ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-2477-BOA · Board of Appraisal · 2009-03-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 23, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Arizona State Board of Appraisal appeared through Jeanne M. Galvin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Respondent Robert L. Van Dyke appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. The Arizona State Board of Appraisal (“the Board”) issued Residential Real Estate Appraiser License No. 10801 to Respondent Robert L. Van Dyke on July 15, 2002. Mr. Van Dyke’s license is set to expire on July 31, 2010. 2. On August 20, 2007, the Board received an anonymous complaint regarding a summary appraisal report that Mr. Van Dyke had performed of a property located at 2771 E. Wisteria Drive, Chandler, Arizona (“the Wisteria Drive property”), which report had an effective date of February 9, 2007. Mr. Van Dyke responded in writing to the complaint, denying any wrongdoing. 3. The Board appointed contract investigator Jay B. Clark, a certified residential appraiser, to investigate the complaint. Mr. Clark rendered a report of his investigation, which opined that Mr. Van Dyke had violated certain Standard Rules (“SRs”) of the July 1, 2006 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). 4. Based on Mr. Clark’s report, on January 16, 2009, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing. The Complaint charged Mr. Van Dyke with violations of USPAP SR 1-1(b) and (c), SR 2-2(a), (b), and (c), Standards Ethic Rule – Conduct and Standards Ethics Rule – Competency in his preparation of the February 9, 2007 summary appraisal report on the Wisteria Drive property, which furnished cause to discipline his license under A.R.S. § 32-3631 et seq. and A.A.C. R4-46-101 et seq. 5. The Board also noticed a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092 et seq. before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for February 23, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. 6. A hearing was held on February 23, 2009, at which Deborah G. Pearson, the Board’s Executive Director, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Van Dyke testified. The Board had admitted into evidence 10 exhibits and Mr. Van Dyke had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Additional Hearing Evidence Ms. Pearson 7. The Board oversees approximately 2,700 licensed or certified residential and general appraisers, consisting of the following three classifications: (1) State licensed real estate appraisers, who can perform an appraisal or an appraisal review of noncomplex one-to-four unit residential real properties having a value of less than $1 million or complex one-to-four unit residential properties having a value of less than $250,000; (2) State certified residential real estate appraisers, who can perform an appraisal or appraisal review of one-to-four unit residential properties, without regard to complexity or value; and (3) State certified general real estate appraisers, who can perform appraisals and appraisal reviews of all types of real property. 8. On July 21, 2005, the Board had adopted Substantive Policy Statement #1, which under A.A.C. R4-46-301 set forth five levels of violations based on escalating levels seriousness and severity of penalty, ranging from nondisciplinary letters of concern to license revocation. 9. The Board classified Mr. Van Dyke’s violations in his appraisal of the Wisteria Drive property as Level III, which were “[v]iolations found with substantial errors that in the aggregate may affect the credibility of the assignment. Minor violations of ethics and/or competency may be found. Violations found rise to the level of affecting the credibility of the assignment.” The penalty for a Level III violation was a Consent Agreement or an “Order of Probation with Education, Mentorship and/or Practice Restrictions.” 10. Mr. Van Dyke had one prior Level II complaint, which had resulted in a nondisciplinary letter of remedial action on January 17, 2006 and required Mr. Van Dyke to complete a 7- hour course in appraising new residential construction within days from the date of the letter. Mr. Van Dyke had complied with the Board’s requirements. 11. Ms. Pearson testified that, as a result of the Level III violation at issue, the Board hoped to protect the public and improve the quality of Mr. Van Dyke’s appraisal practice by placing his license on probation for 12 months with the following terms: (1) Mr. Van Dyke would be required to complete a minimum of 24 appraisal reports under the supervision of a Board-approved mentor; (2) The mentor would be required to co-sign any report that Mr. Van Dyke completed during the probationary term unless the client objected, in which case the mentor would be required to perform an appraisal review; (3) Mr. Van Dyke would be required to submit to the Board a monthly log of all the appraisals he prepared; (4) The mentor would be required to submit to the Board a monthly report of Mr. Van Dyke’s improvements and persistent problems and the number of appraisal reports prepared; (5) Mr. Van Dyke would be required to take 15 hours in report writing and 15 hours in basic appraisal practice in Board-approved courses, in addition to the continuing education that the Board requires for continuing licensure. Mr. Clark 12. Mr. Clark has been a certified residential appraiser for 23 years. He has been self-employed by his own small appraisal business since 1992. He has been one the Board’s contract investigators for four years. 13. When Mr. Clark receives a complaint from the Board to investigate, he ensures he has no conflict-of-interest based on any interest in the subject property or past relationship to the appraiser. After he accepts the assignment, he reads the initial complaint, the appraiser’s response, the appraisal report, and the appraiser’s workfile, and researches the Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”), public records, and county tax assessor’s information and conducts interviews of realtors who have first-hand information about the subject property, comparable sales, or the subject’s neighborhood. 14. Mr. Clark testified that the appraiser’s workfile should contain all the research data on which the appraiser had relied in his report for the subject property and comparable sales. 15. In this case, a field review appraisal had been performed of Mr. Van Dyke’s appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property. Mr. Clark testified that, in some cases, review appraisals were routinely performed for quality control. But, in most cases, review appraisals were performed based on “red flags” in the appraisal report, such as the use of dissimilar or dated comparable sales. Mr. Clark assumed the review appraisal came to the Board with the initial anonymous complaint. 16. The review appraisal of the Wisteria Drive property included comparable sales that were not included in Mr. Van Dyke’s appraisal report. Mr. Van Dyke’s opinion of value of the Wisteria Drive property was $610,000. The appraisal review’s opinion of value was $520,000. 17. Mr. Clark described Mr. Van Dyke’s errors in the development of his appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property, which could have affected value, in violation of SR 1-1(b) and (c),[1] as follows: 1. The zoning in the report was shown as R-4, Single Family. In fact, the zoning of the property was PAD (“Planned Area Development”), Single Family. In all of metropolitan Phoenix, R-4 is a multifamily zoning classification. The zoning of a property is readily available to an appraiser. 2. Mr. Van Dyke’s report stated that “[t]here are 15+/- comparable properties for sale in the subject neighborhood ranging in price from $400,000 to $700,000” and that “[t]here are 30 +/- comparable sales in the subject neighborhood within the past twelve months ranging in sale price from $400,000 to $800,000.” 3. Mr. Clark testified that, in a retrospective review, it is not possible to know what was listed. But he was able to find four resales of similar homes in the neighborhood that were selling for between $449,000 and $491,975, none of which were used in the report.[2] 4. There was no highest and best use in Mr. Van Dyke’s report. In most cases, a property’s highest and best use would be the existing use but in some cases, for example, a residence on a corner that could be used as commercial, it would not. USPAP requires a statement of highest and best use. 5. There is natural gas in the neighborhood and, according to the MLS and Mr. Clark’s interview with the realtor, the Wisteria Drive property was sold with gas heat. Mr. Van Dyke’s report stated that the forced-air heating used “ELEC” fuel. 6. Mr. Van Dyke’s appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property was not complete because it did not include a letter of transmittal, photographs of the subject and comparable sales, which are essential, and an appraisal certification of the purpose of the report. USPAP required the report to be complete and self-contained. 7. Mr. Van Dyke’s report stated incorrectly that the asking price of the subject in MLS was $534,965, when in fact it was listed for $523,685 and shown as sold in MLS for $500,000. Mr. Clark pointed out that Mr. Van Dyke had reported that the subject sold for $534,965 on 12/08/06. Mr. Clark assumed that the builder had included upgrades. The report contained no discussion of the reason for the higher actual selling price or what sort of incentives had been included. 18. Mr. Clark testified that Mr. Van Dyke had violated SR 2-1(a) and (b)[3] in reporting his opinion of value in the following respects: 1. Mr. Van Dyke reported that the Wisteria Drive property had 3,829 square feet. But it was assessed at 3,383 square feet and marketed in MLS at 3,148 square feet. Mr. Van Dyke’s report did not address the discrepancy. Based on Mr. Clark’s interviews with realtors who marketed homes in the subdivision containing the subject, he opined that either Mr. Van Dyke’s measurements were incorrect or he had measured the wrong home.[4] 2. The report’s narrative section consisted of “standard comments,” which “tend to be used for many different reports and are general in nature.” The use of these standard comments led to inconsistencies. For example, the Neighborhood section of the form stated that “[p]roperty values have continued to increase in the past years” and that “[t]he trend appears to be continuing.” But the Neighborhood box portion of the reported showed “stable” values. Mr. Clark testified that, with the builder still in control of the new home sales, offering “generous incentives” per the MLS, market values were probably not increasing at that time. In addition, the Market Comments section stated that exposure times were between 15 and 90 days, but the box section showed 3-6 months. 19. Mr. Clark’s report also addressed Mr. Van Dyke’s response to the complaint, as follows. 1. The complaint stated that Mr. Van Dyke had inflated the subject value by $90,000. Mr. Van Dyke responded that “[a]ppraising is not [an] exact science it is subjective.” Mr. Clark opined that “[t]he choice of comparables does appear to have been only those sales that supported a value closer to the lender’s estimate of value rather than the most similar and proximate sales.” 2. The complaint charged that the distance to comparable sale #3 was inaccurate. The report stated that Comp #3 was 1.5 miles to the west of the subject. The review appraiser stated that it was 3.25 miles to the west. Mr. Van Dyke responded that sale #3 was in actuality 2.7 miles to the west, that his error had resulted from the lack of updated mapping programs, and that he had used “+/-“ to indicate that the distance could be more or less. Mr. Clark opined that “[a] +/- is not adequate to explain an error of over 55%.” Comparable sale #3 in fact was 3.37 miles to the west. Although using the Maricopa County Assessor’s GIS maps to place comparable sales in relation to the subject where no mapping programs were available was “tedious and time consuming . . . [, such significant error in proximity] does speak to the competency and diligence of the person preparing the report.” 3. The complaint stated that Mr. Van Dyke had ignored relevant comparable sales. Mr. Van Dyke responded that “appraising is subjective” and that he “felt that the comparable sales used were most relevant.” Mr. Clark opined that “[t]he word ‘subjective’ . . . appears to override the need for the appraiser to be objective. There were numerous, more architecturally similar sales, both of similar size to the measured and to the assessed livable, in the immediate neighborhood, that were not used [or] addressed.” 4. Mr. Clark also pointed out that Mr. Van Dyke’s response to the initial anonymous complaint stated that, “[a]fter this report was submitted to the lender it was made clear to the appraiser that it would not be used. The value the homeowner expected would be there was not due to a stabilization of market conditions.” Mr. Clark opined that “it appears that the appraiser . . . was aware of the homeowner’s expectation of value and was not able to meet that value. The appraiser should not even know the value ‘expected’, let alone attempt to appraise to it, and this appears to be a violation of the Ethics Provision . . . .” 20. Mr. Clark addressed the comparable sales that Mr. Van Dyke used, as follows: 1. Comparable sales #1 and #2 were on Wisteria Drive. But Mr. Clark testified that this is not enough to show proximity; streets may run for miles. According to the realtor whom Mr. Clark interviewed, these sales were build-to-suit homes that were one-story, unlike the two- story subject. The market prefers one-story homes. 2. In addition, the transfer of comparable sales #1 and #2 took place between the builder and buyer, likely based on an earlier contract, without MLS participation, even though Mr. Van Dyke cited MLS as a source. Mr. Van Dyke did not disclose how the room counts or bath counts were determined. Mr. Clark testified that this information would not have been readily available if the properties had not been listed on MLS. 3. Photographs of comparable sales #1 and #2 showed single-level homes that Mr. Clark estimated to be approximately 2400 square feet. The purchase of comparable sales #1 and #2 took place prior to the previous purchase of the subject for, respectively, $50,000 and $27,000 more than the subject. Comparable sales #1 and #2 were brand new, unlike the subject when Mr. Van Dyke appraised it. 4. Comparable sale #3 was more than 3 miles away from the subject and was also a new home from the builder, not a year old like the subject. The MLS indicated $65,000 in upgrades, which likely were superior to the subject’s amenities. Although the report stated that no closer sales were available, Mr. Clark identified four closer, more similar sales.[5] 5. Comparable sale #4 was the only true resale of the four sales used. The MLS indicated that comparable sale #4 was much more highly upgraded than the subject. Mr. Van Dyke had not made appropriate adjustments for comparable sale #4’s superior amenities. 6. Comparable sale #5 was listed in the MLS for $599,900. Mr. Van Dyke’s report showed a deduction of $19,770 for the asking price. He made no adjustment for a livable area that was 133 square feet larger than the subject, even according to Mr. Van Dyke’s calculations, which exceeded the assessed and listed livable area. According to Mr. Clark, comparable sale #5 “did finally sell for $548,000 in June of 2007 after 213 days on the market.” 21. Mr. Clark also identified four sales that Mr. Van Dyke had not used that were more comparable to the subject that the comparable sales that Mr. Van Dyke had used, as follows. 1. 3004 S. Bell Place closed for $491,475 on January 8, 2007. This property was a new home but had MLS participation. It was shown as a two-story, 3904 square foot home with 5 bedrooms and 4 baths. It had been listed for $571,875 for 241 days. It had both greenbelt and traffic noise influences. 2. 3373 S. Kimberlee Court closed on September 26, 2006 for $449,000. It was a true resale of a two-story home shown as 3254 square feet, five bedrooms, 3.5 baths, and a 3-car garage. This sale was architecturally similar to the subject and was more similar in terms of the assessed livable square footage. It had never been lived in. 3. 3351 S. Roger Court closed on December 1, 2006 for $450,000. It was also a resale 3667-square-foot, two-story home with 5 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, and a 4-car garage. It has the greatest visual similarity to the subject because it was the same base model, the Legacy. 4. 2845 E. Honeysuckle Place closed on October 31, 2006 for $450,000. It was a true resale assessed at 3754 square feet, 5 bedrooms, 4 baths, and a 4-car garage. 5. Mr. Clark testified that all of these sales indicated high levels of upgrading and amenities, like the subject. His report noted that the four comparable sales that Mr. Van Dyke did not use “demonstrate a measurable, downward time factor that is not indicated in the report.” 22. The Ethics Rule – Conduct provides that “[a]n appraiser must not accept an assignment that includes the reporting of a predetermined opinions or conclusions.” Based on Mr. Van Dyke’s choice of comparable sales and failure to include more comparable sales that would have indicated a lesser value, Mr. Clark believes that Mr. Van Dyke violated this provision and that there was “a direction in assignment results that favors the client.” 23. The Ethics Rule – Conduct also provides that “[a]n appraiser must not communicate assignment results in a misleading or fraudulent manner.” Mr. Clark testified that Mr. Van Dyke also violated this rule by apparently overstating the subject’s livable square footage, choosing as comparables old- contract builder sales and out-of-subdivision sales, failing to discuss different architecture, and almost completely failing to include any narrative discussion regarding most of these factors. These errors “would tend to indicate the assignment result may have been influenced by the client or borrower’s value estimate.” 24. The Ethics Rule – Competency Rule provides that “[a]n appraiser must gather and analyze information about those assignment elements that are necessary to properly identify the appraisal.” Mr. Clark opined that this rule was violated by Mr. Van Dyke’s “minimal notes from the inspection and the disparities between the hand drawn sketch with missing dimensions, as well as missing dimensions on the machine generated sketch addendum, which has a different appearance than the hand-drawn.” Mr. Clark also opined that Mr. Van Dyke’s errors relating to zoning, neighborhood influences, increasing versus stable or more likely declining values, inconsistent and inaccurate marketing times, and the natural gas supply violated this rule. Mr. Van Dyke 25. Mr. Van Dyke testified that, although he had collected data for his appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property, he had not finalized the report. His last communication regarding the report was on February 13, 2007, when the owner of The Appraisal House, his employer at the time, who was also his brother-in-law, informed him that, based on the preliminary opinion of value, the lender had canceled the appraisal request. All he had been paid to do was field work. 26. Mr. Van Dyke testified that, when he found out about the initial anonymous complaint in August 2007, he was no longer working for The Appraisal House. He had left its employment in May 2007 “under duress.” 27. Mr. Van Dyke testified that he called the lender and was told that it had canceled the appraisal request and informed the client that it was unable to provide a loan. Mr. Van Dyke then contacted his brother-in-law at The Appraisal House and requested the original copy of his preliminary appraisal report. He had received everything except the manila folder, which would have shown the date of inspection, when the appraisal had been canceled, and by whom. 28. Mr. Van Dyke testified that it was his digital signature on the appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property, which he had never authorized to be used. Mr. Van Dyke testified that he was “flabbergasted” that his report on the Wisteria Drive property had gone out with his digital signature, without his authorization. 29. Mr. Van Dyke admitted that it was a violation of applicable standards to have digital signatures that were not password- protected. Because The Appraisal House had refused to protect its employees’ digital signatures, Mr. Van Dyke testified he had left its employment. 30. Mr. Van Dyke had admitted into evidence the cover page from his appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property, which showed that it had been prepared for Shad Peterson at Mesa Mortgage, and photographs of the subject and comparable sales. The Board conceded that these documents completed the appraisal report. 31. Mr. Van Dyke also pointed out in his hand-drawn sketch of the layout of the subject property included the radius of the circular alcove. 32. Mr. Van Dyke claimed that he had gotten information on comparable sales #1 and #2 from the realtor. But he admitted that this information is not attributed to the realtor in the report. 33. Mr. Van Dyke also admitted that there was nothing that had been provided to the Board that would indicate that the appraisal report of the Wisteria Drive property had been canceled or that the report had been sent out without his authorization. 34. The only part of his response to the initial anonymous complaint that Mr. Van Dyke testified adverted to these circumstances was the paragraph quoted supra at Finding of Fact No. 19.4, which Mr. Clark opined had evidenced Mr. Van Dyke’s attempt to appraise the property at an expected value. Mr. Van Dyke admitted that his response to the complaint also included the following: As the licensed appraiser hired to perform the work on this file, I accept responsibility for the quality of this report.

35. Mr. Van Dyke testified that the lender was in the office next door to The Mortgage House. He was “not exactly aware” of the value that the lender required because “other people were doing the market analysis.” His appraised value of the Wisteria Drive property was “in the ballpark.” 36. Mr. Van Dyke testified that, when he prepared the response, he was under pressure from his wife and brother-in-law not to implicate his brother-in-law. Although he wanted to be more forthcoming with the Board, he was “convinced otherwise” by “people he loves and trusts.” 37. Mr. Van Dyke testified that he requested a hearing on the Board’s proposed discipline because it is a “tough market” in which it is “hard to keep clients.” Mr. Van Dyke appreciates the value of education and of a mentor because the only person he has ever worked with is his brother-in-law. Mr. Van Dyke testified that he no longer uses boilerplate language in his reports and requested that the probation be for a period of less than 12 months. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Board’s jurisdiction.[6] 2. The Board bears the burden of proof and must establish cause to penalize Mr. Van Dyke’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[7] 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[8] A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”[9] 4. The Arizona legislature created the Board to prescribe and enforce standards of professional appraisal practice.[10] The Arizona legislature charged the Board with investigating complaints against licensed appraisers and, if violations of applicable statute, regulation, or standard are established, disciplining appraisers’ licenses.[11] 5. Licensed appraisers’ appraisals in Arizona must comply with USPAP.[12] 6. The most basic requirement for an appraisal is that it must be independently and impartially performed and set forth an unbiased opinion of value supported by analyses that comply with USPAP’s requirements.[13] 7. Mr. Van Dyke did establish with the additional pages produced at the hearing that the appraisal report for the Wisteria Drive property was complete. 8. The Board has otherwise established that Mr. Van Dyke violated USPAP SR 1-1(b) and (c) and SR 2-1(a), (b), and (c) and Standards Ethic Rule – Conduct and Standards Ethics Rule – Competency in his development and preparation of the appraisal report for the Wisteria Drive property in the manners described in Mr. Clark’s report and testimony. 9. Although Mr. Van Dyke’s difficult family situation may have compromised his independence and made his violations of USPAP more likely, because he is a licensed professional who is expected to be independent, his family situation cannot vitiate his violations. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board place Mr. Van Dyke’s Residential Appraiser License No. 10801 on probation for 12 months under the following terms, at his own expense, commencing on the effective date of the Board’s order in this matter: (1) Mr. Van Dyke must complete a minimum of 24 appraisal reports under the supervision of a Board-approved mentor; (2) Mr. Van Dyke’s Board-approved mentor must co-sign any appraisal report that Mr. Van Dyke completes during the probationary term unless the client objects, in which case the mentor must perform an appraisal review; (3) Mr. Van Dyke must submit to the Board a monthly log of all the appraisals he prepares; (4) Mr. Van Dyke’s Board-approved mentor must submit to the Board a monthly report of Mr. Van Dyke’s improvements, any persistent problems, and the number of appraisal reports prepared; (5) Mr. Van Dyke must take 15 hours of report writing and 15 hours of basic appraisal practice in Board-approved courses within 90 days of the effective date of the Board’s order, in addition to the continuing education that the Board requires for continuing licensure. It is further recommended that if, after at least 6 months of probation, Mr. Van Dyke satisfactorily has complied with the terms of his probation and convinces the Board that he has made substantial improvement in his appraisal practice and that further close monitoring is not necessary to protect the public, the Board at its sole discretion may amend the terms of Mr. Van Dyke’s probation to eliminate terms Nos. (2) and (4) above. Done this day, March 10, 2009.

______________________________________ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of March, 2009, to:

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

By ___________________________ ----------------------- [1] SR 1-1 provides that, in developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must:

(b) not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and

(c) not render appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, such as making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of those results. [2] These available comparable sales are described at Finding of Fact No. 21, infra. [3] SR Rule 2-1 provides that each written or oral real property 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, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and limiting conditions used in the assignment.

[4] Mr. Clark testified that the Wisteria Drive property was a multi-level structure with somewhat complex architecture. On the second level, the structure had a game room at a right angle to the upstairs bedrooms. At the right angle was a circular alcove. An appraiser would have had to measure the radius of the circular alcove to for the computer program to calculate square footage correctly. [5] The available comparable sales are described at Finding of Fact No. 21, infra. [6] See A.R.S. § 32-3601 et seq. [7] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [8] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [9] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [10] A.R.S. § 32-3605(B)(1). [11] A.R.S. § 32-3631(A)(2) and (6); see also A.A.C. R4-46-301 (concerning complaints and investigations) and R4-46-302 (concerning formal hearing procedures, investigations, and penalties). [12] A.A.C. R4-46-401. [13] A.R.S. § 32-3601(1) and (2).

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

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