ALJDEC - Licensing

25-014-NOT · Secretary of State · 2026-03-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

Arlene Payan

Petitioner

Arizona Secretary of State

No. 25-014-NOT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

Respondent

HEARING: February 23, 2026

APPEARANCES: Petitioner Arlene Payan appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Arizona Secretary of State was represented by Kyle Cummings.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits 1-13 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 6, 2026, the Arizona Secretary of State (“AzSOS”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on February 23, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

The Notice of Hearing provided that the hearing was to resolve the dispute between Petitioner Arlene Payan and the AzSOS regarding its determination to deny her notary commission.

Diana Ogaz was the Notary Compliance Director for AzSOS. She testified as to the circumstances surrounding Ms. Payan’s application.

Ms. Ogaz testified to the following:

On or about November 17, 2025, the AzSOS issued a denial letter to Ms. Payan stating in pertinent part:

Due to your conviction of a felony or another crime involving fraud, dishonesty, or deceit specifically Theft–Class 6 Designated Felony, you do not meet the necessary requirements to become a notary public. Consequently, your application is denied in accordance with A.R.S. § 41-271(A)(3).

Ms. Ogaz also testified that Ms. Payan submitted multiple attachments to her application providing the background for her conviction.

In addition, Ms. Ogaz testified that while all of the attachments were reviewed, some were given greater weight than others.

Further, Ms. Ogaz testified that it was the nature of the conviction (i.e. theft which involved fraud, dishonesty or deceitfulness), rather than when it occurred which played a major part of the decision to deny the application.

Ms. Payan testified that while working at CVS, she obtained fraudulent refunds over several months. Ms. Payan did this to help her sick grandmother who has since passed away. Ms. Payan testified that she has been a law-abiding citizen since that time and since 2014 was a paralegal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that SOS violated applicable law by wrongfully, inappropriately, or incorrectly denying her Notary Commission under the circumstances of this case by a preponderance of the evidence. The standard of proof on all issues 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).

A.R.S. § 41-271(A)(3) provides:

A. The secretary of state may deny, refuse to renew, revoke, suspend or impose a condition on a commission as notary public for any act or omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the competence or reliability to act as a notary public, including any of the following:

. . .

3. A conviction of the applicant or notary public of any felony or a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or deceit. A conviction after a plea of no contest is deemed to be a conviction for the purposes of this paragraph.

The tribunal is concerned that the AzSOS has perhaps not given enough weight to the intervening 15 years since the crime occurred. Through the credible testimony presented, Petitioner has not committed any further crimes, let alone crimes involving fraud, dishonesty or deceit. Further, she has been a paralegal since 2014 which involves the public trust, and there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that she had misused that trust. The crime that was committed, Petitioner stealing from her employer, was a very serious crime, one which should warrant some hesitation by the AzSOS. However, should Ms. Payan be forced to wear this conviction like an albatross around her neck forever?

However, based on the nature of the conviction for fraud, dishonesty or deceit, it is recommended that the AzSOS’s decision to deny Ms. Payan’s application for commission be affirmed, as Ms. Payan has not sustained her burden of proof.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order, the Arizona Secretary of State’s denial of a Notary Commission to Petitioner Arlene Payan’s shall be affirmed and Petitioner’s appeal of SOS’s denial of a Notary Commission shall be dismissed.

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, March 10, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Adrian Fontes, Notary Public Complaint Coordinator

Secretary of State - Notary Public

Arlene Payan

[email redacted]

Kyle Cummings

Assistant Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff