CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17650
...and rule violations related to a residential real estate appraisal that they conducted in March *317 2007. The alleged violations included Appellants’ failure to retain appraisal reports and supporting data for at least five years in violation of section 475.629, Florida Statutes (2006) (count II); failure to maintain supporting data in a work file in violation of the Ethics Recordkeeping Rule of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2006) * (hereinafter “US-PAP”) and...
...in finding Appellants guilty of counts II, VII, and VIII. We affirm the other issues raised by Appellants without further comment, including the finding of guilt on count V. Count II of the administrative complaint charged Appellants with violating section 475.629, Florida Statutes, which provides: An appraiser registered, licensed, or certified under this part shall retain, for at least 5 years, original or true copies of any contracts engaging the appraiser’s services, appraisal reports, an...
...This court defers to the agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering so long as the interpretation is not clearly erroneous and is supported by substantial competent evidence. See Kessler v. Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs.,
17 So.3d 759, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The Board’s interpretation of section
475.629 is clearly erroneous....
...of the interpretation advocated by the Division and adopted by the Board. Although, as in this case, an incomplete or inadequate work file may constitute a violation of the USPAP Ethics Recordkeep-ing Rule, it does not also constitute a violation of section 475.629....
...Accordingly, the Board erred in rejecting the ALJ’s more reasonable interpretation of the statute, and because there was no evidence that Appellants failed to retain all of the records that were present in their work files for the requisite period, the Board erred in finding Appellants guilty of violating section 475.629, as alleged in count II of the administrative complaint....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ry and rule violations related to a residential real estate appraisal that they conducted in March *317 2007. The alleged violations included Appellants' failure to retain appraisal reports and supporting data for at least five years in violation of section 475.629, Florida Statutes (2006) (count II); failure to maintain supporting data in a work file in violation of the Ethics Recordkeeping Rule of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2006) [*] (hereinafter "USPAP") and sec...
...in finding Appellants guilty of counts II, VII, and VIII. We affirm the other issues raised by Appellants without further comment, including the finding of guilt on count V. Count II of the administrative complaint charged Appellants with violating section 475.629, Florida Statutes, which provides: An appraiser registered, licensed, or certified under this part shall retain, for at least 5 years, original or true copies of any contracts engaging the appraiser's services, appraisal reports, and...
...This court defers to the agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering so long as the interpretation is not clearly erroneous and is supported by substantial competent evidence. See Kessler v. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs.,
17 So.3d 759, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The Board's interpretation of section
475.629 is clearly erroneous....
...of the interpretation advocated by the Division and adopted by the Board. Although, as in this case, an incomplete or inadequate work file may constitute a violation of the USPAP Ethics Recordkeeping Rule, it does not also constitute a violation of section 475.629....
...Accordingly, the Board erred in rejecting the ALJ's more reasonable interpretation of the statute, and because there was no evidence that Appellants failed to retain all of the records that were present in their work files for the requisite period, the Board erred in finding Appellants guilty of violating section 475.629, as alleged in count II of the administrative complaint....
