ALJDEC - Licensing
24F-148-REL-RES · Department of Real Estate · 2025-10-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of the Real Estate Salesperson License of:
ANTHONY STROPE, holder of license number SA663221000,
Respondent.
No. 24F-148-REL-RES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 1, 2025
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Raya Gardner represented the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Respondent Anthony Strope appeared on his own behalf. Gabe Osborn appeared as a witness for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The parties stipulated to the admission of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s Exhibits 1-17.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 6, 2024, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) issued a provisional real estate salesperson’s license, License Number SA663221000, to Anthony Strope (“Respondent”). Respondent’s license is currently in “Eligible” status and is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2026.
2. On or about January 5, 2024, Respondent submitted an application to the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Respondent disclosed in his application that he had been convicted of two amended counts of Attempt to Commit Surreptitious Photo in the Maricopa County Superior Court, an undesignated felony that was designated a misdemeanor upon the completion of his probation, for which he was placed on three (3) years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a fine.
3. After reviewing Respondent’s disclosure and related documents, On January 11, 2024, the Department informed Respondent of its intent to deny the issuance of a real estate salesperson’s license.
4. Respondent appealed the Department’s decision and the matter was forwarded for an administrative hearing regarding the license denial.
5. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the Department offered Respondent an alternative for licensure in the form of a two-year provisional salesperson’s license. Unlike an outright denial, a provisional license would allow Respondent to work in the capacity of a real estate salesperson with certain restrictions and terms laid out in a Consent Order (“Order”).
6. The requirements included within the Order required Respondent to submit quarterly affidavits during the two-year provisional period attesting to his compliance with the Consent Order, submit a list of properties that Respondent had shown during the quarter, and remain compliant with all real estate rules and regulations.
7. On March 3, 2024, Respondent signed the Order.
8. On March 5, 2024, the Order went into effect after it was signed by the Commissioner of the Department.
9. On March 6, 2024, the Department sent Respondent an Introduction Letter via the Department’s Message Center reiterating the terms and condition of the Order and providing specific detailed instructions about maintaining compliance with the Order.
10. Specifically, the letter advised Respondent that the quarterly affidavits must be submitted on or before the deadline, even when Respondent was not employed with a brokerage, to avoid a violation of the Order. Additionally, the letter informed Respondent that the first affidavit would be due on June 3, 2024, and provided all subsequent deadlines during the two-year provisional period as follows: 1) September 1, 2024; 2) November 30, 2024; 3) February 28, 2025; 4) May 29, 2025; 5) August 27, 2025; 6) November 25, 2025; and 7) February 23, 2026.
11. The letter further informed Respondent that he must submit a list of all properties shown during the quarter when he submitted his quarterly affidavits.
12. Respondent opened the message containing the letter on the Message Center on March 6, 2024.
13. Gabe Osborn, the Department’s Compliance Specialist, testified as to the above and that since the Consent Order became effective, Respondent has failed to submit any of the required documents in a timely manner.
14. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to submit his first quarterly affidavit and list of properties by the June 3, 2024 deadline.
15. On June 4, 2024, the Department sent Respondent a message via the Message Center informing him that he was in violation of the Order due to missing the deadline and extended the deadline to June 11, 2024.
16. On June 11, 2024, eight (8) days after the original deadline, Respondent submitted his first compliance affidavit and a statement to the Department indicating that he had not shown any properties during the quarter.
17. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to submit his second quarterly affidavit and list of properties by the September 1, 2024 deadline.
18. On September 3, 2024, the Department sent Respondent a message informing him that he was once again in violation of the Order due to missing the deadline and extended the deadline to September 10, 2024.
19. On September 10, 2024, nine (9) days after the original deadline, Respondent submitted his second compliance affidavit and a statement to the Department indicating that he had not shown any properties during the quarter.
20. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to submit his third quarterly affidavit and list of properties by the November 30, 2024 deadline.
21. On December 16, 2024, the Department sent Respondent a message informing him that he was in violation of the Order for a third time due to missing the deadline and extended the deadline to December 23, 2024.
22. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent did not submit the documents by the extended deadline.
23. On December 24, 2024, the Department sent Respondent a second message regarding his late submission and extended the deadline for a second time to December 31, 2024.
24. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to meet the second extended deadline.
25. As a result, on January 3, 2025, the Department sent Respondent a Notice of Non-Compliance with Commissioner’s Order (“Notice”) via certified mail and the Department’s Message Center detailing Respondent’s noncompliance with the Order and extending the deadline for submission for a third time to January 17, 2025. The Notice advised Respondent that all future submissions must be completed by the deadline and any further continued noncompliance may result in further disciplinary action, including possible revocation.
26. On January 14, 2025, forty-five (45) days after the original deadline, Respondent submitted to the Department the third compliance affidavit and a statement indicating that he had not shown any properties during the quarter.
27. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to submit the fourth quarterly affidavit and list of properties by the February 28, 2025 deadline.
28. On March 5, 2025, the Department sent Respondent a message informing him that he was in violation of the Order due to missing the deadline and extended the deadline to March 12, 2025.
29. Mr. Osborn testified that Respondent failed to submit the documents by the extended deadline.
30. On March 20, 2025, the Department sent Respondent a second Notice of Non-Compliance with Commissioner’s Order (“Second Notice”) via certified mail and the Department’s Message Center notifying Respondent of his continued noncompliance and extending the deadline to submit the required documents and become compliant to April 8, 2025.
31. Respondent did not open the message, and the Second Notice was returned to the Department with a label that provided “return to sender, no mail receptacle, unable to forward.”
32. Respondent testified that at the time the Second Notice was mailed to him, his mailbox had been vandalized, and that he did not have a mailbox in which to receive mail.
33. Respondent acknowledged to not responding to the Department. Regarding the last two communications from the Department, Respondent testified that he did not see those communications because he had “a great deal of life issues” and “had a lot of things going on.” Respondent testified that this experience has been “eye-opening” and that he did not take this “seriously enough.”
34. Respondent testified that he had not activated his license, and feels the Department’s proposed discipline is “unfair and unjust just because [he] didn’t submit a piece of paper” and that such “does not protect the public.” Respondent asserted that revocation is an “egregious step for [not complying with] paperwork procedures.”
35. After hearing Respondent’s testimony, the Department withdrew the alleged violation of A.A.C. R4-28-303(D)(3).
36. The Department argued that Respondent’s conduct constituted violations of A.R.S. § 32-2153(A)(24), and warranted the revocation of his license. The Department argued that Respondent demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to be regulated, as he repeatedly failed to abide by the terms of the Consent Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 20, the Department has the authority and duty to regulate all persons engaged in the business of, or acting in the capacity of, a real estate broker or salesperson, and to enforce all statutes, rules, and regulations relating to real estate.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2153, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to deny, suspend, or revoke a broker or salesperson’s license for violations of rules and regulations.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Department bears the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Notwithstanding having been granted a two-year provisional salesperson’s license, Respondent, through the actions described in the above Findings of Facts, repeatedly violated conditions and terms of the Commissioner’s order by failing to timely submit quarterly affidavits attesting to his compliance with the Consent Order and submit a list of properties that Respondent had shown during the quarter, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-2153(A)(24).
The Department established that it has grounds to revoke Respondent’s real estate license pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2153(A)(24).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS ORDERED revoking Anthony Strope’s Real Estate Salesperson’s License Number SA663221000.
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, October 14, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Susan Nicolson, Commissioner
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Raya Gardner
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Anthony Strope
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff