ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

20F-221-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2020-06-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Original Real Estate Salesperson License of:

PEÑA, MIGUEL FERNANDO, holder of License No. SA688947000 (Candidate),

Petitioner.

No. 20F-221-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 2, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.

APPEARANCES: Miguel Fernando Peña (“Petitioner”) was represented by Philippe Martinet, Esq., Martinet Law; the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”) was represented by Lynette Evans, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural Background

On or about January 7, 2020, Petitioner filed an application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson with the Department. Petitioner answered “yes” to the following two questions on the application:

Has the Applicant . . .

. . . .

12. Been convicted and/or entered into a plea agreement and/or a plea of NOLO CONTENDERE (no contest) to ANY felony in Arizona and/or any other state, whether or not the plea or verdict was set aside, judgment or sentencing was deferred, conviction was dismissed or expunged, or has been pardoned?

13. Been convicted or entered into a plea agreement or a plea of NOLO CONTENDRE (no contest) to ANY misdemeanor in Arizona or any other state, whether or not the plea or verdict was set aside, judgment or sentencing was deferred, the conviction was dismissed or expunged, or has been pardoned?

Petitioner attached to his application for a real estate salesperson’s license court documents for his convictions and written explanations for his “yes” answers, which are described below.

On or about January 8, 2020, the Department informed Petitioner via certified mail that based on his criminal convictions, it had concluded that he did not meet the qualifications for licensure as a salesperson pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(2), (B)(7), and (B)(10). Therefore, the Department notified Petitioner that it intended to deny his license application.

Petitioner requested a hearing on the Department’s denial of his application for a real estate salesperson’s license, stating that he could convince the Department “that he is an honest and truthful person and that he has a good character.”

The Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On June 2, 2020, an evidentiary hearing was held via Google Meet. Petitioner submitted seven exhibits, testified on his own behalf, and presented the testimony of three other witnesses. The Department submitted thirteen exhibits to establish the facts supporting its intended denial and presented the testimony of its Senior Investigator, Wayne L. Jackson.

Petitioner’s Criminal History

On or about May 30, 2000, Petitioner was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. CR 99-00442-002-TUC-FRZ, of the offense of Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a felony. As a result, Petitioner was sentenced to 21 months’ incarceration, with credit for time served, followed by supervised release for a term of 3 years.

Petitioner submitted with his application an explanation for his conviction in Case No. CR 99-00442-002-TUC-FRZ. It appears that the conduct that led to the conviction occurred on February 26, 1999, although he referred to the date as the date the conviction. Petitioner explained the events leading to the conviction in relevant part as follows:

I had just turned 18 at the time and was still attending high school . . . . At the time it was to help out my mother . . . financially because she was a single mother and I’m the second oldest in my family. I grew up without a father and well my mother was always working and struggling to keep us clothed and fed and I had always felt as if I was responsible to help her out since I was the oldest male sibling. I would help out by cleaning and cooking for my brothers and sisters. I would also do odd jobs around the neighborhood like mow lawns and clean up yards to make some money and I would give my mother the money to help out. I would feel a great sense of pride knowing I would help her out financially even though it was not a lot of money. That was from the 4th grade all the way up until high school. And in high school the times got even harder [. A] t the time we lived in a rough neighborhood and my younger brother got shot, he was in the 5th grade at the time he was just [an] innocent bystander. My mother could hardly afford to keep the bills going and with my brothers medical bills coming in I felt the need to help out and a guy I knew from the neighborhood told me I could made a thousand dollars by running some drugs. It seemed [too] easy to pass up. So I did, we drove down to Native American reservation where he loaded a car up with drugs and told me to drive back to Phoenix and that I would get [paid] and on my way back I got pulled over and got arrested for transporting a large load of marijuana. Something that I [thought] was going to be easy and help my mother out with money turned out to be hurting her emotionally and financially [.] I was so young at the time and had no male figure in my life to show me what was right from wrong [.] I got bailed out weeks later and I went back to school to catch up on my grades and was eventually able to graduate with my high school class . . . but later after going to court I was sentenced to 21 months of prison and was released and I completed 3 years of probation and [paid] all of my financial obligations. . . .

On or about September 19, 2008, Petitioner was charged in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR 2007-171597-002DT with knowingly transporting for sale marijuana weighing more than two pounds and having U.S. currency that he knew was the proceeds of a criminal offense. On or about December 23, 2009, Petitioner was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea of Sale or Transportation of Marijuana Having a Weight Greater than Four Pounds, a Class 2 felony, and Money Laundering, a Class 3 felony, and was remanded to comply with the specified conditions of the plea agreement. On or about January 12, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to 2 terms of imprisonment of 3.5 years each, with credit for 103 days, to be served concurrently.

Petitioner provided a written explanation of his conviction in Case No. CR2007-17-1597-002 DT with the application. Petitioner stated that the date of his conviction was on November 5, 2007, which appears to be the date on which the offense occurred. Petitioner’s explanation provided in relevant part as follows:

[T]his time I was older but was not mature. It was when the housing market had crashed and the economy was horrible. I worked at a cell phone store and sales had gone down and I [was] just not making enough money to pay for my bills and with my prior felony convictions I was just not getting hired anywhere else. So again I turned to what [I] thought could be easy money. I had a close friend of mine that was dealing drugs at the time and he offered me some money in exchange for me to drive some drugs and pick up some money. I was not aware that they were under the [surveillance] of law enforcement. I dropped off the drugs and picked up the money and as I drove out of my house I got pulled over and had drugs and money on me and they charged me with money laundering because the amount of money that I had was over 10 thousand dollars and was proceeds from a drug deal and was charged with sale of marijuana and money laundering. . . .

I have been convicted of drug charges and the last incident occurred over 12 years ago. I have worked hard on moving forward with my life in a positive manner. That was and will be the last time I will ever commit a crime. The last time I spent in prison I promised myself that I would do all in my power to provide myself with ways to become a productive member of society so the time in prison I self educated and prepared my self for when I would be released. I read a lot of books on various subjects and took any educational course that was provided while I was in prison. I learned how to prepare myself for the future. I read on the law of attraction, I learned that with hard work, planning, and setting goals you can achieve anything. I read so much that it just taught me so much. I didn’t realize how important reading is. It caused me to change the way I think and look at life. Nothing is easy you have to work hard and things will fall into place. While I was in prison I signed up for all sorts of classes. I took advantage of all that would help me in the future. I have over 10 certificates on self help ranging from parenting, drug abuse, money management, addiction recovery and a course on the 7 habits of highly effective people based on the book. Even though I am not a drug user nor do I have kids. I have taken any class that can in anyway teach me to be a better person. I also took a college course on core construction which I passed and received a certificate and college credits as well.

While I was in prison I did not waste my time by just not doing nothing. I thought myself what I was not taught when I was young because I did not have a father figure to guide me. Now I know what it takes to make goals and achieve them. I go to book club called juntos. I have a new circle of friends. I no longer associate with people that don’t have anything positive going on. As you can see from my character letters that most of the people I associate myself with are business professionals that I have met in my line of work, which include realtors, bankers, loan officers and investors. I have also become a licensed contractor in the state of Arizona and had to this same process of disclosing my felonies and proving myself not just with words but with actions. I have a contracting company under Dynamic Homez LLC and have gone to school and passed my realtors exam. I have also been granted my rights back by the court of Arizona and my convictions have been set aside and I have included the court document in this packet as well. I have excelled so much and surrounded myself with a great network of people. I set myself up for success and I’m succeeding as a business professional in the [real estate] business and would like to become a [real estate] Agent to continue on the path of success. . . .

On or about September 16, 2019, the Maricopa County superior court set aside the judgment of guilt in Case No. CR2007-171597-002 and released Petitioner from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction, except those imposed by the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and restored Petitioner’s right to possess a firearm.

On or about August 24, 2011, Petitioner pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more in City of Phoenix Municipal Court Complaint #13796358 and was sentenced to serve 10 days in jail, to pay $1,600 in fines and assessments, and to complete SAS Counseling.

Petitioner explained the circumstances that led to this conviction in relevant part as follows:

On February 22, 2011 I was arrested for a misdemeanor dui charge . . . . It was something that was very stupid and foolish of me to do. We had gone out that night to celebrate a friends birthday and had a few drinks at the restaurant. On my way home I was pulled over by a police officer. I will be completely honest with you I was not impaired but I was over the legal limit and I take full responsibility four my actions which I have completed all the screening that was ordered of me, taken all the classe[s] mandated by the court and have paid all my fines. Now at this point in my life I don’t even drink its not worth it and I take care of my body and self like no other because I don’t want to [jeopardize] all that I have accomplished and the much more I will accomplish in life. Please believe me I have turned my life around for the better and I hope I able to prove to you that I really have left all the negative in the past. . . .

Additional Hearing Evidence

Karen Contreras

Ms. Contreras met Petitioner 10 years ago in a Christmas outreach event, giving toys to children. She and Petitioner have kept in touch since. They are friends, but not romantically involved. She was not aware of Petitioner’s criminal background at that time, but now knows that he spent 3-1/2 years in prison.

Ms. Contreras stated that Petitioner is a good person overall. He loves to help family and friends. He has continued to volunteer at Christmas to give children toys.

Ms. Contreras testified that Petitioner is honest and a straight arrow. He is never in trouble and does not smoke or drink. He has a contractor’s license and works hard, having purchased, renovated, and sold three houses. He deserves a chance.

Mohammed Khan

Mr. Khan has known Petitioner about 15 years. His family has a fragrance store, near Petitioner’s family’s cell phone store at 67th Avenue and Thomas Rd. Mr. Khan was a freshman at ASU when he met Petitioner. Mr. Khan has met Petitioner’s mom, grandmother, brothers, and sisters. Petitioner has always taken care of his mom and grandmother more than his brothers and sisters.

Mr. Khan was the Products Manager at American Express when he wrote the letter of reference for Petitioner. By the time of the hearing, Mr. Khan had been promoted to Senior Products Manager at American Express.

Mr. Khan knew that Petitioner was convicted of the felonies of possessing marijuana for sale in 2007 and transporting marijuana for sale in 2009. After Petitioner was sent to prison, Mr. Khan visited Petitioner five or six times. During Petitioner’s second incarceration, Mr. Khan became closer to Petitioner. Mr. Khan testified that while Petitioner was in prison, Mr. Khan saw a change. Petitioner had become interested in his future. He was taking classes to become a contractor. He told Mr. Khan, “I need to do better.”

Mr. Khan described Petitioner as a stand-up guy who always helped his mom. Mr. Khan testified that when Petitioner got out of prison, he went straight to work. It was a struggle in the beginning. But Petitioner was focused and determined. Petitioner has become more responsible since his release from prison. For example, Petitioner used to open up his family’s store around 11:00; now he opens the store at 8:30 or 10:00.

Mr. Khan testified that Petitioner developed an interest in design and architecture while he was in prison and now has books on the subject in his apartment. Mr. Khan does not see Petitioner much since he was released from prison because Petitioner spends 14 to 16 hours a day working on houses. Mr. Khan sees Petitioner about once a month, at barbeques for family and friends. Petitioner does not smoke or drink. Mr. Khan think that Petitioner has learned from his past.

Mr. Khan testified that his mother purchase of a house in 2010. They used a real estate agent who was a family friend because they trusted him and did not want to be pressured. It took 3 months to find the house and 3 months to close the sale because it was a short-sale. Mr. Khan testified that he would use Petitioner’s services if he were licensed. Mr. Khan trusts Petitioner with his house keys.

Mr. Khan testified that his sister and aunt are doctors. Petitioner has the same focus as his sister, who shut herself in her room when she was growing up so that she could study.

Manuel Garcia

Mr. Garcia has been a real estate agent for a little more than six years. His wife is a broker who has been in the industry for four years. Mr. Garcia is familiar with Petitioner’s criminal history and the requirements for persons to be licensed as real estate salespersons in Arizona. Mr. Garcia first met Petitioner 4-1/2 years ago.

Because Petitioner was interested in steps to buy and sell property, Mr. Garcia invited Petitioner to his house while his wife and kids were there. Mr. Garcia continues to see Petitioner socially. Mr. Garcia has met Petitioner’s sister and brother. Mr. Garcia has never seen Petitioner smoke or drink. Petitioner has encouraged Mr. Garcia to exercise and improve his health.

Mr. Garcia and his wife operate EMG Real Estate brokerage, which has 40 real estate agents. If the agents are new, Mr. Garcia helps his wife by training and coaching them how to buy and sell homes. Mr. Garcia said that the brokerage had one real estate agent with a felony and Mr. Garcia had to fill out paperwork every month because the agent’s license was on probation. The agent has since moved on to another company. Mr. Garcia tells his agent that they should be honest with the community.

Mr. Garcia testified that Petitioner has a contractor’s license and has built a home for Mr. Garcia. Petitioner is trustworthy and honest. He works hard in construction. Sometimes to close a real estate deal, work such as fixing a roof has to be done quickly. Petitioner has repaired a few houses for Mr. Garcia. Other contractors don’t have the manpower or organization skills and are unable to complete repairs timely. Petitioner timely performs repairs and has worked with some of the other real estate agents in Mr. Garcia’s and his wife’s brokerage. Even when the project is substantial, Petitioner has the generosity to give a discount.

Mr. Garcia agrees with Mr. Khan that Petitioner is focused and determined. If Petitioner were licensed, he would be a caring, trustworthy, honest agent. Because Petitioner is bilingual, Mr. Garcia believes he would serve the Hispanic community well.

Petitioner

Petitioner testified consistently with the written explanations that he submitted with his application. He acknowledged that he was convicted of three felonies based on two acts that he committed in 1999 and in 2007. Petitioner stated that he does not do drugs and only committed the crimes to help his mother. In 1999, he was still in high school.

Petitioner explained that he always had a drive to succeed. He just didn’t have goals. He grew up without a dad, so did not get any direction. He does not blame his mom, who got up early and came home late, working construction while he was growing up. Petitioner tried to help her by cleaning the house and looking after his four younger brothers. His older sister married early and left home.

Petitioner explained that there was always pressure in prison to side with race, but he did not join a gang. It was scary and he tried to keep to himself. The first time he was in prison, he took online classes through Texas A & M.

Petitioner testified that he lived with his mom with his younger brother and was doing okay after the first time he was released from prison in 2001 or 2002. He helped his mother purchase and run the CD/cellphone store. He found the location, signed the lease, and supervised employees. But in 2007, the market was going down and Sheriff Joe was threatening minorities. Petitioner’s family store catered to Hispanics and many were leaving the state. His mother was older; she is 67 now. No one would hire him because he was a felon.

Petitioner testified that after his second arrest, the prosecutor delayed filing charges against him to get the rest of the group involved in the crime and did not refile the charges until 2009. The year of his second conviction was the same year as his DUI. Petitioner testified that in west Phoenix, police frequently pulled him over when they ran his tags because he had a record. Petitioner denied being impaired, but admitted being over the legal limit. Petitioner testified that he no longer drinks.

Petitioner stated that while he was in prison, he tried to get information from other inmates about contracting and real estate. He took every class that was offered, including parenting, money management, and time management. Mostly he studied about real estate, construction, and self-help. He can’t afford to go to jail again. He is trying to live right.

Petitioner testified that besides his contractor’s license, he has his fingerprint clearance card. To get both the license and the card, he had to appeal the initial denial and convince the issuing authority that he had changed. He is trying to do everything he can to set himself up, including founding his construction company. He is motivated by need. Petitioner testified that he associates with different people than he did when he went to prison, including bankers, loan officers, and real estate people. His crimes are behind him; he is a different person. He has never worked so hard.

Petitioner testified that he now has good character. He loves people and would never hurt anyone. He only wants to figure out how to help people. He wants to create his best future and start a family and keep helping his mom and siblings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s appeal of its denial of his application for a real estate salesperson’s license based on his history of criminal convictions.

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that he is rehabilitated and that he now meets statutory qualifications for a real estate salesperson’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” 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.”

Petitioner does not dispute that in May 2000, he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, a felony, based on an act that was committed in February 1999. He does not dispute that January 2012, he was convicted of sale or transportation of marijuana and money laundering, both felonies, based on an act that was committed in November 2007. Petitioner credibly testified that he committed the acts that led to the convictions because his family needed money.

Petitioner does not dispute that in August 2011, he was convicted of misdemeanor DUI, based on an act that was committed in February 2011. Petitioner established that the poor decision that led to his arrest and conviction for DUI was an anomaly that is not likely to be repeated.

Therefore, cause exists under A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(2) and (B)(7) for the Department to deny Petitioner’s license application for a salesperson’s license.

None of the crimes involved an intent to defraud or misrepresentation, although the crime of money laundering arguably involved depriving the government of tax monies. Cause does not exist under A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(10) for the Department to deny Petitioner’s application for a salesperson’s license.

The legislature established the Department to protect “the public health, safety and welfare by regulating the sale of real estate . . . .” A real estate salesperson’s license is a privilege, not a right. The Department has discretion to grant or deny a license to an applicant under A.R.S. § 32-2153(B). The issue is whether in light of Petitioner’s past mistakes and the efforts that he has made to rectify those past mistakes, Petitioner at this time is rehabilitated and can be trusted to be responsible and forthright in his dealings with his clients and members of the public if the Department grants his application for a real estate salesperson’s license.

The issue of what constitutes good character or a lack thereof is nebulous at best. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter noted:

No doubt satisfaction of the requirement of moral character involves an exercise of delicate judgment on the part of those who reach a conclusion, having heard and seen the applicant . . . , a judgment of which it may be said as it was of "many honest and sensible judgments" in a different context that it expresses "an intuition of experience which outruns analysis and sums up many unnamed and tangled impressions; impressions which may lie beneath consciousness without losing their worth." . . .

Once good character is shown to be absent, it is not automatically regained by the mere passage of time. Positive and affirmative activities are required for a person to regain what was lost.

The time period required for a license applicant to establish rehabilitation is commensurate with the period of misconduct and the severity of the offenses. Petitioner testified credibly on his own behalf and consistently with the other evidence in this case. Petitioner’s last serious offense occurred in 2007, 13 years ago. He spent his last stint in prison preparing himself his release. His actions since his release have demonstrated his resolve and ambition to succeed honestly in a business or profession. His witnesses all corroborated his testimony.

Petitioner has established that he is rehabilitated, that he has changed his life, and that he has committed himself to a law-abiding and constructive future. The public does not need protection from Petitioner’s past poor decisions that resulted his past lack of direction.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Miguel Fernando Peña shall be granted a real estate salesperson’s license, subject to a two-year provisional term. The provisions include the following terms:

Only periods of active licensure shall accrue to the provisional license period.

Petitioner shall submit sworn quarterly declarations, under penalty of perjury, to the Department’s Compliance Officer stating that he has been in compliance with all provisions on his license.

During the provisional license period, Petitioner shall not act as a supervisor, branch manager, partner, owner, co-owner, or officer of any entity licensed under Title 32, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, and shall not handle or access property management clients’ trust funds.

