ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-2270-BOA · Board of Appraisal · 2007-07-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 22, 2007. APPEARANCES: The Arizona State Board of Appraisal was represented by Assistant Attorney General Mary DeLaat Williams. Lisa D. Ammons did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Orders:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Lisa D. Ammons (“Respondent”) is the holder of Residential Real Estate Appraiser Certificate No. 20875 originally issued by the State of Arizona Board of Appraisal (“Board”) on September 28, 2004. 2. Certificate No. 20875 expired on August 31, 2006 due to Respondent having failed to timely renew it. 3. A certificate holder has a 90-day grace period within which to reactivate an expired certificate. 4. Respondent’s certificate was renewed on October 11, 2006, with an expiration date of August 31, 2008. 5. During the period of time from the expiration of Respondent’s certificate on August 31, 2006 until it was renewed on October 11, 2006, Respondent was prohibited from performing work as a certified residential real estate appraiser. 6. On November 1, 2006, Raymond Kowantz filed with the Board a completed Real Estate Appraiser Violation Complaint against Respondent, in connection with an appraisal she performed for 111 East Elm Street, Tucson, Arizona. Board staff assigned case number 2270 to Mr. Kowantz’s complaint. 7. Respondent completed a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report for the Elm Street property dated September 13, 2006, signed it and included her certified residential real estate appraiser number below her signature. Respondent listed the expiration date for her certificate as August 31, 2008. 8. Mr. Kowantz’s complaint also involved a second appraisal for a property located at 934 West Farr Street, Tucson, Arizona. That complaint was numbered 2271 by Board staff. 9. Respondent completed and signed the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report on September 13, 2006 for the West Farr Street property. She utilized her certificate number and listed August 31, 2008 as the expiration date for her certificate. 10. Mr. Kowantz paid Respondent a total of $800.00 for the two appraisals. 11. After Mr. Kowantz discovered that Respondent’s license had expired, his company hired another certified residential real estate appraiser to appraise the properties. He requested a refund of the $800.00 paid to Respondent for the two appraisals. Although Respondent assured Mr. Kowantz in writing that she would refund the $800.00, she has never done so. 12. By letters dated November 15, 2006, the Board’s Executive Director, Deborah G. Pearson, advised Respondent of Mr. Kowantz’s complaints and requested, among other things, a response to his allegations. The Domestic Return Receipt for the certified mailings reflect that Respondent received the letters on November 16, 2006. 13. On dated February 8, 2007, Ms. Pearson issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum for Complaints No. 2270 and 2271. The Domestic Return Receipt for that mailing indicates that it was received by an individual at Respondent’s address of record with the Board on February 14, 2007. 14. The Board subsequently issued a Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing in Complaint Nos. 2270 and 2271 and sent a copy of it to Respondent’s address of record by both regular mailing and certified mailing. 15. The Board forwarded the two complaints to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for formal hearing. 16. The commencement of the formal hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent or an attorney authorized to represent her. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matters in the two complaints. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2), the Board has the burden of proof in these matters. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. In Complaint No. 2270, Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(5). 4. In Complaint No. 2271, Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(5). 5. In Complaint No. 2270, Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(8) and A.A.C. R4-46-301(A)(2)(b). 6. In Complaint No. 2271, Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(8) and A.A.C. R4-46-301(A)(2)(b). 7. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3632(B), the Board may impose disciplinary action against Respondent’s certificate for the above violations.

RECOMMENDED ORDERS

Complaint No. 2270

Respondent’s Residential Real Estate Appraiser Certificate No. 20875 shall be revoked in Complaint No. 2270 on the effective date of the Order entered in that matter.

Complaint No. 2271

Respondent’s Residential Real Estate Appraiser Certificate No. 20875 shall be revoked in Complaint No. 2271 on the effective date of the Order entered in that matter.

Done this day, July 11, 2007

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2007, to:

Deborah G. Pearson, Executive Director Board of Appraisal 1400 West Washington, Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826