ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

15F-DI-208-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2015-09-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 4, 2015 APPEARANCES: Lakisha Alsaadi, Petitioner; Roberto Pulver, Attorney for the Department of Real Estate; Jim Ledwith, Department witness ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the denial of her application for a real estate salesperson’s license, Petitioner did not establish that the denial was inappropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that this appeal be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On or about March 22, 2012, Petitioner’s Real Estate Salesperson’s License was revoked because of her conviction for misprision of felony. On or about May 28, 2015, Petitioner applied with the Department of Real Estate (“Department”) for a new Real Estate Salesperson’s License.[1] 2. On June 18, 2015, the Department issued Petitioner a letter entitled Intent to Deny Application.[2] The letter informed Petitioner that her conviction and revocation were considered violations of Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) §§ 32-2153(A)(3), (B)(2), (B)(5), and (B)(7). 3. Petitioner appealed the denial and a hearing was set with the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency authorized to conduct matters arising out of State regulation. 4. The Department argued at hearing that it is authorized to deny applications based on the crime itself but it also considered that it has been less than 3 years since her sentence was completed[3] and that it did not receive any documentation that Petitioner has done anything to rehabilitate herself. 5. Petitioner argued at hearing that she was told she could reapply for her license after her probation was complete. She said it has been 3 years from her license revocation, that she has served her sentence, and that she has done all that the Department has asked of her. She said there is not much rehabilitation she could do on her own but she was on probation and passed it successfully. She said the terms of probation required her to take a financial class but she was not asked to do anything else. As for the misprision of felony charge, she said she was convicted because a loan officer put the wrong amount of her income on a loan application and she did not correct it. However, she said, the amount on the loan application was lower than her actual income and she did not think it was a big deal at the time. On the other hand, she was fined only $100.00 due to her inability to pay.[4]

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was conducted in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 41-1092.01 et seq. 2. A.R.S. § 32-2153 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

32-2153. Grounds for denial, suspension or revocation of licenses; letters of concern; provisional license; retention of jurisdiction by commissioner; definitions A. The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license, issue a letter of concern to a licensee, issue a provisional license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under this chapter if it appears that the holder or applicant, within five years immediately preceding, in the performance of or attempt to perform any acts authorized by the license or by this chapter, has:

* * * * 3. Disregarded or violated any of the provisions of this chapter or any rules adopted by the commissioner.

* * * * B. The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license, issue a letter of concern to a licensee, issue a provisional license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under this chapter when it appears that the holder or applicant has:

* * * * 2. Been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction in this or any other state of a felony or of any crime of forgery, theft, extortion, conspiracy to defraud, a crime of moral turpitude or any other like offense.

* * * * 5. Been guilty of any conduct, whether of the same or a different character than specified in this section, which constitutes fraud or dishonest dealings.

* * * * 7. Not shown that the holder or applicant is a person of honesty, truthfulness and good character. . . .

3. Petitioner’s conviction of misprision of felony was based on her knowledge of misrepresentation of her income in a loan document, which she did not correct. This constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 2153(A)(3), (B)(2), (B)(5), and (B)(7). By extension, it is clear that Petitioner was not a person of good character at the time of the crime and she failed to establish that her character has changed since that time. Rather, she simply argued that she served her sentence and waited a period of time before reapplying. This did not establish that she has become a person of good character. As the Department’s counsel pointed out at the hearing, the purchase of a home is the largest investment most people will make in their lifetimes, so it is important to protect the public from those who would be willing to make or allow an inaccurate representation to endanger their transactions. Petitioner did not establish that she is no longer the type of person who would misrepresent information in pursuit of a loan. 4. Additionally, Petitioner’s description of the crime was not supported by any documentation that would lead the Administrative Law Judge to believe her. She said she was making a lot more money at the time of the misrepresentation than the income she misrepresented, yet the court documents state that her fine was only $100.00 because she could not afford it.[5] If Petitioner was making more money than the loan documents stated or if her actions could not have furthered some other scheme and it really was simply an honest mistake on her part, it seems very unlikely that charges would have been filed against her. Without documentation to establish the facts surrounding the event, it is not possible to determine whether Petitioner takes responsibility for her actions or whether she made a mistake in judgment that had little consequence as she claimed. 5. For these reasons, the Department acted within its authority to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that this appeal be denied. Done this day, September 22, 2015.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner Arizona Department of Real Estate ----------------------- [1] Exhibit 1. [2] Exhibit 7. [3] Exhibit 5. Probation ended October 12, 2012. [4] Exhibit 5. [5] Exhibit 5.

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

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