Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arkansas Real Estate Commission v. Hoggard
Citations: 19 Ark. App. 115; 717 S.W.2d 822; 1986 Ark. App. LEXIS 2471Docket: CA 85-421
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; October 22, 1986; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Lawson Cloninger, Judge, affirmed the circuit court's ruling that overturned the Arkansas Real Estate Commission's decision to revoke Jasper Hoggard's real estate broker's license. The Commission had determined that Hoggard failed to supervise his salesmen and did not return licenses upon leaving SMI Investments, leading to his license revocation. Following a subsequent hearing, the Commission reaffirmed its decision but allowed for potential relicensure after one year. Hoggard appealed, and the circuit court found he had substantially complied with legal requirements regarding license return and that there was insufficient evidence to prove he had actual knowledge of a suspended broker's unauthorized activities. The Commission contested that the trial court mistakenly required actual knowledge for disciplinary action, arguing this undermined the principal broker's supervisory responsibilities. The appellate review confirmed the circuit court's finding of inadequate evidence to establish Hoggard's wrongdoing, particularly concerning his supervision of Robert Eckels, a revoked broker who attempted to sell real estate without Hoggard's knowledge while he was out of town. The court concluded that neither statutes nor Commission regulations imposed a burden of constructive knowledge on brokers, thus affirming the circuit court's decision. Appellant argues that the circuit court incorrectly reversed the Commission's finding regarding appellee's lack of supervision over his salesmen. Specifically, appellant claims that appellee's failure to review real estate advertisements upon returning from Dallas, which could have uncovered Eckels's illegal activities, amounted to inadequate supervision. However, despite appellee's usual practice of reviewing such advertisements, the court found no substantial evidence of a violation of Arkansas Real Estate Commission Regulation 33, as the relevant advertisement was categorized under business listings, and Eckels was authorized to sell non-residential properties. Additionally, appellee was unaware of the advertisement until notified by the Commission prior to a hearing. In a separate argument, appellant contends that the circuit court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding that appellee failed to return all licenses as mandated by Regulation 13(b) after closing his business. Appellee had relocated from Fort Smith to Springdale and submitted his broker’s license and pocket cards shortly after his move. Appellant speculates that appellee intended to leave his license with the previous firm until Eckels's suspension was lifted, but the court noted that it does not make factual determinations. The record indicates that appellee was transitioning between offices and did not engage in business activities during this period. The court found no substantial evidence to support appellant's claims, leading to an affirmation of the circuit court's ruling.