ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21F-270-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2021-08-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Real Estate License of:

BLANCO, EDDY, holder of License No. BR677299000,

Respondent.

No. 21F-270-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 15, 2021

APPEARANCES: Respondent Eddy Blanco appeared on behalf of himself. Holly Wan appeared on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On February 27, 2018, the Department issued a real estate salesperson

license to Respondent Eddy Blanco.

On March 9, 2021, the Department issued a real estate broke license to

Mr. Blanco.

3. From November 17, 2020 to March 9, 2021, Mr. Blanco worked as a real estate salesperson for Homesmart.

4. From March 9, 2021 to March 22, 2021, Mr. Blanco worked as an associate broker for Homesmart.

5. On March 22, 2021, Mr. Blanco left Homesmart and became the designated broker for Blanco Realty.

6. By letter dated March 23, 2021, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) notified Mr. Blanco that it had opened an investigation into Mr. Blanco’s advertising format.

7. The Department discovered that Mr. Blanco conducted advertising without clearly and prominently displaying the name of his employing brokerage on a sign post and on a backdrop. The Department discovered a sign post that included the logo of Mr. Blanco’s employing brokerage, but the name of the employing brokerage was not included. See Exhibit 2. Mr. Blanco was found in a photograph at an event near a backdrop with “THE REALTY KING” AND “EDDYTHEREALTYKING.COM FOR ALL YOUR REAL ESTATE NEEDS” prominently displayed without information regarding the brokerage. See Exhibits 3.

8. On or about March 23, 2021, Mr. Blanco provided a response to the Department’s March 23, 2021 letter.

9. On May 24, 2021, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing that provided in relevant part, as follows:

The nature and subject of the hearing shall be to determine whether grounds exist to revoke or suspend Respondent’s real estate license, and whether grounds exist to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per violation under A.R.S. § 32-2160.01, and any other relief....”

10. A hearing was held on July 14, 2021. The Department presented the testimony of its Senior Investigator Steve Hooper and submitted exhibits 1 through 5.

Mr. Blanco testified on behalf of himself.

11. Mr. Blanco testified to the effect that he was not aware that the sign post did not comply with the Department’s regulations and has since corrected the violation. Mr. Blanco explained that he knew that the banner at the networking event did not comply with the Department’s regulations. Mr. Blanco stated that he did not post the photograph of the banner to the internet. Mr. Blanco contacted “Google” who informed him that he could not remove the photograph. Google notified Mr. Blanco that the photograph must be removed by the person who posted the photograph.

12. The Department seeks to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 against Mr. Blanco.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Because at all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Adams was subject to the provisions of Title 32, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, the Department has jurisdiction over this matter.

2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). It is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

3. Under Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-28-502, a salesperson or broker must “ensure that all advertising identifies in a clear and prominent manner the employing broker’s legal name or the dba name contained on the employing broker’s certificate.”

4. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-2160.01, the Commissioner may assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation of any rule adopted by the Commissioner.

5. The Department established by a preponderance of the evidence that

Mr. Blanco failed to ensure that all advertising identified in a clear and prominent manner the employing broker’s legal name or the dba name contained on the employing broker’s certificate, on two separate occasions, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-28-502 and A.R.S. § 32-2143(A)(3).

6. The Department established grounds to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per violation against Mr. Blanco pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2160.01.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that the Commissioner assess a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 against Eddy Blanco.

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, August 4, 2021.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate