ALJDEC - Licensing

25F-049-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2025-05-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Real Estate License of:

Consuelo Ramirez, holder of license number SA685069000

Respondent

No. 25F-049-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 14, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Raya Gardner appeared on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Respondent Consuelo Ramirez appeared on her own behalf.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Department of Real Estate Exhibits 1-8 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On April 23, 2019, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) issued Real Estate Salesperson’s License No. SA685069000 to Consuelo Ramirez (“Respondent”). That licensure expired on April 30, 2025.

Respondent had been employed as a real estate salesperson with HomeSmart, LLC (“HomeSmart”) brokerage since May 1, 2021.

On August 9, 2024, the Departments received a complaint against Respondent from Catherine Lynch (“Lynch”), a home buyer, alleging that Respondent failed to disclose material information during the purchase of a property located at 714 North 27th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85009 (“Property”). Lynch alleged that Respondent failed to disclose that there was a sinkhole on the property and that Respondent failed to disclose that she was in a dual relationship prior to entering into the purchase contract.

During the sale of the Property, Respondent represented to Lynch as the buyer’s agent through HomeSmart as the broker, and the seller of the property was represented by a different agent who was also employed with HomeSmart as the broker.

On September 24, 2022, Lynch signed a Residential Resale Real Estate Purchase Contract (“Contract”) for the property. At the time of Lynch’s initial signature of the Contract, in the section listed “Agency Confirmation” a checkmark was placed next to “Buyer” indicating that the listed broker was the agent of the buyer in the transaction, while the remaining two boxes, “Sell” and “both Buyer and Seller” remained blank. It was not until October 8, 2022, when Lynch added a checkmark with her digital signature in the previously blank box designated “both Buyer and Seller” in the “Agency Confirmation section of the Contract.

Also on that same date, Lynch signed a Real Estate Agency Disclosure Election form (“Disclosure Statement”) in which she agreed that Respondent, through HomeSmart would represent her as a buyer. Lynch also agreed that “Broker shall act as agent for both Buyer and Seller provided that the Seller consents to limited representation. In the event of a purchase, Buyer’s and Seller’s informed consent should be acknowledged in a separate writing other than the purchase contract.”

On September 26, 2022, the seller of the property singed the Contract. Under the “Seller Acceptance” section of the documents, two separate agents were listed as the broker through HomeSmart, on behalf of the seller. Within the “Agency Confirmation” portion of the seller’s acceptance, a checkmark was placed next to “Seller”, indicating that the listed broker in the transaction was an agent of the seller in the transaction. The remaining box designated “both Buyer and Seller” remained blank.

On October 5, 2022, Lynch signed a Residential Buyer’s Inspection Notice and Seller’s Response (“BINSR”), in which she listed items she disapproved of with the property. On October 6, 2025, the seller provided a response indicating she was unwilling or unable to correct any of the disapproved items. On October 8, 2022, Lynch accepted the seller’s response and agreed to proceed with the close of escrow without correction of any of the items on the BINSR.

On October 10, 2022, Lynch signed a Consent to Limited Representation acknowledging and approving HomeSmart to represent both parties during the transaction. Seller then signed the same on October 11, 2022.

The Department presented the testimony of Kathy Van Fredenberg who was the investigator in this matter. In addition to testifying as to the above, Ms. Van Fredenberg also testified to the following:

During her investigation, Ms. Van Fredenberg found an online advertising for Respondent in which she represented herself as “Connie Ramirez”. Ms. Van Fredenberg testified that this was problematic as that name was not a recognized nickname associated with Respondent’s license.

Ms. Van Fredenberg also testified that on August 30, 2024, Respondent signed an Accelerated Settlement Agreement and Order (“Consent Order”), following the Department’s findings of violations of the real estate rule and statutes pertaining to Respondent listing a property prior to executing a listing agreement and attempting to accept compensation for real estate activities from a person who was not authorized to provide compensation. Ms. Van Fredenberg testified that while Respondent paid the $500.00 penalty, she had not completed the required 9 hours of continuing education as required by the Consent Order.

The Department was seeking a $1,500.00 penalty and 3 hours of continuing education as a penalty.

Respondent testified that she usually acted as a dual agent for her transactions, and simply forgot to submit the required disclosures timely, because the seller’s agent was also from HomeSmart.

As to the violation of the Consent Order, Respondent testified that she was not made fully aware of the available classes, and/or there were no classes available during her available times, because she was now a full-time employee and only conducting real estate on the side. She testified however, that she did take 6 of the 9 required hours.

Further, Respondent testified that the amount of the fine was excessive as she had difficulty paying the $500.00 fine from the Consent Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 20, the Commissioner has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. The Arizona legislature has charged the Department with protecting the public and consumers who deal with licensed salespersons when it issues licenses. Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2153, the Commissioner has authority to deny, suspend, or revoke the real estate license of a broker or salesperson. Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2160.01, the Commissioner has authority to assess a civil penalty up to $1,000.00 per violation of the real estate laws and rules.

Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.07(G)(2) and A.A.C. 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 A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

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).

The evidence of record established and Respondent admitted, that she failed to expeditiously obtain written consent from all parties prior to the transaction occurring in violation of A.A.C. R4-28-1101(C) and (F).

The evidence of record established and Respondent admitted, that she did not fully comply with the Consent Order in violation of A.R.S. § 32-2153(A)(24).

In totality, the evidence of record established that grounds exist to discipline Respondent’s salespersons license pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2153.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a $1,000.00 civil penalty is appropriate, and that Respondent shall take a total of 9 hours of Continuing Education (3 from the prior Consent Order, and an additional 6 in hours relating the client relationships/disclosures or the like).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the above Final Order entered in this matter, Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, and such payment shall be made by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the Department.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED in the event that Respondent fails to pay the penalty within 60 days, and/or take the 9 hours of Continuing Education (on top of the already required courses for licensure) by July 1, 2026, Department shall take action to impose further discipline upon proper notice to Respondent.

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, May 29, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

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]

Consuelo Ramirez

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff