ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

19F-A1919005-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing · 2019-04-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 8, 2019 APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Valerie Marciano represented the Arizona Department of Housing. Yvette Reckards appeared telephonically.[1] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On or about February 1, 2019, the Arizona Department of Housing (ADH) issued its Findings of Public Emergency and Order of Summary Suspension of License No. 8660, Class D-12.[2] That license had been issued to Yvette’s Mobile Home Sales, et al., on July 28, 2016. 2. On or about February 15, 2019, ADH issued its Supplement to Findings of Public Emergency and Order of Summary Suspension, citing additional information regarding Respondent’s actions.[3] 3. A Class D-12 license allows the holder to perform all the work that is within the scopes of the Class D-8, D-8B and D-10 classifications. However, the holder of such license classifications may not buy or sell “park models.” 4. The holder of a Class D-8 license may perform the following actions: a. buy, sell, or exchange new or used manufactured homes and used mobile homes; b. sell new or used accessory structures included in a sales agreement; c. act as an agent for the sale or exchange of used manufactured homes or mobile homes including new or used accessory structures included in a sales agreement; d. make alterations to new manufactured homes before a sale to a purchaser; and, e. contract with licensed installers or contractors for the installation of manufactured homes, mobile homes, and existing or new accessory structures included in a sales agreement. 5. The holder of a Class D-8B license may perform the following actions: a. act as an agent for the sale or exchange of used manufactured homes or mobile homes that may include existing or new accessory structures included in a sales agreement; and b. contract with licensed installers or contractors for the installation of manufactured homes, mobile homes, and existing or new accessory structures included in a sales agreement. 6. The holder of a Class D-10 license may perform the following actions: a. buy, sell, or exchange new or used factory-built buildings (FBBs) before sale to a purchaser; and, b. contract with licensed installers or contractors for the installation of FBBs including any existing or new accessory structures included in a sales agreement. 7. When becoming licensed, Respondent provided to the Department a “Trust or Escrow Account and Authorization for Release of Information” (“Trust1”) indicating that, as a licensed person, she would deposit earnest monies into that trust account. This particular account Respondent designated was an account maintained at National Bank of Arizona. 8. On August 8, 2018, Respondent confirmed the continued existence of such National Bank of Arizona account with a newly completed “Trust or Escrow Account and Authorization for Release of Information” form. 9. Additionally, on August 8, 2018, Respondent provided to the Department, a “Trust or Escrow Account and Authorization for Release of Information” (“Trust2”) with Pioneer Title Agency, Inc. and another “Trust or Escrow Account and Authorization for Release of Information” (“Trust3”) with Chicago Title Agency, Inc. 10. Earnest monies for any transaction for the sale of a new manufactured home or a new FBB, mobile home, or used manufactured home in which the monies received were in the amount of fifty-thousand ($50,000.00) or more are required to be deposited into such Trust accounts, from which that company would disburse the funds to the applicable person. 11. Earnest monies in amounts less than fifty-thousand ($50.000.00) can be handled through the licensee’s trust account or through an independent escrow agent’s escrow account. At the time of a transaction, Respondent is required to disclose to the purchaser, before or at the time of a purchase contract execution, that the purchaser may request the use of an independent escrow agent.[4] 12. A dealer is required to establish an independent escrow account with an independent escrow agent who is authorized to handle transactions involving a used manufactured home, mobile home, or FBB with a purchase price of fifty-thousand ($50,000.00) or more.[5] ERNEST WICKS 13. On or about November 13, 2018, the Department received a complaint from Ernest Wicks (“Wicks”).[6] 14. Wicks reported that Respondent sold Wicks’s listed manufactured home to purchaser Elizabeth Baer for $54,000.00 around October 1, 2018. The home is located at Coyote Ranch, 9351 East 28th Street, Space 96, Yuma, Arizona (“Coyote Ranch”). Wicks reported that he received an insufficient fund check from Respondent on November 5, 2018 for $49,417.00. This was the amount of proceeds that Wicks was to receive from the sale of his home. 15. On or about November 15, 2018, Department investigator, Donna Grant (“Grant”) emailed a copy of the Wicks complaint to Respondent. Grant wrote:

It is urgent that you provide me with your response to this complaint today. In addition, provide me with copies of all documents relating to this transaction such as: listing, any addendums to listing agreement, any and all offers to purchase, any and all earnest monies receipts, proof of the dates that the earnest monies were deposited into trust account, proof of consummation and of the date of consummation, proof of date(s) earnest monies were withdrawn from trust account, copies of buyer and seller closing statements, explanation of NSF check and any additional information or documents that you believe are necessary.

