B u l l e t i n

Arizona Department of Real Estate

T h e

Come one, come all — please join us for an upcoming
meeting to hear the presentation from Stakeholder
Committee Chairs on their recommendations to ADRE.

November 2003
Volume 29, Issue 4

Date:
Time:
Location:

Thursday, November 13th, 2003
10:30 am — 12noon
2910 N. 44th Street, Phoenix,
3rd floor conference room
Committees and Chairs

Subdivision Rewrite

Vince Pellerito

Cemetery Statute Review

Bill Aaron

Timeshare/Condominium Laws Review

Mike Doyle

Property Management

Gina Hudson
Suzanne Gilstrap

Virtual Office Websites

R.L. Brown

Department Rules Rewrite

Patty Richardson
Ron Passarelli

Illegal License Activity

Doug Groppenbacher

Business Brokers

Keith McLeod

Suggested Fee Review

Pat Sheahan
Todd Madeksza

Increasing Professionalism

Judy Lowe
Ed Ricketts

Please RSVP your attendance by sending an email to: crandolph@re.state.az.us.

Our Mission

Inside this issue:
Stakeholders’ Invitation

1

Certificate of Assured Water—Subsequent Owners...

2

Commissioner’s Corner

3

Up in Smoke? The Listing and Selling of Second...

4

Summary Suspensions Stop Extreme Offenders...

5

Administrative Actions

6

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

Certificate of Assured Water – Subsequent Owners Must Go
With the Flow
By Guest Columnist John Gerard, Builder Service Manager for LandAmerica

For a number of years, developers purchasing 6
or more lots in an existing, already-registered subdivision
(with a public report issued,) could simply notify the
Commissioner pursuant to the guidelines and provisions
set forth under A.R.S. 32-2181.02 (B)(2), that they
qualified for a “Subsequent Owner Exemption.” If
qualified, the subsequent owner uses the existing public
report instead of obtaining a new public report. In most
cases no other paperwork was necessary to begin lot
sales using the existing public report.
Recently, however, changes within the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR) have resulted
in new procedures that have left some developers high
and dry. The problem exists when a developer acquires
lots in an existing subdivision, and the original developer
was required to obtain a “Certificate of Assured Water
Supply” (Certificate.)
Generally, the certificate is required if the water
provider is a private company that has not been
designated as having an assured water supply by
ADWR. If the provider were a municipality, the
Certificate in most cases would not be necessary. There
are municipalities that are not designated providers.
So what does this mean to a developer acquiring
land in an existing subdivision? It may be necessary for
the new developer to obtain a Certificate in their name
before they qualify for a “Subsequent Owner Exemption.”
Unfortunately, this process could take a number of
weeks and cost the developer in lost revenues, since no
sales can legally be made without the public report or
exemption.
Specifically, a Certificate is issued to the
applicant, does not run with the land, and is nontransferable. Therefore, a new owner – in this case the
subsequent owner– must apply for and obtain a new
Certificate in their name prior to qualifying for the
“Subsequent Owner Exemption.”
In order to aid the industry, the Arizona
Department of Real Estate has agreed to allow the
subsequent owner the option of applying for a
“Conditional Sales Exemption.” This would allow the
subsequent owner the ability to conduct sales under the
conditional sales program and enter into purchase
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

contracts with buyers during the time in which they are
awaiting issuance of the new Certificate.
Due to the fact that the conditional sales
program is only being used while the new owner is
awaiting his or her qualification for a “Subsequent Owner
Exemption,” the existing public report, if current, may be
given to prospective purchasers. Normally a copy of the
questionnaire is given to a prospective buyer under the
conditional sales program, but in these types of cases,
the existing public reports may be used if they are
current. The conditional sales exemption application
should request authorization to use the public report in
lieu of the questionnaire.
This solution provides the developer the ability to
begin sales while awaiting the new “Certificate of
Assured Water” to be issued in their name. After the
issuance of the new certificate and successful
qualification for a “Subsequent Owner Exemption,” the
conditional contracts then become binding.

Editor’s Note: Mr. Gerard is the Builder Services Manager
for LandAmerica, overseeing the Builder Services Operations for
Lawyers Title, Transnation Title and Commonwealth Title
companies. He is a former state regulator and a Zoning
Commissioner for the City of Peoria. He may be emailed at:
jgerard@landam.com. Œ

Page 2

By Commissioner Elaine Richardson

A Perfect World...
Could you envision a world where:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Pipelines didn’t erupt.
Everyone could afford to buy a home and
homeowner’s insurance was reasonable.
Every agent or broker received credit for his or
her own listing.
There was enough money to hire sufficient staff
to run the ADRE properly.
Everyone understood “agency.”
Everyone read their contracts.
Everyone understood their contracts.
Everyone paid their fair share.
Everyone knew what to disclose and did it.
Illegal license activity and illegal subdivisions
didn’t exist.

However, since we don’t live in “Real Estate
Heaven,” we are trying to solve some of these and other
problems that are prevalent in our industry with your
help; hence, the Stakeholders’ Meetings. Your
recommendations and participation showed a willingness
to look at our industry with a broad perspective. I feel we
achieved success in finding many solutions and gaining
consensus in many areas of discussion.

I personally thank the members of the
committees. Everyone did a first class job of finding and
sharing solutions to these and many other areas that
need attention. I also thank you for participating and
giving of your time and expertise. We live in a world
dominated by the demands on our time. Those of you
who gave part of that precious commodity for the good of
all of us, certainly deserve to be commended for your
input.
We are not unique in our challenges as was
evidenced by much of the information I gleaned in my
recent participation at the Association of Real Estate
License Law Officials (ARELLO) annual conference held
in Portland, Oregon. ARELLO is a multi-national
organization made up primarily of regulators that
promote better administration, the sharing of information
and professional improvement. Other jurisdictions seem
to face similar problems as Arizona. I feel we are ahead
of the curve in finding positive solutions.
I look forward to an exciting Stakeholders’
Meeting on the 13th of this month, where we are asking
the chairs of the various committees to present their
findings and ultimate recommendations to the full
committee. These recommendations will become part of
our legislative and rule-making proposal packages.
Hopefully many of your ideas will become a reality.
See you on the 13th! Œ

Do you have an article idea?*
If you would like to submit an article to be considered for inclusion in The Bulletin, please sen
send
d
your article to the Editor via email at: lcarrasco@re.state.az.us
lcarrasco@re.state.az.us..
Submissions must be in MS Word format and less than 500 w
words.
ords.
*Submissions of guest writers may not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Department and may be edited due to space li
limitations.
mitations.

V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

Page 3

A NOTE ABOUT GUEST COLUMN ARTICLES…
GUEST COLUMN ARTICLES DO NOT NECESSARILY 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.

Up in Smoke? The Listing and Selling of Second-Home
Properties Affected by Forest Fires
Guest Column By Bruce D. Greenberg, Principal Appraiser for Bruce D. Greenberg Inc.

Unfortunately in the past three years, the
Arizona region has had adverse devastation to various
second-home communities caused by forest fires.
Specifically, the White Mountains and Mount Lemmon
have had substantial damage. Both areas can be
designated as stigmatized.
As the real estate community is aware,
Commissioner’s Rule R4-28-1101 (A) states that a
licensed real estate broker or sales person owes a
fiduciary to the client and shall protect the client’s
interest. A salesperson or broker shall also deal fairly
with all parties to the transaction. R4-28-1101 (B) states
that these licensees participating in a real estate
transaction should also disclose in writing to all other
parties, any information which the licensee possess that
materially and adversely affects a real estate
transaction.
The majority of the real estate community within
Arizona uses contracts and documents prepared by the
Arizona Association of Realtors, including: the Exclusive
Right to Sell, the Property Seller’s Disclosure Statement,
the Real Estate Purchase Contract and a Receipt for
Deposit. These documents place the buyer, the seller
and the real estate community on notice as to full
disclosure.
Last year, this appraiser had the opportunity to
travel to Mount Lemmon, the Heber/Overgaard area in
the White Mountains, as well as the Taos, Los Alamos
and Ruidoso, New Mexico areas which were all
adversely affected by forest fires. What I learned, is that
a property, either charred, or non-charred is still
adversely affected by the effects of the forest fire.
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

The marketplace demonstrates a loss of value
to both damaged and undamaged and charred or noncharred recreational home sites in the proximity of the
area affected by forest fires. The most adversely
affected properties that are charred in proximity to forest
fires, may suffer: diminished views, loss of vegetation,
the loss of site improvements, including infrastructure;
the loss of habitat, increased danger of erosion, a
diminished social and esthetic living environment, less
water recharge, the loss of physical access to the area,
and potential contamination.
I recently attended a public hearing where
various governmental agencies were educating property
owners as to the effects suffered in Mount Lemmon.
Some of the issues of contamination included: fire
asbestos, dispersement of diesel, propane, lead, and
septic/sewer; and elements along with electrical line
debris. All of these factors must be considered in the
disposition and acquisition of second-home properties in
the above-mentioned communities.
This appraiser is deemed an expert, not only in
Page 4

Summary Suspensions Stop Extreme Offenders in Their Tracks
By Liz Carrasco

It is no secret that the mission of the Arizona
Department of Real Estate is to protect the public
interest. The Department receives thousands of calls
per year, some of which pertain to complaints that
constituents may have about licensees, whether their
license is held as a real estate salesperson or broker, a
subdivision developer with an issued public report, a
cemetery salesperson or broker, or a membership
campground salesperson or broker.
Upon receiving these complaint calls, for those
that fall under the jurisdiction of ADRE, callers are
directed to complete a formal complaint form and
document, in writing, the nature of the complaint. When
the complaint form and documentation are received, the
Department then assigns the case to an investigator and
a case is opened. Then begins the evidence gathering
stage, at which point both the complainants and the
respondents have the opportunity to provide information,
documentation and a response to the allegations. If
there is enough evidence of a violation of state statutes,
the case is then referred to the Administrative Actions
Division and further pursued with the assistance of the
Attorney General’s Office.
But what happens in cases where the
allegations are so outrageous, and the alleged violations
are so shocking that there is great potential risk to
consumers if the person continues practicing with their
license? In the criminal justice system, people who
present a threat to the public are locked up and bail may
be withheld. In our system, the Commissioner of the
Arizona Department of Real Estate may issue a
“Summary Suspension” of a license or public report, in
cases where the health, safety or welfare of the public
require immediate action.
If a licensee or developer receive a “Summary
Suspension,” this indicates that their license and/or

public report has been immediately suspended and that
they are not allowed to engage in any real estate,
cemetery, or membership campground transactions, as
appropriate. Arizona Revised Statute 32-2157 gives the
Commissioner such authority and spells out the
procedure for the issuance of these types of
suspensions. In these cases, the respondents would
receive a written order of the charges filed, and an
explanation of the reasons for the issuance of the
suspension. This becomes a matter of public record
upon its issuance. Respondents then have the right to
appeal the suspension within 30 days. Because of the
immediate nature of these orders, they are used
sparingly, for only the most appalling cases, and in
consultation with the Attorney General’s Office. Not just
anyone will receive this type of order.
The Department is available as a resource for
professionals wanting to clarify the meanings of the law
or rules that are within ADRE’s jurisdiction. As a
Department, we want to help licensees do the right thing
if they are unsure. However, there will be no misgivings
about issuing a “Summary Suspension” if a licensee or
developer intentionally tries to defraud or harm the
public.
There is a new cop in town, her name is
Commissioner Richardson, and she takes threats to the
public very seriously. Œ

Up in Smoke?… (continued…)

the area of disclosure, but in the valuation of stigmatized
real estate as well. The Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice have also put real estate
appraisers on notice. They too identify and adjust for
adversities affecting real estate, including the abovementioned factors. The appraiser should only be valuing
scarred real estate if they meet the Competency
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

