Link to original WordPerfect file
Link to PDF file
How to access the above link?
Return to nccourts.org
Return to the Opinions Page
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
IN RE: BETTY NANTZ
Filed: 4 April 2006
1. Appeal and Error_preservation of issues_appeal from board to superior
court_sufficiency of findings and conclusions raised
An assignment of error was properly preserved for review where respondent filed in
superior court a petition for judicial review of a decision of the North Carolina Appraisal Board
revoking her certification as a real estate appraiser. Although the State asserts that the issue of
permanent revocation was not raised in respondent's petition, an appeal from a final judgment
may present the question of whether the judgment is supported by the findings and conclusions.
2. Occupations_real estate appraisal board_sanctions_findings and conclusions
The plain language of N.C.G.S. § 93E-1-12 is clear and does not require the North
Carolina Appraisal Board to specifically make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support
a particular penalty or sanction against a real estate appraiser.
3. Occupations_real estate appraisal board_power to permanently revoke certification
The plain and ordinary meaning of revoke and suspend in N.C.G.S. § 93E-1-12
shows a legislative intent to give the North Carolina Appraisal Board the power to permanently
revoke a real estate appraiser's certification.
4. Real Estate_appraisal_standards violated_findings sufficient
Sufficient findings supported the North Carolina Appraisal Board's conclusion that its
standards were violated by a real estate appraiser in making misleading reports, omitting essential
information, and not indicating hypothetical conditions in her report. Although there was a
clerical error in identifying one of the standards, that error was harmless.
5. Real Estate_appraisal_communication in fraudulent or misleading manner
Findings by the North Carolina Appraisal Board supported the conclusion that real estate
appraisal results were communicated in a fraudulent or misleading manner. Despite respondent's
argument that findings of intent to deceive are required, the Board's ethics rule is violated when
the appraiser communicates the results in a fraudulent or misleading manner.
6. Appeal and Error_issue first raised on appeal_not heard
An argument concerning the sufficiency of the North Carolina Appraisal Board's notice
of alleged violations was dismissed where the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.
Appeal by respondent from order entered 20 April 2005 by Judge
Ronald K. Payne in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the
Court of Appeals 9 March 2006.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Roberta Ouellette, for petitioner-appellee North Carolina
Garlitz & Williamson, PLLC, by Thomas D. Garlitz, for
Betty Nantz (Nantz) appeals from order entered affirming the
North Carolina Appraisal Board's (the Board) decision to revoke
her certification as a real estate appraiser. We affirm.
Nantz has been preparing real estate appraisals since the
1960s. When North Carolina required appraisers to be certified,
she was certified as a residential appraiser in 1990 and as a
general appraiser in 1992. Nantz prepared appraisals in Cabarrus
and surrounding counties. The Board received four complaints
against Nantz. A hearing on all four complaints was held on 20 May
2004 and 15 June 2004. The Board found as follows:
A. First Complaint
Nantz performed an appraisal of property located at 21 Cherry
Street in Wadesboro, and estimated the indicated value of the
property at $72,000.00 as of 23 May 2001. At the time of the
appraisal, the public tax records identified the owner of the
property as Leroy Lookabill, Jr. (Lookabill). Nantz stated in
her appraisal report, To my knowledge there have been no
agreements, options, listings or prior sales of the subject or the
comparables. Public records indicate Lookabill acquired theproperty in September 2000. This sale was neither mentioned nor
analyzed in the appraisal report. On the first page of the
appraisal report, Nantz stated the sales price as N/A. Nantz
stated at the hearing that N/A meant Note Addendum. However,
she used the same notation several other times in her appraisal
reports and none of those items were addressed in an addendum.
Nantz's work file contained an MLS listing sheet indicating
the property was listed for sale for $52,600.00 at the time of the
appraisal report. Nantz failed to address or note this listing in
her appraisal. The property sold on 29 June 2001 for $72,000.00.
Nantz chose four sales as comparable to the subject property.
Three of those sales were from superior locations than the subject
property, yet Nantz made no adjustments for those differences. The
Board also found more comparable sales were available that
indicated a lower value for the property.
B. Second Complaint
Nantz performed an appraisal for property located at 12
Magnolia Street in Wadesboro, which she estimated the property's
indicated value at $80,000.00 as of 27 December 2001. At the time
of the appraisal, public tax records identified the owner of the
property as Lewis and Brownette Moore. Nantz's work file contained
an MLS listing sheet for the property indicating it was listed for
sale for $59,000.00 at the time of the appraisal. Nantz listed the
sales price on the first page of her report as N/A. On the
second page of the report, Nantz states, I have no knowledge other
than the above pertaining to any sales, contracts or listings. Inan addendum to the report, Nantz states, Subject property is
currently listed at $59,000.00 and has an offer to purchase for
$55,000.00. The property did not sell after the appraisal report.
The Board found Nantz chose three sales as comparable to the
subject property. All three of these sales were from areas that
were superior to the subject property and Nantz made negative
$4,000.00 adjustments for each of the sales for location. The
Board found these adjustments were inadequate to address the
differences in location between the comparable sales and the
subject property and that more comparable sales were available,
which indicated a lower value for the property. On the location
map included in the appraisal report, Nantz showed the property
being located within the city limits of Wadesboro when, in fact, it
C. Third Complaint
Nantz performed an appraisal of property located at 52 S.
Salisbury Street in Wadesboro, which she indicated a value of
$102,000.00 as of 25 October 2000. At the time of the appraisal,
the public tax records identified the owner of the property as Gail
R. Ponds (Ponds). On the first page of the report, Nantz states
the sales price as N/A. Nantz left blank the section on the
second page of the appraisal report regarding any current agreement
of sale, option, or listing of the property. The property had sold
to Ponds on 27 April 2000 for $26,000.00. This sale was not
mentioned in Nantz's appraisal report. Ponds sold the property in
January 2001 to Sophia Ingram (Ingram) for $102,000.00. Ingramsubsequently obtained a deed of trust on the property in the amount
Nantz used three comparable sales in her appraisal report.
Although the subject property was located in a mixed-use area, all
comparable sales Nantz chose were located in residential
neighborhoods. The Board found the comparable residential houses
were superior in quality and condition to the subject property, but
Nantz made no adjustments to account for those differences. The
Board also found more comparable sales were available that would
have indicated a lower value for the property.
D. Fourth Complaint
Nantz performed an appraisal of the property located at 617
Pee Dee Avenue in Albemarle, in which she indicated a value of the
property of $210,000.00 as of 19 March 2001. Nantz identified the
owner of the property as Ted C. Russell (Russell). At the time
of the appraisal, the public records identified the owner of the
property as the Bank of New York. The Bank of New York had
acquired the property by a Trustee's Deed on 9 May 2000 for the sum
of $98,600.00. At the time of the appraisal, the property was
listed for sale for $90,000.00. On the first page of her report,
Nantz stated the sales price as N/A.
Russell acquired the property on 30 May 2001 for $90,000.00.
Russell sold the property to Marilyn Turner (Turner) on 27 June
2001 for $210,000.00. Turner subsequently obtained a loan on the
property for $189,000.00, which later went into default and
foreclosure. Nantz stated in the appraisal report that To myknowledge there are no agreements of sale, options, listing [sic]
of the subject or prior sales within one year of the date of the
appraisal. Nantz testified she knew of the 9 May 2000 transfer
for $98,600.00, but failed to note it in her appraisal report.
Nantz also failed to indicate in her appraisal report that the
property was offered for a sale price of approximately $120,000.00
less than her appraised value and she failed to state and analyze
the sales history of the property. Nantz asserted the improvements
on the property contained 2,435 square feet. This conclusion
included the square footage of a basement she determined was
finished. The Board found the basement area was not finished, was
below grade, should not have been included as finished floor area,
and the correct square footage was 2,067.
The Board also found the comparable sales Nantz chose were all
much larger and newer than the subject property and superior in
location and condition. Nantz's appraisal contained no adjustments
for these differences. The Board further found that more
comparable sales were available that indicated a much lower value
for the property.
The Board adjudged Nantz guilty of violating rules of the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) for
real estate appraisers. The Board permanently revoked Nantz's
certification pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93E-1-12(a)(9). This
statute permits the Board to revoke an appraiser's license,
certificate, or registration if the appraiser is found to haveviolated any of the standards of practice for real estate
appraisers or any other rule promulgated by the Board.
