ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21F-162-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2021-04-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Application for Real Estate Broker License of:

GLASCOCK, EARL SCOTT, holder of License No. BR678397000 (Candidate),

Petitioner

No. 21F-162-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: April 8, 2021

APPEARANCES: Earl Scott Glascock on his own behalf; Holly Wan, Esq. for the Department of Real Estate

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 1, 2021, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on April 8, 2021 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

On December 12, 2020, the Department received Petitioner Earl Scott Glascock’s application for a real estate broker’s license.

In his application Mr. Glascock disclosed that on April 3, 2013, the Colorado Real Estate Commission had issued a Stipulation and Final Agency Order regarding disciplinary action that the Commission had taken against his Colorado Real Estate Broker’s license.

Through a letter dated January 8, 2021, the Department informed Mr. Glascock that it had decided to offer him a provisional license. Mr. Glascock requested a hearing, which led to this matter be scheduled.

Through the Notice of Hearing the Department alleged that Mr. Glascock violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-2153(B)(10).

Colorado’s Order included factual allegations against Mr. Glascock and identified the following violations: (1) converted or diverted funds of others without proper authorization, or comingled funds, or failed to keep funds in an escrow account; (2) violated provisions of the Broker License laws or rules; (3) was licensed under more than one name, or conducted business under a name which he was not licensed; (4) failed to deposit money into the account of the employing broker; and (5) advertised under a name other than that of his employing broker.

With his application, Mr. Glascock included a statement describing the facts that led to the Stipulation and Order against him. In that statement he noted that all funds at issue in Colorado had been accounted for and no funds went missing.

Through Colorado’s Stipulation and Order, Mr. Glascock agreed to the following sanctions: (1) public censure; (2) payment of a $2000 fine; (3) an additional eighteen hours of course work; and (4) additional audits.

In the statement Mr. Glascock submitted with his application he informed the Department that he had paid the fine, taken the additional coursework, and had passed the required audits without deficiencies. In his statement, Mr. Glascock also informed the Department that since the disciplinary action had been entered he had earned his RPM and MPM designations from the National Association of Residential Property Managers.

The Department’s Linda Bevins testified to the effect that Mr. Glascock’s violations of Colorado law would also be violations of Arizona’s real estate laws and that these were serious violations.

Under a provisional license, Mr. Glascock would be under the supervision of a broker, and from the Department’s perspective would be given the opportunity show that his is qualified to hold a broker’s license in Arizona.

Mr. Glascock testified as to his appreciation of the Department’s willingness to grant him a provisional license, understanding that it could have denied his application outright.

Nevertheless, Mr. Glascock testified as to his desire to obtain a regular license stressing that the discipline in Colorado had occurred over seven years ago and providing his opinion that he had been punished for those acts.

Mr. Glascock spent thirty years in the US Army during which time he received security clearances.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Mr. Glascock bears the burden of persuasion to show that he should be granted a non-provisional license. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(1).

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-2153(B) provides in pertinent part:

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:

***

10. Violated any federal or state law, regulation or rule that relates to real estate or securities or that involves forgery, theft, extortion, fraud, substantial misrepresentation, dishonest dealings or violence against another person or failure to deal fairly with any party to a transaction that materially and adversely affected the transaction. This paragraph applies equally to violations of which the licensee was convicted in any lawful federal or state tribunal and to any admissions made in any settlement agreement by the licensee to violations.

Mr. Glascock’s actions as set forth in Colorado’s Stipulation and Order are a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-2153(B)(10). Consequently, the Department has authority to deny his application.

The real estate statutes are designed to protect the public, rather than punish a violator. See Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC, 240 Ariz. 454 (Ariz. App. 2016). Consequently the fact that Mr. Glascock was sanctioned by Colorado’s Real Estate Commission does not limit or negate the Department’s duty to act in this matter.

The Department’s decision that Mr. Glascock be issued a provisional license that would allow Mr. Glascock to demonstrate that he is qualified to hold an Arizona broker’s license is reasonable. Mr. Glascock did not present substantial evidence to show otherwise or that he should be granted an unrestricted license.

Consequently, Mr. Glascock’s appeal should be denied, the Department’s denial of his application for an unrestricted license should be affirmed, and Mr. Glascock should be offered the opportunity to enter the Department’s proposed Consent Order granting him a provisional license.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Earl Scott Glascock’s appeal is denied and the Department of Real Estate’s decision to deny his application for an unrestricted license is affirmed.

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 is five days after the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, April 23, 2021.

/s/ Thomas Shedden

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000