Provisions/Statement of the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. Therefore, the
appraiser may: assist in measuring said damage, help
the public in valuation issues dealing with forest fires,
(including reduction of full cash values in the various
assessor organizations,) identify the losses available
(Continued on page 6)
Page 5

Up in Smoke?… (continued…)
(Continued from page 5)

through income tax write-offs, conduct full damage
assessments, and deal either with litigation and/or
insurance issues.
One of my other concerns, most recently with
the Mount Lemmon dilemma is, where are the
governmental agencies disposing of property waste from
the fires? Are the damaged remnants going to go to a
designated landfill that supports hazardous waste? Will
property owners be rebuilding their recreational
residences? It is important to get a “Phase I
Environmental Report” prior to construction, to see if the
sites are clean. Are Phase I Environmental Reports
going to be required by the real estate community on
resale-charred holdings? In today’s world of full
disclosure on items which affect all parties to the
transaction, including the buyer, seller, real estate broker
or salesperson, lender, title company, insurance
company and the like, are proper steps being taken to
protect all the parties in a transaction from the

repercussions of forest-fire-damaged real estate? One
would hope so.

Editor’s Note: Mr. Greenberg is the principal appraiser for
Bruce D. Greenberg, Incorporated in Tucson, Arizona and
Valuaciones Montaña Verde, (SA de CV,) with an office in San Jose
del Cabo, Baja California Sur, México. Mr. Greenberg also is a
member of the Arizona-Mexico Commission’s Real Estate Task
Force; the Finance, Real Estate and Legal Committee, and the
National Law Center of Inter-American Free Trade. He is a partner
in International Consulting Service, a Mexican due diligence firm;
and has also joined the Alpha Group, a consortium of business and
real estate professionals in Arizona and Sonora, and may be
emailed at: bgreenberg@brucedgreenberginc.com. His web site is
www.brucedgreenberginc.com. Œ

Administrative Actions
SUMMARY SUSPENSION ORDERS
Thomas Clay Baldwin (Phoenix)
File No. 03A-071-REL
On 9/23/2003, the Department issued an order
summarily suspending Baldwin’s real estate
salesperson’s license. The order alleged that Baldwin
acted fraudulently by fabricating the existence of buyers
and purchase offers and presenting these to his clients;
creating false receipts and closing statements in
furtherance of the misrepresentations; and that Baldwin
is currently unable to meet his responsibilities as, to and
perform the tasks of, a real estate salesperson.
The Department determined it was necessary
and appropriate to issue this order to protect the public
interest. Baldwin did not appeal the Summary
Suspension.
Stanley S. Stobierski and Marilyn G. Stobierski;
Sunwest Cemetery & Crematory, Inc. (El Mirage);
Bennie B. Farrar, dba Graves Unlimited (Sun City);
Heritage Memorial Park, Inc. (Dewey); and Darwin
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

Ray Crouch, aka Dan Crouch (Prescott Valley)
File No. 03A-089-REL
On 9/24/2003, the Department issued an order
to the respondents to cease and desist the sale of
cemetery property without first complying with the
cemetery laws of the state, and an order summarily
suspending the cemetery broker’s license of Farrar and
the cemetery salesperson’s license of Crouch. The
order alleged that the Stobierskis, principals of Sunwest
Cemetery and Crematory, operated the cemetery
without first providing notice to and obtaining a
Certificate of Authority from the Department, in violation
of cemetery laws and in violation of a previous consent
order; that the Stobierskis, principals of Heritage
Memorial Park, operated the cemetery without first
providing notice to and obtaining a Certificate of
Authority from the Department, in violation of cemetery
laws; that Farrar and Crouch sold or offered to sell
cemetery property in a cemetery that had not been
issued a Certificate of Authority; and that Crouch was
employed by Heritage Memorial Park and/or the
Stobierskis, who are not licensed real estate or cemetery
Page 6

Administrative Actions (continued…)

brokers, in violation of Department statutes and rules.
The Department determined it was necessary
and appropriate to issue this order to protect the public
interest. The order is an appealable agency action, and
the respondents may file a request for hearing within 30
days of the order.
Harold V. Fields, aka Hal Fields; Valley Home
Experts, Inc., and Robert Solomon (Glendale)
File No. 04F-034
On 9/18/2003, the Department issued an order
summarily suspending the real estate brokers’ licenses
of Valley Home Experts, Inc., and Solomon, and of
Fields’ real estate salesperson’s license. The order
alleged that respondents Solomon and Valley Home:
failed to account for or to remit monies to the prospective
purchasers; had unlicensed persons perform activities
requiring a real estate license and paid compensation to
them for those activities; failed to keep an escrow or
trust account or other record of funds deposited with
respondents relating to a real estate transaction; failed to
exercise reasonable supervision over the activities of
salespersons and others under the broker’s employ or
over the activities for which a license is required of a
corporation on behalf of which the broker acts; and that
they demonstrated negligence. The order further
alleged that respondent Fields made misrepresentations,
directly or through others, concerning HUD properties for
which he would submit bids on behalf of prospective
purchasers; disregarded or violated Department statutes
or rules, including R4-28-1101 (A) and (B); failed to
account for or to remit monies to the prospective
purchasers; employed unlicensed persons to perform
activities requiring a real estate license; failed to keep an
escrow or trust account or other record of funds
deposited with respondents relating to a real estate
transaction; failed to maintain a complete record of real
estate transactions; signed the name of another person
on a document or form without the express written
consent of the person; conducted himself in a fraudulent
or dishonest manner, and not shown that he is a person
of honesty, truthfulness and good character.
The Department determined it was necessary
and appropriate to issue this order to protect the public
interest. The order is an appealable agency action, and
the respondents may file a request for hearing within 30
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

days of the order.
COMMISSIONER’S FINAL ORDERS
Appealable Agency Actions
Benjamin Beauchaine (Mesa)
File No. 03A-023-REL, Order July 15, 2003
The Department denied Beauchaine’s application for
real estate salesperson’s license based on his plea
agreements and two DUI convictions, class 1
misdemeanors, in 1998 and 2000, and the court’s
4/26/2000 order suspending prosecution for possession
of marijuana, a class 6 felony, for one year subject to the
successful completion of the Maricopa County TASC
Drug Diversion Program, subsequently dismissed, in
violation of the statutory provisions of A.R.S. § 32-2153
(B)(7). After a hearing before an administrative law
judge, his application for license is denied.
Baron H. Campbell (Tempe)
File No. 03A-014-REL, Order July 1, 2003
The Department denied Campbell’s application for real
estate salesperson’s license based on his 1999
conviction for Attempted Theft Of A Credit Card Or
Attempting To Obtain A Credit Card By Fraudulent
Means, a class 1 misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S. §§
32-2123 and 32-2153 (B)(2), (7), and (10). After a
hearing before an administrative law judge, Campbell’s
application is denied.
Brian Litzner (Chandler)
File No. 03A-017-REL, Order July 29, 2003
The Department denied Litzner’s application for real estate
salesperson’s license based on his 1993 conviction for drug
paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, DUI convictions in 1998 and
2002, and his failure to fully comply with the court’s order to
complete a substance abuse treatment program, in violation
of A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)(2), (7) and (9). After a hearing
before an administrative law judge, Litzner’s application is
denied.
Germaine D. Murray, fka Germaine Daniele Kornegay
(Tucson)
File No. 03A-031-REL, Order August 11, 2003
The Department denied Murray’s application for real estate
salesperson’s license based on her 1997 conviction for Theft
Page 7

Administrative Actions (continued…)

by Control or Misrepresentation or Controlling Stolen
Property, a class 6 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)
(2), (3), (7), and (10). After a hearing before an administrative
law judge, Murray is granted a provisional license for 2 years,
subject to specified terms and conditions.
Richard Romero Valencia (Tucson)
File No. 03A-032-REL, Order July 31, 2003
The Department denied Valencia’s application for real estate
salesperson’s license under A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)(1),(2), (7)
and (10) based on his four DUI convictions; his 1990
conviction for Theft by Control, a class 6 undesignated
offense; his 1990 misdemeanor conviction for Unlawful
Possession of Narcotic Paraphernalia; convictions for
Possession of Marijuana, Domestic Violence Assault, and
Carrying a Concealed Weapon; his failure to disclose the
extent of his criminal record to the Department on his 1990
license application; the Department’s subsequent 1992
revocation of his license, and the Department’s denial of his
1998 application for licensure. After a hearing before an
administrative law judge, Valencia’s application is denied.
Virginia A. Zimmerle (Phoenix)
File No. 03A-026-REL, Order July 29, 2003
The Department denied Zimmerle’s application for real estate
salesperson’s license based on her 1991 conviction for
Conspiracy to Offer to Sell Narcotic Drugs, a class 2 felony,
in violation of A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)(2) and (7). After a
hearing before an administrative law judge, Zimmerle’s
application is denied.
SETTLEMENTS BY CONSENT ORDERS
Disciplinary Actions
Marc L. Beecher (Glendale)
No. 03A-077, Consent Order October 2, 2003
Beecher filed a false and misleading application for
licensure and violated statutory provisions including A.R.
S. § 32-2153 (B)(1), and (10), based on his 1990
deferred sentencing for Bank Robbery, and his failure to
disclose this offense on his application for licensure.
Beecher’s real estate salesperson’s license is suspended
for five months and he is granted a provisional license for
2 years, subject to specified terms and conditions.

V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

Douglas Fega (Carefree)
No. 03A-036, Consent Order August 12, 2003
Fega filed a false and misleading application for
licensure and violated statutory provisions including A.R.
S. § 32-2153 (B)(1) and (2), based on his 1985
conviction for Attempted Criminal Possession of a
Controlled Substance in the 4th Degree, and his failure to
disclose this conviction on his application for licensure.
Fega’s real estate salesperson’s license is revoked.
Linda D. Hardy (Lake Havasu City)
No. 03A-091, Consent Order August 29, 2003
Hardy filed a false and misleading application for
licensure and violated statutory provisions including A.R.
S. § 32-2153 (B)(1) and (2) based on her 1995
conviction for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a
misdemeanor, and Possession of Controlled Substance,
a class C felony, and her failure to disclose these
convictions on her application for licensure. Hardy is
assessed a civil penalty of $1,000; her license is
suspended for 90 days following which she will be
issued a 2-year provisional license, subject to specified
terms and conditions.
Pamela A. Pacheco (Flagstaff)
No. 03A-064, Consent Order October 2, 2003
Pacheco and her husband entered a contract providing
for lease to purchase on a property where Pacheco was
the listing agent. As incentive to Sellers, Pacheco
signed a promissory note for an additional $10,000 to be
paid outside escrow, and failed to disclose the note to
her broker. The Pachecos moved into the residence in
March 2002, failed to perform according to the
agreement, and defaulted on the note. They refused to
vacate the premises until the end of September 2002. In
addition, Pacheco failed to timely respond to the
Department’s requests for information about this
transaction. Pacheco also violated a January 2001
Consent Order with the Department when she failed to
make court-ordered restitution payments to victims in
criminal case. Pacheco’s conduct constitutes violations
of statutory provisions, including A.R.S. § 32-2153 (A)(1)
and (B)(5) and (9), and her license is revoked.
Pulte Home Corporation (Scottsdale)
Pulte made misleading statements and failed to
Page 8

Administrative Actions (continued…)

adequately disclose information in public report
applications filed with the Department from 1995 to 1998,
regarding Williams Gateway Airport (“WGA”). Pulte’s
applications for six developments in Gilbert, Arizona,
known as the Holliday Farms subdivisions did not
disclose that Holliday Farms was within the overflight
district and FAA traffic pattern airspace of WGA, and
Pulte continued home sales after it knew or should have
known the airport’s impact on the surrounding area. This
conduct violates statutory provisions, including A.R.S. §§
32-2181 (A)(7), 32-2183 (C)(7), 32-2183.03 (C)(2), and
32-2184 (A). Pulte is assessed a civil penalty of
$30,000.
Yuma Municipal Government Complex, L.L.C. and
Lankford and Associates (San Diego, CA)
Lankford & Associates agreed to develop a new
governmental complex in Yuma for the City of Yuma, and
entered a development agreement with an Arizona nonprofit corporation created, among other reasons, for the
assembly of property for ownership by the City. The
agreement provided for a site acquisition assistance fee
of 4% of the total acquisition costs, not to exceed
$90,000 for all parcels, to be paid to Lankford &
Associates. Lankford & Associates assigned the
agreement to Yuma Municipal Government Complex
and, upon completion of the complex, respondents were
paid the site acquisition fee. Neither Lankford &
Associates nor Yuma Municipal Government Complex
are licensed brokers in Arizona, and their conduct is in
violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-2155 (B), 32-2153 (A)(3) and
(10). Respondents agree not to engage in activities
requiring an Arizona real estate license until such time as
they hold such licenses, and to make restitution to the
City of Yuma in the amount of $74,710.70.
Appealable Agency Actions
Suzanne L. Buck (Tempe)
No. 01A-156-REL, Consent Order August 28, 2003
The Department denied Buck’s application for renewal of
her real estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S. § 322153 (A)(3) and (7), and § 32-2151.01 (D) based on her
conduct in a real estate transaction. Buck appealed the
denial and is assessed a civil penalty of $2,000, ordered
to attend an additional 9 hours of real estate continuing
V O L U ME 29 , I S S U E 4

education classes, and is granted a 2-year provisional
license, subject to specified terms
Heather T. Crise (Lakeside)
No. 03A-105, Consent Order September 4, 2003
The Department denied Crise’s application for real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)
(2) based on her October 1998 conviction for Shoplifting.
Crise appealed the denial and is issued a 2-year
provisional license, subject to specified terms.
Martha F. Duncan (Prescott Valley)
No. 03A-045, Consent Order September 22, 2003
The Department denied Duncan’s application for
renewal of her real estate salesperson’s license under
A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)(1) based on her 1985 felony
conviction for 2 counts of False Statements to Arizona
Farmers Production Credit Association, felonies, and her
failure to disclose the convictions on her original
application for licensure, resulting in a false and
misleading application. Duncan appealed the denial and
the renewal is granted. She is assessed a $1,000 civil
penalty, and her license is suspended for 3 months,
following which she shall be issued a 2 year provisional
license, subject to specified terms and conditions.
Garth A. Gunsch (Scottsdale)
No. 03A-073-REL, Consent Order August 11, 2003
The Department denied Gunsch’s application for real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)
(7) based on his 1999 conviction for Possession of
Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
subsequently designated misdemeanors. Gunsch
appealed the denial and is issued a 2-year provisional
license, subject to specified terms and conditions.
Gregory P. Howard (Phoenix)
No. 03A-053-REL, Consent Order August 12, 2003
The Department denied Howard’s application for real
estate salesperson’s license under A.R.S. § 32-2153 (B)
(9) based on his 1972 felony conviction for growing
marijuana and a 1998 voluntary cancellation of his
Arizona Class B General Contractor’s License. Howard
appealed the denial and is issued a 2-year provisional
license, subject to specified terms and conditions. Œ

Page 9

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

Next Stakeholders’ Meeting
Thursday, November 13th
10:30am, ADRE Phoenix Office

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
Liz Carrasco
Editor
Real Estate Advisory Board
R.L. Brown, Chair
Richard C. Allen, Vice-Chair
Gary Patrick Brasher
Eugene E. Cox
Vicki L. Cox-Golder
Gary Lee
Vince Pellerito
Lisa A. Suarez
Felipe Andres Zubia

© 2003, 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.