ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-2448-BOA · Board of Appraisal · 2007-12-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 5, 2007 APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Dawn Lee for the Arizona Board of Appraisal; Hayden Meier on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all times relevant to this matter, Hayden Meier (“Mr. Meier”) held a residential real estate appraisal certificate number 21027 issued by the Arizona Board of Appraisal (“Board”). 2. On May 31, 2006, Mr. Meier entered into a Consent Agreement in Board Case Number 2038 (“Consent Agreement”) which resolved a complaint that was filed against Mr. Meier, investigated by the Board, and was to be set for a disciplinary hearing. 3. The Consent Agreement was executed on behalf of the Board on May 31, 2007. The terms of the Consent Agreement contained admissions of violations by Mr. Meier, and disciplinary action as follows: Mr. Meier’s certificate was immediately suspended for two weeks followed by probationary term for a minimum of twelve months during which time Mr. Meier was to successfully complete 30 hours of qualifying education on appraisal procedures with examination, successfully complete 30 hours of qualifying education on appraisal principles with examination, and successfully complete a 15 hour Uniform Standards Professional Appraisal Procedures (“USPAP”) course. Mr. Meier was also required to perform at least 20 appraisals under the supervision of a mentor who was either an Arizona Certified Residential or Certified 4. General Appraiser and provide monthly logs of appraisal activity to the Board. Mr. Meier’s mentor was required to submit monthly reports on Mr. Meier’s appraisal activity under the mentor’s supervision. 5. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Meier submitted to the Board proof of attending a qualifying education class on appraisal principles from April 3, 2007 through April 6, 2007 and proof of attending a qualifying education class on appraisal procedure from April 9, 2007 through April 12, 2007, each consisting of 28 hours that was given by the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Meier also submitted to the Board proof that he completed an on-line a 7 hour USPAP course on July 18, 2007. 6. Deborah Pearson (“Ms. Pearson”), Executive Director of the Board, testified: a. Mr. Meier did not satisfy the requirements of the Consent Agreement in that he did not pass examinations for the appraisal principles and appraisal procedures courses, nor did he provide proof that he completed the required 30 hours in each area. Mr. Meier only completed 28 hours of education in each area without taking the examinations. b. The Board received three monthly appraisal log reports to the Board for the months of July, September, and October 2006. c. Mr. Meier’s mentor, Daniel Smith, submitted monthly reports regarding Mr. Meier for the period July 2006 through July 2007, and for the months of September and October 2007 showing there was no appraisal activity for those months. d. Based on the information that the Board had, it opened an investigation into Mr. Meier's non-compliance with the Consent Agreement. Mr. Meier was notified that an investigation was opened through a letter authored by Ms. Pearson dated July 24, 2007 (Exhibit 5 ) and requested that Meier address his non-compliance with the Consent Agreement as set forth above. 6. Mr. Meier sent a letter to the Board (Exhibit 6) in response to Ms. Perason’s July 24, 2007 letter. Mr. Meier represented in that letter that he thought he had until October 31, 2007 perform under the Consent Agreement but acknowledged upon reading the Consent Agreement that he was incorrect with the compliance time deadline. Mr. Meier indicated he took the appraisal principles and appraisal procedures courses, that he took a 7 hour USPAP class, he was scheduled to take the 15 hour USPAP course in Phoenix and had completed 2 appraisals. He stated he does not live or work in Phoenix and it has been hard to be in Phoenix to complete the appraisals. He also indicated his belief that Mr. Smith was to have filed monthly reports to the Board. 7. Mr. Meier testified under oath as to this belief of what was required under the Consent Agreement and of the information contained in the above- mentioned response letter. 8. Mr. Meier explained that he was unaware that he was required to submit monthly appraisal logs to the Board and was unaware of the three the Board had received until the hearing. He surmised that his assistant must have submitted them on his behalf and when she left his employment she did not notify him of what she had been doing and that the monthly log requirement “fell through the cracks”. 9. Mr. Meier testified that he was unaware of the examination requirement and thought by attending the appraisal principles and procedures classes that he satisfied the requirements of the Consent Agreement. 10. Mr. Meier testified that he performed two appraisals with Mr. Smith but that the loans associated with the Appraisals did not fund. 11. It is noted that Mr. Meier did not provide any documentation to the Board or submit a monthly log showing the two appraisals. In contrast, Mr. Smith submitted monthly reports showing no appraisal activity for Mr. Meier. 12. Mr. Meier maintained that Mr. Smith was mistaken with respect to the appraisals but offered no documentation or corroborating evidence to support that contention. 13. Mr. Meier represented that he had planned on taking the 15 hour USPAP course in October 2007 and the reason he took the 7 hour USPAP class is that that was what other jurisdictions required.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is a disciplinary proceeding wherein the Department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents violated the State law regulating appraisers. See A.AC. R2-19-119. 2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). 3. A.C.C. R4-46-301(D(5) provides the Board with the authority to enter into Consent Agreements and Orders to resolve disciplinary matters. 4. The Board has the authority to adopt criteria that are equal to the minimum criteria for certification issued by the appraisal qualification board of appraisal foundation and adopted by the appraisal subcommittee. A.R.S. § 32-3605(B)(2). 5. The Board has the authority to discipline, including suspension or revocation of a certificate of a state certified appraiser for failing to meet the minimum qualifications established by Chapter 36, A.R.S., Title 32. A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(2). 6. The Consent Order in Case number 2039 contained the minimum qualifications that the Board required of Mr. Meier in order for him to remain a state certified appraiser. 7. The Administrative Law Judge concludes, on the evidence presented, that the Board sustained its burden of proving that the conduct of Mr. Meier, as set forth above, constitutes non-compliance with a Board Order in Board Case Number 2039, and proved by credible evidence that Mr. Meier failed to meet the minimum requirements for certification in violation of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(2). 8. The conduct of Mr. Meier, as set forth above, constitutes willful disregard of the statutes and rules of the Board, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(8). 9. Pursuant to the authority of the Board found at A.R.S. § 32-3601, et seq., and the terms of the Consent Agreement and Order, the conduct and circumstances described in the above Findings of Fact constitute grounds for discipline. 10. Grounds exist for the Board to take disciplinary action against Mr. Meier, including revocation of his residential appraiser certificate pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3601 et seq. ORDER Based upon the above, Mr. Meier’s Appraiser certificate number 21027 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.

Done this day, December 21, 2007.

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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