16. On January 7, 2019, Grant again requested Respondent to provide the previously requested documentation for the Wicks transaction. 17. On or about November 15, 2018, Respondent replied to Grant’s email. Respondent stated: We had a lady that was helping us in the office and she did not follow my notes very well on this closing and pulled from the wrong account. Customer and I have been speaking since yesterday when I was informed of the issue and funds have been sent by wire to his bank. I will get all of the items you requested to you emailed and scanned over today.

18. On or about November 16, 2018, Grant received an email from Wicks. Wicks stated: Funds were wired, and arrived into by cdn account today Friday nov AS PER MY TODAY BANK STATEMENT all numbers were as per agreement, I will wait a couple of days this time to make sure all goes as planned, Again THANKS FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER.”

19. Respondent did not provide the requested documents to the Department. Respondent is required to keep true copies of documents for three years; therefore, Respondent should have been able to provide these requested documents. Absent the production of these requested documents to the Department, Respondent may be in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(P). A failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(P). 20. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds over $50,000.00 in a Trust account. A failure to deposit purchase proceeds is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). The failure to use the deposits for the purpose of which they are intended is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030 (Q). LARRY BAKER 21. On or about January 7, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Larry Baker (“Baker”).[7] 22. Baker reported that Respondent sold Baker’s listed 2006 Golden West manufactured home, serial number PER034054CAAB to Raymond and Maria Calladine (“Calladine”) for $52,000.00 on or about November 6, 2018. The home is located at Coyote Ranch, Space 98, Yuma, Arizona. 23. Baker reported that he did not receive all of the funds owed to him on the sale of the home; he received $10,500.00 ($10,000.00 in the form of a cashier’s check and $500.00 in the form of a personal check) from Respondent. He was owed $38,380.00. Baker further reported that Respondent provided Calladine with possession of the Baker home on or about December I, 2018 although Baker has not received all of the sale proceeds. 24. Coyote Ranch manager, Edie Woods, confirmed to the Department that Calladine started paying park rent on or about December 1, 2018. Documentation received on behalf of Calladine showed Calladine paid $52,100.00 to Respondent. 25. On or about January 7, 2019, Grant emailed a copy of Baker’s complaint to Respondent. Grant wrote: Please provide me with copies of all documentation related to this sale. Documentation should include, but is not limited to: purchase contract, listing and any addendums to listing, earnest monies receipts, bank validated deposit slips showing where and when dealer deposited customer monies if title company was not used, title company receipts, escrow instructions, title company disbursement log, final/dated closing statement from title company, agency disclosure forms, etc. Please provide the request (sic) documentation as well as your response to his allegations within ten days.”

26. On or about January 7, 2019, Respondent replied to Grant’s email. Respondent stated: This has been received and it is not funded with the lender yet. Appraisal was just signed off on Friday and I will provide you with all the documentation on this one as well as emails with client on this. I understand their frustration as I feel it as well but with the holidays it did slow the process of getting an appraiser out and items signed off.”

27. Respondent did not provide the requested documents. Respondent is required to keep true copies of documents for three years; therefore, Respondent should have been able to provide these requested documents. A failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41- 4030(P). 28. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds under $50,000.00 in either a Trust account or an independent escrow account. Failure to establish an independent escrow account and deposit sales proceeds with a Trust or escrow agent authorized to handle an escrow account is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). Failure to use the funds for their intended purpose is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). MARY HAZEL WOODHEAD AND MARY ELIZABETH WOODHEAD 29. On or about January 7, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Mary Hazel Woodhead and Mary Elizabeth Woodhead (“Woodhead”).[8] The Woodheads reported that they listed two separate manufactured homes (“homes”) with Respondent. 30. One, a 1999 Cavco manufactured home, serial number CAVAZD9902 l 7, was listed for $19,500.00 with the agreement that Respondent would receive 6.5% of the selling price. This home was located at Tuscany MHP (“Tuscany”), 10650 South Avenida Compadres, Space 28, Yuma, Arizona. 31. Two, a 1998 Cavco manufactured home, serial number CAVAZD980761, was listed for $39,200.00 with the agreement that Respondent would receive 6.5% of the selling price. This home was located at Tuscany, Space 17, Yuma, Arizona. 32. The Woodheads reported that Respondent sold both homes to Lenox Johnson (“Johnson”) for the total sum of $35,000.00 on or about September 12, 2018 and that Respondent has failed to pay the Woodheads their proceeds from the sales of their homes. 33. Prior to receiving the Woodhead written complaint, on January 7, 2019, Grant had emailed Respondent. Grant wrote, in part: Other call came from Debi Morsette who said she was calling on behalf of her mother and sister, Mary Hazel and Mary Elizabeth Woodhead. In her phone call, she stated that your dealership agreed to wire proceeds on December 24 and that has not occurred.

34. On or about January 7, 2019, Respondent replied to Grant’s email and stated: I had a feeling these people are from the parks this person manages and since she started also selling I have had things disappear and just odd things. The reason I am moving from our home as this person has access to my incoming mail and outgoing mail and I have no proof but just odd that no issues beforehand and all of sudden I do.

35. The foregoing response from Respondent was not responsive to the issue of whether proceeds were wired to the Woodheads. 36. On or about January I0, 2019, Grant emailed a copy of the Woodheads’ complaint to Respondent. Respondent was requested to provide a response to the Woodheads complaint within ten business days. Grant wrote: Please respond, in writing, to the Department regarding the allegations contained in this complaint. Include copies of any documentation that would assist us in a determination of this matter. Documentation should include, but is not limited to: purchase contract, listing and any addendums to listing, earnest monies receipts, bank validated deposit slips showing where and when dealer deposited customer monies if title company was not used, title company receipts, escrow instructions, title company disbursement log, final/dated closing statement from title company, agency disclosure forms, final disposition of earnest monies if deposited in dealer’s trust account, etc. Upon receipt of the information, this complaint will be reviewed and you will be notified of any action taken by this Department.

37. In a separate complaint from Johnson, he indicated he paid full purchase price to Respondent, but only received one of the two titles. 38. The failure to provide all goods and services (here, failing to deliver title) is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4039(20). 39. Respondent did not provide the requested documents. Respondent is required to keep true copies of documents for three years; therefore, Respondent should have been able to provide these requested documents. A failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41- 4030(P). 40. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds under $50,000.00 in either a Trust account or an independent escrow account. The use of sale proceeds for any purpose other than the underlying transaction is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). Because the sales were less than $50,000.00, to the extent that Respondent failed to deposit the sales proceeds into a trust account or escrow, Respondent would be in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). Therefore, a failure to deliver the funds to the sellers is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). VICTOR ABSTON 41. On or about January 22, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Victor Abston (“Abston”).[9] 42. Abston reported that Respondent sold Abston’s listed 2007 Cavco manufactured home, serial number CAVAZD060685XU, to purchasers, Byron and Linda Wheelon, for $64,000.00 around December 12, 2018. The home was located at Rancho Rialto, 11322 South Avenue 12E, Space 234, Yuma, Arizona. 43. Abston reported that he received an insufficient fund check from Respondent around January 15, 2019 for $60,012.50, the amount of sale proceeds that Abston was to receive from the sale of his home. 44. On or about January 22, 2019, Grant emailed a copy of Abston’s complaint to Respondent. Respondent was requested to provide a response to Abston complaint within ten business days. Grant wrote: Please respond, in writing, to the Department regarding the allegations contained in this complaint. Include copies of any documentation that would assist us in a determination of this matter. Documentation should include, but is not limited to: purchase contract, listing and any addendums to listing, earnest monies receipts, bank validated deposit slips showing where and when dealer deposited customer monies if title company was not used, title company receipts, escrow instructions, title company disbursement log, final/dated closing statement from title company, agency disclosure forms, final disposition of earnest monies if deposited in dealer’s trust account or some other account, copies of trust account bank statements for the time period that these transactions took place, etc. Upon receipt of the information, this complaint will be reviewed and you will be notified of any action taken by this Department.

45. Respondent did not provide the requested documents. Respondent is required to keep true copies of documents for three years; therefore, Respondent should have been able to provide these requested documents. A failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41- 4030(P). 46. The use of sale proceeds for any purpose other than the underlying transaction is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). Failure to use the required Trust or escrow account is a violation of A.R.S. §§ 41-4030 (A) (3). Therefore, a failure to deliver the funds to the sellers is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). WILLIAM TOWNSEND 47. On or about January 8, 2019, the Department received a complaint from William Townsend (“Townsend”).[10] 48. Townsend reported that Respondent sold Townsend’s listed 2006 Fleetwood manufactured home, serial number AZFL621A13080, to purchasers, Stan and Laurette Reimer for $36,500.00 around November 13, 2018. The home is located at Coyote Ranch, Space 176. Townsend further reported that he did not receive all proceeds from the sale of his home. 49. On or about January 22, 2019, Grant emailed a copy of Townsend’s complaint to Respondent. Respondent was requested to provide a response to Townsend complaint within ten business days. Grant wrote: Please respond, in writing, to the Department regarding the allegations contained in this complaint. Include copies of any documentation that would assist us in a determination of this matter. Documentation should include, but is not limited to: purchase contract, listing and any addendums to listing, earnest monies receipts, bank validated deposit slips showing where and when dealer deposited customer monies if title company was not used, title company receipts, escrow instructions, title company disbursement log, final/dated closing statement from title company, agency disclosure forms, final disposition of earnest monies if deposited in dealer’s trust account or some other account, copies of trust account bank statement for the time period that these transactions took place, etc. Upon receipt of the information, this complaint will be reviewed and you will be notified of any action taken by this Department.”

50. On or about January 22, 2019, the manager of Coyote Ranch, Edie Woods, provided Grant with a copy of Reimer’s “Requisition for Wire Transfer” that showed Reimer wired earnest monies for the purchase of Townsend’s home, in the amount of $36,225.00, into Respondent’s National Bank of Arizona Bank account number ending in particular digits, which were not the ending digits of Respondent’s known trust account. Therefore, that document demonstrated to the Department that the account to which the monies were wired was not the designated trust account for Respondent. 51. The deposit of sales proceeds into an account which is not Respondent’s National Bank Account designated trust account is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). 52. Respondent did not provide requested documentation. Respondent is required to keep true copies of documents for three years; therefore, Respondent should have been able to provide these requested documents. A failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41- 4030(P). Failure to deliver the funds to the seller is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q) and A.R.S. § 41-4039(1), (6), and (20). 53. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds under $50,000.00 in either a Trust account or an independent escrow account. The use of sale proceeds for any purpose other than the underlying transaction is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). Because the sales were less than $50,000.00, to the extent that Respondent failed to deposit the sales proceeds into a Trust or escrow account, Respondent would be in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). RON AND JANICE WILSON 54. On or about January 23, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Ron and Jani Wilson (“Wilsons”).[11] 55. Wilsons reported that Respondent sold Wilsons’ listed 2012 Cavco manufactured home, serial number CAVAZLP1118654XU, to purchasers, Jerry and Vivian Dunn (“Dunn”), for $63,000.00 around December 12, 2018. The home is located at Rancho Rialto, space 75. Wilsons reported that they did not receive the proceeds from the sale of their home. The Wilsons had listed their home with Respondent for $71,500.00 and Respondent was to receive a commission of 6% of the selling price. 56. On or about January 25, 2019, the Department provided Respondent with a copy of the Wilsons’ complaint. 57. On or about January 25, 2019, Dunn provided Grant with a copy of National Bank of Arizona “Incoming Wire Instructions” that showed Dunn was directed to wire his earnest monies, in the amount of $63,000.00 for the purchase of the Wilsons’ home, into an account of Respondent at National Bank of Arizona Bank, which account was not the known designated trust account for Respondent. 58. For transactions in amounts over $50,000.00, Respondent is required to deposit the funds into a designated Trust account. The failure to deposit funds into the designated Trust account is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3), and failure to deliver funds to the seller is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). 59. Documentation the Department received from Dunn shows that Dunn paid $63,000.00 to Respondent and shows that Respondent failed to deposit funds into escrow, in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). NORMAN AGUILLON 60. On or about January 24, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Norman Aguillon (“Aguillon”).[12] 61. Aguillon reported that he gave Respondent a $5,000.00 deposit toward the purchase of a listed manufactured home. The home was located in Rancho Railto, Space 227. Aguillon reported that the offer to purchase was rejected by the seller and that Respondent has not refunded the $5,000.00 to Aguillon. Aguillon further reported he had had been assessed a $20.00 overdraw charge because Respondent deposited his check although he had told Respondent to hold his $5,000.00 check until the offer to purchase was accepted and that Aguillon would, at the time of the acceptance, then transfer whatever funds were needed into his account to ensure the $5,000.00 check was good. 62. The failure to return earnest monies is violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030 (Q) and A.R.S. § 41-4039(1), (6), and (20). To the extent that Respondent failed to deposit the sales proceeds into a trust account, Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). TERRY HEMPHILL 63. On or about February 6, 2019, the Department received a complaint from Terry Hemphill (“Hemphill”).[13] 64. Hemphill reported that Respondent sold Hemphill’s listed 2009 Fleetwood manufactured home, serial number AZFL821A/B14492SA12 to purchasers, James or Pamela Sircin (“Sircin”) for $55,000.00 on or about January 5, 2019. The home is located at Rancho Rialto, 1132 South Avenue 12E, Space 172. Hemphill reported Respondent failed to pay him $51,700.00, the proceeds of the sale of the home. 65. Failure to establish an independent escrow account and deposit sale proceeds with an independent financial institution or escrow agent is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). Failure to use the funds for their intended purpose is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). Hearing 66. With the exception of Wicks, at the hearing in this matter, each complainant who sold a home testified regarding their respective transactions and each confirmed under oath the underlying facts regarding the respective transaction and that they had not received all of the funds from the sale transactions of their homes. Aguillon confirmed that he had not received a return of the earnest money he had placed with Respondent. 67. During the time that Respondent participated by telephone in the administrative hearing, she provided no information in the way of an opening statement and, when given the opportunity to ask questions regarding testimony of the witnesses, she declined to ask any questions. 68. The evidence of record documents multiple violations of the applicable law. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4039, the Director is authorized to issue an order to summarily suspend or permanently revoke any license that was issued by the Department if a licensee fails to, among other things, comply with the applicable laws in A.R.S. § 41-4001 et seq., fails to comply with A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3), or fails to provide all agreed-on goods and services.[14] 2. The Department bears the burden of proof to establish grounds for suspension or revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[15] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[16] 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.”[17] 3. In this case, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates multiple violations by Respondent of the applicable laws relating to the transactions for sales and purchases of used manufactured homes. 4. Regarding these transactions, Respondent failed to respond appropriately and failed to provide the specific requested documents to the Department at any time. Respondent is required to keep true copies of such documents for three years. The failure to maintain true copies of purchase agreements, earnest money receipts, depository receipts, delivery documents, consummation or termination of sale documents is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(P). Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(P). 5. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds over $50,000.00 in a Trust account; here the record demonstrated the existence of three such Trusts. Respondent is required to deposit proceeds under $50,000.00 in a Trust or in an independent escrow account; the record failed to demonstrate the existence of any independent escrow account used by Respondent at any time. Monies received for the sales transactions and for earnest monies on a transaction are required to be deposited into these accounts. The hearing record did not demonstrate deposits into the designated Trust accounts or into any independent escrow accounts. To this point, in one instance, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent directed a purchaser to deposit sales transaction funds into an account that was not the designated Trust account of Respondent.[18] A failure to deposit purchase proceeds into the designated Trust account is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3). 6. The hearing record demonstrated that Respondent failed to return earnest deposit monies. A failure to deposit earnest monies is also a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(D). 7. The hearing record demonstrated that Respondent failed to deliver funds to sellers following the completion of multiple sales transactions. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that any failure to deliver funds from these transaction to the sellers is deemed to be the use of sales proceeds by Respondent for any purpose other than the underlying transaction, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-4030(Q). 8. The Department established the above-stated statutory violations. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department has established more than ample cause to summarily suspend Respondent’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4039 (1), (6), and (20). The Administrative Law Judge further concludes that revocation of Respondent’s license is appropriate and in the best interest of the public. RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Department’s Order of Summary Suspension and Supplemental Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent’s License No. 8660, Class D-12 be upheld. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, Respondent’s License No. 8660, Class D-12 be revoked. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, April 29, 2019. /s/ Kay A. Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Carol Ditmore, Arizona Department of Housing

----------------------- [1] Ms. Reckard was incarcerated in Yuma County Jail at the time; although previously indicated to have been represented by Jerry Hernandez of the Yuma County Public Defender’s Office, at the time of hearing, Ms. Reckards indicated that Mr. Hernandez would not be appearing for the hearing. At approximately fifty minutes into the hearing session, the connection appeared to be lost with Ms. Reckard. When the Department’s employee contacted the point person at the jail, the jail informed the Department’s employee that Ms. Reckard had indicated she was “done” and “wanted to be transported back.” [2] See Exhibit J. [3] See Exhibit K. Since the February 15, 2019 Supplement, and at the time of the April 8, 2019 hearing, the Department indicated that it had received one more complaint regarding a transaction with Respondent. [4] A.R.S. § 41-4030(D) (formerly A.R.S. § 41-2180(D)). [5] A.R.S. § 41-4030(A)(3) (formerly A.R.S. § 41-2180(A)(3)). [6] See Exhibit B. [7] See Exhibit C. [8] See Exhibit D. [9] See Exhibit E. [10] See Exhibit F. [11] See Exhibit G. [12] See Exhibit H. [13] See Exhibit I. [14] See A.R.S. § 41-4039 (1), (6), and (20). [15] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [16] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [17] Black’s Law Dictionary 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [18] See Finding regarding Wilsons’ transaction at FOF 57.

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826