[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.

Real Estate Commission Meeting - July 2026

Transcript