Nantz filed a Petition for Judicial Review in Cabarrus County
Superior Court seeking review of the Board's decision. On 20 April
2005, the trial court affirmed the Board's decision. Nantz
Nantz argues the trial court erred by: (1) affirming the
Board's decision to permanently revoke her certification as an
appraiser; (2) upholding the Board's conclusion that she violated
USPAP Standards Rules 1-2(f), 1-4(b), and 2-1; (3) upholding the
Board's conclusion that she violated the USPAP ethics rule by
communicating her appraisal results in a fraudulent manner; and
(4) upholding the Board's conclusion that she violated N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§ 93E-1-12(a)(2), 93E-1-12(a)(8), 93E-1-12(a)(10), and 93E-
III. Standard of Review
When the Agency decision is on review before
the superior court judge, his consideration of
the case is that of an appellate court. In re
Faulkner, 38 N.C. App. 222, 247 S.E.2d 668
(1978). The reviewing court, both trial and
appellate, while obligated to consider
evidence of record that detracts from the
administrative ruling, is not free to weigh
all of the evidence and reach its own
conclusion on the merits. Savings and Loan
Assoc. v. Savings and Loan Comm., 43 N.C. App.
493, 497, 259 S.E.2d 373, 376 (1979).
Little v. Board of Dental Examiners, 64 N.C. App. 67, 69, 306
S.E.2d 534, 536 (1983). In N.C. State Bar v. Talford, our Supreme Court held a review
under the whole record test requires three determinations whether:
(1) there is adequate evidence to support the agency's findings of
fact; (2) the findings of fact adequately support the conclusions
of law; and (3) the findings of fact and conclusions of law support
the agency's ultimate decision. 356 N.C. 626, 634, 576 S.E.2d 305,
311 (2003). [I]n reaching its decision, the reviewing court is
prohibited from replacing the Agency's findings of fact with its
own judgment of how credible, or incredible, the testimony appears
to them to be, so long as substantial evidence of those findings
exist in the whole record. Little, 64 N.C. App. at 69, 306 S.E.2d
at 536 (citation omitted). Questions of statutory interpretation
and law are reviewed de novo. Department of Transp. v. Charlotte
Area Mfd. Housing, Inc., 160 N.C. App. 461, 464, 586 S.E.2d 780,
782 (2003) (citations omitted).
IV. Revocation of Nantz's Certification
Nantz argues the trial court erred by affirming the Board's
decision to permanently revoke her certification. Nantz contends
the Board: (1) failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of
law to explain how it decided to impose such penalty; and (2)
exceeded its authority in permanently revoking her certification.
A. Preservation of Error
 The State argues Nantz failed to properly preserve this
assignment of error for appellate review. Nantz filed a petition
for judicial review of the Board's decision in Cabarrus CountySuperior Court. The State asserts the issue of permanent
revocation was not raised in Nantz's petition. In order to
preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have
presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion,
stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the
court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the
context. N.C.R. App. 10(b)(1) (2005). [A]n appeal duly taken
from a final judgment may present for review, if properly raised in
the brief, the question of whether the judgment is supported by the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Anderson Chevrolet/Olds
v. Higgins, 57 N.C. App. 650, 653, 292 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1982). The
State's argument is overruled.
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Selection
of the Penalty
 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93E-1-12(a) (2005) provides the Board is
authorized to suspend or revoke the certification of a real
estate appraiser if the Board finds the appraiser has engaged in
activities enumerated in and proscribed by the statute. The
Board's decision cited fourteen conclusions of law, which set forth
specific standards and laws Nantz purportedly violated. Nantz does
not address any portion of the statute where the Board is required
to make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support the
Board's selection of the penalty or sanction.
The primary rule of statutory construction is
that the intent of the legislature controls
the interpretation of a statute. The foremost
task in statutory interpretation is to
determine legislative intent while giving the
language of the statute its natural andordinary meaning unless the context requires
otherwise. Where the statutory language is
clear and unambiguous, the Court does not
engage in judicial construction but must apply
the statute to give effect to the plain and
definite meaning of the language.
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. The City of Asheville, 358 N.C. 512,
518, 597 S.E.2d 717, 722 (2004) (internal citations and quotations
The plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93E-1-12 is clear, and
it does not require the Board to specifically make findings of fact
and conclusions of law to support a particular penalty or sanction.
We decline to judicially impose this requirement on the Board when
the legislature did not include it in the language of the statute.
See Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 145, 418
S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992) (The wording of N.C.G.S. § 108A-55 is
clear, and it does not include a requirement that a Medicaid
applicant 'own' his or her primary place of residence before
receiving the advantage of the statute's 'contiguous property'
C. Permanent Revocation
 The plain and definite meaning of the language contained
in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93E-1-12 determines whether the Board has the
authority to permanently revoke Nantz's certification. The
statute provides, The Board may suspend or revoke the
registration, license, or certificate granted to any person under
the provisions of this Chapter or reprimand any registered trainee,
licensee, or certificate holder if the Board finds the appraiserto have committed any of the enumerated violations. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 93E-1-12(a).
The American Heritage Dictionary defines revoke as to void
or annul by recalling, withdrawing, or reversing. The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000).
Suspend is defined as to bar for a period from a privilege,
office, or position, usually as a punishment. The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1225 (4th ed. 2000).
The plain and ordinary meanings of these words show the
legislature's intent that revoke in the statute means the Board
has the power to permanently revoke the certification. If revoke
meant a period of time less than permanent, the word suspend
would not have been included in the statute. See Builders, Inc. v.
City of Winston-Salem, 302 N.C. 550, 556, 276 S.E.2d 443, 447
(1981) (It is presumed that the legislature intended each portion
to be given full effect and did not intend any provision to be mere
V. The Board's Conclusions of Law
 Nantz argues the trial court erred in upholding the
Board's conclusions of law that Nantz violated USPAP Rules 1-2(f),
1-4(b), and 2-1. We disagree.
We review whether substantial evidence supports the Board's
findings and if those findings support its conclusions of law.
, 356 N.C. at 634, 576 S.E.2d at 311. The Board concluded:
7. The Respondent is adjudged to have
violated Standards Rule 1-2(f) of USPAP when
she failed to identify the scope of work
necessary to complete the assignment. The Respondent excluded certain information from
her appraisal that was relevant to her
determination of the appraised value. She
allowed the assignment conditions and/or other
factors to limit the extent of research or
analysis to such a degree that the resulting
opinions and conclusions developed were not
credible in the context of the intended use of
USPAP Standards Rule 1-2(f) requires an appraiser to identify the
scope of work necessary to complete the assignment. USPAP defines
scope of work as the amount and type of information researched
and the analysis applied in an assignment. An appraiser should
identify the appropriate scope of work and determine the
appropriate research the particular assignment and property
The Board found as fact:
4. Respondent knowingly made omissions and
false statements concerning the identification
of the property owner and the marketing and
sales history of the subject properties, all
of which made the property appear more
favorable and provided artificial support for
the inflated value placed on the subject.
This finding supports the Board's conclusion that Nantz violated
Standards Rule 1-2(f) of USPAP.
Nantz argues the Board's conclusion that she violated
Standards Rule 1-4(b) of USPAP was not supported by any findings of
fact. The Board concluded:
8. The Respondent is adjudged to have
violated Standards Rule 1-4(a) and (b) of
USPAP when she failed to collect, verify and
analyze all information applicable to the
appraisal problem, given the scope of work
identified in accordance with Standards Rule
1-2(f) of USPAP. In applying a sales
comparison approach, the respondent failed toanalyze comparable sales data that were
available to indicate a value conclusion. She
selectively chose the comparable sales based
on the sales prices, which led to an inflated
value for the subject properties.
USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 provides:
In developing a real property appraisal, an
appraiser must collect, verify, and analyze
all information applicable to the appraisal
problem, given the scope of work identified in
accordance with Standards Rule 1-2(f).
(a) When a sales comparison approach is
applicable, an appraiser must analyze such
comparable sales data as are available to
indicate a value conclusion.
