[0:00] Oh,
[0:01] >> yeah. Showing up the day after surgery,
[0:03] you get the uh gold star.
[0:07] >> Luckily, I feel good. So,
[0:09] >> good.
[0:10] >> I'm glad.
[0:12] >> I've started the recording,
[0:14] commissioners.
[0:15] >> Okay, it is 9 o'clock uh [clears throat]
[0:19] to welcome everyone to uh the Department
[0:22] of Commerce, Division Real Estate, Real
[0:25] Estate Commission meeting for July.
[0:28] We'll go ahead and call the meeting to
[0:30] order.
[0:32] Um,
[0:35] first item uh on the agenda is uh
[0:38] consideration approval of our meeting
[0:40] minutes of uh June 10th, 2026.
[0:47] » Motion to approve.
[0:49] >> Oops, sorry. Beat you Marie.
[0:53] >> Second.
[0:54] >> Motion and a second to approve the
[0:56] minutes. All in favor?
[0:59] >> I
[1:01] >> Okay, I as well. That passes
[1:05] unanimously. Um
[1:08] moving moving quickly here. U do we have
[1:13] this is our period for public comment.
[1:16] Um do we have anybody that wishes to
[1:20] make public comment address the
[1:21] commission?
[1:30] Um, I have a question.
[1:33] I'm just wondering, um, if the
[1:38] commission has re-evaluated the laws
[1:43] regarding limited agency or if you're
[1:46] looking into that at all.
[1:52] I I don't think that we uh we are at the
[1:56] moment. Can you give us a little more
[1:57] context to that?
[1:59] >> Yeah, just with the
[2:03] increase in um well with the with the
[2:08] changes that NAR made in 2024
[2:12] um with requiring an agency agreement to
[2:16] show homes. Um, I'm just noticing a lot
[2:19] more buyers
[2:22] going online
[2:24] >> and um thinking that they are
[2:29] requesting a showing from the listing
[2:31] agent. They're being asked to sign a
[2:35] buyer broker agreement
[2:37] um in order to see homes or being
[2:39] required to sign a buyer broker
[2:42] agreement in order to see homes. They're
[2:44] not really necessarily
[2:46] being explained agency is from what I'm
[2:49] noticing or experiencing. They're
[2:52] um and then they're being directed to
[2:56] the listings of those agents that are
[2:59] capturing them off of Zillow and other
[3:02] websites as opposed to being shown homes
[3:04] that they're requesting to see.
[3:07] So, I'm noticing a lot more
[3:11] homes that are being sold uh with
[3:13] limited agency or dual agency. And I'm
[3:16] just wondering if the way things are
[3:19] changing now with big brokerages and
[3:21] teams and collaborations of companies if
[3:24] that's in the best interest of the
[3:26] consumers.
[3:39] I to I totally understand uh what you're
[3:43] saying, Miss Larson. And uh as a broker,
[3:47] um I hate
[3:50] uh limited agency from a single agent uh in the same transaction.
[3:57] [clears throat] And yet
[3:59] sometimes it's better than unrepresented
[4:01] buyers because uh there's, you know, so
[4:05] many things you can't do as an as a
[4:08] sellers's agent with an unrepresented
[4:11] buyer that uh the public is probably
[4:14] better off sometimes being in a limited
[4:16] agency situation. And I never thought I
[4:18] would say that, but as many
[4:20] unrepresented buyer transactions as
[4:22] we've seen over the past year and a
[4:24] half, uh
[4:27] I don't know. It's a It's definitely an
[4:29] issue. There's no question about it.
[4:33] >> Yeah. And I I'm just seeing a lot of
[4:37] these buyers, you know, they they think
[4:39] they're clicking to see, you know,
[4:41] talking to the listing agent just to see
[4:43] a home. you know, they may not even be
[4:45] ready to buy, but then they're being
[4:47] locked into a buyer broker agreement for
[4:49] a year or, you know, and and I've had
[4:53] three occasions where it's been a friend
[4:57] or a family member or something like
[4:58] that and then they come to me
[5:01] saying, you know, we want to buy a
[5:04] house, but now we're we've signed
[5:06] agreement with these people because we
[5:08] just wanted to see a house and now we
[5:10] can't have our own representation that
[5:11] we actually wanted.
[5:14] Yeah, I think that's the bigger issue in
[5:16] my mind is just that these buyers are
[5:18] getting forced into signing an agreement
[5:21] and locking themselves up with the
[5:23] buyer's agent, which is a result of the
[5:25] lawsuit.
[5:27] >> I don't like doing business that way. I
[5:28] want to make sure that they feel
[5:30] comfortable working with me and I think
[5:32] that's caused a lot of problems.
[5:35] >> Yeah. The agent doesn't know whether
[5:36] they want to work with this client and
[5:38] vice versa.
[5:39] >> [clears throat]
[5:40] >> That's why we typically
[5:43] will do a limited showing agreement on
[5:45] that first house before we
[5:48] know whether we want to sign a buyer
[5:50] broker agreement and they want to.
[5:53] >> Maybe a better question would be should
[5:56] the division or commission um
[6:01] come up with a standard form for that so
[6:03] that the buyer broker agreement isn't
[6:05] the only option.
[6:08] I know U looked seriously into that and
[6:11] uh there were so many um
[6:15] so many different um issues with it and
[6:19] so I know that the
[6:22] uh Washington County Board put together
[6:24] one um that's pretty good. That's what
[6:27] our company uses. So, but yeah, I don't
[6:32] know whether it's the state's obligation
[6:33] because the state this the N lawsuit
[6:37] doesn't affect the state law.
[6:39] >> Right.
[6:42] » Chair Danny Naylor's got his hand
[6:45] raised.
[6:49] » Danny, go ahead. Are you
[6:51] >> Yeah.
[6:52] >> wanting to talk on this topic?
[6:54] >> Yeah, this topic. Um just uh briefly,
[6:57] I've been working on a proposal for um
[7:00] the topic of a single agent limited
[7:03] agency and potentially making that
[7:05] illegal. And I think that type of action
[7:08] might help with these situations because
[7:10] I think agents would be less eager to
[7:13] put someone under a long-term contract
[7:15] if they didn't have that limited agency
[7:18] possibility. Um I've got a lot more to
[7:20] talk about on that topic, but I didn't
[7:22] have it all prepared today. I just
[7:24] wanted to mention that since it was
[7:25] brought up.
[7:27] >> Okay. Uh Amanda Men and all is this on
[7:31] the same topic?
[7:32] >> Yes. Thank you, um chair. So, um I think
[7:36] that if the commission were ever to um
[7:39] look at limited agency and right here,
[7:42] the way that Miss Larson's raising it, I
[7:44] don't think it really is the limited
[7:46] agency that's the problem. um the
[7:48] commission would need to um consider how
[7:50] that would disproportionately affect the
[7:52] rural communities because in the rural
[7:54] communities I mean essentially if if an
[7:57] agent has a buyer broker and can not
[8:01] show that buyer their own listings
[8:03] that's that's only harming the consumer.
[8:06] So I just think that that needs to
[8:08] really be considered because you know in
[8:10] Salt Lake it's a little bit different
[8:12] but um you know in somewhere in a small
[8:14] town like Monaceel
[8:16] that would have an extraordinary effect
[8:20] and harm on the consumer. So
[8:22] >> I I think that's a a very valid point.
[8:25] Thank you for that Miss Menhal. Um, and
[8:28] I don't know
[8:30] that
[8:32] there's an inherent problem with limited
[8:35] agency. I think limited agency actually
[8:38] spells out pretty well uh the the buyer
[8:42] obligations
[8:43] uh or or the agent obligations to both
[8:46] parties. Um
[8:49] maybe there needs to be some consumer
[8:51] education.
[8:53] Uh, I mean, I I I see more sophisticated
[8:58] uh buyers
[9:01] saying, you know, hey, we want to see
[9:03] this property uh specifically and we
[9:06] only want to sign a property specific uh
[9:10] buyer broker agreement. Um, so I think
[9:13] there's some awareness there. Um, you
[9:16] know, I think it's a great great topic
[9:18] and something to consider. Um I but I
[9:22] I'm I'm not sure I'm really inclined to look at at banning limited agency. Um
[9:30] and I don't know that we can require
[9:33] I mean you know we're dealing with
[9:34] national websites and it is you know it
[9:38] certainly is a challenge. I mean, I I
[9:40] just had a similar situation where
[9:44] uh
[9:46] past client of mine contacted me about a
[9:49] house that his daughter was interested
[9:51] in and and after a little bit of
[9:53] discussion, I I said, "Well, has your daughter seen the house?" "Yes,
[9:58] she's seen it. Did she sign anything?"
[10:01] "Well, I'll have to check." And it it
[10:03] happened to be through uh through
[10:05] Zillow. And uh
[10:09] it was interesting because they ended up
[10:10] making an offer, signing by book
[10:12] agreement, making an offer. Uh the dad
[10:15] got involved. These were firsttime
[10:18] buyers.
[10:19] The house really didn't meet their needs
[10:22] and it was an area that they were
[10:23] unfamiliar with and they subsequently uh cancelled the transaction. But it it
[10:29] certainly highlights this this exact
[10:32] situation. Uh
[10:34] so, you know, it it it's probably one of
[10:37] the
[10:39] not necessarily unintended consequences,
[10:41] but one of the problematic consequences
[10:43] of of of what's happened over the last
[10:45] couple years of the market. So,
[10:49] >> is there any Go ahead, Commissioner
[10:50] Smith.
[10:50] >> Yeah. As much as I uh dislike um single
[10:54] agent limited agency, most of the time,
[10:57] there are definitely times when it is um
[11:00] when it is the right thing to do. Um
[11:03] someone calls that you have a
[11:05] relationship and they see that you just
[11:07] listed such and such property and you
[11:09] have rep you have relationships with
[11:11] both parties uh already. Um I think
[11:14] that's one good example. like Amanda
[11:17] said, the the rural areas, it's very
[11:20] common um where there are lots fewer
[11:23] agents to to see that uh scenario. So,
[11:27] yeah, I'm not inclined while I'm a
[11:29] commissioner to to u make dual agency um
[11:37] illegal like some states have. I think
[11:40] they they have seen some some problems
[11:43] with that since doing that. And uh so
[11:47] I'm probably not inclined as much as I dislike it, but u definitely
[11:53] issues that need to be more thoroughly
[11:56] vetted for sure since the N lawsuit
[11:58] settlement.
[12:00] >> Yeah, I think a a lot more of the
[12:02] concern that I'm seeing I'm in St.
[12:03] George [clears throat] for the most part
[12:06] and a lot of the concern I'm seeing
[12:08] especially with the um experiences that
[12:10] we we've had is not necessarily a single
[12:14] agent limited agency but within the
[12:16] brokerage or company um where it's
[12:20] they're just passing them on to their
[12:21] team and where there's these bigger
[12:24] teams that are basically a brokerage.
[12:26] [laughter]
[12:27] um you know, they're they're kind of
[12:29] keeping things in house and and
[12:31] directing the buyers from the home that
[12:33] they want to see to a team or a
[12:37] brokerage listing.
[12:39] And so it's more like limited agency
[12:42] within a brokerage than just like a
[12:45] single agent.
[12:46] Um, but definitely there needs to be
[12:49] more education I think for the
[12:51] consumers, especially when they're being
[12:54] um I I feel misled, you know, when they
[12:58] think that they're clicking on a listing
[12:59] to see it through the listing agent and
[13:01] then they're being taken somewhere else.
[13:04] Um, are you seeing more complaints with
[13:07] the division as far as that goes, like
[13:10] from agents or consumers?
[13:16] I I can comment on that. I um so I
[13:19] appreciate you bringing this up, Miss
[13:20] Larson, because um I was recently
[13:23] reading something. I want to say it
[13:24] might have been from the Consumer
[13:26] Federation of America. I'm not sure
[13:28] about this. Um, I I'm pretty sure what
[13:31] you're talking about is when when they
[13:32] go on a site and they see a home they
[13:35] like and they think that when they click
[13:38] to speak with an agent that's the
[13:39] listing agent, but in fact it is an
[13:42] agent seeking [clears throat] to
[13:43] represent a buyer um who has maybe paid
[13:47] some sort of fee to to the service. Um,
[13:50] say that this is something we're looking
[13:52] at. I'm not sure that we've received
[13:53] complaints because um I don't know how much consumers are realizing what's
[14:00] happening there. Um I think inherently
[14:04] they they're sensing like, "Oh, I
[14:06] thought I was going to talk to the
[14:07] person who had listed this property, but they can't really sense So, it's
[14:12] definitely something on our radar just
[14:13] because um you know, we we want
[14:17] consumers um you know, if they want
[14:20] representation, we want to make sure
[14:21] that they're able to find licensed um
[14:24] individuals to help represent them. Um
[14:27] but we don't want them to um be kind of
[14:31] maybe misled a little bit into who
[14:33] they're actually reaching out to. So,
[14:36] um, the short answer is I'm not sure
[14:38] that we've seen a lot of complaints, but
[14:40] it's definitely something on the
[14:41] division's radar.
[14:44] >> It it might be interesting to look at it
[14:46] from a from a standpoint of are those
[14:50] websites engaging in deceptive
[14:53] practices.
[14:59] Yeah, the opposite side of that of that
[15:01] whole scenario is
[15:04] um all idx solutions go away because
[15:09] when you look at at Zillow or Realtor or
[15:13] any of these other big portals, they all
[15:16] have on there marketed by such and such,
[15:19] which is the requirement for an idx
[15:21] solution. And uh so more consumer
[15:25] awareness is probably probably the
[15:27] answer because I don't think any of us
[15:29] want to to lose all of our idx solutions
[15:32] out there
[15:34] >> and it may be you know on a on a broader
[15:37] scale an M MLS policy issue with N
[15:44] out outside of [clears throat] you know
[15:46] state licensing law.
[15:48] So,
[15:51] >> okay. Thank you.
[15:52] >> Thanks for bringing that to our
[15:54] attention, Mson.
[15:56] Any other comments from uh from the
[15:58] public at this time?
[16:01] Uh let's see. I think we have Mike
[16:05] Selco.
[16:07] >> Yes, that's correct. [clears throat]
[16:10] Go ahead.
[16:11] >> Hi, my name is Michael Selco. I'm a
[16:13] homeowner in Salt Lake County. On
[16:15] December 9th, 2025, I filed a complaint
[16:17] with Division of Real Estate against a
[16:19] licensed associate broker who
[16:21] participated in what I believe is an
[16:23] unlawful foreclosure rescue transaction.
[16:26] The scheme is the classic sale leaseback
[16:28] model. Same type of scheme that this
[16:30] division warned licences about in its Q4
[16:33] 2023 newsletter just 6 months before my
[16:35] transaction occurred. The division
[16:37] followed that warning with another one
[16:39] in its Q1 2025 newsletter specifically
[16:42] addressing foreclosure rescue and equity
[16:44] stripping schemes. Despite those
[16:46] warnings, I was one of the victims. Uh I
[16:48] submitted contracts that were drafted by
[16:50] the respondents themselves, emails,
[16:52] docuign, court filings, sworn affidavit
[16:55] under penalty of perjury, all proving
[16:58] the statutory violation. Um, and I've
[17:01] even submitted sworn testimony from
[17:03] third district court um by the
[17:05] respondent where she admits
[17:08] um violating every element of the
[17:10] statute. Um, since my filing, I've
[17:13] identified 10 similar transactions
[17:15] throughout the state um all with the
[17:17] same boilerplate
[17:19] uh contracts, all the same actors, same
[17:21] participants uh and the same forclosure
[17:24] rescue structure. I was the second of
[17:26] those 10 who was evicted. Since I filed
[17:29] my complaint with this division, three
[17:31] additional homeowners have been evicted.
[17:33] So that brings the total to five. So
[17:35] half of half of the ones that I found
[17:37] have now been evicted. Um
[17:40] so yesterday I asked uh director for an
[17:43] update. She informed me investigation
[17:45] remains ongoing. Uh and you haven't
[17:46] reached any conclusions and it's not
[17:49] appropriate for comment. I I guess I I
[17:52] don't understand that but I'll accept
[17:54] it. Um, but I also want to point out
[17:56] that the legislature anticipated this
[17:58] situation where ongoing harm to the
[18:01] public is occurring. Um, in Utah code
[18:04] section 61-2F-407,
[18:07] it specifically provides that the
[18:09] director shall issue a cease and desist
[18:11] order when the director has reason to
[18:14] believe that a person has been engaging
[18:16] or is engaging or is about to engage in
[18:19] conduct violating the act and that when
[18:22] stopping the act is in the public
[18:24] interest. The legislature didn't use the
[18:26] word may. It uses the word shall and in
[18:29] statutory language for Utah that means
[18:32] uh shall means must. Um so in my opinion
[18:35] the legislature understood something
[18:37] fundamental there irreparable harm is
[18:40] happening to these homeowners and these
[18:41] families who are being evicted and
[18:43] stripped of their equity um while this
[18:45] investigation is ongoing and irreparable
[18:48] harm occurs when they get evicted. You
[18:51] can't put you can't put all those pieces
[18:53] back together later.
[18:56] though this is exactly why the
[18:57] legislature created the cease and desist
[18:59] authority for the director. Um the
[19:01] mission of the division of real estate
[19:03] is to protect the public. The
[19:05] legislature has given the director um
[19:07] the power to stop these these evictions
[19:11] and stop the enforcement and stop the
[19:14] damage from happening. So my question to
[19:16] the commission is pretty simple. There's
[19:18] seven months of investigation, 10
[19:20] similar transactions.
[19:23] um the respondent's own contracts,
[19:25] communications, sworn affidavit in
[19:26] courts of law, all all all
[19:31] um identify that every element of the
[19:33] statute has been violated. Um and people
[19:36] continue to lose their homes. And so at
[19:39] what point, how many more people need to
[19:40] lose their homes before this division
[19:42] will step in and stop it? Um and so
[19:46] that's really my question. Or how much
[19:47] evidence is is necessary?
[19:50] Thank you.
[19:52] Mr. Sco.
[19:55] Um, director, do you want to
[19:58] Yes.
[19:59] >> on
[20:00] and I don't Elliot uh with the AG's
[20:03] office needs to jump in at this point or
[20:06] [clears throat]
[20:07] >> Thank you, Chair Southwick. So, um and I want to thank Mr. Selco for for
[20:12] his public comment. Um as he stated, we
[20:16] have corresponded via email. Uh there is
[20:20] a pending investigation into Mr. Selco's
[20:23] complaint. It is assigned to
[20:26] investigator Martenddale um who and uh
[20:29] chief investigator Kalin has been
[20:32] involved in that process as well. Um I
[20:36] would say at this point no options in
[20:40] terms of our legal recourse avenues have
[20:43] been ruled out. Um Mr. Selco mentions
[20:47] the cease and desist power that the
[20:50] director holds. Um and so while I can't
[20:54] opine as to um
[20:58] our deliberative process in Mr. Celco's
[21:01] specific case. Um I can just state
[21:03] generally uh the way the cease and
[21:05] desist power works is that the director
[21:07] can issue an order to someone um
[21:10] basically to cease and desist violating
[21:12] um either a provision of the act or the
[21:16] whole act and its associated rules. um
[21:19] that uh any proceeding following that
[21:22] the issuance of the cease and desist is
[21:24] a formal proceeding versus an informal
[21:27] and a respondent has 10 days within
[21:30] which to request a hearing. Um and so uh
[21:35] that hearing goes before the commission
[21:37] just like our other hearings and if the
[21:39] order is upheld the respondant is
[21:42] required to continue to comply. Um the
[21:45] important thing about a cease and desist
[21:46] order is that um it it is immediately
[21:51] effective as soon as I issue that order.
[21:53] It is not um stayed or or held off
[21:57] pending a hearing. It is in place. Um
[22:01] which the division appreciates is a is a
[22:03] very um serious exercise of governmental
[22:06] power. Um again, not saying it's not
[22:09] appropriate in Mr. Selco's complaint,
[22:11] but I wanted to make sure the commission
[22:13] um had a picture of that authority
[22:15] because I don't know how many times the
[22:17] division has used it in the past. Um if
[22:21] the order is upheld and a respondent
[22:23] continues to uh engage in the conduct or
[22:27] um
[22:28] otherwise not comply with the order, the
[22:31] division has the power to seek recourse
[22:33] in court, which is um unlike some other
[22:36] divisions. uh division of real estate
[22:39] doesn't typically originate actions in
[22:42] civil court. Um but that's one avenue um
[22:45] for us if the respondent continues to
[22:47] violate. Um something important um is
[22:50] that what is not within our power is to
[22:54] um step into a proceeding like an
[22:58] eviction proceeding and halt that
[23:01] proceeding. The division can't enter
[23:03] into that civil case and stop that. um
[23:06] we can order individuals to stop
[23:09] violations
[23:10] um but but uh there is a limit to um
[23:14] what we are able to um prevent or halt
[23:18] on on the civil lawsuit side. So um
[23:21] happy to answer any questions the
[23:22] commission has but I hope that
[23:24] background is is at least helpful. Um
[23:27] and again thank you Mr. Selco for for
[23:29] your comment
[23:33] » Mr. Clark, the Attorney General's
[23:35] office.
[23:36] >> Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to say so,
[23:38] uh, Mr. Selco, my name is Elliot Clark.
[23:40] I'm the assistant attorney general who
[23:41] represents the commission. And so within
[23:44] title 61, you'll see there's a division
[23:46] of respons responsibilities between the
[23:49] division and the commission. And so
[23:51] that's sort of the situation we're
[23:52] dealing with. This is a commission
[23:54] meeting. Um, as far as I'm aware, this
[23:56] hasn't ended up on the commission's
[23:58] plate yet, which is why, you know, it's still working through the process
[24:02] on the division side. Um, if it ends up
[24:05] on the commission's agenda after that
[24:07] process, we'll address it then. But, um,
[24:09] and of course, you're welcome to make
[24:11] public comment as you have, but at this
[24:13] point, the commission doesn't really
[24:14] have anything more to say other than
[24:16] that. We'll just see how it plays out on
[24:17] the division side, and if we deal with
[24:19] it at a later date, you'll be made aware
[24:22] it'll be on the agenda.
[24:30] Thank you, Elliot. Um,
[24:33] you know, I I guess as um
[24:38] you know, I
[24:40] speaking for myself, I guess my request
[24:42] would simply be that uh this particular
[24:46] investigation
[24:47] be given the highest priority. So we I
[24:50] mean clearly it's uh
[24:55] indicates some some some serious issues
[24:58] and and uh
[25:02] need for protection of the public. So if
[25:04] we can, you know, Mr. Martindell and and
[25:07] the staff can make it a top priority, we
[25:11] I think we would the commission would
[25:12] appreciate that.
[25:20] Mr. Sco, I don't know if you have any
[25:22] further comment or
[25:23] >> No, I appreciate it. I just I wanted to
[25:25] raise it um raise it and see. I
[25:28] understand um the director's points
[25:30] about that's a serious the cease and
[25:32] desist is a serious use of authority. Um
[25:36] at the same time, for us homeowners who
[25:39] are having our lives ripped apart, it's
[25:41] pretty serious. Um and we we can't can't
[25:45] get it back. And so, um, anyway, so I
[25:48] understand Elliot's point that it's not
[25:50] on the commission's plate yet. So, um, I
[25:53] guess I don't have any other option to
[25:54] wait and see. I would also just suggest
[25:56] the court system. Um, first of all, most
[25:58] of the victims, if you're in a
[26:00] foreclosure rescue, you don't have money
[26:02] to go file civil suit. And so, the
[26:05] offenders know that. Um, I have been
[26:07] able to do that. And so, but the court
[26:11] um the courts also even in the eviction
[26:13] hearing, they look to the division and
[26:14] say, "Hey, this is for the division to
[26:16] go police." And so, we're all just kind
[26:19] of standing here looking and and saying,
[26:20] "When when will the division act?" Um I
[26:23] know in the last commission meeting
[26:25] there was a there was a hearing or
[26:27] whatever for for somebody for tax fraud.
[26:29] Um I think about the same time frame. I
[26:32] would just suggest this is a a serious
[26:34] issue and if we could get it get it
[26:36] raised up and moved along quickly that
[26:37] would that would help us us public who
[26:40] are hoping you guys will protect us.
[26:42] >> So thank you. I appreciate it.
[26:44] >> Thank you. Thank you for bringing this
[26:45] to our attention.
[26:49] Is there any anyone else wishing to
[26:52] address the commission during our public
[26:54] comment period?
[26:57] Seeing none, uh, we will move to our
[27:00] division section reports and start with
[27:04] director Vette.
[27:06] >> Thank you, chair, and good morning,
[27:08] commissioners. It's great to see y'all.
[27:11] Um, so the first thing I wanted to touch
[27:13] on is that the division has received
[27:16] approval from the Department of Commerce
[27:19] to hire a office specialist who will be
[27:23] a real estate licensing specialist on a
[27:25] temporary basis. So right now we're
[27:27] looking at a duration of about 3 to 6
[27:30] months. Um we as as I think the
[27:34] commission knows uh the division has
[27:36] received some um feedback um that we
[27:40] appreciate. I I do want to thank uh
[27:42] those licences and stakeholders who have
[27:45] reached out to us to help us uh
[27:48] understand um how a licensing processing
[27:52] timeline is impacting them especially in
[27:55] um today's economy. Um and because we
[27:58] received that candid feedback, we were
[28:00] able to uh work with the department on
[28:03] some potential solutions. Um and one of
[28:06] those is the hiring of this office
[28:08] specialist. Um, so Laurel North, our
[28:12] licensing and education manager, has
[28:14] gotten that job posted. Um, it can be
[28:18] found uh by anyone interested by going
[28:21] to dhrm.utah.gov
[28:27] and then if people scroll down, they can
[28:28] click search jobs and it's job posting
[28:32] 1748.
[28:35] Um, and I believe it the title of it is
[28:37] real estate licensing specialist. Um, it
[28:42] is a pretty tight application window. It
[28:44] closes um, I believe at midnight
[28:47] tomorrow on the 16th. And so um, we are
[28:52] hoping uh, to get this person hired
[28:55] quickly. Um, and like I said, the hope
[28:57] is that they'll they'll stay with us for
[28:59] at least 3 to six months. um and to help
[29:03] us speed up um our processing times and
[29:07] our ability to handle [clears throat]
[29:09] volume of applications. So um again we
[29:14] are we uh are very thankful for the
[29:17] candid feedback we've received and and
[29:19] we are uh doing our best to respond to
[29:21] it and provide um some solutions for
[29:24] lences.
[29:26] Um, I just wanted to touch on that the
[29:28] division will be closed for the Pioneer
[29:30] holiday on the 24th. Um, as I think most
[29:34] of you know, I came to Utah from out of
[29:36] state and so Pioneer Day was a new
[29:38] holiday to me. So, um, in case any
[29:40] members of the public um, are wondering,
[29:43] we will be closed on that day. So, um,
[29:45] but we will, um, open for business the
[29:48] next business day that occurs. Um
[29:52] I wanted to touch also on the topic of
[29:55] fees. Um and so I understand that per
[29:59] statute um the uh commission um works
[30:04] with the division um and concurs on
[30:06] setting fees. Um we have a new license
[30:09] coming online in January, the property
[30:12] manager license. And so we need to set
[30:15] fees for that so that when we start
[30:17] accepting applications, we have
[30:20] associated fees. Um [clears throat] we
[30:23] know how that works on our end through a
[30:25] law called the budgetary procedures act.
[30:27] It involves a public fee hearing. Um but
[30:30] I was wondering if anyone on the
[30:31] commission um had any preference for how
[30:35] we handle y'all's concurrence on those
[30:38] fees. Um the fee hearing is set for July
[30:42] 27th. So, I was thinking if if that
[30:45] hearing goes well about adding it to
[30:47] your August agenda for the commission's
[30:49] ratification.
[30:51] [snorts] Um,
[30:52] I believe, if I'm remembering correctly,
[30:55] um, we have set the fees initially or
[30:59] hope to set them at the same cost for a
[31:01] sales agent application. Um, because we
[31:05] anticipate it will take about the same
[31:07] amount of work to process. Um, that
[31:10] being said, once we start the licensing
[31:12] program, we will have a better idea of
[31:14] what the appropriate fee is and we can
[31:16] revisit it as we know what the licency
[31:19] pool will be. Um, because you can't
[31:21] really adequately calibrate a fee until
[31:24] you know how many applicants or renewals
[31:26] you're going to have. Um, so all that
[31:28] being said, does that sound like a good
[31:30] plan to the commission? Is that is that
[31:33] really different from what y'all have
[31:34] done in the past? I I I just want to
[31:36] make sure we're um we're doing it right
[31:38] from y'all's perspective.
[31:41] >> I'm not I'm I can't remember last time
[31:43] we actually addressed fees, so I'm not
[31:45] sure
[31:47] uh [clears throat] if or when the last
[31:50] time was there was any uh change to
[31:53] fees. So,
[31:56] given it's been a while, I you know, I
[31:59] wonder if it's appropriate to look
[32:01] across the board at uh
[32:05] whether our current fees meet uh meet the uh the cost of the division and and if there further review that's
[32:12] needed. But I I I think it it's probably
[32:16] appropriate to just plan on having it on
[32:18] our next uh agenda,
[32:22] >> next meeting agenda. That sounds great
[32:24] and I agree with you, chair. I think um
[32:26] the department's engaged overall in a
[32:29] cost accounting project that will help
[32:31] us better calibrate fees. So I
[32:33] anticipate that in the future that will
[32:36] be something that we can revisit with
[32:38] the commission kind of an overview of do
[32:40] all of these fees are they correctly
[32:42] calibrated? If possible, I'll also try
[32:44] to have our finance director join us at
[32:46] your next meeting in case y'all have any
[32:48] more indepth questions about fees and
[32:51] things like that just as a resource. So,
[32:54] um, we'll plan to proceed that way.
[32:58] >> Commissioner Mlone.
[33:00] >> Yes. Thank you. I think it might be
[33:02] helpful if during that meeting if we
[33:04] have those current fees available. Um, I
[33:07] I'm not aware of those fees. So, that
[33:08] might be helpful information as we're
[33:11] moving forward and approving the fees
[33:13] for the property management licensing.
[33:17] >> Thank you so much. I will put together a
[33:19] fee schedule document for you all so
[33:21] you've got all of the fees that you can
[33:23] look at, not just what we're proposing
[33:25] for property management.
[33:28] >> And and and just giving the given the staffing challenges that we've we've
[33:33] heard about, are we you know, are these
[33:35] current fees sufficient or should we be
[33:38] looking at at trying to add additional
[33:40] staff to to serve the lences?
[33:44] >> Absolutely.
[33:45] >> Timely fashion. So,
[33:48] >> okay.
[33:51] >> Thank you.
[33:55] Um, and I think that's all I had for
[33:58] y'all today, but I'm happy to answer any
[33:59] questions on that or those topics or any
[34:02] other.
[34:05] » Okay. Thank you. Guess we we'll move forward then u and hear from Laurel
[34:12] North on licensing and education. We've
[34:15] got a couple items uh showing on on our
[34:19] agenda with her.
[34:24] » Good morning. Thank you, Chair
[34:25] Southwick, and good morning, Commission.
[34:28] I popped our current fee schedule in the
[34:30] notes if you want to have a heads up on
[34:32] what our current fees are. Uh just so
[34:35] you can have a look at those before
[34:36] August meetings, but um
[34:40] you have any questions about that, have
[34:42] them ready for us on August would be
[34:44] great. Um I do have a handful of things
[34:47] for you today. Uh let's do uh we
[34:51] received a request from a sales agent
[34:53] applicant Brigham Howard and he is
[34:56] joining us virtually
[34:58] [clears throat] so he can answer any
[35:00] questions but I'll just do a brief
[35:02] update. He requested
[35:04] a lensure. He passed his exam in May but
[35:08] he needs the commission's approval to
[35:10] wave a high school diploma GED
[35:12] requirement for real estate lensure.
[35:16] He submitted four documents that you
[35:18] should have received in your email. Um,
[35:23] let me go over them real quick. Uh, his
[35:25] educational summary. He completed his
[35:28] secondary education through my tech
[35:29] high. [clears throat] It is a state
[35:32] recognized structured homeschool program
[35:35] and it required weekly progress and
[35:37] logging. It does seem to cover all of
[35:40] the statewide
[35:42] uh curricula including English,
[35:44] literature, math, science, and history.
[35:47] He personally did five years of formal
[35:49] speech, debate, and logic training,
[35:52] which included competing in statewide
[35:53] tournaments multiple times a year.
[35:56] Additionally, he has completed some
[35:59] foundational business courses through
[36:01] BYU's independent study program.
[36:04] um his professional experience. Uh he
[36:08] currently serves as a project manager
[36:10] for Ironwood Partners where he oversees
[36:12] acquisitions, renovations, and leasing
[36:14] for Light Industrial Real Estate. He can
[36:17] explain more about what that is if you'd
[36:19] like. Uh prior to this, he founded and
[36:22] scaled Serene Outdoor Living, merging
[36:24] the business transition into real estate
[36:26] full-time. He also brings valuable
[36:29] operational leadership from his time as
[36:31] general manager for Olympus Landscaping
[36:34] where he directed hiring sales and field
[36:36] operations for six crews. Um if lenture
[36:40] is granted, Mr. Howard will join a line
[36:42] complete real estate services and as an
[36:45] agent. Jonah Hornsby, who is a sales
[36:48] agent with that company currently and
[36:51] one of the owners of Ironwood Companies
[36:53] and the Wine Complete has provided just
[36:56] Oh, sorry about that.
[37:05] Sorry, my dog got a bottle behind me. Um
[37:08] [clears throat]
[37:10] uh the owner Yeah, here we go. Uh his
[37:17] recommendation has provided a strong
[37:19] recommendation testifying to Mr.
[37:20] Howard's character and readiness. Um the
[37:24] educational requirement for lenture
[37:26] exists to ensure candidates possess
[37:28] communication, analytical, and
[37:29] mathematical skills necessary to safely
[37:32] represent the public. Mr. Howard's
[37:35] background uh managing commercial real
[37:37] estate operations, municipal permitting,
[37:40] and profitable businesses clearly
[37:42] demonstrate these capabilities.
[37:45] Uh we we respectfully request that the
[37:48] commission uh wave the standard high
[37:51] school GED requirement on his behalf and
[37:54] accept his Mitech high certificate of
[37:57] completion and professional history as a
[37:59] satisfying equivalent.
[38:01] um he did receive that certification
[38:03] back in May 18th, 2018. So that was in
[38:08] line with his um secondary studies.
[38:11] Any questions? Mr. Howard, would you
[38:13] like to say a few words since you're
[38:15] here?
[38:18] >> Yeah, definitely. Thank you for for um
[38:20] reviewing that and for your help with
[38:21] everything. I appreciate that. And
[38:23] sorry, I'm in a truck. I was at a job
[38:24] site and wasn't able to make it back to
[38:26] the office in time, so I didn't want to
[38:27] miss it. But no, I think that's great. I
[38:30] think that covers a lot of what I did.
[38:32] It's just um the homeschool route is a
[38:34] little bit different which me and all my
[38:36] siblings have run into this a couple
[38:37] times just where we have to submit our
[38:39] my highaya application or certificate of
[38:42] completion and then demonstrate what we
[38:44] learned but we went through the full
[38:45] curriculum that you would normally have
[38:47] K through 12 and we um the my high
[38:51] essentially what it is is you just
[38:53] submit the weekly learning log showing
[38:54] what you did in each core category which
[38:57] is math, science, history all the same
[38:59] core learnings and then apart from that
[39:00] we have the extracurricular activities
[39:03] like music, the speech and debate,
[39:05] gymnastics, different things like that.
[39:07] So, I feel like I was able to cover the
[39:09] same [snorts]
[39:11] um the same studies that you would
[39:12] normally have in the traditional route,
[39:14] but just a little bit little bit
[39:16] different route, but I appreciate this.
[39:21] » Thank you. Um I don't know if any any of
[39:24] the commissioners have questions. I I
[39:27] read through everything. you've you've got an impressive track record in
[39:30] terms of what you've accomplished and uh
[39:34] I from my perspective you certainly uh
[39:38] deserve that uh that waiver to to to be
[39:42] able to become licensed. So if there are
[39:44] any other comments from commissioner I
[39:45] guess we guess we'll we'll address this
[39:48] during our executive session. Um you're welcome to stay uh till we get
[39:56] through that uh or uh the division will
[39:59] notify you of our decision.
[40:03] Any questions from other commissioners?
[40:08] Okay. Thank you for for appearing before
[40:10] us and thanks for that uh input from Laurel. Uh let's see.
[40:18] Thank you.
[40:21] >> Oh, do you want to go to your next item
[40:24] that uh regarding the uh instruct
[40:27] instructor development workshop?
[40:29] >> Yeah, thank you. Um now that caravan is
[40:32] in the rearview mirror uh I have IDW on
[40:36] my mind. So that is as
[40:44] you're muted somehow it looks like.
[40:48] Um, I would like to present something.
[40:51] We've been thinking about this as a
[40:52] division prior to caravan, but uh, we
[40:56] met together and I want to present this
[40:58] idea to see what you guys think. Um, we
[41:00] did something like this for the mortgage
[41:02] commission where we reduce barriers to
[41:04] entry by reducing 15 hours to 5 hours.
[41:07] This is the same idea. We're just trying
[41:09] to reduce the barriers um to keep our
[41:12] educators good and trained. So we want
[41:15] to work on modernizing
[41:18] instructor development workshop. Um our
[41:20] current administrative rules mandate
[41:23] that certified instructors must attend a
[41:26] division sponsored approved instructor
[41:28] development workshop every two years and
[41:32] typically this has been a two-day event
[41:35] for all day. Now keep in mind that we
[41:37] have licences from all over the nation.
[41:40] So this is going to require them uh
[41:42] travel time. Um I I feel that it is
[41:47] restrictive for cost. Um I was surprised
[41:51] that I met people from which I loved
[41:53] though you know Maine and New Jersey
[41:56] coming into Salt Lake for this training.
[41:58] But um I feel that while it's
[42:01] well-intentioned, the requirement has
[42:03] become restrictive, creating a
[42:05] significant administrative and time
[42:07] burden without delivering substantive
[42:09] value, especially for our veteran
[42:12] instructors, some of whom have been
[42:14] teaching for decades.
[42:16] Um I talked to and Danny Naylor's here,
[42:21] but I wanted to talk to um one of our
[42:24] premier education providers to get his
[42:27] take on it. And he says the traditional
[42:29] IDW focuses almost exclusively on
[42:32] teaching live performance which not
[42:35] everybody does like so many people take
[42:37] these online classes but he said a
[42:40] modern instructor's workload is heavily
[42:41] weighted towards behind the scenes data
[42:44] management course design structure and
[42:47] keeping complex content legally
[42:50] um up todate.
[42:52] So in addition to the barriers barriers
[42:55] of cost for our out of state, I want to
[42:58] add his thoughts as a veteran person and
[43:00] of course he can speak for himself here
[43:03] in a bit. Um we did a comparison with
[43:05] our neighbor neighboring states. So we
[43:08] did Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho,
[43:11] Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming to
[43:14] see what they were doing. Um, and we
[43:16] found that only three of them
[43:19] require an IDW like renewal process. The
[43:23] other ones do not. So,
[43:27] uh, and everybody but us, we by far have
[43:30] the most restrictive, um, rules. This is
[43:34] why we're hoping to, um, you know,
[43:37] soften them up a little bit. uh all of
[43:41] the other states that require up three,
[43:43] they also allow like a third party or
[43:45] another vendor and as an option for them
[43:48] to complete this rather than just go to
[43:50] IDW.
[43:52] So, we want to give educators more
[43:54] flexibility. Um attending state or REA
[43:59] approved two-day instructor workshops.
[44:01] Um we probably make it within the last
[44:03] year before renewal. holding specific
[44:06] credentials maybe like DEI or CDEI
[44:10] um being an active approved instructor
[44:12] with NEB
[44:14] or their affiliates.
[44:16] So if you and I I I fully expect
[44:20] discussion, but if you're amanable to
[44:22] these suggestions or ideas, the division
[44:24] would like to prepare an updated version
[44:27] of these rules for your consideration at
[44:29] the next commission meeting. So, uh, we
[44:32] are open to have a pre- comment like
[44:35] during the whole month or comment here
[44:37] since it's a new idea. We just want to
[44:39] get your ideas on what you think moving
[44:41] forward,
[44:45] » commissioners.
[44:47] >> Yeah, I'd be open to see what you come
[44:48] up with and are there any virtual
[44:51] options as well,
[44:56] » Commissioner Smith?
[44:58] >> Yeah, I appreciate that. I think uh I
[45:00] think we need to update a lot of things
[45:02] as we go along. Um I have another
[45:05] question that's related but not
[45:07] necessarily to IDW. What is in maybe
[45:13] [gasps]
[45:14] well what's the process for getting um
[45:18] getting certified as a CE instructor? We
[45:21] had some, my reason for asking, we had
[45:24] someone in our office the other day that
[45:26] was invited in because it was a friend
[45:28] of one of our affiliates and she was
[45:32] absolutely horrible. She had she had
[45:35] zero well, I could tell she had studied
[45:39] the the um you know, the outline, but
[45:43] she had no physical knowledge of of the
[45:47] subject matter. And I felt like I was
[45:50] training the whole time because she
[45:52] didn't know the answers and she didn't even know glossery of vocabulary.
[45:59] uh she was saying saying things
[46:02] incorrectly and uh so anyway that I'm
[46:07] sure that's a very rare situation but
[46:11] I'm just curious if what we have in
[46:14] place for um someone to show that they have the
[46:21] expertise to teach on a specific
[46:24] subject.
[46:25] So Randy, I'm wondering if do you know
[46:27] if that instructor was just a CE
[46:29] instructor? IDW is required for a
[46:33] mandatory and pre-licensed instructors
[46:36] which are really kind of a leveled up
[46:38] and I didn't explain that so I apologize
[46:40] but I this is like the the worst thing
[46:44] we want to hear, right? But in answer to
[46:46] your question um I've asked our
[46:49] education coordinator Regina Duncan to
[46:52] join us. Regina, can you just give them
[46:54] the um I think if we could just have a
[46:58] short summary of what it takes to become
[47:00] a C instructor as opposed to like the
[47:03] pre-licicensing and mandatory
[47:05] instructor. I feel like on the in intake
[47:09] we have a good um plan, but Regina, do
[47:13] you have a couple thoughts for us? I
[47:15] know we have a pretty full agenda and
[47:17] I'm okay to do this offline if that's if
[47:19] that's better because uh
[47:21] >> yeah sounds good some time
[47:24] >> I think it sounds like uh
[47:28] >> we want you to move forward with this
[47:29] proposal that it that it makes sense to
[47:32] update and modernize the options uh
[47:35] available on this. So we'll we'll look
[47:37] forward to hearing
[47:39] a specific proposal next month or
[47:42] whenever it's ready.
[47:43] >> Thanks. Great. Do you want to uh
[47:48] touch base touch on uh the statistics?
[47:52] Uh
[47:53] >> yeah, I I have a couple things. I
[47:55] apologize for taking your time, but um
[47:57] I'm a busy bee over here and I want to
[48:00] cover all the bases. Um we are pleased
[48:03] to report that our serious technical
[48:06] difficulties impacting my license one
[48:08] have been resolved. Now you know we have
[48:10] been struggling with this system since
[48:12] it was instituted but um we really had
[48:15] systems failure and it was bedlum so I
[48:19] apologize for this um we do seem to have
[48:22] things fixed and it's actually working
[48:24] better than it has applications are
[48:26] coming through faster affiliations are
[48:28] working roster management is working
[48:30] will this break again I have no idea but
[48:33] we have got some traction that we
[48:35] haven't received before
[48:38] and looking towards the future. We're
[48:40] going to have a new system. You probably
[48:42] knew that was coming anyway, but um we
[48:45] have some headway where either the
[48:47] director or I will have direct impact on
[48:49] whether this new program is going to
[48:53] work for our tiered system, which the
[48:56] one that we have just isn't working. So,
[48:58] we will have input on that and we won't
[49:00] choose a system that doesn't work for
[49:02] us. Um neither the director or I were in on the selection process. So, we
[49:07] have a vested interest into getting a
[49:09] good program up and running. And we're
[49:12] thinking that instead of just like
[49:14] saying boom, here try this out, we're
[49:16] going to ask for a sixmonth kind of
[49:18] trial period where commissioners can
[49:20] test this out. Uh, division tested it
[49:23] out, but keep in mind we don't have like
[49:25] active brokers working on rosters, that
[49:27] kind of thing. So, we couldn't really
[49:29] test everything. So, we're going to do
[49:30] it better this time. So, um, I just
[49:33] appreciate your patience with us. Uh we
[49:36] uh Randy, you always talk about our
[49:39] turnover time with our applications. Um
[49:43] so I have been asking for new people. I
[49:46] just have to let you know. So we are
[49:48] going to use this time limited person.
[49:50] I'm not going to make this a secret, but
[49:52] I want to keep them forever. But um so
[49:55] far we just have funding for 3 to 6
[49:57] months. We are going to uh improve our
[50:01] systems. We are going to fasttrack this.
[50:04] If somebody turns in a 100% complete
[50:06] application, we will fasttrack that and
[50:09] get it approved as soon as possible. Um,
[50:11] we have been just uh taking from the
[50:14] latest or the like the latest submission
[50:17] and making sure they submit, but 40 to
[50:19] 60% of our applications come in
[50:21] incomplete.
[50:22] So, we're going to have a template and
[50:25] say, "Hey, boom. We need these things
[50:27] within 30 days." if we don't get it. Um,
[50:31] I'm not saying we're going to deny it,
[50:34] but they're not going to get our full
[50:35] attention. We're going to put our full
[50:37] attention on people that really pay
[50:39] attention to what we need. And after
[50:41] all, those are the people we want in our
[50:43] business, right? They read instructions,
[50:44] they complete forms, they do their
[50:46] education. So, I think we're going to
[50:48] see some progress there. And we're going
[50:50] to put uh the time limited new person,
[50:53] which I hope to have hired within a
[50:55] couple weeks fully on staff. uh we're
[50:58] going to have them turn our sales a
[51:00] agent applications as a first duty. So
[51:04] we should see that improve and then
[51:07] we'll do an audit process and hopefully
[51:09] this will improve enough have the extra
[51:12] help before we consider options like a
[51:15] provisional lensure. We talked about it.
[51:18] I'm not psyched about it because of um
[51:22] just problems that I foresee but it is
[51:24] on the table right. We want to help you
[51:27] turn these things faster and do a better
[51:30] job. Um, any I didn't want to just brush
[51:33] our our failure under the table. I
[51:35] wanted to just address it and say we're
[51:37] aware of it and we're working on it. Any
[51:39] questions for that part?
[51:41] >> Yeah, Laurel. So now, do we have those
[51:43] two separate tracks or is it like first
[51:45] in first out? I mean, if it's 100%
[51:48] complete, does that go down another
[51:50] track or is that something that is
[51:51] coming? Um I I mean I we actually found
[51:57] this because one of our uh we call him
[51:59] the Jeff of all trades, Jeff Rose, um
[52:02] was helping us with applications and he
[52:04] was like uh I can look at 80 of these
[52:07] and see which ones are complete and
[52:10] yeah, it's kind of a different track,
[52:12] right? You send them an email and they,
[52:14] you know, they can correspond with you,
[52:16] turn things in, but the other one is
[52:18] just, you know, like that. I don't want
[52:20] to say immediate turnover, get your
[52:22] hopes up or anything, but certainly
[52:24] faster than 30 days, right? They don't
[52:26] have criminal problems. They don't have
[52:28] anything. It would be, as you said, a
[52:30] different track, although it's all going
[52:32] to be tracked on one central system.
[52:34] >> Yeah.
[52:35] >> Um, and right now we all of the
[52:37] licensing specialists have separate
[52:38] ones, but we're going to combine it so
[52:40] everyone can see everything. So, anyone
[52:42] that calls in, um, they will be able to
[52:44] help with any license. We're going to do
[52:46] away with the A through Z. So any of our
[52:49] licency specialists can help you um with
[52:52] any of your questions. Okay.
[52:54] >> So we're hoping it opens up enough that
[52:56] um
[52:58] >> I I'm kind of excited about it. I think
[53:00] it should work great, but we'll try it
[53:02] and see.
[53:02] >> Is it still running like two to three
[53:04] weeks? I know you're saying 30 days, but
[53:06] what's if it's all complete? Is it still
[53:10] a two or three week process?
[53:13] >> Um I guess I would toss this. It's
[53:16] faster, right? I don't I just want to
[53:19] preface it with this. I don't foresee me
[53:21] changing the date
[53:24] um to less than 30 days because of you
[53:27] know this 40 to 60% input that we have.
[53:31] But I want to say I don't I don't want
[53:34] to put words into my um licensing
[53:38] specialist mouth but I am hoping we can
[53:40] get it under two weeks.
[53:41] >> Okay.
[53:42] >> Um now we have to make this practical
[53:46] right? I don't want to, but in my mind
[53:49] how this is going, I'm thinking we could
[53:51] speed it up and you know, if everything
[53:53] comes in, maybe we can do it faster, but
[53:55] until we try it, I don't want to get
[53:57] your hopes up.
[53:58] >> Well, we we appreciate all the hard work
[54:00] you're doing and looking at all the
[54:02] different available options to make it a
[54:04] smoother system. And I mean, uh, we
[54:07] really appreciate all you're doing.
[54:09] >> Randy, I know you've got your hand. I I
[54:11] just want to say I I guess you know I I haven't been
[54:15] uh you know principal broker managing
[54:17] broker for a while but I'm a little I
[54:20] guess I'm a little surprised to hear
[54:23] that we're processing
[54:26] in incomplete applications and I don't
[54:28] know if I'm if if if that's just a
[54:32] terminology
[54:35] issue but I mean in in in most systems
[54:41] I mean, if if an application's not
[54:43] complete,
[54:45] you can't submit it. So,
[54:48] >> we we get incomplete applications and um
[54:52] we're good at holding hands, I'll tell
[54:54] you, but we're going away from it. Um if
[54:56] the if the application's incomplete,
[54:58] it's going to be template and um get it
[55:02] back to us at your leisure, but it's not
[55:04] going to be turned over quickly, right?
[55:06] These are the ones that are going to
[55:07] take the 30 days. So, um, yeah. Anyway,
[55:11] yeah, we were processing everything,
[55:13] just making sure that the people that,
[55:15] uh, turned them in first got taken care
[55:17] of. But, um, it's too burdensome. We
[55:20] can't do that anymore.
[55:23] >> Randy?
[55:24] >> Yeah. Two things. Uh, first of all, on
[55:26] the same line that Rick was talking, uh,
[55:28] is is there some coding that can be do
[55:33] can be done up front? Because I love you
[55:36] got a great checklist.
[55:38] um is if a check mark is not on that
[55:42] checklist or or they haven't uploaded
[55:44] the current doc or what's needed uh is
[55:47] there any way to say they can't even
[55:49] submit the application until
[55:52] till that is finalized so we're not
[55:56] spinning our wheels as education
[55:59] >> so in my ide ideal world
[56:03] >> um and Junka will get to you for sure um
[56:05] in my ideal world new system, it's going
[56:08] to have automatic um approvals.
[56:12] So, that's what I'm going for. Right
[56:13] now, we don't have that system. Our um
[56:16] >> our licensing system doesn't allow for
[56:18] that. So, we do actually have to have
[56:21] our lead, Sarah Thaylor, who is looking
[56:24] at the system, building it for us as she
[56:26] has the most experience to kind of
[56:29] filter these through. So, she will be
[56:31] looking at these every morning, every
[56:33] night, um to ensure that we're making
[56:36] good progress and getting the 100%
[56:39] completes. So, I don't know. It's it's
[56:42] very early on. She probably doesn't have
[56:43] an idea of um the track system um that
[56:48] Bringhurst was talking about. But
[56:51] >> anyway,
[56:52] >> that brings up my my second point. Uh
[56:54] when we switched from Realms to my
[56:56] license one, we had talked about several
[56:58] times when we knew that was coming down
[57:00] the pike. Please don't turn off Realms
[57:03] until we know the new one works. And
[57:07] then it was just an automatic switch
[57:08] over and we were told that sorry, it was
[57:10] cost prohibitive. We couldn't do it. Um,
[57:13] and so, um, I really hope that we can
[57:18] have some beta testing on the new system
[57:20] and and not, uh, not
[57:25] go full boore on it until we know it
[57:27] works and it's been tested.
[57:29] >> That's our plan.
[57:30] >> Jen Co, do you have something to add?
[57:32] >> Yeah, just to add a little bit. So, the
[57:34] way that the current system works is um,
[57:37] there are some fields that will prevent,
[57:39] you know, applicants from moving
[57:41] forward. For instance, if they say they
[57:43] passed their exam, you know, outside of
[57:45] the 90-day period, it will stop them.
[57:48] Some of the fields that are in my in my
[57:52] like estimation are a little more
[57:53] problematic is is that a field will ask
[57:55] for a document upload and you know that
[57:59] document may or may not be complete. Uh
[58:03] it could be a picture of their dog, you
[58:04] know, just just you know, something
[58:07] that's totally not related. So there are options. I know in some
[58:12] systems where if they're asking for
[58:14] let's say um a birth certificate there are technologies out there that'll
[58:19] be able to tell if this is actually a
[58:22] birth certificate or it's something
[58:23] unrelated or a driver's license copy. So
[58:25] for the most part the system does do
[58:28] checking. But let's say you know they
[58:30] just send us a completely blank
[58:31] activation form. The system is not smart
[58:34] enough to realize that this form is not
[58:36] filled out. So, it does catch some
[58:38] stuff, but it's really the document
[58:40] uploads and more of the specific things
[58:42] that, you know, hold up things.
[58:45] >> Thanks. Thanks for that explanation
[58:48] that's helpful.
[58:49] >> I'll do a quick stats if you don't have
[58:51] any questions. Um, because I did more
[58:54] comprehensive last year. Uh, we have
[58:58] from May to June, total licenses grew by
[59:00] about 300. uh our all-time high total
[59:04] 32,727.
[59:07] The growth was driven by an increase of
[59:09] active sales agents and a rise in
[59:11] inactive licenses. Um and then we just
[59:14] had a little dip of nine registered
[59:16] entities. And that's all I have. I thank
[59:19] you for your time a little longer for
[59:21] licensing, but uh we had to do it. So,
[59:25] thank you.
[59:27] >> Thanks.
[59:29] >> Thank you. Uh, next on the agenda, uh,
[59:33] Commission Industry issues with Mr.
[59:35] Barney.
[59:39] » Yes. Thank you. I appreciate your time
[59:42] here. I know it's been, uh, a little bit
[59:44] longer than we we sometimes have for
[59:46] meeting, so appreciate your attention
[59:48] here, and I'll be brief. Um the
[59:51] commission's aware that the um the
[59:55] division uh has been working on
[59:59] a rule amendment or a new rule for the
[1:00:03] property management licenses
[1:00:06] and uh with direction from McMy we were
[1:00:10] looking at a whole new rule that
[1:00:15] uh gave us some problems. we had some
[1:00:17] issues. It was basically
[1:00:20] uh copying a bunch of sections and
[1:00:22] anyway it wasn't working out very well.
[1:00:24] We since have been working on and
[1:00:27] director Vett's gotten involved and we
[1:00:29] appreciate that working on just a new
[1:00:32] rule. We think that uh I'm sorry working
[1:00:35] on amending the current real estate rule
[1:00:38] and so we're looking at that. Uh I think
[1:00:42] uh we have a working draft there. So,
[1:00:45] we're making progress, but this has been
[1:00:46] a long long process, and we appreciate
[1:00:48] your patience on it. Any questions?
[1:00:54] » Are are you anticipating a a meeting of
[1:00:56] the subcommittee um on that or
[1:01:01] >> uh I think yes, that is uh the
[1:01:03] expectation. So, we can uh I know uh
[1:01:08] Rick, you're on that committee, so we'll
[1:01:10] make sure you get notice of that.
[1:01:12] >> Thank you. Yep.
[1:01:16] And any other questions?
[1:01:20] » All right. Thank you for your time.
[1:01:23] >> Thank you, Mr. Barney. Now, uh we'll go
[1:01:27] to enforcement with uh with Miss Kalin.
[1:01:31] >> Thank you, Chair. Uh the enforcement
[1:01:33] team has continued to demonstrate uh
[1:01:36] streamlined operations and dedication to
[1:01:39] reducing our overall case load. While
[1:01:42] the incoming workload remains steady
[1:01:44] with 32 new complaints, uh that is a
[1:01:47] slight decrease from last month, uh the
[1:01:50] team has dramatically outpaced demand by
[1:01:52] closing 69 complaints, effectively
[1:01:55] cutting into our backlog and doubling
[1:01:58] our monthly intake. Uh the division is
[1:02:00] currently managing 199 total active
[1:02:04] cases and thanks to the team's
[1:02:07] investigations, 23 of these cases have
[1:02:10] been successfully prepared and are now
[1:02:12] pending formal legal action. Justin
[1:02:15] delivered outstanding results in
[1:02:16] licensing. Uh he took on 10 licensing
[1:02:20] action cases and successfully resolved
[1:02:23] nine of those. And by closing more than
[1:02:25] twice the number of complaints received
[1:02:27] this month, the team is actively
[1:02:29] reducing um the backlog and we are
[1:02:33] attempting to reduce the timeline of
[1:02:35] complaints and ensure swift fair
[1:02:37] enforcement across all of the
[1:02:41] industries. Um and again I just want to
[1:02:44] say uh thank you to the team for their
[1:02:47] efforts. Um are there any enforcement
[1:02:50] questions as far as the stats?
[1:02:54] I don't have any uh the numbers speak
[1:02:57] for themselves and uh you know I think I
[1:03:00] speak for the entire commission and and
[1:03:02] commending you and your team for huge
[1:03:04] progress. I think that uh that that
[1:03:07] current number of open cases is an
[1:03:09] all-time low since I've been on the
[1:03:11] commission. So
[1:03:12] >> that's great great to see.
[1:03:14] >> We're hoping to keep that under the 200.
[1:03:17] It's just right there where we were
[1:03:19] excited to see that number come down. So
[1:03:22] thank you. Um if there's no more stat
[1:03:25] questions, I would like to move to the
[1:03:27] stipulations we have um for your
[1:03:30] consideration today. We have five
[1:03:33] stipulations and uh the first is
[1:03:36] regarding the facts and conclusions
[1:03:38] regarding the stipulation and order for
[1:03:41] Blake Floyd Cousins. Mr. The Cousins has
[1:03:45] held a Utah principal broker license
[1:03:47] since July 2016. And while acting as the
[1:03:51] property manager for the Cedarbend and
[1:03:54] Artisian Park HOAs, he unlawfully
[1:03:57] withdrew and transferred funds from the
[1:03:59] association's bank accounts for personal
[1:04:01] use. Following police reports filed in
[1:04:04] December of 2024 and January of 2025, he
[1:04:09] was arrested and charged with 10 counts
[1:04:11] of unlawful fiduciary dealings. On March
[1:04:15] 27th, 2025, Mr. Cousins plead guilty in
[1:04:19] US District Court to felony wire fraud
[1:04:21] and bank fraud. He admitted to
[1:04:24] embezzling funds and agreed to pay over
[1:04:26] 2.1 million in restitution to his
[1:04:29] victims.
[1:04:31] Mr. Cousins admits that his actions
[1:04:33] violated multiple Utah real estate
[1:04:35] codes, specifically those prohibiting
[1:04:38] the comingling and diverting of funds,
[1:04:41] engaging in dishonest dealing and being
[1:04:44] convicted of a felony. As a full
[1:04:47] settlement of these issues, the
[1:04:49] finalized order dictates the following
[1:04:51] penalties. Mr. Cousins Utah principal
[1:04:54] broker license will be immediately
[1:04:56] revoked. Furthermore, he will be
[1:04:59] restricted from pro um prohibiting or
[1:05:02] excuse me, he will be prohibited from
[1:05:04] reapplying for any license with the Utah
[1:05:07] Division of Real Estate until he can
[1:05:09] provide certified documentation from the
[1:05:12] court proving that all courtordered
[1:05:14] restitution has been paid in full. I
[1:05:18] also want to note here that even when
[1:05:20] the applicants reapply for that lensure,
[1:05:24] um they're not guaranteed lensure at
[1:05:26] that point. his application will go
[1:05:28] through review. And then I would also
[1:05:30] like to note for the commission that
[1:05:32] because of the natural timeline of Mr.
[1:05:34] Cousins licensing cycle, the division's
[1:05:37] opportunity to execute this revocation
[1:05:40] expires at the end of this month.
[1:05:43] Allowing the lency to expire without
[1:05:45] action prevents the division from
[1:05:48] recording a formal revocation on his
[1:05:50] record and eliminates the enforcement
[1:05:52] mechanism and the restitution safeguards
[1:05:55] established in this particular order.
[1:05:58] Are there any questions regarding this
[1:06:00] issue?
[1:06:05] Okay. Um, I would like to move to Paula
[1:06:09] to present the next stipulation in order
[1:06:11] for your consideration in the matter of
[1:06:13] Ashley web.
[1:06:19] » Good morning, commissioners. My name is
[1:06:21] Paula Ferber and I work with the
[1:06:22] attorney general's office and represent
[1:06:24] the division of real estate. Also on
[1:06:26] this meeting today, we have Kimberly
[1:06:28] Smith who is the count counsel for
[1:06:31] Ashley Webb, the respondent in this
[1:06:33] matter.
[1:06:35] Thanks for your time today. I'm
[1:06:36] presenting the stipulation of proposed
[1:06:38] order in the matter involving Ashley
[1:06:40] Webb, a licensed real estate agent. The
[1:06:43] division and respondent have reached a
[1:06:45] settlement that is before you for
[1:06:46] approval. Mr. Webb has been licensed as
[1:06:49] a real estate agent since March 5th of
[1:06:52] 2007.
[1:06:54] His license is affiliated with Equity
[1:06:56] Real Estate, a brokerage licensed by the
[1:06:58] division. The case involved real estate
[1:07:01] transactions in San Pete County, Utah.
[1:07:05] Over several transactions involving the
[1:07:07] same party. Respondent acted as agent
[1:07:09] for both buyer and seller. In one of
[1:07:12] those transactions, Mr. Webb failed to
[1:07:14] obtain a written agency agreement from
[1:07:17] the principles. This conduct violates
[1:07:21] Utah code 612F-412
[1:07:24] and the related rules specifically
[1:07:27] representing both parties without
[1:07:29] written informed consent. Utah code
[1:07:32] 612F-412
[1:07:34] says it is unlawful to act for more than
[1:07:36] one party in a transaction without the
[1:07:38] informed consent of the parties. And
[1:07:41] then it Utah administrative code rule
[1:07:44] 1622F41
[1:07:47] says that if representing both parties
[1:07:49] in a transaction as a limited agent,
[1:07:52] they must obtain prior informed consent
[1:07:55] explaining in writing to both parties
[1:07:58] that each may be represented by a
[1:08:00] separate agent. The type of information
[1:08:02] that would be held confidential and the
[1:08:04] type of information that will be
[1:08:06] disclosed. The circumstances under which
[1:08:08] withholding of information would
[1:08:10] constitute a material misrepresentation.
[1:08:13] Obtaining a written acknowledgement from
[1:08:15] a party affirming that the party waves
[1:08:17] the right to undivided loyalty, absolute
[1:08:20] confidentiality, and full disclosure.
[1:08:22] So, a petition was filed in this case.
[1:08:24] In order to resolve the pending matter,
[1:08:26] the parties have agreed to this
[1:08:28] stipulation and now requested that the
[1:08:30] commission adopt the following order.
[1:08:33] Respondent admits the facts and
[1:08:35] violation as outlined in the
[1:08:37] stipulation. Respondent shall pay a
[1:08:40] civil penalty of $5,000 to the division
[1:08:43] within 90 days of the signed order. He
[1:08:47] will complete at least three hours of
[1:08:49] continuing education on agency law above
[1:08:52] the
[1:08:54] and those hours don't count toward the
[1:08:56] next license renewal cycle. And Mr.
[1:08:58] Webb's license will be placed on
[1:09:00] probation until March 31st of 2029.
[1:09:05] The division asked the commission to
[1:09:07] approve and adopt this stipulation and
[1:09:09] order as presented. And I'm available to
[1:09:11] answer any questions or provide further
[1:09:13] details if you have any questions.
[1:09:18] You didn't mention I I thought I read
[1:09:20] that it did. Does it also include public
[1:09:23] reprimand?
[1:09:24] >> Yes. Yes. Sorry. P reprimand in the
[1:09:27] newsletter.
[1:09:28] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:09:30] [clears throat]
[1:09:31] >> Any other questions?
[1:09:32] >> Yeah. I just had a question on the how
[1:09:35] did you come up with the date March
[1:09:36] 31st, 2029. Usually we do the next
[1:09:39] licensing cycle and so I'm just curious.
[1:09:41] Uh,
[1:09:43] I thought that that was the next
[1:09:44] licensing cycle. That was Is that not
[1:09:47] the
[1:09:48] >> Well, licens are only good for two
[1:09:50] years, so probably not.
[1:09:52] >> Probably not.
[1:09:56] >> Uh, if you don't mind, I'd like to add
[1:09:58] um something to what Miss Berber said.
[1:10:01] Um I she mentioned it, but she kind of
[1:10:03] glossed over it. I just wanted to give
[1:10:05] the context that this was there were
[1:10:08] three transactions where Mr. Web was
[1:10:11] representing the buyer and the seller
[1:10:13] and he did get written uh limited or
[1:10:17] written limited agency consent
[1:10:19] agreements in the first two
[1:10:21] transactions. Uh so I just think that
[1:10:23] context is important here because I mean
[1:10:26] I don't want to downplay the importance
[1:10:28] of you know consent to these limited
[1:10:31] agency
[1:10:33] uh transactions but I like because of
[1:10:36] the context here there were two prior
[1:10:39] transactions where [clears throat] there
[1:10:40] was written consent. So I just wanted to
[1:10:42] make that clear to the commission.
[1:10:46] >> Thank you.
[1:10:48] Any any other questions on the
[1:10:50] stipulation?
[1:10:54] Thank you.
[1:10:56] >> Thank you, commissioners.
[1:11:00] » We have three more um matters for your
[1:11:03] consideration. Bill will present the
[1:11:07] remainders.
[1:11:10] » Well, good morning, commissioners.
[1:11:13] So, I have three stipulations for your
[1:11:15] consideration. Uh the first one is in
[1:11:18] the matter of Stephanie Dixon. At all
[1:11:21] times relevant, uh respondent Stephanie
[1:11:24] Dixon was licensed as a principal broker
[1:11:26] by the division of real estate under
[1:11:28] license number 6225642
[1:11:31] PB0000.
[1:11:33] She has been licensed with the division
[1:11:35] since May of 2006 and held a principal
[1:11:38] broker license since April 2022.
[1:11:42] So on January 28th, 2026,
[1:11:46] um the sellers of a residential property
[1:11:48] in Leighton, Utah, retained the response
[1:11:51] list of property and they executed the
[1:11:53] standard seller property condition
[1:11:55] disclosures because the transaction was
[1:11:58] structured as an estate sale. The
[1:12:01] signing seller explicitly noted on a
[1:12:04] document that they had not resided in
[1:12:05] the home for approximately 20 to 38
[1:12:07] years. Shortly after respondent listed
[1:12:11] the property, those disclosures were
[1:12:13] completed by the seller and the property
[1:12:16] went under contract with an initial a
[1:12:18] prospective buyer.
[1:12:20] During the first escrow period on
[1:12:23] February 22nd, 2026, the initial buyers
[1:12:27] conducted a professional sewer scope
[1:12:29] inspection and revealed a severe
[1:12:31] material defect within the main sewer
[1:12:34] line. The next day, February 23rd, 26,
[1:12:38] both the respondent and the sellers
[1:12:41] received a YouTube link containing the
[1:12:44] recorded video footage of this sewer
[1:12:46] scope. And based on the documented
[1:12:49] effect, the buyer uh submitted a formal
[1:12:52] request for sewer related repairs
[1:12:54] totaling $49,99969.
[1:12:58] And that was supported by a professional
[1:13:00] estimate. When the parties were
[1:13:02] ultimately unable to reach an agreement
[1:13:05] um regarding this repair request, the
[1:13:07] initial buyers canled the contract and
[1:13:10] the property went back on the market.
[1:13:13] Moving forward, uh on March 3rd, 2026,
[1:13:17] the complaintant entered into a contract
[1:13:19] to purchase the property as a second
[1:13:21] buyer. So despite having the possession
[1:13:24] of the video evidence documenting the
[1:13:26] failing sewer line and having a detailed
[1:13:29] knowledge of the prior $49,99969
[1:13:33] repair demand for more than a week, the
[1:13:36] respondent failed to have the sellers
[1:13:37] updates or the seller disclosures
[1:13:39] updated by the sellers um with the
[1:13:43] previous sewer scope findings and
[1:13:45] actually given to the upcoming buyer.
[1:13:48] As the transaction proceeded, the
[1:13:50] buyer's agent [clears throat] verbally
[1:13:53] notified the respondent on March 4th,
[1:13:55] 2026 that they have an intention to
[1:13:58] perform an independent sewer scope. They
[1:14:00] were completely unaware that the
[1:14:02] professional a professional inspection
[1:14:04] had already identified the major system
[1:14:06] failure and the buyer signed the
[1:14:08] unupdated disclosures on March 9th of
[1:14:11] 2026 and personally paid $684.95
[1:14:15] out of pocket to schedule their own
[1:14:18] property inspection and sewer scope.
[1:14:21] And during the um the inspection the
[1:14:24] next day um it was conducted by Beehive
[1:14:27] Plumbing. The technician flagged a
[1:14:29] severe clog in the sewer line which
[1:14:31] prompted a buyer agent to uh formally
[1:14:33] request that the sellers have the line
[1:14:35] professionally jetted and cleaned.
[1:14:39] Then March 11th, 2026,
[1:14:42] one day after the buyer and inspector
[1:14:43] flagged the clog and requested that the
[1:14:45] line be jetted, the respondent finally
[1:14:48] texted the sewer scope link, the YouTube
[1:14:51] link to the buyer's agent. The
[1:14:54] respondent had been in possession of
[1:14:55] this video and fully aware of the sewer
[1:14:57] line defect since February 23rd, 2026,
[1:15:01] but withheld this information for over
[1:15:02] two weeks.
[1:15:04] And then on March 12th, 2026, the
[1:15:07] buyer's plumber conducted a detailed
[1:15:09] review of this sewer system and
[1:15:11] confirmed a major structural failure,
[1:15:14] noting a negative slope and physical
[1:15:15] drop in the pipe. So, upon learning the
[1:15:17] extent of the damage, the buyer
[1:15:19] immediately submitted the formal
[1:15:20] cancellation of this transaction.
[1:15:24] And during the interview with the
[1:15:25] complainant on April 13th, the
[1:15:28] complaintant emphasized that the sewer
[1:15:30] defect if it had been properly disclosed
[1:15:32] up front, he would have cancelled the
[1:15:34] contract immediately. Because he cannot
[1:15:36] afford to repair that size, he had um he
[1:15:39] would have skipped both the home
[1:15:40] inspection and his sewer scope entirely,
[1:15:43] avoiding the necessary out-of- pocket
[1:15:45] costs.
[1:15:47] And then during another interview with a respondent that was on April 17, 2026,
[1:15:52] the respondent admitted that she had
[1:15:54] been in possession with the sewer scope
[1:15:56] video since February 23rd, 2026.
[1:16:00] She explained that she would have held
[1:16:02] this information because she didn't
[1:16:03] considered a defect that was confirmed
[1:16:05] at the time in fear that disclosing it
[1:16:08] would uh put a black mark on the
[1:16:10] property. However, the respondent
[1:16:12] ultimately acknowledged in hindsight
[1:16:14] that she had a professional obligation
[1:16:16] to document the defect in writing and
[1:16:18] should have disclosed it to the incoming
[1:16:20] buyer immediately.
[1:16:22] So in this transaction, commissioners,
[1:16:24] the uh responded in the midst of
[1:16:26] violating
[1:16:28] sorry Utah code 612F41,
[1:16:31] grounds for disciplinary action. The
[1:16:33] following acts are um unlawful in
[1:16:36] grounds for disciplinary action for a
[1:16:37] person l required to be licensed under
[1:16:39] this chapter. One e making a false
[1:16:42] representation or promise of character
[1:16:44] likely to influence, persuade or induce
[1:16:47] by presenting the um unupdated
[1:16:50] disclosures. So under Utah
[1:16:52] administrative instrument administrative
[1:16:54] code R1622F41A
[1:16:57] administrative duties required to
[1:16:59] license individuals
[1:17:01] uh individual license shall one uphold
[1:17:03] the following fiduciary duties in the
[1:17:05] course of representing a principle. D
[1:17:08] full disclosure which obligates the
[1:17:10] agent to inform any principle of any
[1:17:12] material fact the agent learns about and
[1:17:15] two the transaction and D
[1:17:18] confidentiality which prohibits the
[1:17:19] agent from disclosing without permission
[1:17:22] any information given to the agent by
[1:17:24] the principal that would likely weaken
[1:17:25] the principal bard's position if it were
[1:17:27] known but accepting any known material
[1:17:30] fact concerning one a defect in a
[1:17:32] property
[1:17:34] and Utah administrative code R1 1622F
[1:17:38] 401B
[1:17:40] prohibit conduct as applicable to
[1:17:42] licensed individuals. One, an individual
[1:17:44] lency may not a engage in any practices
[1:17:47] described in section 612F41
[1:17:50] and the following sections whether
[1:17:52] acting as an agent or in the licensing
[1:17:54] account in the manner that one fails to
[1:17:57] conform with accepted standards of real
[1:17:59] estate sales, licensing and management
[1:18:01] industry.
[1:18:02] and commissioners. In full settlement of
[1:18:05] this matter, the division proposes that
[1:18:08] the respondent shall pay a civil penalty
[1:18:10] of $2,000 to the division within 90
[1:18:13] days. Complete 3 hours of continuing
[1:18:15] education specifically focused on Utah
[1:18:18] law providing a comprehensive review and
[1:18:20] statutes or rules applicable to the real
[1:18:21] estate lenses which shall not count
[1:18:24] toward the renewal cycle and be subject
[1:18:26] to the publication of these findings in
[1:18:27] the division's quarterly newsletter. and
[1:18:30] to provide context for the commission's
[1:18:32] review. The respondent did cooperate
[1:18:35] with the division's investigation and
[1:18:38] took responsibility for the oversight.
[1:18:41] She admitted in hindsight she should
[1:18:42] immediately updated the written
[1:18:44] disclosures to reflect a sewer line
[1:18:46] effect and her legal team fully
[1:18:48] supported this emission. While the uh
[1:18:50] buyer did pay um for their own
[1:18:52] inspection,
[1:18:54] there was really no no other out-of-
[1:18:57] pocket cost, no physical damage to the
[1:19:00] uh property. And additionally, this is
[1:19:02] respondent's first offense. So, she has
[1:19:04] maintained a completely clean record for
[1:19:06] no prior violations since obtaining her
[1:19:08] real estate license. She now fully
[1:19:10] understands her duty to disclose
[1:19:12] material defects in writing and is
[1:19:13] committed to meeting those professional
[1:19:15] standards in the future. With this
[1:19:17] respondent submission and agreed upon
[1:19:19] terms along with her legal team, the
[1:19:21] divisions respectfully submits this
[1:19:23] stipulation for your approval. I'm happy
[1:19:25] to address any questions on this
[1:19:27] stipulation.
[1:19:30] » Any questions from the commission?
[1:19:34] » Okay, let's let's move uh Randy.
[1:19:37] Commissioner Smith.
[1:19:39] >> Yes, Randy. M
[1:19:41] >> Randy, you're muted.
[1:19:45] >> Sorry about that.
[1:19:46] Just looking at these last two
[1:19:48] stipulations,
[1:19:50] um it seems like this the penalty was uh
[1:19:55] significantly less than I would expect.
[1:19:57] And it seems like on the last one for
[1:19:59] the lack of uh signed limited agency
[1:20:02] consent when there had been two previous
[1:20:05] ones with the same buyer, uh that one
[1:20:08] seemed exceedingly harsh in my opinion.
[1:20:12] And so just just curious if you have any
[1:20:15] comment on that.
[1:20:21] » Are you referring to my stipulations on
[1:20:23] the next one with um
[1:20:25] >> well both the the one previous uh what's
[1:20:29] the name? uh Ashley Webb
[1:20:33] was the maximum
[1:20:36] amount even though there had been two
[1:20:41] previous transactions with the same
[1:20:45] client that had the limited agency
[1:20:46] consent and they missed it on the third
[1:20:49] one
[1:20:50] versus this one here. Failure to
[1:20:52] disclose a huge material fact 2,000
[1:20:56] bucks seems like a real slap on the
[1:20:58] hand.
[1:20:59] Yeah, this was negotiated with legal
[1:21:01] counsel with her. Um, and we took into
[1:21:04] consideration it was her first offense.
[1:21:06] She's never had any violations.
[1:21:08] Um, and she was trying to say that she
[1:21:12] it wasn't a confirmed defect, but the
[1:21:15] statue, you know, specifically says you
[1:21:18] just have to disclose it. So, it was
[1:21:20] like a learning process. Um, so we took
[1:21:23] those into consideration to uh come to
[1:21:25] an agreement with council with this
[1:21:27] $2,000 fine.
[1:21:29] >> Thank you. And then Miss Maybe Pollock
[1:21:31] can uh speak to the other one.
[1:21:34] >> Um, yes, thank you. We uh had some
[1:21:37] concerns with the other limited agency
[1:21:39] agreements and the timing on those and
[1:21:41] when those were obtained um in the
[1:21:44] process. So we this was just a
[1:21:47] negotiated settlement with the the uh
[1:21:51] respondent admitting to the one that was
[1:21:54] a a clear violation
[1:21:57] um and not taking into account the other
[1:21:59] two that we had some questions on.
[1:22:03] And then I believe the the licensing
[1:22:07] date on that was expiring. Uh and so we
[1:22:12] went 2 years from the next renewal
[1:22:15] cycle.
[1:22:18] » Thank you.
[1:22:24] » Okay. Any further questions? If if not,
[1:22:26] let's go ahead with your next one. Bill.
[1:22:28] >> Okay. Thank you, commissioners. In the
[1:22:30] matter of Jared V. Smart at all times
[1:22:34] relevant. Um the respondent Jerevy Smart
[1:22:37] was licensed as a sales agent by the
[1:22:39] division of real estate license number
[1:22:41] 5504195
[1:22:43] that's A00. He has been licensed with
[1:22:46] the division since April uh 2020 20 or
[1:22:48] 2003. So the facts of this case in or
[1:22:53] about August 20th, 2024, the respondent
[1:22:55] received a check in the amount of
[1:22:57] 17,814.14
[1:23:01] issued by Banner Economics LC. The check
[1:23:04] was payable to Bonnieville Realy and was
[1:23:06] specifically intended to fund a new
[1:23:08] business association, the Dino Crossing
[1:23:10] Association for a commercial property
[1:23:13] managed by the respondent in St. George,
[1:23:16] Utah. Upon receipt, the respondant was
[1:23:18] under a strict regulatory obligation to
[1:23:21] immediately deliver the check to his
[1:23:22] principal broker or deposit into a
[1:23:25] designated broker's trust account.
[1:23:26] Instead of fulfilling his duty, the
[1:23:29] respondent failed to record or report
[1:23:31] the transaction in any capacity and
[1:23:33] chose to withhold the check in an office
[1:23:36] check room for several months.
[1:23:38] On January 2nd, 2025, the respondent
[1:23:42] deposited the $17,814.14
[1:23:46] check directly into his personal Golden
[1:23:48] West Credit Union business checking
[1:23:50] account. The account was registered
[1:23:52] under the name BRMS LLC, a personal
[1:23:56] entity the respondent and his wife had
[1:23:58] established entirely outside of the
[1:24:00] brokerage. Because this transaction was
[1:24:02] bypassed and never entered to the
[1:24:04] brokerage central register or QuickBook,
[1:24:07] the principal broker was kept entirely
[1:24:09] unaware of this existence. The
[1:24:12] unauthorized diversion of funds remained
[1:24:15] completely undetected until March of 26.
[1:24:18] Um so a a group a new business ownership
[1:24:21] um took the transition a transition took
[1:24:23] place and at this time the new ownership
[1:24:25] group discovered the missing funds after
[1:24:28] the underlying property owner made a
[1:24:30] direct inquiry regarding the status of
[1:24:32] the unestablished associated account and
[1:24:35] follow the discovery of the financial
[1:24:37] discrepancy by the new management. The
[1:24:40] respondent coordinated an emergency wire
[1:24:42] transfer from his aunt to obtain a
[1:24:45] Golden West Credit Union's cashiier
[1:24:47] check on May 15, 2026, which he used to
[1:24:51] repay the 17,81414
[1:24:54] in full. While the respondent initially
[1:24:56] claimed his personal deposit was a
[1:24:58] temporary measure driven by
[1:24:59] administrative difficulties in
[1:25:01] reinstating a lapsed corporate entity,
[1:25:03] text messages recovered from May 18th of
[1:25:06] 2026 confirmed a deliberate intentional
[1:25:09] diversion of client funds. And those
[1:25:11] messages responded explicitly stated, "I
[1:25:14] had every intention of paying the Dino
[1:25:15] Crossing Association funds when we sold
[1:25:18] the house. I was going to use my
[1:25:20] proceeds." The investigation revealed
[1:25:22] that this was not an isolated incident.
[1:25:24] During his employment, the respondent uh
[1:25:27] routinely bypassed the brokerage and
[1:25:29] accepted unauthorized
[1:25:31] direct payments from property owners
[1:25:33] into his personal BRMS account. His
[1:25:36] personal transaction included
[1:25:38] unauthorized Christmas bonuses and
[1:25:40] approximately $75,000 construction fees.
[1:25:44] In this transaction, the respondent
[1:25:46] amidst the violating Utah code 612F401,
[1:25:50] grounds for disciplinary action. The
[1:25:52] following acts are unlawful and grounds
[1:25:54] for disciplinary action or a person
[1:25:56] licensed or required to be licensed
[1:25:57] under this chapter. 4. A failing within
[1:26:00] a reasonable time to account for or emit
[1:26:03] money that belongs to another and comes
[1:26:04] to a personal a person's possession. 4 B
[1:26:08] comingling money described in subsection
[1:26:10] 4 A with a person's own money. 4 C
[1:26:12] diverting money described in in
[1:26:14] subsection 4A for the purpose of the
[1:26:17] money received and 15 breaching a
[1:26:20] fiduciary duty owed by the lency to the
[1:26:22] lency's principal in a real estate
[1:26:24] transaction
[1:26:25] in Utah uh administrative code R1622F41A
[1:26:30] affirmative duties required of a
[1:26:32] licensed individual a licensed
[1:26:34] individual uh an individual licency
[1:26:36] shall one uphold the following fiduciary
[1:26:39] duties in the course of representing a
[1:26:41] principal
[1:26:42] FA and accounting for any money and
[1:26:44] property entrusted to the agent. 15
[1:26:47] timely informed the lences principal
[1:26:48] broker or branch broker real estate
[1:26:50] transactions in which a the lys involved
[1:26:53] an agent or principal b the lency was
[1:26:56] receive funds on behalf of the principal
[1:26:58] broker or c an offer has been written
[1:27:00] and 24 immediately deliver uh money
[1:27:03] received in a real estate transaction in
[1:27:05] the principal broker for deposit.
[1:27:08] In this full settlement, the division
[1:27:10] proposed that the respondent sales agent
[1:27:13] um license is revoked and the respondent
[1:27:16] shall pay a civil penalty of $4,000 to
[1:27:18] the division to be paid in a structured
[1:27:21] 12-month development plan beginning 30
[1:27:23] days from the date of the commission and
[1:27:25] director sign the final order in this
[1:27:27] matter and be subject to the publication
[1:27:29] of these findings in the division's
[1:27:31] court of the newsletter. to provide
[1:27:33] additional context uh for the
[1:27:35] commission's review. The responder took
[1:27:38] full responsibility and cooperated
[1:27:40] during investigation and he was
[1:27:42] completely forthright uh uh during the
[1:27:44] investigative interview. Um he admitted
[1:27:47] to taking the funds for personal use. He
[1:27:49] admitted taking the Christmas bonuses
[1:27:52] and the construction fee for personal
[1:27:55] use. Um, but he did actually restore the
[1:27:58] 17,81414
[1:28:01] uh back by getting the cashier's check.
[1:28:04] Um, also the respondent is no longer
[1:28:06] actively practicing real estate. He
[1:28:09] poses no ongoing risk of public harm and
[1:28:11] he fully understands his absolute
[1:28:13] obligations regarding the proper
[1:28:15] handling, safeguarding, immediate
[1:28:16] delivery trust funds to the principal
[1:28:18] broker. The 12-month payment plan is
[1:28:20] requested due to the respondent's
[1:28:22] financial hardship um and and mental
[1:28:26] well-being as his uh real estate license
[1:28:28] is being revoked. He's no longer earning
[1:28:30] an income from real estate transactions
[1:28:33] and he had had to rely to borrow funds
[1:28:35] from his aunt to make the 17,81414
[1:28:38] restitution payment. And with the
[1:28:40] respondent submissions in agreed upon
[1:28:41] terms, the division respectively submits
[1:28:44] this stipulation for your approval. Is
[1:28:45] there any questions on this stipulation?
[1:28:48] Yeah, I have a question on 5C.
[1:28:52] It says that if the respondent fails to
[1:28:54] comply, uh, then his, uh, license shall
[1:28:57] be immediately
[1:28:59] suspended. So, I'm maybe I'm reading
[1:29:02] that wrong, but and a it says that it's
[1:29:04] being revoked.
[1:29:08] » 5C.
[1:29:10] Yeah, on on page four of 11, I see a C
[1:29:16] that says if respondent fails to comply
[1:29:18] in full, then maybe that shouldn't be in
[1:29:20] there. You didn't discuss that, but it's
[1:29:22] in this order
[1:29:24] >> or stipulation.
[1:29:26] >> Jim, I think that comes just from our
[1:29:28] template and it should have been
[1:29:30] removed, but I don't think it's
[1:29:32] problematic. Um obviously
[1:29:36] um he won't have a license to suspend.
[1:29:40] >> Okay.
[1:29:41] >> Yeah. Yes. But we're asking for
[1:29:44] revocation.
[1:29:46] >> I just wanted you to know that I
[1:29:47] >> Okay.
[1:29:48] >> Good.
[1:29:49] >> I appreciate that.
[1:29:52] >> Is there any other questions on the
[1:29:53] stipulation?
[1:29:57] » Okay. Then the last one. Commissioners
[1:29:59] is
[1:30:00] >> Marie had a question. I thought
[1:30:02] >> Yes, I do. Thank you. Do we know if he
[1:30:06] uh paid back the $75,000
[1:30:10] as well as the Christmas bonuses?
[1:30:13] >> He did not. He did not pay those back.
[1:30:17] >> Is there a civil case pending?
[1:30:20] >> Um I know there was a legal investig uh
[1:30:24] um police investigation, but that's
[1:30:27] pretty much all I know. they didn't want
[1:30:28] to pursue it because the uh broker um I
[1:30:33] guess apparently did want to pursue that
[1:30:35] part. So the only evidence we had is
[1:30:37] what with this um the 14 the $17,000
[1:30:42] check. So I'm not sure.
[1:30:44] >> Thank you.
[1:30:45] >> Mhm. You're [clears throat] welcome.
[1:30:52] » Okay. If there's no other questions, the
[1:30:53] last one is a matter of Justin Rogers
[1:30:55] stipulation.
[1:30:57] So at all times relevant, respondent
[1:30:59] Justin Rogers was licensed as a sales
[1:31:01] agent by the division of real estate
[1:31:04] license number 9498075
[1:31:07] SAE0000. He has been licensed with the
[1:31:09] division since August of 2015.
[1:31:13] So at all times relevant also the
[1:31:15] complaintant is also a licensed real
[1:31:17] estate agent with the division of real
[1:31:18] estate and the complaintant's employer
[1:31:21] was an active real estate um brokerage
[1:31:24] in the state of Utah.
[1:31:26] uh in 20 2022
[1:31:30] the complaintant established a
[1:31:31] friendship with a mutual acquaintance of
[1:31:34] the respondent. The mutual acquaintance
[1:31:36] had previously been in a committed
[1:31:38] relationship with a respondent which had
[1:31:41] been you know concluded but during that they worked together. So do
[1:31:46] this. The dispute escalated on March
[1:31:49] 21st, 2026 after respondent learned that
[1:31:53] the complaintant and the mutual
[1:31:54] acquaintance had spent the evening
[1:31:56] together. The respondent sent hostile
[1:31:59] text messages to the complaintant that
[1:32:01] included the photograph and and the
[1:32:03] mutual acquaintance and personal
[1:32:05] accusations labeling the complaintant a
[1:32:07] home record. Uh, crucially, these
[1:32:09] initial messages also contain an
[1:32:12] explicit thread uh to contact the
[1:32:14] complaintant's brokerage employer as
[1:32:17] part of their deliberate effort to ruin
[1:32:18] the complaintant's professional
[1:32:20] reputation. Over the following week, the
[1:32:23] harassment intensified on March 28th and
[1:32:25] 29th, 2026. The respondant used a
[1:32:28] secondary phone number to bypass
[1:32:30] barriers and send explicit intimate
[1:32:32] videos of himself and the mutual
[1:32:35] acquaintance directly to the
[1:32:36] complaintant's phone. After this uh same
[1:32:39] time, the respondent access to mutual
[1:32:41] acquaintance business Instagram account
[1:32:43] without authorization. He utilized this
[1:32:46] business platform to publish multiple
[1:32:49] defamatory posts containing personal
[1:32:52] accusations against the complaintant. To
[1:32:54] ensure maximum professional exposure,
[1:32:57] the per uh respondent linked and tagged
[1:32:59] these posts directly to the
[1:33:00] complaintant's personal Instagram
[1:33:02] account and the official Instagram
[1:33:04] account of the complaintant's brokerage
[1:33:06] employer, specifically targeting the brokerage management to
[1:33:10] draw them into the personal dispute,
[1:33:13] which became professional when he did
[1:33:14] this. Following these uh targeted
[1:33:17] messages in a public social media post,
[1:33:19] the complaintant contacted law
[1:33:21] enforcement and petitioned the court for
[1:33:23] protective relief. On April 22nd, 2026,
[1:33:28] uh the district court formally entered a
[1:33:30] civil stalking injunction against a
[1:33:32] respondent armed with this protective
[1:33:34] order. Then the complaintant came to the
[1:33:36] division and filed a complaint on Mar uh
[1:33:38] May 13, 2026.
[1:33:41] In a written response and subsequent
[1:33:43] interview with the respondent, he
[1:33:45] admitted to entirety of all the
[1:33:48] allegations. He confessed in sending the
[1:33:50] harassing text text messages and
[1:33:53] explicit videos from his primary phone
[1:33:55] and secondary phone and admitted to
[1:33:58] hijacking the business Instagram account
[1:34:00] to defame the complaintant and target
[1:34:02] the complaintant's employer. The
[1:34:04] respondent also admitted that he lied
[1:34:06] under oath while testifying during the
[1:34:08] evidentiary court hearing for the civil
[1:34:10] stalking junction.
[1:34:13] And in this matter, the respondant
[1:34:14] admits to violating Utah code 612F4116,
[1:34:19] grounds for disciplinary action. The
[1:34:21] following acts are unlawful on grounds
[1:34:22] for disciplinary action for a person
[1:34:24] licensed to require a license under his
[1:34:26] chapter subsection 16. Any other conduct
[1:34:29] with with constitutes dishonest
[1:34:31] dealings. um and Utah administrative
[1:34:34] code R1622041B
[1:34:37] prohibited conduct as as applicable to a
[1:34:39] licensed individual. One, an individual
[1:34:42] license may not engage in any practices
[1:34:44] uh described in section 61241
[1:34:48] and the following sections whether
[1:34:49] acting as an agent or on the license on
[1:34:52] account in a matter that one fails to
[1:34:54] conform with the accepted standards of
[1:34:56] real estate licensing or sales, leasing
[1:34:58] and management industries and two could
[1:35:00] jeopardize a public health, safety and
[1:35:02] welfare and three violates any
[1:35:04] provisions of title 61 chapter 2F or the
[1:35:07] rules of this chapter.
[1:35:09] So, in full settlement of this matter,
[1:35:11] commissioners, the division proposed
[1:35:12] that the respondent pay a civil penalty
[1:35:15] of $3,000 to division via structured
[1:35:18] again 12-month installment plan
[1:35:20] beginning 30 days from the date the
[1:35:22] commission and director sign the final
[1:35:23] order this matter. complete a minimum of
[1:35:26] three hours of continuing education
[1:35:28] specifically focused on Utah law
[1:35:30] providing a comprehensive review of
[1:35:32] statutes and rules applicable to real
[1:35:34] estate licences which shall not count
[1:35:36] toward a renewal cycle and is subject to
[1:35:38] the publication of these findings in the
[1:35:40] division's quarterly newsletter and to
[1:35:43] provide additional contact or context
[1:35:45] with the fees and the 12 uh month
[1:35:48] payment plan etc. Um, the respondent
[1:35:50] took responsibility and cooperated
[1:35:52] during the investigation by
[1:35:53] acknowledging his misconduct, expressing
[1:35:56] sincere remorse uh for acting out in the
[1:35:58] heat of passion and submitted a written
[1:36:01] statement taking full accountability. He
[1:36:03] is entirely forthright during the
[1:36:05] recorded interview, explaining that he
[1:36:07] lied under oath out of fear to protect
[1:36:09] his clean record nearly 11 years with
[1:36:11] the division. He also understands that
[1:36:13] it was a severe act with dishonest
[1:36:15] dealings that he that could imple
[1:36:17] directly impact his fitness to hold a
[1:36:19] professional license by lying under
[1:36:21] oath. He is requesting a structured
[1:36:24] 12-month installment plan to
[1:36:26] systematically satisfy his financial
[1:36:28] obligation to the division demonstrating
[1:36:30] his ongoing commitment to full
[1:36:32] compliance and resolving this matter in
[1:36:34] cooperative manner. There was no missing
[1:36:36] funds. There's no property damage. Um
[1:36:39] and then there has been no contact
[1:36:40] between the parties since his double
[1:36:42] civil stock double stalking injunction
[1:36:44] was issued and the respondent fully
[1:36:46] understands his obligations regarding
[1:36:48] professional standard honesty and
[1:36:50] truthfulness under oath. While the
[1:36:52] respondent submission in agreed upon
[1:36:54] terms, the division respectfully submits
[1:36:56] this stipulation for your approval. I'm
[1:36:58] happy to address any questions with this
[1:36:59] stipulation.
[1:37:05] » Okay. Um,
[1:37:12] there's no questions on that. Does that
[1:37:15] It looks like that concludes our
[1:37:17] stipulations.
[1:37:19] >> Thank you.
[1:37:20] >> Um, thank you. Um, okay.
[1:37:26] Looks like we've got now a one hour uh
[1:37:30] informal licensing hearing. Um,
[1:37:35] want to let's see, we're 10 We're almost
[1:37:38] 10:40. Want to take a 10-minute break
[1:37:40] before we start that informal licensing
[1:37:42] hearing? Are the uh uh
[1:37:46] is uh is Mr. Walker uh present?
[1:37:52] >> Yeah, I'm here.
[1:37:53] >> Okay. All right. We'll uh we'll pause
[1:37:56] for 10 minutes and then we'll uh
[1:37:57] reconvene and and start the informal
[1:38:00] hearing. Thank you.
[1:49:50] Okay, looks like we're there. We are,
[1:49:52] Jim. Okay. Um,
[1:49:55] this is uh is the time now for the
[1:49:59] informal licensing hearing in the matter
[1:50:01] of the application of uh Jaden Riley
[1:50:04] Walker to act as an associate broker.
[1:50:08] Um,
[1:50:11] In this proceeding, uh the division
[1:50:15] director Vette will act as the presiding
[1:50:18] officer.
[1:50:20] Um
[1:50:22] and and
[1:50:25] see so
[1:50:30] Mr. Walker, are you here and ready to to
[1:50:35] proceed?
[1:50:36] >> Uh yeah. Do I just get right into it?
[1:50:40] >> Well, well, let's see. Is Director Vette
[1:50:43] on?
[1:50:44] >> Yes, Chair.
[1:50:45] >> Okay. Um, we'll let we'll let the
[1:50:48] director explain the uh the the the
[1:50:50] process and then we'll uh we'll hear
[1:50:54] from uh we'll we'll proceed accordingly.
[1:50:58] >> Thank you, Chair Southwick. Um, as the
[1:51:02] chair indicated, uh, we're here, uh, for
[1:51:05] a hearing in the matter of the
[1:51:06] application of Jaden Riley Walker to act
[1:51:09] as an associate broker. The docket
[1:51:12] number assigned to this matter is
[1:51:14] RE202670.
[1:51:19] This is a licensing hearing. Um,
[1:51:23] basically what that means is that we are
[1:51:25] here upon the request of Mr. Walker for
[1:51:28] the commission to um consider his
[1:51:31] application denovo. Um which means as if
[1:51:35] uh the underlying decision um by the
[1:51:38] division had had not occurred, the
[1:51:40] commission is is making a decision on
[1:51:42] their own based on on materials and this
[1:51:45] hearing. Um this has been designated as
[1:51:48] an informal proceeding under the Utah
[1:51:51] Administrative Procedures Act and
[1:51:53] associated rules. Uh my name is Lee
[1:51:56] Veet. I'm the division director and I'll
[1:51:58] be serving as the presiding officer in
[1:52:00] this hearing. Um, which basically means
[1:52:02] I'm just here to facilitate and and
[1:52:04] conduct the hearing. Um, we uh this
[1:52:09] hearing has been allocated for 1 hour.
[1:52:11] It is now 10:52 a.m. So, the hearing
[1:52:15] needs to conclude um at or before 11:52
[1:52:20] a.m. So, I would ask that um all parties
[1:52:23] be mindful um of that time frame. Um and
[1:52:28] Mr. Walker, you indicated that you are
[1:52:30] present, correct?
[1:52:33] >> Yep.
[1:52:35] >> Okay. And uh who do we have here on
[1:52:38] behalf of the division?
[1:52:39] >> Tyler Huff. Okay, wonderful. Um,
[1:52:44] do we have uh Mr. Walker, do you have
[1:52:47] any witnesses that you plan to call um
[1:52:50] during the hearing uh so that we can get
[1:52:53] them sworn in?
[1:52:55] >> No.
[1:52:56] >> Okay. Mr. Huff, do you have any
[1:52:58] witnesses you plan to call during the
[1:53:00] hearing that you would like to get sworn
[1:53:01] in?
[1:53:02] >> We have uh Jaden Walker listed, but uh
[1:53:06] so we may have some questions for him.
[1:53:10] Okay. Um, Mr. Walker, let's go ahead and
[1:53:13] get you sworn in at this time just so we
[1:53:15] can get that out of the way. Um, if you
[1:53:18] could could you please turn your camera
[1:53:20] on for the hearing?
[1:53:21] >> Uh, this computer doesn't have a camera.
[1:53:24] Unfortunately,
[1:53:26] I can uh I can tell you I'm raising my
[1:53:29] right hand. If that
[1:53:33] >> that should be sufficient. Uh, Mr.
[1:53:35] Barney, the division's hearing officer,
[1:53:37] will swear you in.
[1:53:39] Yes. Thank you. So, Mr. Walker, will you
[1:53:42] please raise your right hand?
[1:53:44] >> Okay, it's raised.
[1:53:45] >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm under
[1:53:47] penalty of perjury that the testimony
[1:53:49] you're about to give in this proceeding
[1:53:51] is the truth and nothing but the truth?
[1:53:54] >> Yes.
[1:53:55] >> Thank you.
[1:53:57] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so because we are
[1:54:00] here on Mr. Walker's request, he he
[1:54:03] bears what's called the burden of proof
[1:54:04] in this matter. So um the order of these
[1:54:07] proceedings is going to proceed with Mr.
[1:54:10] Walker going first and then the division
[1:54:12] going second uh to reflect that um that
[1:54:16] burden. Um we will start right now with
[1:54:21] just opening remarks. Mr. Walker, do you
[1:54:25] have any opening remarks you would like
[1:54:26] to make to the commission at this time?
[1:54:29] >> Uh yes. I'm actually going to be
[1:54:30] requesting a 60-day continuance. Uh, I
[1:54:33] turned in a grandma request through the
[1:54:35] state of Utah on May 7th and it was
[1:54:38] assigned to Tyler Huff on May 13th and I
[1:54:42] did not get a response to that grandma
[1:54:44] request until July 13th at 5:27 p.m. So,
[1:54:49] I have not been able to present anything
[1:54:50] to my legal counsel to then show up to
[1:54:54] this and represent me. So, I have a
[1:54:57] 30-day period to appeal the grandma
[1:55:00] request answer and then from there, um,
[1:55:03] I need to get that to my lawyer.
[1:55:06] >> Um, so, Mr. Walker, were you in receipt
[1:55:09] of the hearing packet and exhibit list
[1:55:14] um,
[1:55:16] compiled by the division in this matter?
[1:55:18] >> Tyler Huff did send me that July 13th at
[1:55:21] 5:27 p.m.,
[1:55:23] >> which was this just Monday.
[1:55:26] Mr. Huffer, Mr. Barney, do you have any
[1:55:28] additional context to add?
[1:55:31] >> Yeah, I can respond to that. So, um, the
[1:55:35] reason why we the grammar request, um,
[1:55:39] took a little bit longer was because we
[1:55:40] were trying to resolve some questions
[1:55:43] with the documents before we responded.
[1:55:46] That being said, the documents that were
[1:55:48] available in the grammar to submit
[1:55:51] through the grammar request were always
[1:55:53] available to Mr. Walker. So it would
[1:55:55] have been the order from May 1st which
[1:55:59] he was provided a copy with and the um
[1:56:02] district court's order granting motion
[1:56:05] for default judgment which were which
[1:56:07] are publicly available through the
[1:56:09] court's website. Um that being said um
[1:56:12] if Mr. Walker wishes to continue the
[1:56:14] hearing then the division won't object.
[1:56:18] >> Thank you Mr. Huff. Commissioners any
[1:56:20] questions or comments? Ultimately, it's
[1:56:24] the commission's decision um on whether
[1:56:27] to grant Mr. Walker's continuence. Oh,
[1:56:29] sorry, Mr. Barney. Please proceed.
[1:56:31] >> Thank you. Yes, you asked me also for
[1:56:33] some context. So, I've had several phone
[1:56:36] conversations with Mr. Walker. Uh he
[1:56:39] called after the uh order that the
[1:56:43] division entered uh was provided to him
[1:56:46] and asked about his uh right to have
[1:56:49] that order reviewed. So that that
[1:56:52] happened
[1:56:53] uh two or more months ago. Don't know
[1:56:57] the exact timing. And and so we have
[1:57:00] been in touch and he's been aware and we
[1:57:02] appreciate his appearance today. As uh
[1:57:06] Mr. Huff indicated, we don't necessarily
[1:57:09] oppose the
[1:57:11] uh extension of this date for the
[1:57:14] hearing.
[1:57:15] I would like to say that we know that in
[1:57:18] August there's an an opportunity to hear
[1:57:22] that at the uh August meeting of the
[1:57:24] commission. After that
[1:57:27] uh it would have to be scheduled
[1:57:29] according to the commission's schedule
[1:57:31] and it it might happen in in September
[1:57:35] which would be 60 days or it could
[1:57:37] stretch out longer. Uh in the meantime
[1:57:40] the order is in place which places uh
[1:57:43] Mr. Walker's license on probation. So,
[1:57:46] that won't change. But again, uh we
[1:57:49] appreciate his desire to
[1:57:52] um have some time to review these
[1:57:55] documents even though the the uh two
[1:57:58] that we believe are responsive to his
[1:58:00] grammar request
[1:58:02] are the order that was mailed to him and
[1:58:04] he did receive. We talked about that.
[1:58:06] and the court order, a judge's signed
[1:58:10] order in a civil matter that was
[1:58:13] provided to him through the court
[1:58:16] process and and available to him or to
[1:58:18] anybody in the public through uh contact
[1:58:22] with that court. Um so again, we can do
[1:58:26] that. Oh, I also spoke to him about
[1:58:30] counsel as I understand he has not
[1:58:32] retained counsel.
[1:58:34] uh if he does want to be represented by
[1:58:37] council, he's entitled to that, but his
[1:58:39] council will need to uh contact uh the
[1:58:42] division and provide a uh information to
[1:58:47] us and indicate that he will be
[1:58:50] representing Mr. Walker at
[1:58:51] [clears throat] in this matter.
[1:58:53] >> Thank you, Mr. Barney. Um, commissioners
[1:58:56] and uh, commissions council, assistant
[1:58:58] attorney general Clark, do y'all have
[1:58:59] any questions, um, comments, uh,
[1:59:03] thoughts on on continuence?
[1:59:09] » I I'm fine deferring to the count to uh
[1:59:12] to the commission here. Um, if there are
[1:59:15] materials that Mr. Walker feels like he needs to review and the division is
[1:59:21] fine continuing. Um I don't see a
[1:59:24] problem with that. I mean, as Justin
[1:59:25] said, the order does stay in effect
[1:59:27] during that time. So, it's not like by
[1:59:29] granting a continuence, the uh probation
[1:59:32] is lifted or anything like that. It
[1:59:33] stays in effect and as long as Mr.
[1:59:35] Walker understands that, um I think
[1:59:38] that's fine. It's just a decision for
[1:59:40] the commission to make.
[1:59:45] » So, Mr. Walker, are you are you
[1:59:48] anticipating I mean it it sounds like
[1:59:51] there are no documents in addition to
[1:59:54] the ones that you've received or have
[1:59:57] had access to. Are you thinking there's
[2:00:00] something else uh that you're going to
[2:00:03] uh get in addition to that? Go ahead and
[2:00:07] unmute yourself. So, there was things in
[2:00:10] that grandma request that were denied
[2:00:12] and that's why I need to appeal it
[2:00:14] because it will help my case in this
[2:00:16] hearing. Um, and I just want to clarify,
[2:00:19] Mr. Barney and I have not had several
[2:00:21] conversations. We've had two phone calls
[2:00:24] this year together. One was when I was
[2:00:26] put on probation asking why, and then
[2:00:28] the other one was on July 13th at like
[2:00:32] 3:00 when he was asking if we were still
[2:00:34] good for the hearing. I just wanted to
[2:00:37] clarify. We haven't been in
[2:00:38] communication seven times.
[2:00:43] » Mr. Barney, you have your hand raised.
[2:00:45] >> Uh, yes. So, the I think what Mr. Walker
[2:00:50] is saying, those are correct statements.
[2:00:53] The issue is uh also on his uh grammar request. It it references
[2:01:01] this case, but it it asks for uh
[2:01:04] documents that are not part of this
[2:01:07] case. There is a separate investigation
[2:01:09] that the division is undertaking
[2:01:12] regarding possible violations of Utah
[2:01:15] law and administrative rules and and
[2:01:18] that is not part of of u this particular
[2:01:22] proceeding. And so I I think uh there
[2:01:25] would need to be a separate
[2:01:28] uh well he he can re he can appeal that
[2:01:32] but again that is related to a separate
[2:01:35] matter and not to the licensing
[2:01:38] case here.
[2:01:40] >> Thank you
[2:01:42] >> commissioners.
[2:01:48] » So so
[2:01:50] I I guess back to Mr. Walker. Are you
[2:01:53] requesting a postponement of this
[2:01:55] hearing today?
[2:01:57] >> Correct. At least a 60-day
[2:02:01] >> just because we have to get through the
[2:02:02] appeal on the grandma request and I have
[2:02:04] to present it to legal counsel and get
[2:02:06] everything together.
[2:02:10] » Is that something we can address here,
[2:02:12] chair, or do we need to do that in
[2:02:13] executive session?
[2:02:16] >> Yeah, you you can address that here if
[2:02:19] you'd like.
[2:02:20] I'd like to make a motion that we uh
[2:02:26] have this continued for at least 60
[2:02:28] days.
[2:02:30] >> Second.
[2:02:32] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to
[2:02:36] uh continue this for at least 60 days.
[2:02:41] Um is there any discussion
[2:02:44] on the motion?
[2:02:52] Okay. Um,
[2:02:55] does this need to be a a voice vote or a
[2:02:58] roll call vote?
[2:03:00] >> Let's do a roll call vote. Yeah.
[2:03:02] >> Make it clear. [laughter]
[2:03:10] » Okay. Jim.
[2:03:12] >> Yes. All right.
[2:03:15] Marie
[2:03:17] >> I
[2:03:19] >> Randy
[2:03:20] >> I
[2:03:22] >> Okay.
[2:03:25] Uh that is going to pass. Um
[2:03:33] I'll vote I as well. So that that is
[2:03:36] granted. Uh Mr. Walker will uh
[2:03:41] anticipate seeing you sometime uh after
[2:03:44] 60 days.
[2:03:46] >> Awesome. Thank you. And then will I just
[2:03:48] get an email stating when it's scheduled
[2:03:51] again? Is that plan?
[2:03:54] >> Yes. If you if you'll uh stay in touch
[2:03:56] with Tyler Huff, he will uh continue to
[2:04:00] represent the division in this matter.
[2:04:02] And uh the as you probably are aware the
[2:04:06] commission meets once a month and so at
[2:04:10] the next available commission meeting
[2:04:13] uh following the 60 days we can schedule
[2:04:16] that and and uh yeah just please stay in
[2:04:19] touch with Mr. H. So I I don't know if
[2:04:23] um I'm speaking out of turn, but uh the
[2:04:27] meeting in 60 days or after 60 days
[2:04:30] would be September 23rd. I don't know if
[2:04:33] we want to schedule it for that meeting
[2:04:36] um or if uh if Mr. Walk would prefer we
[2:04:40] can just wait until he says um he wants
[2:04:43] to go forward and then we can
[2:04:45] >> What is the
[2:04:48] >> what's the process the timing on the
[2:04:51] appeal of the So there's there's been a
[2:04:54] denial of the of
[2:05:00] » we gave him the documents that we
[2:05:01] thought were relevant but denied the
[2:05:04] documents related to the separate
[2:05:07] enforcement matter. matter that's
[2:05:08] proceeding
[2:05:09] >> and and who makes the determination on
[2:05:12] the appeal of the grammar request.
[2:05:15] >> That would be the Department of
[2:05:17] Commerce. And so they have uh Mr. Walker
[2:05:22] has 30 days from the date that he
[2:05:23] received the grammar request um to
[2:05:26] appeal. And then uh I'm not sure how
[2:05:29] long those appeals take. Um,
[2:05:32] >> so it could be longer than 60 days, but
[2:05:35] it it could be resolved by then as well.
[2:05:40] >> Okay.
[2:05:42] >> We could get it on the calendar for
[2:05:44] September. Assuming, Mr. Walker, that
[2:05:46] September 23rd is a date that works for
[2:05:49] you. And in the event the grammar appeal
[2:05:52] is still pending, we could potentially
[2:05:54] move it just to save the space on the
[2:05:56] commission's agenda.
[2:05:58] >> Yeah, that that sounds good. if we just
[2:06:00] save the date for the 23rd of September
[2:06:02] and then if my part hasn't been resolved
[2:06:05] on the grandma portion, I'll just reach
[2:06:07] out to Mr. Huff and if we need to, you
[2:06:10] know, extend it or have a meeting about
[2:06:13] extending it again, we'll go from there.
[2:06:16] >> Okay. Is that good, commissioners?
[2:06:19] >> Yeah.
[2:06:20] >> Okay.
[2:06:20] >> Yes.
[2:06:21] >> Wonderful. Um, so that concludes the
[2:06:24] hearing for today. It's been continued,
[2:06:26] so I'll turn it back over to you, Chair
[2:06:27] Southwick.
[2:06:29] Okay.
[2:06:30] >> Thank you, director. Um,
[2:06:32] just now, now I'd entertain a motion to
[2:06:35] uh to go into executive session to
[2:06:39] review the uh the stipulations
[2:06:42] that we've heard earlier.
[2:06:46] >> Sorry not to jump in again. Am I good to
[2:06:48] leave? Am I needed?
[2:06:50] >> You're you're good to leave.
[2:06:51] >> Okay, perfect. You guys have a good day.
[2:06:53] >> You too. Thank you. Okay, we've got a
[2:06:56] motion from Commissioner Mlen. Do we
[2:06:58] have a second?
[2:07:01] >> Second.
[2:07:02] >> Okay.
[2:07:04] Second uh as well. Uh all in favor of uh
[2:07:10] motion to go into executive session.
[2:07:14] >> I I
[2:07:16] >> And that passes. Uh
[2:07:19] I'm not sure who our uh
[2:07:22] who our administrative person. You're going to read us into executive
[2:07:26] session. Director Vette. Yes, chair. Let
[2:07:28] the record show that the following
[2:07:30] commission members have voted to close
[2:07:32] this meeting for the sole purpose of
[2:07:34] discussing the character, professional
[2:07:36] competence, or physical and mental
[2:07:38] health of an individual. Chair Rick
[2:07:40] Southwick, Vice Chair Jim Bringhurst,
[2:07:43] Commissioner Marie Mcclullen, and
[2:07:45] Commissioner Randy Smith. So, I will
[2:07:48] open those breakout rooms now.
[2:07:51] >> Thank you.
[2:43:03] Okay, we are uh
[2:43:06] we've concluded our executive session,
[2:43:09] reviewed uh those matters uh that we
[2:43:13] went into executive session to address.
[2:43:17] So, uh we've got a number of items to uh
[2:43:20] take action on now. Uh the first of
[2:43:24] those items
[2:43:27] uh where are we is the um
[2:43:31] >> Brigham Howard uh equation equivalency
[2:43:37] for uh lensure. Uh do we have a motion
[2:43:40] on that matter?
[2:43:42] >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Regarding uh Mr. Brigham
[2:43:45] Howard. Uh I move that we accept his
[2:43:48] alternate alternative education and work
[2:43:51] history in lie of uh GED or high school
[2:43:54] diploma.
[2:43:55] >> Second.
[2:43:57] >> We have a motion ex and a second
[2:44:00] uh to accept the equivalent education
[2:44:02] for Brigham Howard and approved lensure.
[2:44:06] Uh any discussion on that? Uh seeing
[2:44:10] none uh all in favor of that motion?
[2:44:14] I
[2:44:16] >> I let's see. Do we do we have
[2:44:18] Commissioner Mlullen back with us?
[2:44:21] >> She should be joining just now.
[2:44:24] >> Okay,
[2:44:26] Marie, we're just voting on the uh the
[2:44:30] education equivalents for Brigham
[2:44:32] Howard.
[2:44:44] Are you waiting for a vote from me?
[2:44:46] >> Yeah.
[2:44:47] >> Yes.
[2:44:48] >> I
[2:44:49] >> Okay, that uh that passes unanimously
[2:44:52] and does not require concurrence from
[2:44:54] the division. So, uh Mr. Howard, if
[2:44:57] you're still on, uh that's been
[2:44:59] approved. Congratulations.
[2:45:01] Now, uh moving on to our stipulations.
[2:45:04] Uh, first item is the matter of Blake
[2:45:08] Floyd Cousins.
[2:45:11] >> Yes, chair. I'd like to make a motion to
[2:45:12] approve the stipulation in order for
[2:45:14] Blake Floyd Cousins.
[2:45:18] » Thank you.
[2:45:21] >> Second.
[2:45:22] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to
[2:45:25] approve the cause stipulation. Um,
[2:45:30] all in favor of Do we need a roll call
[2:45:32] on this, Elliot, or
[2:45:36] >> just
[2:45:36] >> I always I always think it's a little
[2:45:37] cleaner to do a roll call.
[2:45:39] >> Okay. All right. Uh, Commissioner
[2:45:42] Bringinghurst.
[2:45:43] >> Hi,
[2:45:47] » Commissioner Mlelen.
[2:45:49] >> I,
[2:45:51] >> Commissioner Smith,
[2:45:53] >> I.
[2:45:54] >> And the chair votes I as well. So that
[2:45:57] passes unanimously. Do we have
[2:46:00] concurrence from the division?
[2:46:02] >> Yes, Chair Southwick. The division
[2:46:04] concurs.
[2:46:05] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh next in the matter
[2:46:08] of Stephanie Dixon.
[2:46:12] » Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a
[2:46:14] motion in the matter of Stephanie Dixon
[2:46:16] to approve the stipulation.
[2:46:20] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:46:23] >> Second. And we've got a motion and a
[2:46:24] second on
[2:46:27] uh Stephanie Dixon stipulation.
[2:46:30] Commissioner Smith
[2:46:32] >> I.
[2:46:34] >> Mr. Mlen
[2:46:36] >> I.
[2:46:38] >> Commissioner Bringhurst
[2:46:39] >> I.
[2:46:40] >> And the chair votes I as well. So that
[2:46:43] passes. Do we have concurrence from the
[2:46:47] division?
[2:46:48] >> Yes, the division concurs.
[2:46:50] >> Okay.
[2:46:52] Thank you, director.
[2:46:55] Next, uh the matter of Jared v. Smart.
[2:46:59] Is there a motion on that stipulation?
[2:47:03] >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh regarding the matter
[2:47:06] of Jared v. Smart,
[2:47:09] uh I would move that we approve that
[2:47:11] stipulation.
[2:47:13] >> Second.
[2:47:14] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on
[2:47:17] Jared Smart to accept that stipulation.
[2:47:21] Uh, Commissioner Mlelen,
[2:47:23] >> I,
[2:47:25] >> Commissioner Smith,
[2:47:27] >> I,
[2:47:28] >> Commissioner Bringinghurst,
[2:47:29] >> I.
[2:47:30] >> Chair votes I as well. That passes. Uh,
[2:47:34] do we have concurrence from the
[2:47:35] division?
[2:47:36] >> Yes, the division concurs.
[2:47:38] >> Thank you, director. Okay. Uh, next, uh,
[2:47:43] the matter of Justin Rogers.
[2:47:47] >> Yes, chair. I would like to make a
[2:47:49] motion to approve the stipulation in
[2:47:52] order for Justin Rogers.
[2:47:55] >> Second.
[2:47:57] >> Okay, we've got a motion and a double
[2:47:59] second on that one. Uh, Commissioner
[2:48:02] Bringinghurst
[2:48:03] >> I.
[2:48:04] >> Commissioner Mlen
[2:48:07] >> I,
[2:48:08] >> Commissioner Smith,
[2:48:10] >> I from the chair as well. Uh, do we have
[2:48:14] concurrence from the division?
[2:48:16] >> Yes, the division concurs.
[2:48:18] Okay. Thank you, director.
[2:48:20] That uh that matter is resolved. Uh
[2:48:24] let's see. The final stipulation in the
[2:48:27] matter of Ashley Webb.
[2:48:30] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, on the matter of Ashley
[2:48:33] Webb, I'd like to make a motion to
[2:48:34] approve the stipulation presented to us.
[2:48:38] >> Second.
[2:48:39] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second.
[2:48:45] » Mr.
[2:48:46] Go ahead, Commissioner Smith.
[2:48:48] >> I'd like to abstain from the vote on
[2:48:50] this one. Go on record.
[2:48:52] >> Okay.
[2:48:54] >> Duly noted. Okay. Um, Commissioner
[2:48:58] Bringhurst.
[2:48:59] >> I,
[2:49:00] >> Mr. Mlen.
[2:49:02] >> I,
[2:49:04] >> the chair votes I as well. And we note
[2:49:06] the abstension of Commissioner Smith.
[2:49:10] Does the division concur?
[2:49:12] >> Yes, the division concurs.
[2:49:14] >> Okay.
[2:49:16] That concludes our stipulations
[2:49:20] for today. And and just uh noting again
[2:49:23] that we continued the informal licensing
[2:49:26] hearing for uh Jaden Riley Walker for at
[2:49:31] least 60 days. Uh that concludes today's
[2:49:35] uh commission of the Utah or meeting of
[2:49:38] the Utah Real Estate Commission. Unless
[2:49:40] there's any any other matters we need to
[2:49:42] address.
[2:49:42] >> I just like to recognize Mr. Chair Rick
[2:49:45] Southwick for not missing the
[2:49:47] opportunity to ask for concurrence with
[2:49:49] the division. He was 100%.
[2:49:52] So just
[2:49:53] >> we need that on the record because that
[2:49:55] would never happen with me. [laughter]
[2:49:57] >> I'll second that.
[2:49:59] >> Thank you. Thank you. We we we we do our
[2:50:04] best. So sometimes we get it right.
[2:50:07] >> I mean, usually when you're chair for
[2:50:08] the second time, you hopefully get it by
[2:50:11] then.
[2:50:12] >> Yeah. Yeah. as as as uh as they say in
[2:50:15] Wyoming, Commissioner Smith, this is not
[2:50:17] my first rodeo.
[2:50:19] >> Amen, brother.
[2:50:21] >> I'll make a motion to adjourn even
[2:50:23] though stay here all day and you guys,
[2:50:26] but
[2:50:27] >> Okay. Well, uh I I hope you're I hope
[2:50:29] everyone's uh being successful at uh
[2:50:32] coping with this unheavenly heat that
[2:50:36] we're experiencing. So, uh, stay safe
[2:50:38] out there and just like to again, uh,
[2:50:41] commend the efforts of the staff of the
[2:50:44] division in, uh, making massive headway
[2:50:48] with our, uh, complaints and and
[2:50:52] enforcement and and we appreciate the
[2:50:55] efforts of of everyone on the team. So,
[2:50:57] thank you so much for that. And, uh,
[2:51:00] >> I'll second that.
[2:51:01] >> Have a good have a good holiday. uh you
[2:51:04] know this this double holiday month and
[2:51:07] uh look forward to seeing everyone soon.
[2:51:09] Thank you.
[2:51:10] >> Okay. Thanks.
[2:51:12] >> Oh, I guess we need a vote on that uh
[2:51:13] adjournment, don't we? All in favor?
[2:51:16] >> I
[2:51:19] >> Randy already voted and left us. So,
[2:51:22] we'll see y'all.
[2:51:24] >> See you. Thank you. Bye.
[2:51:25] >> Bye.