[Cite as Singer v. Davids, 2011-Ohio-4434.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DAN R. SINGER : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 10-CA-55 

KELLY DAVIDS, SUPERINTENDENT : 

OF THE OHIO DIVISION OF REAL 

ESTATE AND PROFESSIONAL 

LICENSING 

: 

 : 

 Appellee : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of 

Common Pleas Case No. 09-CV-940 

 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 25, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant: For Appellee: 

 

RAY R. MICHALSKI 0015793 CHERYL R. HAWKINSON 0055429 

Dagger, Johnston, Miller, Ogilvie & 

Hampson, LLP 

 Assistant Attorney General 

30 E. Broad St., 26th Fl. 

144 E. Main St. Columbus, Ohio 43215 

P.O. Box 667 

Lancaster, Ohio 43130 

 

Delaney, J. 
{¶1} Appellant Dan R. Singer, Ohio Certified General Real Estate Appraiser 

Number 0000382990, appeals from the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of 

Common Pleas, affirming the Order of the Ohio Division of Real Estate and Professional 

Licensing finding that Appellant failed to follow appropriate standards in conducting a 

real estate appraisal. 

{¶2} The procedural and factual history of this case is as follows: 

{¶3} This matter came before the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas 

based on Appellant’s appeal from a June 26, 2009, Adjudication Order of the Ohio Real 

Estate Appraise Board (“Board”), finding that Appellant violated R.C. 4763.11(G)(4), 

(G)(5), and (G)(6). Specifically, the Board adopted a Hearing Officer’s report that found 

that Appellant plagiarized portions of a previous real estate appraisal report completed 

by another appraiser. The Board imposed a $2,500 civil penalty, imposed additional 

educational requirements and suspended Appellant’s license for 120 days. 

{¶4} Appellant, a licensed professional appraiser, was retained by Peoples 

Bank to appraise The Woods Subdivision, a residential development located in Fairfield 

County, Ohio. The agreement required Appellant’s appraisal to conform to the Uniform 

Standard Professional Appraisal Practices (“USPAP”), to summarize the physical and 

economic characteristics of The Woods Development and to summarize sufficient 

information to disclose to the intended user the scope of the work used to develop the 

appraisal. Appellant had been advised by David Dozer, the developer of the 

subdivision, that the property had been appraised by another appraiser before any 

construction had commenced on the development. That prior appraisal was completed 

by Daniel Smith of Daugherty Appraisers, Inc. (The “Daugherty appraisal”). 
{¶5} Appellant requested a copy of the Daugherty appraisal. In Appellant’s 

report, he used the same format and some of the substantive language that was used in 

the Daugherty appraisal. Appellant provided his report to Carey Klies, an Appraisal 

Review Specialist for Peoples Bank. Upon receiving Appellant’s appraisal, Klies sent 

an email to Appellant stating that she noticed that “the majority of your report is identical 

to the last appraisal report, including the absorption rate and all factors used to calculate 

the value per the income approach (discounted cash flow).” Klies requested that 

Appellant revise his report to reflect current market factors and a current market value 

for the property since the Daugherty report had been completed in September, 2007. 

{¶6} Appellant then collected additional information and submitted a revised 

report, which contained subdivision comparables information and confirmation of 

Appellant’s calculated absorption rate. 

{¶7} Klies filed a complaint with the Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of 

Professional Licensing regarding the appraisal work done by Appellant. Shannon 

Drawns investigated the complaint and notified Appellant that he was being charged 

with plagiarizing portions of his report and failing to provide an independent analysis of 

the information contained within his report. 

{¶8} A hearing was held on July 14, 2008, and August 22, 2008. At the 

hearing, evidence was presented concerning the similarities in the Daugherty appraisal 

and Appellant’s reports. The hearing examiner recommended that the Board find 

Appellant guilty of dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation, with the intent to either 

benefit the certificate holder, registrant, or licensee or another person or to injure 

another person. Additionally, the officer recommended that Appellant be found guilty of 
violating the standards for the development or communication of real estate appraisals 

set forth in R.C. Chapter 4763 and the Rules of the Board. Moreover, the officer 

recommended that Appellant be found guilty of failing or refusing to exercise reasonable 

diligence in developing an appraisal, preparing an appraisal report, or communicating 

an appraisal. The officer did not recommend that Appellant be found guilty of 

negligence or incompetence in developing the appraisal, in preparing the appraisal 

report or in communicating an appraisal even though Appellant had originally been 

charged with those infractions. In addition, the officer found a lack of evidence to 

support a recommendation that Appellant be found guilty of willfully disregarding or 

violating R.C. 4763 or any of the Rules adopted under that Chapter of the Revised 

Code. 

{¶9} Appellant filed objections to the officer’s report and the full Board reviewed 

the hearing examiner’s report and Appellant’s objections. Based on this review, the 

Board adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations. 

{¶10} Appellant appealed the finding of the Board to the Fairfield County Court 

of Common Pleas on July 17, 2009, and argued that the Board’s conclusions were 

factually and legally incorrect. The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Real 

Estate and Professional Licensing filed the record of the administrative proceedings in 

the trial court on August 7, 2009. 

{¶11} The trial court reviewed the transcripts, exhibits that were introduced 

before the Board, and the briefs of attorneys for both parties. 

{¶12} The trial court then issued an opinion on October 8, 2010, finding that it 

was “impossible to conclude that [Appellant’s] use of the Daugherty Appraisal was 
misleading under the circumstances.” The trial court further found that Appellant 

“pursued the information necessary to conduct the appraisal and write the appraisal 

report with all due diligence, unaffected by the availability or use of the Daugherty 

Appraisal.” The court then concluded, however, that by failing to disclose his use of the 

Daugherty Appraisal in his report, he caused the recipient of the report to 

“misunderstand the content of the report and question the accuracy of the report’s 

substantive content.” Additionally, the court stated that Appellant’s failure to disclose 

his use of the Daugherty Appraisal constituted “a failure to use a recognized technique 

in reporting the results of any type of research.” 

{¶13} The lower court also opined that had Appellant indicated in his report that 

he used the Daugherty appraisal as a “starting point” for his own appraisal report, the 

entire situation could have been averted. 

{¶14} Appellant now appeals from the judgment of the trial court and raises one 

Assignment of Error: 

{¶15} “I. THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DECIDING, AS 

A MATTER OF LAW, THAT: A) APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY 

DISCLOSE HIS USE OF THE DAUGHERTY APPRAISAL “CONTRIBUTED THE 

FAILURE OF THE RECIPIENT TO BE ABLE TO USE THE REPORT AS INTENDED 

AND CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO USE A RECOGNIZED TECHNIQUE IN 

REPORTING THE RESULTS OF ANY TYPE OF RESEARCH”; B) APPELLANT’S 

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS USE OF THE DAUGHERTY APPRAISAL “CAUSED THE 

RECIPIENT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT AND TO 

QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF THE REPORT’S SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT AND 
ITS RELIABILITY:; AND, C) APPELLANT’S SIMPLE MENTION OF HIS INTENTION 

TO USE THE DAUGHERTY APPRAISAL AS A “STARTING POINT FOR HIS OWN 

APPRAISAL REPORT ... COULD HAVE AVERTED THIS ENTIRE SITUATION.” 

I. 

{¶16} In an appeal from an administrative review board's order, a reviewing trial 

court is bound to uphold the order if it is supported by reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence, and is in accordance with law. R.C. 119.12; In re Williams (1991), 

60 Ohio St.3d 85, 86, 573 N.E.2d 638, 639. The appellate court's review is even more 

limited than that of the trial court. “While it is incumbent on the trial court to examine the 

evidence, this is not a function of the appellate court. The appellate court is to determine 

only if the trial court has abused its discretion, i.e., being not merely an error of 

judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency. 

Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not 

substitute its judgment for those of the * * * board or a trial court. Instead, the appellate 

court must affirm the trial court's judgment.” Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board (1993), 

66 Ohio St.3d 619, 1993-Ohio-122, 614 N.E.2d 748, citing Lorain City School Dist. Bd. 

of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257, 260-261, 533 N.E.2d 

264, 266. See, also, Rossford Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of 

Edn. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 705, 707, 590 N.E.2d 1240, 1241. 

{¶17} Moreover, when reviewing a board's order, courts must accord due 

deference to the board's interpretation of the technical and ethical requirements of its 

profession. Arlen v. State (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 168, 173, 15 O.O.3d 190, 194, 399 

N.E.2d 1251, 1254-1255. “ ‘ * * * The purpose of the General Assembly in providing for 
administrative hearings in particular fields was to facilitate such matters by placing the 

decision on facts with boards or commissions composed of [people] equipped with the 

necessary knowledge and experience pertaining to a particular field. * * * ’ ” Id., quoting 

Farrand v. State Med. Bd. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 222, 224, 39 O.O. 41, 42, 85 N.E.2d 

113, 114.) 

{¶18} The issue before this Court, then, is whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in upholding the Board’s finding of plagiarism on the part of Appellant. We 

may not substitute our judgment on behalf of the trial court or the Board. 

{¶19} Upon review, we do not find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial 

court below. 

{¶20} The Appellant obtained a copy of an appraisal previously completed by 

another appraiser (the Daugherty appraisal) on the same property that Appellant was 

retained to appraise. The Appellant used portions of the Daugherty appraisal as his 

own and that he submitted that work to Peoples Bank as his own work. The Board 

found that the format and wording of the Daugherty appraisal and Appellant’s appraisal 

were nearly identical with at least two pages being a “word-for-word copy.” 

{¶21} The Appellant’s appraisal differed from the Daugherty appraisal in several 

respects: (1) new absorption rate information; (2) new deed restrictions information; (3) 

updated information regarding development and physical attributes of the property; (4) 

new figures regarding gross sales proceeds; (5) new information regarding the income 

capitalization approach; (6) a new market value; (7) a new excess vacant land chart; 

and (8) a new reconciliation and final value page. 
{¶22} The trial court found that it was “entirely reasonable for the Hearing Officer 

to find, based on comparison of the two appraisal reports, that they were almost 

identical in some respects and very different in other respects. In fact, those findings 

are exactly what one would expect, given [Appellant’s] contention that he purposely 

used the wording and format of the Daugherty Appraisal and inserted new facts and his 

own analysis where appropriate.” 

{¶23} The trial court, in its conclusions of law, found as follows: 

{¶24} “The Board adopted the conclusions of law of the Administrative Hearing 

Officer. The Hearing Officer applied the 2006 Uniform Standards of Professional 

Appraisal Practices (“USPAP”) by force of R.C. 4763.11(G). The relevant USPAP 

provisions were Standards Rule 1-1 and Standards Rule 2-1. USPAP Standards Rule 

1-1 requires appraisers to “be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those 

recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible 

appraisal.” USPAP Standards Rule 2-1 provides, “[e]ach * * * appraisal report must (a) 

clearly and accurately set forth the appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading; (b) 

contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to 

understand the report properly; and (c) clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions” 

and other factors affecting the development of the appraisal report. The hearing officer 

also applied language from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the USPAP. The 

applied language was, “Plagiarism is unethical. * * * Presenting an appraisal report as 

yours when all or part is the work of someone else is clearly misleading.” 
{¶25} The trial court found that the Hearing Officer’s determination that 

Appellant’s use of entire pages of the Daugherty appraisal was plagiarism was wellfounded. 

{¶26} The trial court did find that Appellant’s actions could not have been 

determined to be misrepresentation with the intent to benefit Appellant. The court also 

stated that it could not “conclude that the hearing officer’s conclusion that [Appellant’s] 

use of the Daugherty Appraisal was misleading * * *. The copied portions of the 

Daugherty Appraisal that appeared in [Appellant’s] appraisal report are so obvious that 

it is impossible to conclude that [Appellant’s] use of the Daugherty Appraisal was 

misleading under the circumstances.” 

{¶27} The court also concluded that the Board erred in adopting the Hearing 

Officer’s conclusions of law concerning a lack of diligence on Appellant’s part. 

{¶28} As a whole, however, the trial court found that the Hearing Officer’s 

conclusions of law, and the Board’s decision to adopt those conclusions, were in 

accordance with the law. Appellant’s failure to disclose his use of the Daugherty 

appraisal in his appraisal report contributed to the failure of the recipient to be able to 

use the report as intended and constituted a failure to use a recognized technique in 

reporting the results of any type of research. The court stated, “Because Appellant 

failed to disclose his use of the Daugherty Appraisal in his report, he caused the 

recipient to misunderstand the content of the report and to question the accuracy of the 

report’s substantive content and its reliability. A simple mention of [Appellant’s] intent to 

use the Daugherty Appraisal as a starting point for his own appraisal report in order to 

provide a clearer picture to the intended user could have averted this entire situation.” 
{¶29} For those reasons, the trial court affirmed the Board’s Adjudication Order, 

which adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings. 

{¶30} We find the trial court had the discretion to weigh the evidence and make 

the decision that Appellant violated the standards set forth in the USPAP and under RC 

4673. Moreover, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the 

determination of the Board. A page by page comparison of the appraisal reports clearly 

shows Appellant took portions of the Daugherty Appraisal and represented it as his 

own. Still, Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court committed legal error 

because (1) there was no evidence that Peoples Bank could not use the Appellant’s 

appraisal report; (2) there is no professional requirement that an appraisal “use their 

own words” or reference the work of others; and (3) there was no evidence Peoples 

Bank “misunderstood its contents”. 

{¶31} We find Appellant’s contentions without merit. The USPAP standards 

clearly delineate that plagiarism is unethical. The trial court simply pointed out that 

Appellant’s citation to the Daugherty appraisal would have put the reader on notice that 

the source of the data or information was credited to someone else. By failing to 

acknowledge the Daugherty appraisal in the appropriate manner, Appellant represented 

the work as his own and by that action committed plagiarism and created a misleading 

report. 

{¶32} In light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
{¶33} Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. 

By: Delaney, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DAN R. SINGER : 

 : 

 Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

KELLY DAVIDS, SUPERINTENDENT : 

OF THE OHIO DIVISION OF REAL 

ESTATE AND PROFESSIONAL 

LICENSING 

: 

 Appellee : Case No. 10-CA-55 

 : 
 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the 

judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed 

to Appellant. 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE