. On
three of these reports, Ms. Kanipe used the same com-parable
sales, which were from areas that were superior
to the subject. No location adjustments were made.
Other adjustments were made that were inadequate or
unsupported. Ms. Kanipe’s supervisor did not ac-company
her on the inspections of these properties,
although the appraisal reports all indicated that she had.
The supervisor has since surrendered her license to the
Appraisal Board after admitting that she should not have
done assignments in that market.
Craig O. Lett A3606 ( Greensboro)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Lett’s residential certification for
a period of six months. The suspension is stayed until
October 1, 2006. If Mr. Lett completes a course in scope
of work and a course in appraiser liability by that date,
the suspension shall be inactive. The Board found that
Mr. Lett and a trainee appraised a property located in
Winston- Salem, North Carolina effective October 4,
2002, finding an estimate of value of $ 75,000. Mr. Lett did
not inspect the subject property. The subject property
sold for $ 26,000 on October 2, 2002, but the transfer was
not reflected in the tax office on the date of the ap-praisal
and Mr. Lett did not note it in the appraisal. It
had been listed for sale continuously since November
1998 for various prices, and MLS records indicated it
was listed for $ 39,900 on the effective date of the
appraisal. Mr. Lett did not report this fact in the ap-praisal
report. The property sold on November 6, 2002
for $ 75,000. The subject tract was subject to a Deed of
Easement and Encroachment Agreement recorded in
the county register of deeds, but Mr. Lett did not note
this fact in the report. The subject had just been remod-eled
when Mr. Lett completed the appraisal. Renova-tions
included replacement of several floor joists, new
interior partitions with doors, new wiring, plumbing,
electrical, floor coverings, interior paint and a new roof.
Mr. Lett made an inadequate description of the improve-ments
in the report of these upgrades and improve-ments.
The appraisal stated that the 90- year- old subject
was “ newly constructed” and gave it an effective age of
45 years. Sales of similar properties in the subject mar-ket
ranged from $ 20,000 to $ 90,000, with the higher sales
prices reported for homes that had recently undergone
remodeling.
Justin Loeback A5380 ( Raleigh)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Loeback’s residential certification
for a period of three months. If Mr. Loeback completes
a course in sales comparison and a course in appraiser
liability, the suspension will be inactive. The Board
found that Mr. Loeback appraised a property located in
Durham, North Carolina in July 2005, finding an esti-mate
of value of $ 340,000. The subject is a 12- year- old 2-
story frame dwelling that contains approximately 3,103
SF of living area. It has had substantial upgrades and
updates. It is the largest and best property in its subdi-vision
and thus at the upper end of the value range in
that area. Mr. Loeback used three sales in his report.
Although all three sales were located within 5 blocks of
the subject property, they were located in superior sub-divisions
and were superior in age, size and amenity
appeal to the subject. Mr. Loeback made small adjust-ments
to each sale for quality of construction and made
a small adjustment to only one sale for location. He
failed to make appropriate adjustments for the differ-ences
between his sales and the subject property. There
were only two sales in the subject subdivision within a
year of the effective date of the appraisal. Both would
have required substantial adjustments, but would have
led to the lower value for the subject property.
B. Chad McDonald A4053 ( Fayetteville)— By con-sent,
the Board suspended Mr. McDonald’s residential
certification for a period of one year. The first six
months of the suspension shall be active and the rest
stayed until October 1, 2006. If Mr. McDonald takes
courses in sales comparison course and appraiser lia-bility,
the remainder of the suspension shall be inactive.
The complaint involved two appraisal of properties
located in Fayetteville, NC. The Board found that in the
first appraisal, Mr. McDonald appraised the property on
February 28, 2003, and arrived at an estimated value of
$ 54,000. Mr. McDonald stated in his report that the sub-ject
sold in February 2003 for $ 35,000 when in fact the
subject had transferred on January 29, 2003 for $ 29,000,
on March 19, 2003 for $ 28,000, and on April 4, 2003 for
$ 45,000. The subject was listed for $ 29,900 at the time of
the appraisal, but the listing was not reported or ana-lyzed
in the report. The current owner stated in the
report was also incorrect. The second appraisal was
dated March 18, 2003, and arrived at an estimated value
of $ 90,000. Mr. McDonald stated in the report that the
subject sold in February 2003 for $ 61,900, when in fact it
had transferred on February 13, 2003 for $ 67,000. The
subject was listed for $ 61,900 at the time of the ap-praisal,
but the listing was not reported or analyzed in
the report.
In both appraisals, there were sales in the area that
would have supported a lower value for the properties.
Ricky McClure A1265 ( Asheville)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. McClure’s residential certification
for a period of six months. If he completes courses in
scope of work, appraiser liability and small income pro-ducing
properties by November 1, 2006, the suspension
will be inactive. The Board found that Mr. McClure
appraised a property located in Lake Junaluska, North
Carolina as of November 3, 2004 and estimated a value
of $ 185,00. The subject property consists of two stone
cottages that were 56 years old at the time of the subject
report. Each building contains approximately 720
square feet. Although Mr. McClure noted on page 1 of
the appraisal that the subject property consists of 2
detached units each with 720 square feet, he combined
the gross living areas from both dwellings to indicate
that the subject contains 1,440 square feet. Mr. McClure
combined the gross living areas again within his cost
approach creating a cost estimate based upon 1,440 as
opposed to two dwellings with 720 square feet each.
The addendum within the subject report indicates pho-tos
of two separate dwellings. However, only one
dwelling sketch is shown within the report indicating
720 square feet. Mr. McClure compared the subject
property to 3 single- family dwellings. Comparable Sales
2 and 3 are comprised of 2 separate but attached living
units; however, none of the comparable sales are phys-ically
configured similar to the subject property. The
subject property is located directly behind an adjacent
parcel that fronts Lakeshore Drive. Although the prop-erty
had no apparent access to the road, it did have a
legal right of way across the adjacent property.
Although the subject property was rented on a season-al
basis and was in an area of rental housing, Mr.
McClure did not use the income approach to value in
his appraisal.
Stephanie McIntyre A5644 ( Archdale)— By consent,
the Board suspended Ms. McIntyre’s residential license
for a period of one month. The suspension is stayed
until October 31, 2006. If Ms. McIntyre completes a
course in sales comparison by that date, the suspension
shall be inactive. The Board found that Ms. McIntyre
appraised two properties located in Winston- Salem,
North Carolina. The first was of a property located on
Woodvale Street. Ms. McIntyre appraised this property
in March 9, 2005, finding an estimate of value of $ 85,000.
The subject is a 52- year- old ranch style dwelling con-taining
912 square feet. It was under contract for $ 83,000
on the effective date of the appraisal. The subject had
sold out of foreclosure in August 2004 for $ 53,000 and in
November 2004 for $ 54,000. Although the appraisal form
indicated that the property had not sold in the last 36
months, an addendum to the report states that the sub-ject
sold previously for $ 54,000 in November 2004. No
mention was made of the August 2004 sale. Ms.
McIntyre and reviewer both indicate that the subject
has had repairs and updates. Ms. McIntyre used six
sales in her report. She failed to adjust two sales for
size differences, and adjusted for only half of the sales
concessions to 4 of the sales. The second property was
located on Alpine Road. Ms. McIntyre first appraised
this property in February 2005, finding an estimate of
value of $ 170,000. The subject property is a 43 year old
ranch style dwelling containing a reported 1,524 square
feet with a 1,236 square foot partially finished basement.
She appraised the property again in March 2005 indi-cating
the same value. The report contained numerous
errors, such as incorrect map references, and the built-up
rating does not match the total land use percentages
in the neighborhood section. There are discrepancies
from the first page of the report to the second page. Ms.
McIntyre had corrected the report but erroneously sent
the uncorrected copy to the client. The March 2005
report reflected the corrected report. She used three
comparables in her report that were all located in a
neighborhood that has better appeal than the subject’s
neighborhood, yet she failed to make adjustments for
this difference. On both of the above appraisal reports,
Ms. McIntyre performed the income approach and
included an estimated market rent and gross rent multi-plier,
but failed to keep a copy of the operating income
statements and comparable rent schedules in her work
file.
Eugene Meyer A4777 ( Holly Springs)— By consent,
the Board suspended Mr. Meyer’s residential certifica-tion
for a period of 6 months. The first month of the sus-pension
is active and the remainder is stayed until June
1, 2006. If Mr. Meyer completes a course in sales com-parison
by that date, the remainder of the suspension
will be inactive. The Board found that Mr. Meyer
appraised a property located in Fuquay- Varina, North
Carolina in June 2004, finding an estimate of value of
$ 250,000. The appraisal was performed “ as is.” The sub-ject
is a one- story ranch style home situated on a 5.44-
acre rural site. A railroad easement is located between
the subject’s road frontage and dwelling. The subject’s
driveway crosses over railroad tracks to access the
property and the subject’s dwelling is within 100 to 150
feet of the railroad tracks. Mr. Meyer indicated a site
value of $ 56,000 in his Cost Approach. He used three
comparable home sales in his sales comparison. All of
these sales were located in Neill’s Creek Farms in
Angier, NC. Neill’s Creek Farms is a horse community
with many amenities; there are restrictive covenants for
the community, and homeowner dues are assessed.
Although the sales were located in a subdivision that
has larger, more expensive homes than the subject in it,
Mr. Meyer failed to make appropriate adjustments to his
sales for their superior location. He adjusted all three of
these sales up $ 5000 for superior view, which he stated
was for the existence of the railroad tracks in the sub-ject’s
front yard. There were other sales available that
were closer in size, appeal and more similar to the sub-ject
property than the sales used in the appraisal.
Those sales could have led to a lower value for the sub-ject
property.
Kathy Milligan T2669 ( Gerton)— By consent, the
Board suspended Ms. Milligan’s trainee registration for
a period of six months. If Ms. Milligan completes cours-es
in scope of work and sales comparison, the suspen-sion
will be inactive. The Board found that Ms. Milligan
appraised a property located in Arden, North Carolina
as of October 30, 2002, indicating a value of $ 182,200.
The appraisal was performed “ subject to completion
per plans and specifications.” The subject property is a
one- story on- frame modular dwelling containing 1,836
square feet. It is located in a subdivision on a 0.52- acre
site. The subject appears to be the largest and highest
priced home in the neighborhood. Ms. Milligan used
four sales in her report. Although all of her sales were
site built homes of superior quality that were located in
areas of higher land values, she made no quality or
location adjustments on any of the sales. There were
several other modular home sales in the area that were
more similar to the subject. These sales would have
supported a lower value for the subject property. Ms.
10
Disciplinary Actions
Milligan is a trainee. Her supervisor has surrendered
his certification to the Appraisal Board, and Ms. Milligan
is now working for a different supervisor.
Charles Monk A4956 ( Charlotte)— By consent, the
Board suspended Mr. Monk’s residential certification
for a period of six months. The suspension is stayed un-til
July 1, 2006. Mr. Monk agrees to complete courses in
scope of work and sales comparison. If he fails to com-plete
the courses by July 1, 2006, the suspension will be-come
active on that date. The Board found that Mr.
Monk appraised a property located in Lincolnton,
North Carolina as of August 15, 2005 with an estimated
value of $ 156,000. The subject property is a new off-frame
ranch style modular home containing 1,555
square feet on a 0.46- acre site. Mr. Monk used five sales
in his report. His first two sales were site built homes
and his other three sales were of modular construction.
His first comparable sale was a site built house located
next door to the subject property that sold for $ 136,900.
His second comparable sale is also a site built house
that sold for $ 140,000 on May 5, 2005. This property had
440 square feet of unfinished basement and two- car
garage. His third comparable sale is a new modular lo-cated
in an adjacent subdivision; it sold for $ 135,500.
The fourth comparable sale is a 3- year- old modular
home containing 2,072 square feet and a double at-tached
garage that sold for $ 185,000. This property also
has 1,100 square feet of unfinished second level that Mr.
Monk did not adjust for or mention. His fifth compara-ble
sale is a 6- year- old modular home containing 2,038
square feet. The MLS stated that this property was list-ed
for $ 168,850 and sold for $ 195,000. In fact, the prop-erty
that was listed on the MLS sold for $ 155,000. When
the property sold, it was combined with the sale of an
adjoining parcel that was improved with a barn and a
manufactured home. Mr. Monk used the sales price of
$ 195,000, and did not verify the sale. The first three
sales are close in proximity, most similar in size, have
the least amount of adjustments and have adjusted val-ues
of $ 142,900, $ 145,200 and $ 143,300. The report states
that the fourth and fifth sales were more reflective of
the subject in design, appeal, quality, amenities, situa-tion
and circumstance, yet they were located further in
distance, have larger sites and are larger homes with
greater adjustments made. There were other sales avail-able
that were similar to the subject that sold between
$ 134,850 and $ 143,000.
Lewis C. Neal, Jr. A5253 ( Greensboro)— By con-sent,
the Board suspended Mr. Neal’s residential certifi-cation
for a period of six months. The suspension is
stayed until October 1, 2006. If Mr. Neal completes a
course in scope of work and a course in appraiser lia-bility
by that date, the suspension shall be inactive.
The Board found that Mr. Neal and another appraiser
appraised a property located in Winston- Salem, North
Carolina effective October 4, 2002, finding an estimate of
value of $ 75,000. Mr. Neal was a trainee at the time the
report was prepared. His supervisor did not inspect the
subject property. The subject property sold for $ 26,000
on October 2, 2002, but the transfer was not reflected in
the tax office on the date of the appraisal and Mr. Neal
did not note it in the appraisal. It had been listed for sale
continuously since November 1998 for various prices,
and MLS records indicated it was listed for $ 39,900 on
the effective date of the appraisal. Mr. Neal did not
report this fact in the appraisal report. The property
sold on November 6, 2002 for $ 75,000. The subject tract
was subject to a Deed of Easement and Encroachment
Agreement recorded in the county register of deeds,
but Mr. Neal did not note this fact in the report. The sub-ject
had just been remodeled when Mr. Neal completed
the appraisal. Renovations included replacement of
several floor joists, new interior partitions with doors,
new wiring, plumbing, electrical, floor coverings, interi-or
paint and a new roof. Mr. Neal made an inadequate
description of the improvements in the report of these
upgrades and improvements. The appraisal stated that
the 90- year- old subject was “ newly constructed” and
gave it an effective age of 45 years. Sales of similar prop-erties
in the subject market ranged from $ 20,000 to
$ 90,000, with the higher sales prices reported for homes
that had recently undergone remodeling.
B. Dean Nixon, Jr. A4367 ( West Jefferson)— By
consent, the Board suspended Mr. Nixon’s residential
certification for a period of 3 months. The suspension is
stayed until July 1, 2006. If Mr. Nixon completes both a
course in sales comparison and a course in appraiser
liability by that date, the suspension will be inactive.
The Board found that Mr. Nixon and another appraiser
appraised a property located in North Wilkesboro,
North Carolina in January 2003, finding an estimate of
value of $ 88,000. The appraisal was performed “ as is.”
The report indicates a sales price of $ 88,000; however,
an order form in the work file indicates a sales price,
estimated value and loan amount of $ 75,000. There was
no contract in the work file. The appraisal report states
that the site contains 3 +/- acres. An addendum attached
to the report states that an additional 2.1 acres is being
purchased. The subject site actually contains 0.42 acre
and a dwelling. Mr. Nixon used the tax card information
and an additional 2.1 acres to the rear of the site in the
report. He used three sales in the report. While there
were few sales available, the sales used should have
been adjusted down for location differences.
Raymond Ray Noland, Jr. A5179 ( Hiawassee,
Georgia)— By consent, the Board accepted the volun-tary
surrender of Mr. Noland’s residential certification.
Hoyle Penegar A1523 ( Monroe)— Following a hear-ing,
the Board suspended Mr. Penegar’s residential cer-tification.
His certification will be returned to him once
he completes the following courses: R- 1, R- 2, R- 3, G- 1, G-
2, G- 3, the 15- hour National USPAP course, condemna-tion
appraising, and appraiser liability. The Board found
that Mr. Penegar appraised a property located in
Waxhaw, North Carolina in April 2004 for the acquisi-tion
of an easement over the subject property. The sub-ject
property consists of a one- story brick dwelling on a
1.02- acre site. In 2002, Union County had taken a portion
of the subject to upgrade the existing sewer line from a
combination septic/ sewer system to a gravity line sys-tem.
The subject site already contained an existing
sewer easement along the same area as the taking. Mr.
Penegar’s client was the attorney for the property
owner, who was objecting to the amount of damages
offered by the County for the taking. Mr. Penegar’s
report contained a site analysis of the subject site using
three land sales that indicated a lot value of $ 38,900 as
of April 19, 2004. He reported that analysis on a Land
Appraisal Report form, and stated on that form that the
instructions to the appraiser were to “ estimate market
value.” His analysis of the land value is not in question.
A separate page attached to the report contains his
summary of damages from the take. This page states
that the value of the entire subject property as of April
19, 2004 is $ 160,000. There is no indication in the
appraisal report where he obtained that figure. Also on
that page in the report, Mr. Penegar values the 4319
square foot right of way taken at $ 87.55 a square foot for
a total of $ 3781. He states that the damage estimate is
10%, or $ 16,000, the cost to replace the driveway is $ 5660
and the cost to replace the fence and landscaping is
$ 2400. The total damage to the property from the taking
was stated as $ 22,181.
Mr. Penegar’s report does not state the reporting option
used. It provides an analysis only of the site. There is no
description of the dwelling or the taking in the report.
He used an appraisal performed by another appraiser
as the basis for the $ 160,000 valuation of the entire sub-ject.
Although he did not refer to or include a copy of
that appraisal in his report, he did have a copy of it in
his work file. That report was performed in November
2002. The taking consisted of a 20- foot permanent ease-ment
running along the boundary of the subject, con-taining
4319 square feet. Public records indicate that in
1982 there was a permanent easement granted in the
same location as the new easement. Mr. Penegar stated
on the land appraisal report that there were no known
easements on the subject property. He stated a damage
estimate of 10% in the report but provided no discus-sion
or support for the damages in his report. The
report also has no discussion of where the dwelling,
damages or fence/ landscaping and driveway figures
were obtained. The appraisal report did not contain suf-ficient
information for intended users to understand the
report. The report did not state any intended users, the
intended use, or the purpose of the appraisal. It did not
summarize information sufficient to identify the real
estate involved, nor did it summarize sufficient informa-tion
to disclose the scope of work used to develop the
appraisal. The report also did not summarize the infor-mation
analyzed, the appraisal procedures followed or
the reasoning that supported the analyses, opinions and
conclusions. While performing the appraisal assign-ment,
Mr. Penegar felt sorry for the property owner and
believed that the County was taking advantage of him.
Those feelings swayed his opinion regarding the value of
the taking. As a result, he did not act in an impartial man-ner
when performing the assignment.
Beth H. Saine A2410 ( Lincolnton)— By consent, the
Board suspended Ms. Saine’s residential certification
for a period of one month. The suspension is stayed
until October 1, 2006. If she completes a course in sales
comparison and a course in appraiser liability by that
date, the suspension will be inactive. The Board found
that Ms. Saine appraised a property located in Cherry-ville,
North Carolina in February 2003, finding an esti-mate
of value of $ 147,800. The subject property consist-ed
of a single- family ranch style brick dwelling with
1,465 square feet of gross living area and a detached 1-
car garage and gazebo. The site contains 2.04 acres. Ms.
Saine used three sales in her appraisal that were supe-rior
to the subject property. She failed to make appro-priate
adjustments for the differences. There were few
sales in the subject area within one year of the report,
but the sales that were available would have indicated
a lower value for the subject property.
Lowrance M. Smith A2069 ( Asheville)— By consent,
the Board suspended Mr. Smith’s general certification
for a period of 6 months. The suspension is stayed until
January 31, 2007. If Mr. Smith completes a course in
appraiser liability by that date, the suspension will be
inactive. Mr. Smith also agreed to surrender his general
certification. He will immediately be issued a residential
certification. The Board found that Mr. Smith and anoth-er
appraiser appraised a property located in Asheville,
North Carolina as of November 19, 2004 indicating a
value of $ 1,025,000. The subject property is a 0.86- acre
site improved with a 5,049 square foot building con-structed
in 1976 and currently occupied as a medical
office. Mr. Smith used three approaches to value in
their analysis. In the Cost Approach, he used five sales
in the land value analysis. The three sales were actual-ly
purchases of more than one tract. Although each con-tained
improvements at the time of the sale, there was
no mention of the improvements and large adjustments
were taken for functional utility with no explanation.
Another sale is a 6,098 square foot site, and Mr. Smith
adjusted this sale down 10% for functional utility with
no explanation of the adjustment. The fifth sale in-volved
the purchase of approximately 4.04 acres with
buildings that have subsequently been removed from
the site. There is no explanation in the report that the
site was larger than indicated and no explanation for
the functional utility adjustment. There were sales of
vacant sites that were more similar in size and would
have required fewer adjustments than those used in the
report. In the Cost Approach, Mr. Smith indicates the
subject’s lot value to be $ 15.50 per square foot or
$ 675,180. The lot size is shown as 37,462 square feet,
which would calculate to $ 580,661 rather than $ 675,180.
The total value shown by the Cost Approach in the
report was $ 1,029,396. Mr. Smith used three improved
sales in the Sales Comparison Approach. He extracted
out the building value of one of the sales with no expla-nation
as to how the building value was extracted in the
report. In his Income Approach, Mr. Smith used esti-mated
figures with no real support or explanation. All
three of the approaches produced value results that are
not credible either due to flawed data, poor methodolo-gy
or lack of support. The other appraiser who signed
the report was formerly employed in Mr. Smith’s office.
The client initially contacted Mr. Smith to do the report
but he subcontracted the appraisal to the other apprais-er.
Mr. Smith reviewed the report; he did not have the
entire work file but only the report. Based on the report,
he felt it was in line and signed it.
11
Disciplinary Actions
12
NORTH CAROLINA
APPRAISAL BOARD
5830 Six Forks Roaad
Raleigh, NC 27609
4,600 copies of this document were printed at a cost of $. 59 per copy.
PRESORTED STD
U. S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 1978
RALEIGH, NC
William Vaughan, Jr. A4510 ( Greensboro)— By
consent, the Board issued a reprimand to Mr. Vaughan
and required him to take a course in appraiser liability.
The Board found that Mr. Vaughan appraised a proper-ty
located in Winston- Salem, NC in March, April and
May of 2005, finding an appraised value of $ 650,000 on
all three reports. On the first appraisal, Mr. Vaughan
stated an incorrect owner in the report. He stated the
correct owner on the second and third appraisals. The
subject had been listed for sale in the MLS for $ 519,000
since September 2003 until the effective date of the
report, although in November 2003 the owner of the
subject entered into a lease/ purchase agreement to sell
the property for $ 519,000. Mr. Vaughan did not address
either the listing or the lease purchase agreement in
any of the appraisal reports.
Henry M. Watts A301 ( Greensboro)— By consent,
the Board issued a reprimand to Mr. Watts. Mr. Watts
also agreed to complete a course in scope of work by
October 1, 2006. If he fails to complete the course, the
reprimand will be vacated and a one- month active sus-pension
imposed on that date. The Board found that
Mr. Watts appraised a property located in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina in April 2001, finding an estimate
of value of $ 840,000. The appraisal was done for the
property owner in a condemnation action brought by
the city. The subject is a 16- acre tract of vacant land that
is zoned RM- 18. There is a 34,600 square feet cellular
tower site and a utility easement located upon the prop-erty.
There are low- lying areas on the subject that may
be unsuitable for development. Mr. Watts stated in the
report that the highest and best use for the property
was the development of subsidized non- owner occu-pied
multifamily housing units. The report was based
on using the full 16 acres of the property to support 300
units, at $ 2,800 per unit. Since the property had a cellu-lar
tower and utility easements on it, the actual usable
land was much less, although the actual number of
allowable multifamily units that could be constructed
on the subject was unknown as of the effective date of
the subject report. The decision to characterize the
entire site as being physically able to support 300 units
regardless of the topography was an extraordinary
assumption that was not disclosed within the report.
Mr. Watts’ client instructed him to ignore the cellular
site and other issues and to consider the entire square
footage in his calculation of usable area, but Mr. Watts
did not disclose this hypothetical condition in the
report. There were sales in the market area that sup-ported
his price per unit.
Wanda Whitfield A3417 ( Fayetteville)— By consent,
the Board suspended Ms. Whitfield’s residential certifi-cation
for a period of six months. The suspension is
stayed until October 1, 2006. If Ms. Whitfield completes
a course in scope of work and a course in tough ap-praisal
assignments by that date, the suspension shall
be inactive. The Board found that Ms. Whitfield and a
trainee under her supervision appraised a property
located in Fayetteville, North Carolina in October 2005,
finding an estimate of value of $ 367,000. The subject was
under contract for $ 380,000 on the effective date of the
report. The subject had transferred through foreclosure
one month before the report for $ 248,500, which was
noted in the report. Several improvements had been
made to the subject since the sale. The subject is locat-ed
on a small cul- de- sac that backs up to a city power
substation and water tower. Ms. Whitfield used three
sales in the report that were all superior to the subject
in quality of construction and appeal, yet she did not
make any adjustments for these differences. Had she
made appropriate adjustments to the sales, the esti-mate
of value would have been lower.
Randolph York A2392 ( Greensboro)— By consent,
the Board suspended Mr. York’s residential license for
a period of three months. If Mr. York completes a
course in sales comparison by June 1, 2006, the sus-pension
shall be inactive. The Board found that in May
2004, Mr. York appraised a property located in Reids-ville,
North Carolina, finding an estimate of value of
$ 170,000. The subject is a 3- year- old one story frame
modular home containing 2,184 square feet and located
on a 6.89- acre site. The subject property was foreclosed
on August 6, 2003, and sold at auction one day prior to
the effective date of the report for a total auction sales
price of $ 73,500. Mr. York’s work file contains a copy of
the tax card pulled on the effective date of the report,
which did not indicate the change in ownership from
the foreclosure sale. Mr. York used three sales in his
sales comparison approach that ranged in sales price
from $ 153,000 to $ 188,000, with adjusted prices of
$ 165,700 to $ 172,200. The first two sales were of modular
homes. He made a positive $ 6,000 adjustment for inferi-or
condition on his first sale that does not appear war-ranted.
Although his second sale was located in a
restricted subdivision of site built homes, Mr. York
made no quality adjustment. The third sale was a site
built home with custom quality features including hard-wood
and ceramic tile flooring, vaulted and trey ceil-ings
and a brick exterior. Mr. York made a negative
$ 10,000 quality adjustment for the brick exterior that is
too low. He also made a positive $ 4,000 adjustment for
inferior condition on this sale that did not appear war-ranted.
There were few sales of modular homes in the
subject area. One additional similar sale was found that
sold on January 30, 2004 for $ 150,000 after being on the
market for 249 days. This sale was a modular home that
contained 2,225 square feet with a detached garage on
3.8 acres. By failing to use this sale, and by failing to
make appropriate adjustments to the sales he used, Mr.
York over valued the subject property.
Disciplinary Actions
Continuing Education Reminder
The current two- year continuing education
cycle runs July 1, 2005 – June 1, 2007. In order
to renew your registration, license or certifi-cate,
continuing education must be completed
by June 1, 2007. Board Rule 57A. 0204 ( b) re-quires
trainees, licensees and certificate hold-ers
to complete their continuing education
courses by June 1st of odd- numbered years.
The continuing education requirement in odd-numbered
years is 28 hours with 7 of the 28
hours being the National USPAP course. Please
keep in mind that you may complete up to 14
hours of approved online continuing educa-tion
per 2- year continuing education cycle.
Registered trainees who were initially regis-tered
with the Board after January 1 of an odd
numbered year will not be required to show
continuing education credit for renewal of
their registration in that odd numbered year.
Appraisers residing outside of North Carolina
who are licensed or certified by reciprocity
must submit an original letter of good standing
from their resident state along with their
renewal. The 7- hour National Uniform Stand-ards
of Professional Appraisal Practice
( USPAP) update course may be taken once for
each edition of USPAP.