(b) When a cost approach is applicable, an
(i) develop an opinion of site value
by an appropriate appraisal method
(ii) analyze such comparable cost
data as are available to estimate
the cost new of the improvements (if
(iii) analyze such comparable data
as are available to estimate the
difference between the cost new and
the present worth of the
improvements (accrued depreciation).
Nantz does not argue that no findings of fact support the
conclusion that she violated USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(a). She
argues no findings of fact support a conclusion that she violated
Rule 1-4(b). As the Board concedes, Nantz is correct. The
reference to Rule 1-4(b) in the Board's conclusion appears to be a
clerical mistake. We find this clerical error to be harmless. Nantz argues the Board's conclusion that she violated USPAP
Standards Rule 2-1(b) and (c) is not supported by any evidence.
USPAP Standards Rule 2-1 provides:
Each written or oral real property appraisal
. . . .
(b) contain sufficient information to enable
the intended users of the appraisal to
understand the report properly; and
(c) clearly and accurately disclose any
extraordinary assumption, hypothetical
condition, or limiting condition that directly
affects the appraisal and indicate its impact
Sufficient findings of fact support the Board's conclusion
that Nantz violated USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(b) and (c). Finding
of fact number 4, as stated above, states Nantz made omissions and
false statements concerning several items. Finding of fact number
6 states Nantz made misrepresentations and issued misleading
reports. Other findings of fact clearly indicate that Nantz
omitted required or essential information from her appraisal
reports. By omitting the listing or sales history, the intended
users of the appraisals were not provided important information
about the subject properties.
USPAP defines hypothetical condition as that which is
contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of
analysis. The Board found Nantz stated in the appraisal of the
Pee Dee Avenue property that it contained 2,435 square feet in
finding of fact number 45. She came to this conclusion by
including an unfinished basement that she stated was finishedsquare footage. Nantz failed to indicate this hypothetical
condition in her appraisal report. The Board made sufficient
findings of fact to support its conclusion that Nantz violated
USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(b) and (c). This assignment of error is
VI. Communicating Appraisal Results in a Fraudulent Manner
 Nantz argues the trial court erred in affirming the
Board's conclusion that by communicating her appraisal in a
fraudulent manner she violated the USPAP ethics rule. We
The Board concluded, 1. Respondent is adjudged guilty of
violating the Ethics Rule of the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice . . . when she communicated the assignment
results in a misleading or fraudulent manner . . . .
Nantz argues that fraud requires an intent to deceive and the
Board failed to make any findings that she intended to deceive
The Board found in finding of fact no. 4, Respondent
knowingly made omissions and false statements concerning the
identification of the property owner and the marketing and sales
history of the subject properties . . . . The Board further
5. Respondent was aware of the standards and
law governing the appraisal profession in
North carolina and was aware that her acts and
omissions in performing the appraisals of
these four (4) properties violated the
standards and laws.
6. Respondent made the misrepresentations and
issued misleading reports with the knowledge
that mortgage institutions and others relied
on the information and value stated in the
report as a basis upon which to approve or
These findings of fact support the Board's conclusion that
Nantz communicated appraisal results in a fraudulent or misleading
manner. The Board's ethics rule is violated when the appraiser
communicates the results in a fraudulent or misleading manner.
This assignment of error is overruled.
 Nantz argues the trial court erred in upholding the
Board's conclusion that she violated N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 93E-1-
12(a)(2), 93E-1-12(a)(8), 93E-1-12(a)(10), and 93E-1-12(a)(11)
because the Board's notice of hearing did not mention these
sections of the statute and failed to give her notice that she was
charged with violating these provisions.
Nantz raises the issue of whether the Board's notice was
sufficient for the first time in this appeal. This issue is not
mentioned in Nantz's petition for judicial review presented to the
trial court. The trial court's decision does not indicate that
this issue was argued. N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) requires, In order
to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have
presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion,
stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the
court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the
context. This assignment of error is dismissed.
The trial court properly affirmed the Board's decision to
revoke Nantz's certification as an appraiser. The Board made
sufficient findings of fact to support its conclusions of law.
Nantz failed to preserve the issue of whether she was given
proper notice for our review. The order of the trial court
affirming the decision of the Board is affirmed.
Judges MCCULLOUGH and LEVINSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***