By Commissioner Elaine Richardson

FEBRUARY 2006

Participation in the Accelerated Settlement
program is 100% voluntary – those not wishThe administration of the disciplinary process in the ing to participate may enter the formal disciArizona Department of Real Estate, much like the plinary process.
procedures in most other agencies of State government, is often confusing, time consuming, and com- Early returns on the program indicate that
plex. In addition, because all cases have to be the Accelerated Settlement program will be
processed in strict accordance with statutes and an outstanding success. To date, well over
rules, even the most minor of infractions can ap- 75% of those offered the Accelerated Settlepear on the surface to be more threatening, intimi- ment prefer it to the longer and more formal
dating and more time-consuming than necessary.
legal process.
The success of our “traffic tickets” means
more time and effort can be spent on more
serious cases.

To top it all off, it can easily take six or seven
months to complete a case during which time
the licensee or license applicant either doesn’t
have a license or has a license with a pending
disciplinary proceeding.

While I don’t suggest that “minor” infractions
are not serious, I do suggest that the Department is continually looking for means of
In an effort to streamline the process, while conmaking the Department more user friendly,
tinuing to uphold the Department’s mission of
even in sometimes unpleasant circumprotection of the public, the Department has restances. However, let’s hope you never recently instituted an Accelerated Settlement proceive a “traffic ticket” or any other discipligram. Internally, the Accelerated Settlement is
nary action in your career.
referred to as the “traffic ticket.” It consists of a
single page outlining the infraction. The licensee
acknowledges the infraction, submits a civil
penalty and in return, the Department closes the
case without any further action.

Our Mission
Inside this issue:

B u l l e t i n

Arizona Department of Real Estate

T h e

“Traffic Tickets” in Real Estate?

Commissioner’s Corner

1

Do Public Reports Expire?

2

Use UP-TO-DATE ADRE Forms

2

Save Time-Review Your Application...

2

Did you know that?

3

Mexico’s Real Estate Education Program

4-5

A Subsequent Owner Exemption Can Be ...

5-7

ADRE’s On-Line License System

8-9

Disciplinary Actions

9-16

The mission of the
Department is to protect the
public interest through
licensure and regulation of
the real estate profession in
the State of Arizona.

DO PUBLIC REPORTS EXPIRE?
By Roy Tanney
Director of Development Services
Public Reports have no expiration date. However, they may
cease to be valid if the information in the report becomes incorrect or incomplete. New legislation or the discovery of new adjacent land disclosures are examples of causes for reports to become incomplete. In that event, the subdivider who obtained
the report must amend it. (See A.R.S. §32-2184) Further, our
file retention schedule is 20 years after which the file is destroyed. Therefore, a copy of the report will be unavailable from
ADRE unless an electronic copy is in its database. The only
other option to obtain a copy may be if the subdivider or one of
the original lot purchasers still has a copy of the report.

USE UP-TO-DATE ADRE FORMS
By Linda Bevins
DESIGNATED BROKERS: ADRE Auditors have been receiving some Broker Supervision & Control Audit Declarations submitted on out-of-date forms. Be aware that the date of the most
recent edition of the Broker Declaration Form is “Rev. 2/06.”
There have been many changes in Statutes, Rules, and Substantive Policy Statements that are reflected in the newest edition of the form.
ALWAYS check the ADRE website for the most up-to-date edition of this or any form you may need to submit to the Department. The “download forms” link on the ADRE website always
has the most current edition of all forms.
ALL LICENSEES: Be smart. Download the forms you will be
sending to the Department, for any and all types of submissions
from the ADRE website. You can be sure you are using the
most recent edition. Submissions not on an up-to-date form
risk being rejected and holding up the process being requested
of ADRE.
Editor’s Note: Linda Bevins is an Auditor .

SAVE TIME REVIEW YOUR
APPLICATION FOR LICENSING
By Cindy Wilkinson
Director of Licensing and Professional
Education
Save time -- take a moment to review your application and
make sure you have signed it where required and have
attached supporting documents and the required fee before you submit it to the Department. If the Department
receives an incomplete application, it will return the application to you unprocessed. And, although you will have
an opportunity to complete the application, the date it is
completed will determine the effective date of any license
issued. This may have unexpected consequences for you
including, without limitation: expiration of your license and
a lapse in licensure; payment of late fees; unlawful license
activity; and, if in your grace year, being unable to renew
requiring you to apply as an original applicant, including
passing the State license examination.

IN MEMORIAM
The Honorable
Samuel Pearson Goddard, Jr.
1919 -- 2006
th
12 Governor of Arizona
(1965-1967)
Commissioner Richardson and the entire staff at ADRE mourn the passing
of former Governor Sam Goddard.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to
his son, Attorney General Terry Goddard and his entire family.
He will be remembered as an inspiring example of how each of us can
contribute to the civic good of
Arizona.

Page 2

Did you know that...

Did you know that it is important to send your license renewal application directly to the ADRE
Licensing Division and NOT include it with any other paperwork submitted to other Divisions? When
responding to a complaint, providing information to the auditors, submitting data for a Subdivision Public
Report, or any other transactions, DO NOT include license renewal or other paperwork with the submittal.
The employee in Investigations, Auditing, or Development Services will have a large caseload and may not
open your information immediately. The employee handling your situation in the other divisions may be on
vacation or out of town on an audit, investigation, or inspection, and the documents may go unnoticed for
several days. This could result in the failure to renew your license timely. Be sure all transactions relating
to the renewal or maintenance of your license are sent directly to the Licensing Division.
Likewise, information for other Divisions in the Department should be submitted directly to the appropriate
Division and not sent to Licensing with your renewal application. If you receive a letter from the
Investigations Division asking for a response to a complaint and giving you a deadline, submitting the
response to Licensing with your license renewal application will almost certainly, due to the heavy volume
of renewals, result in your response arriving late in Investigations. A late response to a request for
information could result in additional penalties at the conclusion of the case.
The small amount of postage saved by including items for more than one Division of the Department in one
envelope is not worth the difficulties that could arise from a failure to renew your license timely or the failure
to respond timely to an investigation or audit or a request for more information on a subdivision application.
Each Division of the Department now has their own suite numbers:
Administrative Offices:
Suite 110
Development Services:
Suite 130
Investigations and Auditing:
Suite 120
Licensing and Education:
Suite 140

Be smart. Use separate envelopes!

REMINDER: CONVICTIONS MUST BE DISCLOSED!
Licensees are reminded that Commissioner’s Rule R4-28-301(F) requires
that any licensee who is convicted of any misdemeanor or felony offense must disclose that conviction to the Department within TEN (10) DAYS of the date of the
conviction. The date of the conviction occurs when the Defendant pleads guilty to
the offense or is found guilty of the offense. The Department takes any violation of
this disclosure Rule very seriously.

Page 3

Mexico’s Real Estate Educational Program
By Raul P. O’Farrill
Www.ofarrill.tv
In the last decade only a guru could handle a Mexico
Real Estate transaction, a hidden science with floating
myths. It was a scary proposition unless you were motivated by the beauty of the country and not intimidated
by the possibility of losing your money in a nonsensical
financial adventure!
Myths flourished even up until last year despite investing
in Mexican real estate being profitable (100% protected)
with huge returns in a safe economy. Past seminars on
“How to Buy Real Estate In Mexico” seemed to promise
a magical formula:
Notario + Bank+ Title Insurance= A Beach Condo!
However, I feel these seminars did little to provide the
appropriate information for individuals seeking to get
educated on real estate transactions in Mexico.

Many things have improved regarding real estate transactions in Mexico that were the result of the efforts of
Arizona developers, attorneys and U.S. Title Insurance
companies. They created a special market throughout
the country.
With the renewed interest in real estate in Mexico, there
has also been a flood of individuals from the U.S. seeking to act as real estate agents in Mexico (few of them
licensed real estate professionals) targeting the consumers in the United States. Unfortunately many of these
individuals are not knowledgeable about this particular
market that has lead to many costly problems.

In the late 90’s my Mexican law firm of O’Farrill & Associates opened a U.S. office in Phoenix and subsequently
moved its headquarters from Mexico City to Phoenix.

Through the efforts of Governor Janet Napolitano and
Governor Eduardo Bours of Sonora, the Arizona-Mexico
Commission and the Comision Sonora-Arizona, tremendous advances have been made. Others who have
worked tirelessly have been Commissioner Elaine
Richardson, Ricardo Platt, Rodolfo Elias Calles and
other groups such as AMPI, PPAREA as well as the
AMC Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee members. They
have promoted action in the areas of education and a
Public Registry for agents and brokers where 100 hours
education is mandatory. Currently AMPI is conducting
training for all agents and brokers in Rocky Point. The
Sonora government implemented a program whereby
the agent, after completing the required course, becomes a “Diplomado” for the Mexican real estate market. Sonora is the first Mexican State providing such a
program!

In 2000, a new generation of Mexican and U.S. attorneys (educated in Mexico) arrived in Phoenix. Their
knowledge and experience built Phoenix into a portal for
foreign investment into the real estate market in Mexico.

At an AMC Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee meeting,
there was discussion of providing a series of formal
workshops where the participants could learn about real
estate transactions in Mexico from experts.

There have been many visionaries who have made inroads into investments and real estate transactions in
Mexico. Some of those visionaries are: Jonni Francis,
Bruce Greenberg, Tom Woods, Debra Callicutt as well
as attorney such as Carol Colombo and Jose Cardenas.
Ms Colombo and Mr. Cardenas are also past-presidents
of the Arizona-Mexico Commission. Other attorneys
who were pioneers in this highly specialized practice are
Vern Penner, James Fisher, Ben Aguilera, Buzz Alston,
Ed Ranger and Phil Robbins, to name just a few.

Page 4

Mexico’s Real Estate Educational
Program
(continued from page 4)

A SUBSEQUENT OWNER EXEMPTION
CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE
By William E. Day, CFE
(Certified Fraud Examiner)

On October 27, 2005, in conjunction with the Arizona
Department of Real Estate, the first workshop titled
“Introduction to Mexican Real Estate Law and Practice” was
held at the Thunderbird School of International
Management. The AMC Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee,
Thunderbird School of International Management, O’Farrill &
Associates, Tri-Vista Partners, IMI Bank and Spanish Media
Services (who also provides translation services) have
sponsored these workshops.
To date the workshops have been well received and will
continue throughout the following months. A variety of
topics have been addressed. Those areas have been
history, culture, contracts, bank trusts, Notario Publico, title
insurance and escrow, to name a few. ADRE is giving
continuing education credit for most of these workshops.
As a result of these efforts to educate and ensure the
interests of consumers, Arizona has become the “main gate”
for U.S., Canadian and European investors who are seeking
to invest in real estate in Mexico. We look forward to
sharing this experience with other States both in the U.S.
and Mexico and provide better business opportunities for our
highly trained, experienced and successful real estate
industry.
Editor’s Note: Raul O’Farrill is a long-standing member of
the AMC Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee.

A.R.S. 32-2181.02(B)(2), more commonly referred to as the
Subsequent Owner Exemption, when misunderstood can
cause aggravation for the subdivider and can result in a
disciplinary action taken by the Department. The terms of A.
R.S. § 32-2181.02(B)(2) are as follows:
B. The following are exempt from section 32-2181,
subsection A and section 32-2183, subsection A:
2. The sale or lease of lots or parcels located in a single
platted subdivision by a subdivider if:
(a) A Public Report has been issued within the past two
years pursuant to this article on the subdivision lots or
parcels.
(b) The subdivision meets all current requirements
otherwise required of a subdivision under this article.

A NOTE ABOUT GUEST COLUMN
ARTICLES
Guest column articles do not reflect the policies or
interpretations of law by the Arizona Department of
Real Estate. They are meant to inform the public
and provide variety to ADRE’s Bulletin. All articles
are edited for space limitations.

(c) The method of sale or lease of lots or parcels meets
all current requirements under this article.
(d) The lots or parcels are included on a recorded
subdivision plat that is approved by a municipal or
county government.

Page 5

A SUBSEQUENT OWNER EXEMPTION CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE
(continued from page 5)

(j) Before the buyer's or lessee's execution of a
purchase contract or lease, the subdivider has
provided the buyer or lessee with a copy of the most
recent Public Report on the lot and has taken a
receipt from the buyer for the copy.

(e) All roads within the subdivision, all utilities to the lots
or parcels being offered for sale or lease and all other
required improvements within the subdivision, other than
a residence to be built, are complete, paid for and free of
any blanket encumbrances.
(f) The roads, utilities or other improvements are not
complete, but the completion of all improvements is assured pursuant to section 32-2183, subsection D.

(k) The subdivider has provided to the buyer or lessee, along with the Public Report, a signed statement that the subdivider has reviewed and is in compliance with the terms of the exemption provided in
this paragraph.

(g) Except for matters relating to ownership, there have
been no material changes to the information set forth in
the most recent Public Report issued for the subdivision
lots that would require an amendment to the Public Report.

(l) Before sale or lease, the subdivider has notified
the commissioner, on a form provided by the department, of the subdivider's intent to sell or lease lots or
parcels pursuant to this paragraph. The notice shall
include:

(h) No owner of a ten per cent or greater interest, subdivider, director, partner, agent, officer or developer of the
subdivision has:

(I) The name, address and telephone number
of the subdivider .
[ii] The name, address and telephone number
of any real estate broker retained by the subdivider to make sales or leases of the lots.

[I] Been convicted of a felony or any crime involving theft, dishonesty, violence against another person, fraud or real estate, regardless of whether the
convictions were subsequently expunged.

[iii] The name and location of the subdivision.

[ii] Had a civil judgment entered against the person
in a case involving allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, dishonesty or, if the subject matter involved
real property, securities or investments.
[iii] Had a business or professional license, including a real estate license, denied, suspended or revoked or voluntarily surrendered a business or professional license during the course of an investigative or disciplinary proceeding or other disciplinary
action taken in this state or any other state.
(i) The sale of the subdivided lands violates no laws or
ordinances of any governmental authority.

[iv] The most recent subdivision Public Report
reference number on the lots.
[v] The completion status of subdivision improvements.

Important things to remember:
§

All of subsections (a-g) must apply, if not, this exemption cannot be used which means the subdivider
must apply for their own Public Report.

§

If there is a “yes” answer to any item under subsection (h) or (i), the subdivider does not qualify to use
the Subsequent Owner Exemption.

Page 6

A SUBSEQUENT OWNER EXEMPTION CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE
(continued from page 6)
§ Under subsection (j) the subdivider must give the
purchaser a copy of the most recent Public Report on
the lot and have the buyer sign a receipt as required
under A.A.C. R4-28-805.
§

§

Subsection (k) is a requirement. A copy of the Notice of
Intent to Sell filed with the Department complies with this
requirement.

§

If a subdivider uses a Subsequent Owner Exemption for which they are not qualified, they will be
charged in violation of A.R.S. 32-2181(A), 32-2183
(F) and any other violation of statue or rule that
may apply.

§

In addition, if a licensee is involved in the transactions they will also be charged with A.R.S. 32-2181
(A), 32-2183(F) along with A.R.S.32-2164, 32-2153
(A)(3)(22) and any other violation of statue or rule
that may apply.

Subsection (l) is the requirement that the subdivider must
file a Notice of Intent to Sell with the Department prior to
the offering lots for sale. This Notice must be filed with
the Department using the approved form.

§ To qualify for the Subsequent Owner Exemption the
subdivider must comply with all the provisions of A.R.S.
32-2181.02(B)(2). If the subdivider cannot qualify with all
the provisions, the subdivider does not qualify for a
Subsequent Owner Exemption.

Most common situations that can cause you
problems with the Department:
§ Using a Subsequent Owner Exemption for sale of
improved lots using a Public Report that was issued for
the sale of unimproved lots, or offering for sale
unimproved lots with a Public Report that was issued for
the sale of improved lots, means your Subsequent Owner
Exemption is not valid and is in violation.
§

§ If your water provider is not designated as having
an assured water supply by ADWR, you, the subsequent owner, must have a Certificate of Assured
Water Supply issued in your name and covering
your lots. Certificates issued to the original subdivider are not transferable to the subsequent owner.

§ Even though the Subsequent Owner Exemption is
convenient, it can be dangerous and violations are
vigorously pursued.
Editor’s Note: Bill Day is the Deputy Director of the
Investigation Division

Using a purchase contract that does not contain the
required disclosures as required pursuant to
Commissioner’s Rules A.A.C. R4-28-803 and R4-28-804.

§ If a material change occurs, the Public Report is no longer
valid. The Public Report must be amended by the
subdivider to whom the Public Report was issued. You,
the subsequent owner, have the obligation to make sure
you are using the correct Public Report for the
subdivisions.
§

Not obtaining a proper Public Report receipt.

§

Not complying with subsection (k) in its entirety.

Page 7

You Can Do More Than Renew On-Line!
By Cindy Wilkinson
Director of Licensing and Professional
Education
ADRE’s OnLine License System
•

You can change your personal residence or residential
mailing address, change your telephone number and add
or change an email address -- free of charge!

•

You can file for renewal of your license (up to the
expiration date, for now).

•

You can request an employing broker to hire you, or
switch office locations working for the same broker.

February 14, 2006 marked the 1st Anniversary
of ADRE’s OnLine Licensing System! We
encourage Arizona real estate licensees to
take full advantage of it.
Have you tried it yet?

How does it work?
To get started you must "register" to use the
system. . .
This is easy - it means you log in with your license
number, date of birth and the last four digits of your social
security number, review and "accept" the terms and
conditions of using the OnLine Renewal System ("OnLine
system"). That's all there is to it!
To go to work for an employing broker. . .
A salesperson or associate broker logs on to the OnLine
system and enters the license number of the employing
broker (licensed entity or sole proprietorship) where the
person wishes to go to work, and alerts the broker he or
she has done so.
The designated broker of the entity or sole proprietorship
logs onto the system and selects "Review Pending
Approvals" and approves or disapproves the hire.

·
·

If the DB approves it, the broker has the opportunity to print the license.
If the DB declines to approve it, OR if the DB doesn't log onto the system and approve/decline the
hire (i.e., "complete" the form) within the approval
pending period, then the hire request is closed as
incomplete (the request was never approved).
Licensees should monitor the system to ensure the
broker acts on the application and not assume their
license is active.

To renew an active-status license . . .
The licensee logs on to the OnLine System and
chooses "Renew License." A series of screens are presented, prompting the licensee to:
1. Review and update residential address, telephone
number or email address;
2. Answer questions about events since original licensure or last renewal (whichever is LATER);
3. Key in the course numbers and dates of the continuing education courses required for license renewal. If there are discrepancies, the System displays an error message describing the problem. If
not a typing error, the licensee should contact the
issuing school to resolve the discrepancy.
4. Pay the renewal fee (and nominal convenience fee)
and print the confirmation page.
Once completed, you can advise the designated broker
that your renewal is pending. The broker should routinely check for applications that are Pending Approval,
as outlined above under To go to work for an employing
broker.
Note, if the designated broker does not log on and approve the renewal under the employing broker's license
within the License Timeframe, the license is renewed
on inactive status, effective the date the prior license
expired. Licensees should monitor the system to ensure
the broker acts on the application and not assume their
license is active.
To renew an inactive-status license . . .
The same steps apply as for renewing an active status
license, but no broker approval is required; the renewal is
complete upon confirmation of payment of the fees. The
licensee's records will be instantly updated and available
for viewing on the Department's Public Database.

Page 8

ADRE’s ONLINE LICENSE SYSTEM
You Can Do More Than Renew OnLine
(continued from page 8)

To sever employment . . .
A salesperson or associate broker logs into the system and
chooses Sever Employment. Notice is sent to the designated broker and the license is severed from the employing
broker immediately.

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

COMMISSIONER’S FINAL ORDERS
James C. Hostetler (Bullhead City)
File # 05F-LI-436, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Hostetler’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S
§32-2153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because he was convicted of
two Extreme DUI’s, in 3/99 and 11/01. Based on
Hostetler’s having the burden of proof for the appeal of that
denial, the appeal was dismissed for his failure to appear,
per ARS §41-1092.07(G)(1).
Deepak Basandrai (Tucson)
File # 05F-LI-393, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Basandrai’s application for real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S §
32-2153 (B)(2)(7)(9) and (B)(10) based on two misdemeanor convictions for Petty Theft and Commercial Burglary, which indicates that Basandrai was not a person of
honesty, truthfulness and lacked sufficient good character.
Anthony J. DeSantis (Scottsdale)
File # 06F-LI-043, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, the Department denied DeSantis’ application for real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 322153 (B)(2) and (7) based on one felony conviction for Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance
(LSD), which indicates that DeSantis lacked sufficient good
character.
Michael L. Sherwood (Mesa)
File # 05F-LI-432, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Sherwood’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S
§ 32-2153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because he was convicted of
two Extreme DUI’s, in 7/02 and 11/03, which indicates that
Sherwood lacked sufficient good character.

Do you really prefer
to wait in line and deal with all of
the paperwork???!!

Steven J. Williamson (Casa Grande)
File # 05F-LI-391, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Williamson’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S
§ 32-2153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because he was convicted of
two DUI’s, in 9/00 and 5/03, which indicates that Williamson
lacked sufficient good character.
Page 9

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
(continued from page 9)
Joe H. Pereyra-Alcerrera (Mesa)
File # 05F-LI-431, Final Order 10/28/05
The Department denied Pereyra-Alcerrera’s application for
a real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153
(B)(2) and (7) based on a misdemeanor conviction for
Assault-Bodily Injury. One year after pleading No Contest
to the charge, the court dismissed the charges. After hearing, Pereyra-Alcerrera is granted a 2-year Provisional License, subject to specified terms and conditions.
Michael Cruickshank (Phoenix)
File # 05F-LI-399, Final Order 10/28/05
After a hearing, in opposition to the Administrative Law
Judges’ decision recommending granting a license, the
Commissioner denied Cruickshank’s application for a real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2)
(7) and (10). This decision was based on Cruickshank’s
felony convictions for Armed Robbery and Robbery in the
Second Degree on 7/23/90, and a misdemeanor conviction
for Extreme DUI in 10/03. The Commissioner declined to
grant Cruickshank licensure, as she determined that the
criminal acts of robbery are furthest out of bounds of
acceptable behavior. The Commissioner concluded that
the robbery convictions were for crimes of theft and moral
turpitude and evidence of poor character, which make
Cruickshank ineligible for licensure. The Commissioner further concluded that Cruickshank’s conviction for Extreme
DUI, a crime of moral turpitude, also adversely reflects on
his honesty and integrity, sufficiently to demonstrate that
Cruickshank is unqualified to hold a salesperson’s license.
Hector M. Ortega (Phoenix)
File # 05F-LI-400, Final Order 11/08/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Ortega’s application
for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S § 322153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because he was convicted of two
DUI’s, in 11/00 and 11/01, which indicates that Ortega
lacked sufficient good character.
James K. McKinney (Gilbert)
File # 06F-LI-030, Final Order 11/08/05
After a hearing, in opposition to the Administrative Law
Judges’ decision recommending granting a license, the

Commissioner denied McKinney’s application for a real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)
(2)(5)(7)(9) and (10). This decision was based on
McKinney’s misdemeanor convictions for DUI in 10/96,
Shoplifting in 02/00, Assault in 02/00, Theft, and Attempted Theft of a Credit card in 05/00. In an attempt to
avoid prosecution for these crimes, McKinney moved to
Florida. The different courts issued various warrants for
McKinney. McKinney was eventually arrested in New
York on one of the warrants and extradited to Arizona to
face these charges. The Commissioner declined to
grant McKinney licensure, as she determined that the
rehabilitation cited by him as proof of his qualifications to
become licensed, were only begun after being forcibly
returned to Arizona to face the charges. The Commissioner concluded that the criminal convictions for DUI,
Shoplifting, Assault, Theft and Attempted Theft are
crimes, which establish that McKinney is not a person of
honesty, truthfulness or good character and that this
behavior and resulting convictions of moral turpitude are
evidence of the poor character, which make McKinney
ineligible for licensure.
Corey M. Lunn (Scottsdale)
File # 05F-LI-433, Final Order 11/08/05
After a hearing, the Commissioner denied Lunn’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under
A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because he was convicted of two misdemeanor’s, a DUI, in 03/04, and
Trespass in the 2nd Degree in 6/04, which indicates that
Lunn lacked sufficient good character for licensure.
Dawford R. Combs (Tucson)
File # 06F-LI-052, Final Order 11/30/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Combs’ application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S
§ 32-2153 (B)(2)(7) and (B)(10), because he was convicted of Solicitation to Commit a Forgery, a misdemeanor, in 04/04. Based on Combs’ having the burden
of proof for the appeal of that denial, the appeal was
dismissed for his failure to appear, per ARS 41-1092.07
(G)(1).

Page 10

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
(continued from page 10)
Phillip Deasy (Flagstaff)
File # 06F-LI-062, Final Order 11/30/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Deasy’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S §
32-2153 (B)(2)(7)(9) and (10), because he was convicted
of two misdemeanors, Disorderly Conduct/Domestic Violence in 2004, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in
2005. Based on Deasy’s having the burden of proof for
the appeal of that denial, the appeal was dismissed for his
failure to appear, per ARS §41-1092.07(G)(1).
Robert J. Hill (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-044, Final Order 11/30/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Hill’s application
for a real estate salesperson’s license, under A.R.S § 322153 (B)(2) and (B)(7), because Hill was convicted of a
felony, Controlled Substance-Possession Narcotic/
Cocaine, in 01/03, which indicates that Hill lacked sufficient good character for licensure.
Manuel Negrete (Bullhead City)
File # 06F-LI-032, Final Order 11/25/05
The Department denied Negrete’s application for a real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2)
and (7) based on a felony conviction in 07/97 for Conspiracy to Commit Grand Larceny and a misdemeanor conviction for Possession of Marijuana in 01/97. After hearing,
Negrete is granted a 2-year provisional license, subject to
specified terms and conditions, including a $10,000 Surety
Bond, Bodily Fluid Testing and a Sobriety Monitor.

Michael Sean McCall (Apache Junction)
File # 06F-LI-077, Final Order 12/20/05
After a hearing, the Department denied McCall’s application
for real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153
(B)(2) and (7) based on two-felony convictions for Aggravated Assault, which indicates that McCall lacked sufficient
good character for licensure.
Deborah A. Kendrick (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-064, Final Order 12/5/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Kendrick‘s application for real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 322153 (B)(2)(7) and (10) based on a felony conviction for
Theft, which indicates that Kendrick lacked sufficient good
character for licensure.
Sean Sutton (Phoenix)
File # 05F-LI-368, Final Order 12/5/05
After a hearing, the Department denied Sutton ‘s application for real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 322153 (B)(2)(7) and (9), based on a misdemeanor conviction
for DUI in 1998 and a felony conviction for Aggravated DUI
in 2001. Sutton had other undisclosed violations, such as,
a conviction for a Minor in Possession of Alcohol, in 1996, a
misdemeanor DUI conviction in 12/98, a misdemeanor DUI
conviction in 9/98, misdemeanor Driving While Revoked in
9/99, a misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct in 6/00, all of
which indicate that Sutton lacked sufficient good character
for licensure.

Daniel E. Popson (Tucson)
File # 05F-LI-378, Final Order 12/21/05
The Department denied Popson’s application for a real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2)
and (7) based on a misdemeanor conviction for Negligent
Child Abuse, Non-Death or Serious Physical Injury. After
hearing, Popson is granted a 2-year provisional license,
subject to specified terms and conditions.

Page 11

CONSENT ORDERS
(APPEALABLE AGENCY ACTION)
(continued from page 11)
Gary Hall (Glendale)
File # 06F-LI-004-REL, Consent Order 11/28/05
On 5/15/95, the Department issued Hall an original broker’s
license. That license was to expire on 5/31/05. On 5/17/05,
Hall submitted an application for renewal of his broker’s
license. The Department denied Hall’s application because
he admitted on his application that the Arizona Registrar of
Contractors had revoked several of the license’s of Tatum
Properties, L.L.C.’S, dba Tatum Custom Doors & Hardware
for which he was the Qualifying Party, in violation of A.R.S
§32-2153 (A)(3)(22) and A.A.C. R4-28-301 (F). Hall admitted that the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund on behalf of Tatum had made payouts. Hall did not timely notify
the Department of the revocations or recovery fund payouts.
Hall timely filed a Notice of Appeal. Hall’s application for
renewal of his broker license is approved and Hall is
assessed a civil penalty of $1,000.00. Hall must post a
Surety Bond in the amount of $7500.00.
Phyllis Hall (Glendale)
File # 06F-LI-005-REL, Consent Order 11/28/05
On 5/30/95, the Department issued Hall an original broker’s
license. That license was to expire on 5/31/05. On 5/17/05,
Hall submitted an application for renewal of her broker’s
license. The Department denied Hall’s application because
she denied on her application that the Arizona Registrar of
Contractors had revoked several of the license’s of Tatum
Properties, L.L.C.’S, dba Tatum Custom Doors & Hardware,
for which Gary Hall admitted being the qualifying party, but
admitted that she was a Member of Tatum, in violation of
A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3)(22) and A.A.C. R4-28-301 (F). Hall
denied that the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund on
behalf of Tatum had made payouts as the qualifying party,
but admitted that she was a Member of Tatum. Hall did not
timely notify the Department of the revocations or recovery
fund payouts. Hall timely filed a Notice of Appeal. Hall’s
application for renewal of her broker license is approved and
Hall must post a Surety Bond in the amount of $7500.00.
Darell K. Bervin (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-075-REL, Consent Order 11/25/05
On June 10, 2005, Bervin applied for a renewal of a salesperson’s license. On 5/19/05, the Department denied that
renewal. Bervin timely appealed. Bervin admitted on his
application that he had been convicted in 1/05, of the

misdemeanors of Possession of Fireworks and Possession of Alcohol, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2) and
(7). Bervin is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject
to specified terms and conditions.
Gail Russell (Fountain Hills)
File # 06F-LI-085, Consent Order 11/15/05
Russell was granted a real estate salesperson’s license
on or about 4/13/93. That license expired on 4/30/03.
Russell submitted an original application for a real estate
salesperson’s license on 7/12/05. Russell continued to
operate as a salesperson after her license expired and
after she failed to timely renew her license in 4/03.
Russell executed 35 transactions while her license was
expired, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2122 (B), and 32-2153
(A)(10) and (B)(6). Russell’s application for renewal of her
real estate salesperson’s license is granted and she is
assessed a civil penalty of $10,000.00, with $2,000.00 to
ADRE and $8,000.00 to Education Revolving Fund.
Baron Hart Campbell (Scottsdale)
File # 06F-LI-081, Consent Order 12/12/05
On 7/21/05, Campbell applied for a real estate salesperson’s license. On 9/21/05, the Department denied that
application. Campbell timely appealed. Campbell admitted on his application that he had been denied a real
estate license within the last 10 years, by Commissioners
Final Order No. 03A-014, due to a 1999 misdemeanor
conviction for Attempted Theft of a Credit Card, or
Attempting to Obtain a Credit Card by Fraudulent Means,
in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2), (7), and (10).
Campbell is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to
specified terms and conditions.
Gary Steinback (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-244, Consent Order 12/09/05
Steinback was granted a real estate broker’s license on or
about 10/25/85. That license expired on 8/31/05.
Steinback was the Designated Broker for DBSI Real
Estate, LLC. Steinback continued to conduct real estate
activities that required an active license after his license
expired, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(21).
Steinback’s application for renewal of his real estate
broker’s license is granted, his license is suspended 30
days retroactive to November 11, 2005, the day he
ceased unlicensed activity. He is assessed a civil penalty
Page 12

CONSENT ORDERS
(APPEALABLE AGENCY ACTION)
(continued from page 12)
of $1,000.00.
Robert A. Schneiter (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-229, Consent Order 12/2/05
On 10/19/05, Schneiter applied for a renewal of a salesperson’s license. Schneiter admitted on his application
that he had been convicted in 11/04, of Extreme DUI, a
misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(2)(7)
and A.A.C. R4-28-301(F). Schneiter is issued a 2-year
provisional license, subject to specified terms and conditions. Schneiter is assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.
Edmund J. Gorny (Peoria)
File # 06F-LI-040, Consent Order 12/6/05
On 4/26/05, Gorny applied for a renewal of a broker’s
license. Gorny admitted on his application that he had
been convicted in 3/04 of Reckless Driving, a misdemeanor in violation of A.R.S § 32-2160.01 and A.A.C. R428-301(F). Gorny is assessed a civil penalty of $1,000.00.
Norman L. Gifford (Tempe)
File # 06F-LI-190, Consent Order 12/6/05
Gifford was granted a real estate broker’s license on or
about 6/14/99. That license expired on 6/30/05. On or
about 3/21/02, Gifford became a self employed broker dba
AZ Streets Realty. Gifford continued to conduct real
estate activities that required an active license after his
license expired, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(21).
Gifford’s application for renewal of his real estate broker’s
license is granted, and his license is suspended 45 days
retroactive to 10/11/05, the day he ceased unlicensed activity. He is assessed a civil penalty of $1,000.00.
Debra A. Garcia (Mesa)
File # 06F-LI-189, Consent Order 12/7/05
On or about 3/12/03, the Department issued a real estate
salesperson license to Garcia. That license expired
3/31/05. Garcia attempted to renew by mail but she forgot
to include payment and the Department issued a Deficiency Letter, which was returned by the post office as
Garcia failed to update her address with the Department.
Joshua Call, and Call Realty, allowed Garcia to continue to
be employed by Call Realty and to operate as a salesperson after her license expired and after she failed to timely
renew her license, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2122 (B), and

for renewal of her real estate salesperson’s license is granted
and her license is suspended for sixty (60) days retroactive to
9/8/05. She is assessed a civil penalty of $1,000.00.
Susan L. Geren (Laughlin, NV)
File # 06F-LI-404, Consent Order 12/7/05
On 7/6/05, Geren applied for a renewal of a broker’s license.
Geren admitted on her application that she had been disciplined in 4/04 by the Nevada Real Estate Commission, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3), (B)(2), (10), and A.A.C. R428-301(F). Geren is assessed a civil penalty of $1,000.00.
Geren is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to specified terms and conditions. Geren is required to complete 6
hours of Continuing Education regarding the Commissioners
Rules and is required to post a Surety Bond in the amount of
$10,000.00.
Perry Skinner (Glendale)
File # 06F-LI-238, Consent Order 12/8/05
On 9/21/05, Skinner applied for a renewal of a salesperson’s
license. Skinner admitted on his application that he had been
convicted in 7/04 of DUI a misdemeanor in violation of A.R.S
§32-2153 (A)(3), (B)(2) and (7) and A.A.C. R4-28-301(F).
Skinner is assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.
Melissa Lopez Miranda (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-228, Consent Order 12/8/05
On or about 9/19/05, Miranda applied for an original salesperson’s license. Miranda admitted on her application that she
had been convicted in 3/01 of a felony, Facilitation to Possess
Marijuana For Sale, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3), (B)
(2) and (7). Miranda is issued a 2-year provisional license,
subject to specified terms and conditions.
Stacy Hester (Phoenix)
File # 06F-LI-237, Consent Order 12/9/05
On or about 8/1/05, Hester applied for renewal of her salesperson’s license. Hester admitted on her application that she had
been convicted in 3/05, of a misdemeanor, Littering From a
Vehicle, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3), (B)(2) and A.A.
C. R4-28-301(F). Hester is assessed a civil penalty of
$1,000.00.
.
Thomas Eldredge Fow Strong (Mesa) File # 06F-LI-212, Consent Order 12/16/05. On or about 9/26/05, Strong applied for
Page 13

CONSENT ORDERS
(APPEALABLE AGENCY ACTION)
(continued from page 13)
an original salesperson’s license. Strong admitted on his
application that he had been convicted in 12/03 of a misdemeanor, Disorderly Conduct, and in 01/02 he was convicted
of the misdemeanor offense of Underage Consumption of
Alcohol, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3), and (B)(7).
Strong is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to
specified terms and conditions, including a Sobriety Monitor
and Bodily Fluid Testing.
Dwight Hawkins (Chandler)
File # 06F-LI-187, Consent Order 12/20/05
On or about 8/8/03, the Department issued a real estate
salesperson license to Hawkins. That license expired
8/31/05. Joshua Call, and Call Realty, allowed Hawkins to
continue to be employed by Call Realty, to operate as a
salesperson after his license expired and after he failed to
timely renew his license, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2122
(B), and 32-2153 (A)(22), and (B)(6). Hawkins’ application
for renewal of his real estate salesperson’s license is
granted. His license is suspended for 30 days retroactive
to 10/13/05. He is assessed a civil penalty of $500.00.
Aaron Sanchez (Surprise)
File # 06F-LI-226, Consent Order 12/22/05
On 9/16/05, Skinner applied for a renewal of a salesperson’s license. Skinner admitted on his application that he
had been convicted in 2/05, for Violation of a Court Order, a
misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(3), (B)(2)
and (7). Skinner is assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.
Sanchez is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to
specified terms and conditions.
Tamera Meisenheimer (Scottsdale)
File # 06F-LI-262, Consent Order 1/3/06
On or about 9/23/05, Meisenheimer applied for renewal of
her salesperson’s license. Meisenheimer admitted on her
application that she had been convicted in 6/04, of a misdemeanor, Extreme DUI, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)
(3), (B)(2), (B)(7) and A.A.C. R4-28-301(F). Meisenheimer
is assessed a civil penalty of $1,500.00 and is required to
complete 6 hours of approved Continuing Education.
John Martin, broker/James Martin, salesperson (Safford)
File # 06F-DI-172, Consent Order 11/16/05
On or about 2/28/00, the Department issued a real estate
broker’s license to John Martin. That license expires on
2/28/06. At all times material to this matter, John Martin
was a self-employed broker, doing business as Quail Ridge
Realty. On or about 1/17/03, the Department issued a real

estate salesperson’s license to James Martin. That license expired on 1/31/05. At all times material to this matter, John Martin was the designated broker for James Martin. From 1/31/05
through 7/22/05, James Martin continued to conduct activity that
required a real estate license even though James Martin’s license had expired, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2122 (B) and (D)
and 32-2153 (A)(6)(10) and (B)(6)(10), and 32-2155(A). James
Martin renewal application for salesperson license’s is granted
and is subject to a sixty (60) day suspension retroactive to
7/22/05, the day he stopped conducting business. James Martin is assessed a civil penalty of $3000.00. John Martin is assessed a civil penalty of $1000.00, and will develop and implement procedures to prevent reoccurrence of such unlicensed
activity.
Joseph Fisher (Phoenix)
File # 05F-DI-244, Consent Order 12/02/05
On 11/19/03, Fisher applied for and was granted a real estate
salesperson’s license, on the basis of the submitted application.
That license expired on 11/30/05. The Department granted a
timely renewal of that license based on a consent order. Fisher
answered “no” to the question whether he had ever been convicted of a felony, when in fact he had been convicted of Battery, a felony, and misdemeanor DUI on 12/24/90. Fisher believed that those convictions had been erased from his record.
Fisher has not been in trouble since those convictions and completed his college education. Fisher failed to disclose these
convictions, which he now admits he should have. The felony
was designated a misdemeanor on 4/6/04. These acts are in
violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(1) and (2). Fisher’s license is
suspended for 120 days, 90 days of which shall be retroactive,
and the remaining 30 days to begin upon entry of the consent
order. Fisher is issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to
specified terms and conditions. Fisher is assessed a civil penalty of $3,000.00.
Richard Anthony Haskins (Litchfield Park)
File # 04F-DI-160, Consent Order 12/02/05
On 10/10/03, Haskins applied for a real estate salesperson’s
license, and that license was granted by the Department on
10/24/03. That license expired on 10/31/05. Haskins answered
“no” to the question whether he had ever been convicted of a
felony, when in fact he had been convicted of Arson, a felony,
on 11/2/95. Haskins believed that that conviction had been
erased from his record, as his attorney assured him that an
application to set aside the conviction would be filed upon his
release from probation. Haskins believed that the conviction
was off his record, as the Office of Manufactured Housing
issued him a license and no convictions were found resulting
Page 14

CONSENT ORDERS
(APPEALABLE AGENCY ACTION)
(continued from page 14)
from that application. Haskins has not been in trouble since those
convictions. Haskins failed to disclose that conviction, which he
now admits he should have. These acts are in violation of A.R.S §
32-2153 (B)(1)(2) and (7). Haskins’s license is suspended for 120
days, to begin upon entry of the consent order. Haskins is issued
a 2-year provisional license, subject to specified terms and conditions. Haskins is assessed a civil penalty of $2,500.00.
Robert K. Zbacnik (Mesa)
File # 06F-DI-038, Consent Order 12/5/05
On 6/28/04, Zbacnik applied for and was issued a real estate
salesperson’s license. That license expires 7/31/06. On 4/14/05,
Zbacnik filed a 10-Day Notice of his Plea Agreement, Judgment
and Order Suspending Sentence and Imposing Conditions of Probation. This order was for a 3/30/05 conviction for Endangerment,
a Class Six Felony, and a misdemeanor conviction for DUI.
Zbacnik was placed on two years supervised probation beginning
3/30/05. These acts are in violation of A.R.S § 32-2153 (B)(1)(9)
and 32-2157(C). Zbacnik’s real estate salesperson’s license is
revoked. Zbacnik is not assessed a civil penalty.
Michael Knipp (Scottsdale)
File # 06F-DI-093-REL, Consent Order 11/10/05
George Milos, the designated broker for Knipp, allowed Knipp to
continue to be employed by Leo Enterprise, LLC dba Metro North
Realty, to operate as a salesperson after his license expired and
after he failed to timely renew his license in January, 2005, in violation of A.R.S § 32-2122 (B), and 32-2153 (A)(10)(22), (B)(6).
Knipp’s application for renewal of his real estate salesperson’s
license is granted and his license is suspended for sixty (60) days
retroactive to August 18, 2005 and he is assessed a civil penalty of
three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
G&G Wilson, Inc., dba Gail Wilson Realty & Investments and Wendall Gail Wilson (Carefree) File # 06F-DI-188, Consent Order
1/10/06
On or about 4/14/95, the Department issued a real estate broker’s
license to G&G. That license expired 4/30/05. On or about
10/3/78, the Department issued a real estate broker’s license to
Wilson. That license expires 2/28/07. Wilson became designated
broker for G&G on 4/14/95. From 4/30/05 through 10/6/05, G&G,
by and through Wilson, continued to employ real estate salesperson’s after G&G’s license had expired, in violation of A.R.S § 322155 (A), and 32-2153 (A)(10), (21) and (B)(6). G&G’s application
for renewal of its real estate broker’s license is granted. G&G’s
license is suspended for 60 days retroactive to 10/6/05, the day
G&G’s application for renewal was filed with the Department and
the day that unlicensed real estate activity ceased. G&G is assessed a civil penalty of $3,000.00, $1,500.00 of which is payable

to the Department and $1,500.00 of which is payable to
the Real Estate Education Fund.
William Pickron (Gilbert)
File # 05F-DI-294-001, Final Order 11/15/05
After a hearing, the Department Revoked Pickron’s real
estate salesperson’s license, and assessed a civil
penalty of $2000.00. Pickron applied for and was
issued a real estate salesperson’s license on 10/15/02.
Pickron is the managing member of Home Investment
and Acquisitions., LLC (“HIA”). The Department does
not license HIA. Pickron was employed as a
salesperson by Kenneth D. Perkins, dba Virtual Realty,
until 7/14/05, when Pickron’s salesperson’s license was
suspended.
Ms. Ramona Randolph, Tucson, signed a paper by
which she deeded her home to HIA, without knowing
that was what she was doing. She thought that she
was signing loan papers. Ms. Randolph fell behind on
her payments and the mortgage holder began
foreclosure proceedings. After responding to a
newspaper advertisement for assistance to those
behind on their mortgages, Randolph met James
Busche, who worked for HIA.
At a later meeting Randolph was presented and signed
a receipt from Busche that stated she was given
sufficient time to have an attorney review the contract
she was given, but in fact she had never previously
received that contract. A few days later Busche
returned with two documents, the Agreement and a
Lease, for her to sign. The Agreement and the Lease
were dated 12/30/03 and signed by Pickron. The
Agreement provides that Randolph is deeding her
home to HIA, HIA will pay the mortgage holder
$2,964.32, and Randolph will pay HIA a $2,500.00
processing fee and Randolph also signed a Promissary
Note, for $6,425.30. Randolph thought that she only
had to repay $2,964.32. If Randolph complied with all
three agreements, then HIA would reconvey her home
to her. The lease agreement between HIA and
Randolph, would lease back her house to her for
$960.87 a month, and provided no grace period for a
late payment, although Busche told Randolph that
there was a grace period. Randolph admitted signing,
and not completely reading the documents. Randolph
was not told that she could be evicted from her home
for failing to live up to the terms of the agreements.
Page 15

CONSENT ORDERS
(APPEALABLE AGENCY ACTION)
(continued from page 15)

Randolph and Busche were the only persons present
when she signed the Agreement, and Pickron signed the
Agreement prior to her doing so. Pickron also signed
the Lease Agreement prior to her signing it. The
Promissary Note and the Quit Claim Deed were not
notarized in her presence, and she did not sign a Notary
Book. Randolph contacted Busche about the grace
period because she did not get paid until after the 1st of
each month, and the payment was due on the 1st.
Busche told her not to worry about it. Soon after
Randolph made the February payment, she received a
letter that she was in default. The letter was from Mr.
Dobbins, an attorney for HIA. Randolph was sued civilly
for the full amount owed, and forced to move out of her
house. Pickron violated A.R.S § 32-2153 (A)(1)(3), and
(B) (3)(7), and A.A.C. R4-28-1101(A), (E), and (B)(3).
Pickron’s salesperson’s license is revoked. He is
assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.

Page 16

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REAL ESTATE
Main Office:
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Phone: 602.468.1414
Fax: 602.468.0562
Southern Arizona Office:
400 W. Congress, Suite 523
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Phone 520.628.6940
Fax 520.628.6941

We are on the web:
http: //www.re.state.az.us

The Bulletin
An official publication of the State of Arizona,
Department of Real Estate.
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Elaine Richardson
Commissioner
Ronald Passarelli
Deputy Commissioner
Cindy Ferrin
Editor
Real Estate Advisory Board
Gary Brasher, Chair
Lisa A. Suarez, Vice-Chair
R.L. Brown, Past Chair
Vicki L. Cox-Golder
Frank Dickens
Colleen Newman
Vince Pellerito
Felipe Andres Zubia
Ann White

“An Equal Employment Opportunity Agency”

Note: Please check your mailing label and if the date
above your name is more than 1 year old, you must subscribe for another year. Send your request along with a
check payable to ADRE and note on your envelope:
Attention: Bulletin Subscription.
© 2005 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE. THE ARIZONA REAL ESTATE BULLETIN, OR “THE
BULLETIN,” IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED 6 TIMES A YEAR AND IS AVAILABLE FROM THE WEB SITE
ABOVE. FIRST-CLASS MAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR $10 PER YEAR. ARTICLES
REPRINTED FROM OTHER PUBLICATIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE POLICIES OR
INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE. THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE IS AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION AGENCY.

Page 17