FINACT20F-204-REL.pdf

20F-204-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2020-05-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Original Real Estate No. 20F-204-REL Salesperson License of: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NABHAN, HANNAH, holder of License No. DECISION SA683453000 (Candidate), Petitioner. HEARING: March 6, 2020 APPEARANCES: Hannah Nabhan (Petitioner) appeared on her own behalf. The Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) was represented by Assistant Attorney General Deanie Reh. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On or about December 16, 2019, Petitioner submitted to the Department a Salesperson Application Form (Application) to be licensed in Arizona as a real estate salesperson.1 On that Application, Petitioner indicated that she holds/held a real estate license in California.2 2. On that Application, Petitioner answered “YES” to Question #13, regarding convictions or plea agreements to any misdemeanor in Arizona or any other state. 3. With the Application, Petitioner submitted information identifying the above conceded information and separate statements of explanation regarding three circumstances.3 4. In May 2005, Petitioner entered in to a diversion plea agreement, pleading guilty to Use/Under Influence of Controlled Substance, a misdemeanor, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, in Case No. MWV092901.4 On May 6, 2005, Petitioner was sentenced to 36 months of supervised probation.

1 See Exhibit 1. No other information was provided to the hearing record regarding a California licensure. 3 Petitioner’s explanations are found at Exhibits 2, 4, and 6. See Exhibit 3. 5. On May 27, 2005, pursuant to California Penal Code (CA PC) Section 1203.4,5 the Court set aside the conviction, entered a plea of not guilty and dismissed the case.6 6. On December 9, 2009, the Court dismissed all diverted charges in Case No. MWV092901, Petitioner having successfully completed the terms of the diversion court orders. 7. In May 2005, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Use/Under Influence of Controlled Substance, a misdemeanor, and Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, a misdemeanor, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, in Case No. MWV095306.7 On May 27, 2005, she amended her plea to not guilty, and Petitioner was sentenced to 36 months of supervised probation, including participation in a drug court program.8 8. On January 26, 2007, pursuant to CA PC Section 1203.4, the Court set aside the convictions, entered a plea of not guilty and dismissed the case.9 Further, the Court ordered that Petitioner’s probation be terminated, Petitioner having successfully completed the terms of her concurrent diversion/drug court program. 9. On February 27, 2013, with approval of the court, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to CA PC Section 148(a)(1), a misdemeanor, in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Case No. POM2PK4207.10 The Court suspended any

CA PC Section 1203.4 provides: In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation … or has been discharge prior to the termination of the period of probation, … in which a court, in its discretion and the interest of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation … be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty …” See Exhibit 3 at 9. See Exhibit 5. Id. at 6 of 30. Id. at 30 of 30. 10 See Exhibit 7. Within “Other Offenses Against Public Justice,” Section 148 (a)(1) provides that “[e]very person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer ….in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office … when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars …, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed on year, or by both …” 2 sentence and placed Petitioner on 36 months of summary probation with 2 days’ jail time served, plus fine and fees. 10. On December 8, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for early termination of probation and she subsequently petitioned to have the case dismissed pursuant to CA PC Section 1203.4.11 11. On January 13, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion, setting aside and vacating the finding of guilt, entering a plea of not guilty, and dismissing the criminal complaint.12 12. By letter dated December 17, 2019, the Department sent Petitioner, via certified mail, a letter of Intent to Deny Application for Original Real Estate Salesperson’s License.13 13. In that denial of licensure, the Department informed Petitioner that, based on the Application, it had concluded that she did not meet the qualifications for licensure pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2123, 32-2124, and 32-2153. The Department’s conclusion was based in part, but not exclusively, on the criminal history detailed above herein. The Department further informed Petitioner that it considered her conduct had violated A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(7). 14. The Department received Petitioner’s appeal on January 6, 2020.14 Petitioner’s appeal indicated that she had been unable to secure a practice monitor in the short time following receipt of a consent order (to grant a provisional license).15

11 Id. CA PC Section 1203.4 provides: In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation … or has been discharge prior to the termination of the period of probation, … in which a court, in its discretion and the interest of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation … be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty …” Id. See Exhibit 8. See Exhibit 9. 15 At some time in this matter, the Department offered to Petitioner a Consent Order, allowing her to obtain a two-year provisional license upon meeting the provisional licensure requirements. While a Consent Order offer might not normally have been allowed to be discussed at the administrative hearing, the offer was brought forward by the Department through its request for the Tribunal to recommend a two-year provisional licensure despite the licensure denial letter. 3 15. On January 27, 2020, the Department issued its Notice of Hearing alleging violations by Petitioner of A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(7), and indicating its request to issue a two-year provisional real estate sales person license to Petitioner. 16. At hearing, the Department’s position was that all three past incidents reflect on Petitioner’s character and that the incidents demonstrate that Petitioner is not a person of honesty, truthfulness and good character. At hearing, the Department expressed doubt as to the characterization of the officer’s actions as “violent” as was set forth in Petitioner’s explanation as to the 2013 incident, and argued, that the 2013 incident demonstrated a lack of respect for authority.16 The Department argued that the real estate field is highly regulated and that it has a responsibility to the public with regard to appropriately licensing salespersons. 17. Petitioner has been in Arizona for 5 years and the Department brought forward no other criminal activity or licensure discipline in California, Arizona, or any other state that may have been discovered through a background check.17 18. At hearing, Petitioner indicated that she has a full time job with the airlines and that she had wanted to have a real estate license to do her own land deals and then slowly move into real estate sales with the public.18 Petitioner noted that she would not be opposed to being monitored under a provisional licensure but that while she knows a person who is a licensed agent, she is not acquainted with that person’s broker.19

16 See Exhibit 6. At hearing, Petitioner mentioned that she had an emergency medical technician (EMT) license, for which she had proceeded to seek dismissal of the misdemeanor convictions while she was living in California; no specific period of time of such licensure was mentioned at hearing. The EMT license is mentioned in one of Petitioner’s explanation statements. See Exhibit 2. When questioned, Petitioner indicated that her EMT licensure was never disciplined. In order to apply for licensure, Petitioner has completed 90 hours of real estate education. However, the Tribunal is unaware of a requirement for a person to hold a real estate salesperson license in order to sell land that person owns. 19 During the hearing, an employee of the Department provided a full explanation of the requirements of provisional licensure and monitoring, indicating that a provisionally-licensed person had to be “active”, i.e., working for a broker, but could be working part-time. 4 19. The Administrative Law Judge found Petitioner to be credible as she testified and as she recounted the 2013 incident at hearing.20 Her explanation regarding the 2013 incident at hearing matched her written explanation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Department bears the responsibility to protect the public through its enforcement of licensing statutes.21 This matter lies within its jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and must establish that she meets statutory qualifications for a real estate salesperson’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.22 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”23 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.”24 4. A.R.S. § 32-2153 provides in relevant part as follows: 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: ..… 7. Not shown that the holder or applicant is a person of honesty, truthfulness and good character. 5. The legislature has charged the Department with protecting the public and consumers who deal with licensed salespersons when it issues licenses. The

The person experiencing an incident describes the incident from their perspective. None of the remaining facts set forth in Petitioner’s explanation were disputed by the Department. 21 See Sigmen v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate, 169 Ariz. 383, 388, 819 P.2d 969, 974 (Ct. App. 1991). See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(1); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at 1220 (8th ed. 1999). 5 Department’s concern in this case is understandable. A person with a criminal record must be given close scrutiny and careful consideration when he or she applies for a professional license. 6. The hearing record demonstrated that Petitioner’s two 2005 misdemeanor convictions were dismissed, one in 2005 and one in 2007, by the California Court using its “discretion and [in] the interests of justice.” Further, Petitioner’s credible testimony demonstrated that Petitioner’s 2013 incident was fraught with that particular circumstance; that 2013 conviction was also dismissed in 2015. 7. While past convictions are an important consideration for the Department, in this instance, having no other convictions and based on her testimony, Petitioner has demonstrated she has resolved the issues that led to the actions and convictions in her past and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner has established that she has sufficient good character and reputation at this time to satisfy the statutory requirement for licensure as a real estate salesperson. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Commissioner shall reverse the Department’s decision to deny Petitioner’s Application for a real estate salesperson’s license and grant Petitioner’s appeal. 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 shall be five days from the date of the certification. Done this day, March 26, 2020. /s/ Kay Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Judy Lowe, Commissioner Arizona Department of Real Estate

6 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 1

HEARING TRANSCRIPT KA=Judge Kay Abramsohn DR=Deanie Reh HN=Hannah Renee Nabhan WJ=Wayne Jackson DJ=Daniel Jones KA: All right good afternoon. We’re on the record. This hearing before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings is now in session. Today is March 6, 2020, um, it’s National Oreo Day just in case you didn’t know. DR: Oh. KA: And, uh, we are here in, uh, case number 20F-204-REL for Hannah Nabhan. HN: Yes. KA: All right and, um, let’s do appearances if you would state your name for the record. HN: I am Hannah Nabhan. KA: Nabhan. HN: Yeah. KA: Okay. DR: Deanie Reh from the Attorney General’s office... KA: All right. DR: ...representing (unintelligible). WJ: Wayne Jackson from ADRE. KA: All right and there are other observers in the room is that correct? Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 2

DR: Correct. KA: And they are? DR: Dan I don’t know your last name. DJ: Dan Jones. KA: All right. DR: And (Susan Katz) for, um, paralegal from the Attorney General’s office. KA: All right great thank you. All right so, um, let me swear in Mr. Jackson and Miss Nabhan. Do you promise that your testimony and information which you would provide from a consideration in this matter is the truth as you know it to be? HN: Yes. WJ: Yes. KA: All right thank you. All right Miss Reh. DR: Thank you, um, I’ll just make a few opening remarks. Miss Nabhan applied for a real estate license on December 16, 2019. In her application she disclosed three prior convictions. Two for drug related offenses and one for resisting arrest. All were misdemeanors and were ultimately expunged by the court after Miss Nabhan completed probationary and diversionary allegations. There is on a Department of Real Estate concluded that - that series of convictions although, um, ultimately expunged created enough of a concern to convert Miss Nabhan’s license to a provisional one. And Miss Nabhan disagrees with that assessment. There is virtually no difference between a provisional license and a non-provisional license except that it operates as a some minor type of probation and supervision is required by a practice monitor. So the court is faced with the question whether a provisional license is appropriate and the department also asked the question why does Miss Nabhan at first prov- proving her good character by accepting a provisional license? KA: Maybe that - your opening? DR: Y- that was my opening. KA: All right fine so... Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 3

DR: Okay. KA: Um... DR: Yes. KA: Appellant s- you get a chance for an opening and I just find it more useful for you give me an opening when you start telling me about your case so go ahead. 100 101 DR: Okay so, um, I would just call Mr. Jackson to testify. He’s already been put 102 under oath so, uh, Mr. Jackson - Jackson what is your occupation? 103 104 WJ: I am a - a Senior Investigator with the Department of Real Estate. 105 106 DR: And how long have you been employed in that capacity? 107 108 WJ: Um, 6 years, um, 9 months. 109 110 DR: And before that where did you work? 111 112 WJ: Before that I worked, um, for the AG’s office. 113 114 DR: And in what capacity? 115 116 WJ: Um, as an investigator. 117 118 DR: Okay how long... 119 120 WJ: It was for the vice division. 121 122 DR: Oh, so right so okay. 123 124 WJ: Mm-hm. 125 126 DR: How long have you been working as an investigator total in your career? 127 128 WJ: Um, about 36, 37 years. 129 130 DR: Okay can you just describe your background and in training and experience to 131 the judge please? 132 133 WJ: Um, I was a United States marine for 21 years and as a marine I was a military 134 police officer, uh, enforcement officer and I was a criminal investigating 135 officer while I was in the Marine Corps. Um, when I, uh, retired, um, I Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 4

136 became, um, I worked as a probation officer and I worked for the State of 137 Delaware as an investigator for, um, elderly - senior elderly and, um, from 138 there I went to, um, I came here to, um, Arizona and I worked for, um, the 139 Department of Development Disabilities as an investigator. And from there I 140 went to, um, the AG’s office as a Compliance Officer Investigator for the 141 Civil Rights Division. 142 143 DR: You went from there to the real estate department? 144 145 WJ: Yes. 146 147 DR: Okay. Are you familiar with the Hannah Nabhan case? 148 149 WJ: Yes, um, I was assigned the case and I reviewed the case. 150 151 DR: Okay so you’ve looked at the documents admitted as exhibits? 152 153 WJ: Yes I have. 154 155 DR: You have a copy of all of them don’t you? 156 157 WJ: Yes I have. 158 159 DR: And we’ve just provided them to the judge so if we could just kind of run 160 through those. What is, uh, Exhibit 1? 161 162 WJ: Exhibit 1 is the Arizona Department of Real Estate application form... 163 164 DR: Mm-hm. 165 166 WJ: ...um, when a person applies for a license with the department. 167 168 DR: And to the best of your knowledge this was the application that was submitted 169 by Miss Nabhan correct? 170 171 WJ: That is correct. 172 173 DR: And it has her picture on there as well doesn’t it? 174 175 WJ: Uh, yes. 176 177 DR: Do you recognize her from the picture? 178 179 WJ: Uh, yes. 180 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 5

181 DR: Okay so, uh, is there - other than - make - see there’s some redactions on this 182 document. 183 184 WJ: Yes. 185 186 DR: It’s blacked out. 187 188 WJ: Social security number and date of birth. 189 190 DR: Right but other than that is it a true and correct copy of what exists in the 191 Department of Real Estate files? 192 193 WJ: Yes. 194 195 DR: Okay I move that Exhbiit1 be introduced and moved into evidence. 196 197 KA: Any objection to the admission? Thank you it’s admitted. 198 199 DR: Okay let’s look at number 2. Do you recognize this document? 200 201 WJ: Uh, yes I do. 202 203 DR: And what is this document? 204 205 WJ: This is a statement, uh, from, um, Miss Nabhan. 206 207 DR: Yeah Miss Nabhan. 208 209 WJ: Yes, um, dated November 26, uh, 2019. 210 211 DR: And signed by her? 212 213 WJ: Uh, yes. 214 215 DR: I see. Does the, uh, the application also has a signature on it? 216 217 WJ: Um. 218 219 DR: Go back to number 1. 220 221 WJ: Yes it does. It’s - it should right at - yeah, um, the disciplinary action 222 disclosure which is another part of the, um, application has her name - 223 signature. 224 225 DR: And her signature on the first... Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 6

226 227 WJ: Yes. 228 229 DR: ...page does too actually if you look at it. I assume those signatures... 230 231 WJ: Yes. 232 233 DR: ...look, uh, the same to you as the one that’s on the statement. 234 235 WJ: Yes it does. 236 237 DR: Okay and it - there are no redactions on this statement. Is this a true and 238 correct copy of the statement received from Miss Nabhan by the Department 239 of Real Estate? 240 241 WJ: Yes. 242 243 DR: I would move that Exhibit 2 be moved into evidence. 244 245 KA: Any objection? 246 247 HN: No. 248 249 KA: Thank you it’s admitted. 250 251 DR: All right let’s look at number 3. Can you tell me what this is? 252 253 WJ: Yes this is a case summary, um, from, uh, Rancho... 254 255 DR: Rancho... 256 257 WJ: ...Cucamonga... 258 259 DR: ...Cucamonga, ‘kay. 260 261 WJ: ...California. 262 263 KA: Try not to talk at the same time. 264 265 DR: Sorry. 266 267 KA: Mm-hm. 268 269 DR: Um, and how was this received? 270 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 7

271 WJ: Um, through ways it could be received through the department or, uh, some 272 certified copies of it or the, um, defendant may have ordered these through the 273 department. 274 275 DR: And - and submitted them? 276 277 WJ: And submitted them. 278 279 KA: Right and have... 280 281 WJ: (Unintelligible). 282 283 DR: ...compared this to the file and you know that this is a true and correct copy of 284 what’s in the real estate file? 285 286 WJ: Yes. 287 288 DR: I would move that Exhibit 3 be moved into evidence. 289 290 KA: Any objection? 291 292 HN: No. 293 294 KA: Thank you it’s admitted. 295 296 DR: And number 4 what is that? 297 298 WJ: Um, this is the statement from Miss Nabhan, uh, dated November 26, 2019, 299 um, when she’s talking about, um - um, the judgment, um, of the event that 300 happened on January 14, 2005. 301 302 DR: ‘Kay, can we back up for a second? Go back to Exhibit 2. 303 304 KA: Okay. 305 306 WJ: Yes. 307 308 DR: Does Exhibit 2 provide the statement of what happened in the case that’s 309 reflected in Exhibit 3? 310 311 WJ: Um, it looks like it’s two different cases but basically on the same day. 312 313 DR: Okay. 314 315 WJ: So, uh, additional charges from what it looks like here. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 8

316 317 DR: Okay so the Exhibit 2 is talking about, uh, methamphetamine. 318 319 WJ: Um... 320 321 DR: ‘Kay. 322 323 WJ: But the event happened on September 6, 2004 and the second one is another 324 event that happened on January 14... 325 326 DR: I know but I... 327 328 WJ: ...2005. 329 330 DR: Sorry. But the event that - that is reflected in Exhibit 3 - Exhibit 3 is the court 331 record... 332 333 WJ: Yes. 334 335 DR: ...is the same event that sh- her statement in Exhibit 2 relates to. Is that right? 336 337 WJ: Yes. 338 339 DR: Okay let’s talk about, um, Exhibit 4. That’s the statement that relates to the 340 second offense. Is that correct? 341 342 WJ: Yes. 343 344 DR: All right and, um, did I move that into evidence? I can’t remember. 345 346 KA: Yes. 347 348 DR: Okay ex- Exhibit 5 is what? 349 350 WJ: It’s a case summary. 351 352 DR: Okay and does... 353 354 WJ: Um. 355 356 DR: ...it relate to the event that she’s discussing in Exhibit 4? 357 358 WJ: Yes. 359 360 DR: Okay and is Exhibit 5 a true and correct copy of what exists in the real estate Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 9

361 department file? 362 363 WJ: Yes. 364 365 DR: Again is this a situation where you might’ve received it by ordering it or she 366 may have submitted it? 367 368 WJ: That is correct. 369 370 DR: Okay I have moved that Exhibit 5 be introduced into evidence. 371 372 KA: Any objection to the admission? 373 374 HN: No. 375 376 KA: Thank you it’s admitted. 377 378 DR: All right let’s go on to Exhibit 6. What is this? 379 380 WJ: This is also a statement, uh, from Miss Nabhan, uh, dated November 26, 2019 381 of the event that occurred on August 14, 2012. 382 383 DR: So considerably later than the first two events. Is that... 384 385 WJ: That is correct. 386 387 DR: ...correct? 388 389 WJ: Yes. 390 391 DR: All right, um, and is this a true and correct copy of what was, uh, what is in 392 the real department file? 393 394 WJ: Yes. 395 396 DR: I move that Exhibit 6 be introduced into evidence. 397 398 KA: Any objection? 399 400 HN: No objection. 401 402 KA: Thank you it’s admitted. 403 404 DR: All right let’s look at number 7. Can you tell me what this is? 405 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 10

406 WJ: This is from Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles. 407 408 DR: Okay so different jurisdiction than the first two offenses. Is that... 409 410 WJ: Uh, yes. 411 412 DR: ...correct? All right and - but is this the - a record from the court? 413 414 WJ: Yes it is. 415 416 DR: And is this also a case where you might have ordered it or it may have been 417 submitted by Miss Nabhan? 418 419 WJ: Yes. 420 421 DR: Okay and it relates to the event that she’s describing in Exhibit 6 - 6? 422 423 WJ: Uh, this is the - well yes but this is the other event. This is the latest event. 424 425 DR: Correct but the statement in Exhibit 6 is about this court record? 426 427 WJ: That is correct. 428 429 DR: All right I would move that, uh, Exhibit 7 be introduced into evidence. 430 431 KA: Wait a minute h-, um, I’m gonna presume if that is the case but I don’t see 432 anything here that the count - if this is PCMISD. I don’t know what that is but, 433 um, the statement appears to be resisting arrest so is there something else? 434 435 DR: I think if you go back... 436 437 KA: The case - okay I see the case number matches okay. 438 439 DR: All righty. 440 441 KA: All right it’s admitted thank you 442 443 DR: And what is Exhibit 8? 444 445 WJ: Exhibit 8 is the, um, the, uh, from the d- Arizona Department of Real Estate, 446 uh - uh, letter for the intent to deny application. 447 448 DR: Okay and is this a true and correct copy of the letter that was sent to Miss 449 Nabhan? 450 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 11

451 WJ: Yes. 452 453 DR: All right I would move that Exhibit 8 be introduced into evidence. 454 455 KA: All right since it’s the document that started the matter yes okay. 456 457 DR: Now in this letter is there any mention of a provisional license in this letter? 458 Take your time and look at it. 459 460 WJ: Mmm, no. 461 462 DR: Okay so this is an intent to deny... 463 464 WJ: Yes. 465 466 DR: ...the application correct? 467 468 WJ: Yes. 469 470 DR: And it was the three prior offenses correct? 471 472 WJ: That is correct. 473 474 DR: All right and as a result of that are you aware of the fact that an offer was 475 made to Miss Nabhan to give her a provisional license? 476 477 WJ: At this - from this letter no. 478 479 DR: No from your knowledge of this case. 480 481 WJ: Yes. 482 483 DR: Okay and what was the response to that do you know? 484 485 WJ: Um, Miss Nabhan said, “No.” 486 487 DR: Okay if you will look at Exhibit 9... 488 489 KA: Let me ask you. Was the offer made as the result of an informal settlement 490 conference? I mean typically I don’t hear about settlement kinds of offers and 491 I just deal with, uh, the action that was taken. Um, so I’m not quite sure. Your 492 Notice of Hearing did it say is intent to deny a provisional license, a refusal? 493 494 DR: Well the Notice of Hearing is asking for a provisional license based on that 495 later decision by the department to offer her a provisional license. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 12

496 497 KA: Nature of subject of hearing shall be to determine whether grounds exist to 498 apparently attempt to deny petitioner’s application. 499 500 DR: But if you look at page 4 it says wherefore on the basis of the foregoing the 501 department requests that petitioner be issued a two-year provisional real estate 502 sales person’s license and any further relief that the Commissioner deems 503 appropriate. 504 505 KA: Okay well I’ll sort it out but technically that’s your request and that’s not this 506 denial that was made. 507 508 DR: Mm-hm. 509 510 KA: So, um, I’ll figure out how to address that. 511 512 DR: All right so if you look at Exhibit 9 are you familiar with this document? 513 514 WJ: Yes this is Miss Nabhan’s Notice of Appeal. 515 516 DR: Okay and it - it’s a true and correct copy of what exists in the file? 517 518 WJ: Yes. 519 520 DR: Okay I move that Exhibit 9 be introduced. 521 522 KA: Any objection? 523 524 HN: No. 525 526 KA: It’s admitted. 527 528 DR: Okay so, um, what is a provisional license? 529 530 WJ: A provisional license is the license that is issued to an individual, um, to, um, 531 monitor that individual, um. 532 533 DR: For how long? 534 535 WJ: Um, more or less from what I’ve seen, uh, two years. 536 537 DR: Okay is the person prevented from doing the same things that a person with a 538 non-provisional license does? 539 540 WJ: No. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 13

541 542 DR: Okay so what - what is it? What’s the purpose of a provisional license? What - 543 how di - how does it work? 544 545 WJ: Basically it’s, um, to monitor that individual, uh, to see how that individual 546 reacts, um, as far as, uh, once that person that lic- a provisional license. Um, 547 they go through a, uh, what is called a practice monitor that usually it may be 548 a broker of a brokerage. Um, and what he does is monitor as far as her 549 becoming - is, uh, her as a sales person. It’s... 550 551 DR: Just to make sure the person is doin’ things according to (oil)? 552 553 WJ: Yes it’s almost like, um, uh, when you’re in - newly employed and you’re 554 kinda like on probation in a way. 555 556 DR: Do... 557 558 WJ: Um, it’s not a negative thing but it’s more just to see how you - how well you 559 do. 560 561 DR: Okay. I don’t have any further questions. 562 563 KA: Uh, I could you give me a citation for the statute around provisional license. 564 565 DR: That would be ARS32-2153A. 566 567 KA: Okay it’s lumped into the general listing of authority of the department. 568 569 DR: It’s - it’s the 322153 is the statute that deals with grounds for denial, 570 suspension or revocation of licenses, letters of concern, provisional license 571 retention of jurisdiction by the Commissioner and definitions. So it’s kind of a 572 all encompassing, uh, statute. And then this particular, um, denial was based 573 on the same statute Section B7 which says that the, um, Commissioner may 574 suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license, issue a letter of 575 concern, issue a provisional license or deny the renewal or the right of 576 renewal, deny the renewal or the right of renewal if the application has not 577 shown - or the applicant has not shown that the holder applicant is a person of 578 honesty, truthfulness and good character. 579 580 KA: All right thank you. Those are my only two questions based on the testimony 581 and the, um, the nature of the hearing. Um, do you have any questions for the 582 witness? 583 584 HN: No questions. 585 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 14

586 KA: Okay all right so tell me about your appeal and speak up because I wanna 587 make sure I hear you and the recording. 588 589 HN: Uh, certainly. Uh, I submitted, um, well I submitted all of the, uh, case 590 summaries to the department with my application, um, and all of those 591 statements were submitted by me as well. Um, I did receive the Notice of 592 Denial initially and it was in an email and I also received the consent of the - 593 or I’m sorry the consent order to grant a provisional license. Um, that was 594 during the holidays and I only had about 10 days to secure a practice monitor. 595 So, um, because along with the consent, um, to grant a provisional license was 596 a file or, uh, some documents that I had to fill out with the name of my 597 practice monitor and so what I was under the impression that I had to secure 598 that practice monitor imi-, uh, immediately before even, um, before sending in 599 the acceptance of a - of the provisional license. Um, I have a full time job. I 600 work for an airline, um, I just, uh, celebrated my five year anniversary with 601 the same company and I’m very busy with that work. And I - I wanted a real 602 estate license just to do pretty much, uh, my own deals. I have some land 603 down in, um, south Arizona. Just maybe slowly move into sales. Um, I was 604 actually initially wanting to do commercial, uh, real estate. Not so much, um, 605 residential. So I didn’t really intend to jump right in full time. And I think that, 606 um, having a provisional license would somewhat force me to do that, um, I 607 don’t want to - I was reading about it. It said that I have to had a - a broker, 608 uh, notarize something quarterly and so I think I would have to have a strong 609 relationship and a - maybe a full time job with this broker for them to agree to 610 want to do this. Uh, so that was a big concern of mine. Um, I don’t mind 611 being monitored if I were under the department or someone. Um, of course 612 not so I - I just - I - I just felt like I was out of time to make a decision. And, 613 um, that this would force me to you know jump right into real estate where I 614 otherwise wouldn’t do that. Um, another thing is, uh, the charges which were 615 all - I know California’s different. Um, their 1203.4 is an expungement I - I 616 thought that - that was somewhat similar to a - what they call a rule 38 here 617 where it’s set aside. So I don’t know, um, if that means anything for those two 618 charges from 15 years ago. I - I made some bad choices as a young adult. Not 619 to discount anything I take full responsibility. Um, I also was just wondering 620 why it had to follow me you know for the rest of my life so - so that was 621 something. But, um, you know I - I respect your decision. I thank you all for 622 your time and that was pretty much it. 623 624 KA: I might have a couple a questions for you. But let me see if the department 625 does any cross exam? 626 627 DR: Um, no not at this time. 628 629 KA: Okay now then so, um, how long have you I guess lived in Arizona? 630 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 15

631 HN: Uh, five years. 632 633 KA: And do you have any relationship with any other licensed broker or? 634 635 HN: Hm. 636 637 KA: I mean did you at the time when you sent in your application? 638 639 HN: Uh, I - I have a friend who lives in Lake Havasu is licensed. I don’t know if 640 she’s a broker actually. Um, I talked to her and you know she told me that it 641 would be probably hard. She said her brokerage probably wouldn’t sign with 642 me or allow me to hang my license with them. 643 644 KA: Mm-hm. 645 646 HN: So - but she told me a couple of brokerages in town that I can try. This is 647 small town. I live in Lake Havasu. 648 649 KA: Mmm. 650 651 HN: So, um, I don’t know how many options I have but I feel like if I - if I do go 652 and sign on with someone I would be - I would feel, um, obligated to be there 653 full time and show my work. You know ‘cause they’re being burdened by 654 having to sign and notarize things and monitor me. So I feel like I would have 655 to, um, give up some of my, uh, airline career to do this. So that was a big 656 concern. 657 658 KA: So okay did that precipitate any questions? 659 660 DR: Yes. 661 662 KA: All right. 663 664 DR: Um, Miss Nabhan did you actually speak to anybody about whether or not this 665 would be a burden or difficulty or are you just sorta speculating that it would 666 be? 667 668 HN: Just the one, um, uh, person I spoke to in town who is a... 669 670 KA: Your friend? 671 672 HN: She’s a co-broker and yes, mm-hm. 673 674 KA: Your friend okay. So you didn’t i- investigate further with any other real 675 estate folks whether or not they would or would not be willing to somewhat Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 16

676 sponsor you or act as a practice monitor? 677 678 HN: No I received the notice by email, um, right before you know Christmas and 679 all the holidays. And I only had - I think it was 10 days. I was surprised that I 680 only have 10 days to find someone. So Lake Havasu is, um, I don’t know if 681 you’re familiar it’s kind of a slow town. People don’t really give back to you 682 right away. So if I didn’t - I did not make any attempt to contact a brokerage 683 you know so... 684 685 DR: And of course it’s not - sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt you. 686 687 HN: Mm-hm. 688 689 DR: It’s not very far from Kingman... 690 691 HN: Yeah. 692 693 DR: ...or (unintelligible) for that matter. Is that correct? 694 695 HN: Uh, I believe Kingman is about 45 minutes away so it’s.... 696 697 DR: Okay. I don’t have anything further. 698 699 KA: Okay. Did the consent order set forth exactly what the supervision and 700 monitoring - the proposed intent order set forth exactly what the - the 701 monitoring would consist of or what was required of someone else? 702 703 HN: Uh, it was very general. I believe it just said that I would be monitored and I 704 would need to have something signed and notarized quarterly for two years, 705 term of two years. 706 707 KA: Okay thank you. So now I’ll just turn to Mr. Jackson. If you know, um, what 708 specifically is required of a supervisor, monitor if you know? If you don’t 709 know that’s fine. 710 711 WJ: I really don’t know the - the extent of it, uh, other than the fact that, um, in 712 past hearings, um, that has been discussed. 713 714 KA: Okay well, um, well - well I - I guess let me go off the record for a moment. 715 All right, um, we’re back on the record and off the record I simply, uh, was 716 clarifying, uh, whether there’s anyone here who - who might know that. And, 717 uh, it turns out that someone who’s observing, um, who has listened to the rest 718 of the testimony but he is an employee of the Department of... 719 720 DR: Correct. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 17

721 722 KA: ...of Real Estate. So, um, I don’t have any concern with him answering those 723 specific questions which don’t have anything to do particularly with the facts 724 of this case. But it’s just general information so... 725 726 DR: You gonna swear him in? 727 728 KA: Yes so do you promise that your testimony and information which you would 729 provide for my consideration in this matter is the truth as you know it to be, 730 um, Mr. Jones? 731 732 DJ: I do. 733 734 KA: All right can you maybe just stand... 735 736 DJ: Yes. 737 738 739 KA: ...for a second and so we hear you. 740 741 DJ: Small rooms right. 742 743 KA: Yeah just to get you a little bit closer. 744 745 DJ: All right. 746 747 KA: Thank you. 748 749 DR: Go ahead ‘cause you need - you’re gonna be taped recorded so from... 750 751 DJ: I know. 752 753 KA: You’re close enough. 754 755 DJ: (Unintelligible). 756 757 KA: So yeah my question off the record and - and now is simply what are the 758 parameters for someone who is a super- a monitoring supervisor for someone? 759 What do they have to do? 760 761 DJ: Well the process is that at the time they agree to be a practice monitor they’re 762 given - they have to be given a copy of the consent order that spells out the 763 reason for the provisional license. They must at that point fill out a form 764 where they’re agreeing to be the practice monitor for the period of 765 employment. And that form acknowledges that they’ve read the consent order. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 18

766 They know all the background information that’s presented in the consent 767 order. Once that’s filled out then once they’re - they hire on every quarter the 768 applicant under a provisional license must fill out an affidavit and have it 769 notarized and give it to their broker who also has to sign it and have it 770 notarized attesting to the fact that they have not violated any of the real estate 771 statutes. And that’s done every quarter throughout - throughout the 772 provisional license term. And that term is two years of active licensure. So if 773 at any point the licensee becomes inactive - leaves one broker and doesn’t hire 774 on with another they still have to fill out their affidavit’s not signed by the 775 broker. And that period does not count towards the two years. 776 777 KA: Anything else specifically to that - that just with... 778 779 DJ: Well and the only other... 780 781 KA: Other than... 782 783 DJ: The only other obligation which the practice monitor agrees to that if they 784 notice that the licensee has violated statutes in any way they’re required to 785 notify the department. 786 787 DR: Um. 788 789 KA: Any follow up? 790 791 DR: Yeah I do have one question. 792 793 KA: Mm-hm. 794 795 DR: Is it necessary for the person to be a full time employee of that broker? 796 797 DJ: They have to be active with that broker. They - the number of hours full time, 798 part time, uh, that’s an (employant) employee relationship, employer 799 employee relationship. 800 801 DR: So it’s... 802 803 DJ: We don’t - we don’t say you have to work 40 hours, 50 hours or 10 hours. 804 805 DR: Right. 806 807 DJ: But you do have to be active with that... 808 809 DR: Right. 810 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 19

811 DJ: ...broker. 812 813 DR: Employed by? 814 815 DJ: That’s what the statute refers to. 816 817 DR: Okay. 818 819 DJ: Employed which is generally an independent contractor which the statute calls 820 an employee. 821 822 DR: So a person could be part time and still be monitored by a broker? 823 824 DJ: Part time yes. 825 826 DR: ‘Kay. 827 828 KA: Okay thanks. Useful information. All right, um... 829 830 HN: I’d be (unintelligible). 831 832 KA: Would any... 833 834 DR: Miss Nabhan has some questions for him. I don’t know he... 835 836 HN: Oh, yes, oh. 837 838 KA: Okay. 839 840 HN: Isn’t it another, um, requirement that the broker himself or herself should not 841 have ever been in violation of any of the real estate statutes? 842 843 DJ: That - that is one of the sol- criteria to be a practice monitor... 844 845 HN: Mm-hm. 846 847 DJ: ...that they not have any record of disciplinary action. 848 849 HN: Okay thank you. 850 851 DR: Any other ques-. 852 853 KA: Any other questions generally that you would ask? 854 855 HN: Um, no I don’t think so. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 20

856 857 KA: Okay. 858 859 HN: Okay. 860 861 KA: All right well if there’s nothing else from either side then we’ve reach the 862 point where we’re at closing statements where each of you gets a chance to 863 tell me what you’re asking of me, uh, with regards to (unintelligible). So that’s 864 on... 865 866 DR: Yes. 867 868 KA: Um, appellant gets the last word so department. 869 870 DR: Okay so what we’re looking at here is - is the department’s opinion or 871 decision that these three past events reflect on her honesty, truthfulness, and 872 good character. And I would say probably not honesty and truthfulness but 873 good character. And specifically if it - if - it had been me looking at this the 874 third offense which happened more recently is the one of greater concern. And 875 there’s something in the statement that I think is missing. You can evaluate it 876 yourself but when you read the statement it appears as though this police 877 officer took a very violent approach to Miss Nabhan for no apparent reason. 878 And I have -- and maybe you will too -- some trouble accepting that. So I 879 have a feeling that although Miss Nabhan provided the statement there is a 880 little bit of something missing. Uh, resisting arrest is - is - is an offense that is 881 typically indicative of lack of respect for authority. And certainly the real 882 estate department is an authority. And it - and the, uh, practice of real estate is 883 a - is a highly - what I would call a highly regulated industry. And I think you 884 could take judicial notice of the fact that it’s an area that’s sometimes fraught 885 with fraud and other nefarious activities. And particularly commercial real 886 estate is that. We had a governor Fyfe Symington um, who was convicted of 887 that type of situation. Um, although I think he was later pardoned. But I - it - 888 the - the thing about it is - is that there’s a reason why the Department of Real 889 Estate takes a pretty strict view of this. And, um, that’s - that’s all I’ve got. 890 891 KA: All right thank you. (Unintelligible) Nabhan. 892 893 HN: Y- yes, um, it’s what you mentioned. The third offense was the most recent in 894 2012. And, um, I was pulled over for a traffic stop. She, um, ran my license. 895 She saw that I had been arrested for narcotics in the past and that’s when her 896 mood somewhat changed. She immediately told me to get out of the car. She 897 actually asked me do I have any weapons or drugs in the ca- in the van so... 898 899 KA: So I’m actu- I’m gonna allow you to give me this information. It’s not closing 900 ‘cause... Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 21

901 902 HN: Okay. 903 904 KA: ...you didn’t talk about that earlier. But based on closing the department game 905 questioning that, um, go ahead and tell me about the traffic stop and then we’ll 906 go back if there’s any other questions you have for her with regard to that. 907 And then we’ll do the closing statements. 908 909 HN: Okay. 910 911 KA: So go ahead and tell me about the traffic stop. 912 913 HN: Sure sorry about that. Um, so yeah she really was, um, violent with me. And, 914 um, I - I learned my lesson and sh- I did kinda you know yell at her like, 915 “Why are - why are you arresting me? Why are you pulling me over?” You 916 know and, uh, “Why are you making me get out of the car?” And I was so 917 emotional that day because she had been treating me that way my son and 918 mother were in the vehicle right ahead of us. We were moving out of - I was 919 in - cleaning out a house. It’s all in the statement there. And, um, so my son 920 was watching this officer make me get out of the car. Put my hands up, um, so 921 - so I was very emotional ‘cause he had to witness that. Um, pardon me. Um, 922 so yeah it was - it was a, um, a - somewhat of a traumatic incident for me 923 because my son was there. Um, so she did arrest me and she felt that I, um, 924 was under the influence. She put down a bunch of, um, thank you, a bunch of 925 charges which they drug tested me. That was all dismissed. And, um, they 926 just, uh, you know made me guilty for resisting arrest which I - I did because 927 you know it was a little - she actually threw me down to the floor and put her 928 knee in my back. I went to the hospital before I went to the, um, city police 929 station or sheriff’s station. So, um, so yeah that was traumatic event for me 930 but I learned to never even speak up to an officer. I was an EMT at the time so 931 I thought I was - I - I worked with, um, law enforcement all the time every 932 day. Um, so I thought you know we were on pretty good terms. I would talk to 933 police officers like they were my coworkers you know. So that you know I 934 thought I could maybe kid around with this one. And she was having a terrible 935 day and - and I - and I was in her way. So - so that did happen in - in the way 936 that I described it. Um, so that’s what I have to say to that. 937 938 KA: And then the result was, um, so I guess that’s Exhibit 8. 939 940 DR: I’m not so... 941 942 KA: Unless it’s six... 943 944 KA: Seven. 945 Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 22

946 DR: ...seven. 947 948 KA: All right so what happened then in court and then go on and tell me what 949 happened... 950 951 HN: Sure I went... 952 953 KA: ...after that. 954 955 HN: ...to court, um, everything but the obstruction of justice or, um, resisting arrest 956 was, uh, was dismissed im- immediately be- and, um, I pleaded, uh, no contest 957 to that. Um, and I later or they just grabbed me. Um, they put me on summary 958 probation for three years and, um, which was a informal probation. I had a - a 959 public defender represent me. And, um, I went in six months later because, 960 um, I was some - something with my EMT license. I think I had to get that 961 dismissed or you know taken care of sooner than later. So I went in six 962 months to, uh, you know request they dismiss it and - and terminate my 963 probation early. They said, “No but come back in another few months or we’ll 964 see what we can do.” And they did, um, I only did maybe a year or maybe of 965 that term of summary probation. And then it was dismissed under 1203.4 966 which is the, uh, California PC for expungement. 967 968 KA: Okay where there any requirements during probation or did you have to go 969 any classes or... 970 971 HN: No. 972 973 KA: ...complete any ser- other certification? 974 975 HN: No - no it was a very informal summary and probation just ‘cause it’s still 976 violatin’ a law. 977 978 KA: And your EMT license that you talked about w- when you had - when you 979 went to get this expunged was that... 980 981 HN: Yes. 982 983 KA: ...because there was a requirement to reapply and they needed to know what 984 happened? What was going on with that? 985 986 HN: Uh, they just needed to know what happened, uh, basically I had to get some 987 documents and I had wanted to submit something that it was, um, acceptable. 988 That I just wanted it to be h- you know off the record and - and terminated. 989 Um, it was just disclosure documents that I was trying to get while I was 990 there. I requested it be, uh, terminated at that time. Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 23

991 992 KA: Was your EMT license ever disciplined because of... 993 994 HN: No. 995 996 KA: ...it? 997 998 HN: No. 999 1000 KA: Those are all my questions. Miss Reh any questions? 1001 1002 DR: Uh, I don’t... 1003 1004 KA: (Unintelligible). 1005 1006 DR: ...have any questions. Just for the record I wanna state that I don’t object to 1007 her talking about this. I think it’s in evidence through Exhibit 6 so even 1008 though she didn’t testify about it... 1009 1010 KA: Well I just allowed her to testify about it and I’m giving you the opportunity 1011 to ask questions if you have questions about it. 1012 1013 DR: Um, no I don’t. 1014 1015 KA: Okay. 1016 1017 WJ: You asked the one question that I had. 1018 1019 KA: Okay sometimes I do that. All right then any other information that you would 1020 add to your closing before I come to Miss Nabhan for a... 1021 1022 DR: No. 1023 1024 KA: ...closing? All right and all right so closing statement. What is it that you’re 1025 asking of me in terms of, um, you know a proposed resolution or how do you 1026 think I should rule based on the information that’s been presented? 1027 1028 HN: Um, well I - I was, um, I would just like - I’m, uh, requesting the chance to 1029 just be granted a regular license because I wasn’t ready to jump full time into 1030 real estate. Although, um, being, um, working with a - a - a broker it doesn’t 1031 have to be full time. I would feel obligated to be there full time because I 1032 would feel like I would be burdening them. Um, so I would have to, um, be 1033 there full time I think. But I mean your decision I respect it. I respect the 1034 department’s diligence in you know not granting licenses to folks who don’t 1035 deserve them. Um, so you know whatever the outcome is here I - I will - I will Office of Administrative Hearings, Case #20F-204-REL Petitioner: Hannah Renee Nabhan Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Administrative law Judge: Kay Abramsohn Page 24

1036 deal with that. 1037 1038 KA: All right so I don’t issue - I don’t say right now what the answer is. I don’t 1039 know what the answer is yet. So I’ve got - makes the tape recording. I’ve got 1040 my notes. And the documents this is the first time I’ve seen the documents 1041 although I did come in with them printed out but I didn’t look at them ahead 1042 of time. So, um, they asked me to make a recommended decision in 20 days. 1043 1044 HN: Okay. 1045 1046 KA: And then that’s a - a recommended decision that goes over to the Department 1047 of Real Estate and, uh, the director has 30 days to, um, review it, uh, they can 1048 make changes to it or they can agree to it. And then they will notify you. Are 1049 you still at the address? 1050 1051 HN: Uh, yes although it’s wrong on one of these. The notice of hearing is 1052 incorrect. It’s not 26-90. 1053 1054 KA: Okay that’s good to know 29-60. 1055 1056 HN: But it looks correct in all the other documents. 1057 1058 KA: Okay and you did receive otherwise I guess you wouldn’t be here. 1059 1060 HN: Yeah. 1061 1062 KA: Um, because it - it said on the other return receipt it’s All right, um, 1063 thank you. We’re done. 1064 1065 HN: All right thanks. 1066 1067 KA: Uh-huh, we’re off the record. 1068 1069 DR: Thank you j... 1070 1071 1072 The transcript has been reviewed with the audio recording submitted and it is an accurate 1073 transcription. 1074 Signed________________________________________________________________________ Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) oo North 15th Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, AZ 85007 • Vim!. ,az re,gov. SALESPERSONAPP.-LICATION FORM •.;: . : ..-,· .. PA-·�·. . · :,... ·: -,. '.R . '1'1 ·. ECEIVED 4sess

� jJl ·. ·. · . · , ,. . · · • · .-, VJ. . • · · .. :;:,Ji/c6r/h5244 Hannah R Nabhan

Chandler r AZ i:/J J9 DEC 12 2019 Birth�ate: PZ 08...,. I"" of Real Esta.ta Candidate ID: AZREL146913 APPLICATION �E�DING �6fAt National: 1/18/2019 State Specific: 1/18/2019 ,:NMc:jrM.Ate'R)ISMilffl•lm'nAl!JSIMP�arliest examination (National an�/or State Specific) to apply for a license A.RS. §3Z:21,!;:<11f:'1r an applicaiifiails to applyihifliin this time period, the applicant will be required to retake the National and State Specific examinations. Please start with the email notification from ADRE, which contains Important licensing login information. (ADRE acquires the email address provided to Pearson VUE for the email notification,) To apply for a real estate salesperson's license, complete (applicable forms), scan, and §.l!!2mi! the following documentation in ONE PDF attachment through the ONLINE LICENSING SYSTEM at http:f/ptl.az.gov/app/dre/ 1. The Salesperson Application form (this form); 2. The ADRE Disciplinary Actions Disclosure Form (ll-214/244); 3. Original Arizona Real Estate Salesperson Examination Score Report; 4. Pre-lfcensure Education Certificate showing proof of the (90) hours of education completion; 5. Proof of �egal Presence - visit www.azre.gov for acceptable photo identification documents, {If you are submitting a driver's license as proof, include a copy of both sides of the card); 6. Valid Fingerprint Clearance Card issued by the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety. (Include a copy of both sides of the card); 7. Contract Writing course completion certificate (6 hours). Fee: Upon notification from ADRE that the application has been deemed complete, proceed to the ONLINE LICENSING SYSTEM to pay the prescribed fee by credit card, To view ADRE's Fee Schedule for current fees, please visit www.azre.gov.

c=:.::=�=u= Complete the following reguired information: Legal Name: H4:nrl a..h f..ljjte rv4hho..o Residence Address: '2-9 $0 C-4 r11 bq-/t:/.Jt4 Or.!, City: 'l i,..k.e, f:!MMU S1'.� State: .--Li��-,---- Zip: J..""� �..,.,_____ , _ Mailing Addre applicable):---------,----,,---,--� Email:t.1U111 Social SecuitWumiier: ••·•·. Date of Birth: TEii Have you ever held a Real Estate license in Arizona? □Yes aNo Do you hold/have you ever held a Real Estate license in another state? mYes CJNo (If Yes, which state(s).....,_f...,_a..,.l...1'1?.,.... · e<.. .. �='_,_'1v=1=· .,..______________________ Signature of the Applicant: _../1/p ,o!'>., =W{, .. ,,, =� ""''-!-l.... ,4, � Xt;.w. · "" �-1t<A 1'. ...,,:: __________ Date: ....,_ .l!/r5/,:2.0,L .,_______

Instructions to Activate License: Salesperson licensees can activate their license by initiating an online hire action through the ONLINE LICENSING SYSTEM after they receive confirmation that their license application has been approved by ADRE, Once the pending onllne hire action i s approved by the designated broker, the license status will become ACTIVE and the licensee WIii be legal to do business.

Note: The ADRE is required by law to p rocess the application In accordance with established time frames. Review A.AC, R4-28·103 for a description of the time frames and procedures with which the Department and applicants must comply,

An.agenoyshaltoolba&eallceooing declisloi,rnwhoe orln parlon,a . . hocizii , y �. rule·or11tate !1'.lbal gaming compact. A.general,,grant oraul!lority In statute cfoe-s not cof1'3nMe a bast� fat Imposing a.llnense requirement or coodltlon.unle's�.a rule Is i:m:me ___ ?"JTI!!d.'f!.tJ!j� thal'ge!Jl:lral 0001 orauthorjl� that spetffl£��!!!!J�!.�!!l!!!�remel\t or -oom1 ·on. .. Tols section .m_ay be enf011:ediit a pr-lvate civil ailtiQn and re1fef may lie awa('!led �galnstlhe Stam. 'ffiEl court m!lY awa reasone1lile attorney fees, damages.and !!!U --·. . _ , . _ . , _ fe/l�-�o�i�l(Ml Wflh m·l'l Qc!ln.� J!PP..li�alip!'}to a pafu, lh!ll:�Vl:llll\ Jrj ,(Iii ®li�q �imt ihe 111t1t� tor I!' vlQJJ)l\o/uifthij !l,�clii;m, . _ . . --�- , A S!ate--employoo · may: oot lntenliomilly or• knowingly · violate thls,senilon. A vlolaH<irt of ihlsisecl!Oll' is oause for dl11.11tptlnary aetlon,ordlsmlS!!.al purnu1;nt to the· .Agency's ru:toptild.per,sorinfl1 alley. , · , ___ ____ __ l,------------"hT -'-fs;;,.,.1. =- 1· rc1r.oail!lll n noi.a!#2Qate.tl'le i[!(OOl\t!Y pf,'O'liJi.e.d,tzy :i!MtlM 12.s.211.01 ot12-:?20]2, .,,_ DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE

··.·•·· ;SAlo. �31.JS'

,, ���k- . , ..... 0,� 1e �: ' .,. . Uc�� 'No. ·r• · l!>qti,miQn:�ti, ..... ,.·.... ............ The authenticity of this score report can be val/dated by using Pearson VUE's Online Score Report Authent/catlc EXHIBIT· '/1.WW.,P!;lsJ[,jiQD�UE,!;QDJl!;l!Jtbentlq�� ki Digital embossing eliminates the possibility of unauthorized embossing of counterfeit score reports. :s Raglstrntlon Number: [number redacted] Validation Number: [number redacted] j l