During the provisional license period, Petitioner shall be licensed under the supervision of a real estate practice monitor (“practice monitor”), subject to the following terms and conditions:

Prior to or concurrent with hiring and submitting any license change form and fee to the Department, or if Petitioner is actively licensed within ten (10) days of the entry of the final order in this matter, whichever applies, any designated broker representing the Employing Broker employing Petitioner shall submit a signed statement to the Department Compliance Officer, together with the forms and fees for Petitioner to be employed by such broker, if required. The signed statement shall certify that the designated broker has received and read a copy of the final order in this matter, agrees to act as Petitioner’s practice monitor or appoints an associate broker who qualifies under the terms hereof, and agrees to comply with the following requirements:

The proposed practice monitor shall not have been a party to any prior disciplinary action by the Department.

The proposed practice monitor shall not be a partner of or a co-owner with Petitioner in any business enterprise, and shall not be a relative of or have any other relationship with Petitioner that may create, or create the appearance of, a conflict of interest or bias.

An associate broker may act as a practice monitor only if the associate broker is employed at the same location as Petitioner and has been appointed by the designated broker with full written authority pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2151.01(G) and 32-2127. An associate broker appointed to act as practice monitor shall also submit to the Department a signed statement certifying that the associate broker has received and read a copy of the final order in this matter, agrees to act as Petitioner’s practice monitor, and agrees to comply with the requirements set forth herein.

The proposed designated broker or associate broker who will act as Petitioner’s practice monitor is subject to review and written approval by the Department Compliance Officer. This written approval may be withdrawn in the sole discretion of the Department Compliance Officer at any time upon written notice from the Department Compliance Officer to Petitioner and the practice monitor.

The practice monitor shall immediately submit a written report to the Department Compliance Officer if the practice monitor becomes aware of any behavior or conduct in which Petitioner has engaged that violates real estate statutes or rules in which Petitioner has violated any terms of the final order in this matter.

If the practice monitor is an associate broker, the designated broker shall sign and date all reports required pursuant to the final order in this matter, noting that the designated broker has accepted and approved the associate broker’s report.

No practice monitor is required if Petitioner’s license changes to inactive status or expires.

In the event Petitioner changes employment or reactivates, Petitioner shall immediately notify the Department’s Compliance Officer and obtain a new practice monitor who qualifies under the terms and conditions hereof. The new practice monitor must be approved by the Department Compliance Officer before Petitioner’s hire by the new employing broker.

In the event Petitioner’s practice monitor is no longer eligible to act as such or ceases to perform the duties required under the terms of the final order in this matter, or there is a new designated broker for Petitioner’s existing employing broker, Petitioner, Petitioner’s practice monitor and/or Petitioner’s designated broker shall immediately notify the Department Compliance Officer. Unless Petitioner obtains a new practice monitor who qualifies and is approved under the terms and conditions hereof, termination of Petitioner’s employment shall be required within seventy-two (72) hours of the time Petitioner loses the practice monitor.

In the event Petitioner’s license becomes inactive or Petitioner fails to obtain a new practice monitor, Petitioner shall immediately cease and desist from engaging in any activity authorized by Title 32, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, and shall notify the Department Compliance Officer that the license is inactive. Petitioner shall obtain a new practice monitor before reactivating Petitioner’s license.

In the event Petitioner discontinues active employment as a real estate licensee in the State of Arizona, Petitioner shall immediately notify the Department Compliance officer and practice monitor. The practice monitor shall submit the proper form to the Department to place Petitioner’s license on inactive status.

Petitioner shall attend eighteen (18) hours of approved continuing education classes in the category of the Commissioner’s Standards. Within thirty (30) days after entry of the final order in this matter, Petitioner shall submit in writing to the Compliance Officer the course sponsor, title and number of the classes Petitioner proposes to take, and obtain the approval of the Compliance Officer. Petitioner shall submit certificates evidencing course completion to the Compliance Officer within one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of the final order in this matter. These continuing education classes shall be in addition to continuing education courses Petitioner has taken or will take for license renewal pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2130.

If the Department receives information that it deems credible that Petitioner has violated any subsection of A.R.S § 32-2153(A) or (B) or the conditions of her provisional license, the Department shall summarily suspend Petitioner’s real estate salesperson’s license and refer the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an expedited evidentiary hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1064(C) for revocation of the license.

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, June 17, 2020.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate