ALJDEC - Licensing
24F-100-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2024-11-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of the Real Estate Salesperson License of:
ALEX WILKINS, holder of license number SA676696000,
Respondent
No. 24F-100-REL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 25, 2024
APPEARANCES: Respondent Alex Wilkins appeared on his own behalf. The Arizona Department of Real Estate was represented by Assistant Attorney General Lynette Evans.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department Exhibits 1 through 12
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 30, 2018, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) issued real estate salesperson license number SA676696000 to Alex Wilkins (Respondent). The license is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2026.
On June 15, 2005, the Department issued an entity license to US Investment Realty LLC.
US Investment Realty LLC has employed Respondent since January 18, 2023.
Arrowhead Capital Fund LLC (Arrowhead Capital) entered into a contract to purchase 2201 E. Everett Dr. (the Property) from Alisa Hernandez. The Arizona Corporation Commission had no record of Arrowhead in the state of Arizona.
Wilkins Investment Group LLC (Wilkins) is an Arizona domestic corporation incorporated on June 29, 2017. Respondent is the only member of Wilkins.
Investigation C23-000393
On August 30, 2023, the Department received a walk-in complaint from Santiago Romero.
Investigator Bret Biesenthal requested statements and documentation from Respondent and obtained, reviewed, and analyzed relevant records.
Mr. Biesenthal interviewed Mr. Romero and summarized his complaint as follows:
On August 10, 2023, Mr. Romero received a 5-Day Notice of Non-Payment delivered to his residence. The property ownership was in his mother’s name. Mr. Romero had lived at the property since 2006 and his mother, the owner, recently passed away. After his mother’s death, the property ownership transferred to his sister, Alisa Hernandez. Mr. Romero did not have a lease agreement and he did not understand the notice he received.
On August 15, 2023, Mr. Romero received a text message from an individual identifying himself as “Alex” with Arrowhead Capital with the phone number 602-754-8005. Mr. Romero requested a business card, which Alex did not provide. Alex also stated at that time he was “Alex Hernandez” and provided a photograph of a non-renewal of lease agreement, which listed “Prestige Realty” in the header of the document.
On August 16, 2023, Mr. Romero received a Notice of Nonrenewal of month-to-month tenancy. Respondent was identified as the landlord/property manager/authorized representative on the document. The document also listed Prestige Realty in the footer.
Mr. Romero contacted the Designated Broker of Prestige Realty, Richard Snapp, who indicated that Respondent had not worked for Prestige Realty for years.
On August 30, 2023, Mr. Biesenthal called the sister/owner, Alisa Hernandez who indicated that she sold the property to Respondent in a wholesale deal and was currently under contract.
On August 31, 2023, Mr. Biesenthal sent the complaint to Respondent requesting that Respondent provide a response to the complaint and supporting documentation by September 7, 2023.
On August 31, 2023, Mr. Biesenthal received a response from Respondent relating the following information:
Respondent contracted to purchase the property at 2201 E. Everett Dr., in Phoenix on August 10, 2023. The owner, Alisa Hernandez and her father explained to Respondent that her estranged brother, Mr. Romero, was occupying the property and that he would need to be evicted, as he has not been making the $900 payments.
Respondent stated that his Sales Associate was named Alex Hernandez and that his phone number was 602-754-8005. Respondent’s phone number was 623-210-9873.
Respondent and Alex Hernandez delivered the notice of Non-Payment to Mr. Romero. Mr. Romero called and said he never had a lease. Respondent later learned that it was a verbal agreement and then sent a notice of nonrenewal.
Respondent acknowledged that the form he used identified his old brokerage. Respondent stated that he must have accidently used an old form, but that he had discarded all of the old forms and only had forms with his current brokerage listed.
Mr. Biesenthal confirmed that on August 21, 2023, Respondent delivered a Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease Agreement by certified mail to Mr. Romero. In the August 21, 2023 Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease Agreement, Respondent signed line #18 as the Landlord/Property Manager/Representative.
The header and footer of The Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease Agreement identified Prestige Realty and included its phone number and address. Respondent had not worked for Prestige Realty since November 29, 2021.
The Five-Day Notice for Non-Payment of Rent identified Zona Law Group. The Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease Agreement contained incorrect brokerage/phone number/address information, and indicated that Respondent was acting through Prestige Realty.
Investigation C24-000109
Between February 2024 and July 2024, the Department received four consumer complaints involving alleged misrepresentations made by Respondent on recorded real estate transaction documents.
The Department conducted a review of real estate transaction documents that Respondent recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office from December 2021 through November 2023, related to his real estate investment business.
From the review, the Department found that Respondent misrepresented his employing brokerage on three (3) Residential Purchase Contracts, fourteen (14) addendums, and one (1) Buyer’s Inspection Notice Seller Response (BINSR). Of all the recorded transactions reviewed, Respondent never represented the correct brokerage he was licensed with at the time of the document’s creation.
Respondent misrepresented that he was with HomeSmart on three of the addendums. Respondent had never been employed with HomeSmart.
Respondent had stated in an August 31, 2023 letter to the Department, “I noticed the form I used does not say my old brokerage on it. . . . I have since tossed all of them out and only have ones with my current brokerage on them.” However, Respondent again listed his employing brokerage as Prestige Reality on an addendum executed on November 1, 2023, after Respondent sent the letter to the Department.
Prior Consent Order
On August 8, 2022, Respondent entered into an Accelerated Settlement Agreement and Order with the Department where he acknowledged he failed to disclose his status as a real estate licensee or his financial interest as a principal in a real estate transaction. Respondent paid a $500.00 civil penalty and agreed to remain in compliance with Arizona real estate statutes and Commissioner’s rules.
Hearing Evidence
At hearing, Respondent significantly downplayed the nature of the alleged violations. Respondent asserted that there was no benefit to him having the incorrect information regarding his brokerage on the documents. Respondent stated he was willing to pay a fine and attend the continuing education the Department requested. In fact, Respondent volunteered he was willing to pay a higher five than the Department and attend more hours of continuing education. However, Respondent believed a two-year provisional license and practice monitor was “overkill”. Respondent maintained that he did not “really do anything wrong.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commissioner has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2) and Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(B), the Department has the burden of proof in this matter.
The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(A).
The evidence of record established that Respondent knowingly authorized, directed, or aided in the publication, advertisement, distribution or circulation of any material false or misleading statement or representation concerning his business Arizona in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2153(A)(4).
The evidence or record established that Respondent represented or attempted to represent a broker other than the broker to whom he was licensed, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2153(A)(8).
The practice of real estate is governed by adherence to statutes and rules and requires the utmost care by a licensed real estate agent. Respondent’s actions and testimony demonstrated his complete unwillingness or inability to appreciate the consequences of his actions. Thus, Respondent has demonstrated that he is not able to be regulated at this time.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent’s real estate salesperson’s license shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, November 14, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Susan Nicolson, Commissioner
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Alex Wilkins
[email redacted]
Lynette Evans
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff