BALES v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD, 492 P.3d 625

Background

Garret Pearce applied (Dec. 2016) for an Oklahoma certified residential appraiser license requiring 2,500 experience hours; Matthew Bales was his supervisor.
Three appraisal reports Pearce submitted as part of his application differed from the versions previously delivered to lenders; the differences included neighborhood descriptions, market‑condition comments, sales-comparison summaries, and a changed site value.
Appellants stipulated the reports submitted to the Board were different and Bales admitted he and Pearce "fluffed up" the reports before submitting them as part of the licensure review.
The Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Board found violations of 59 O.S. § 858‑723(C)(1), (C)(5), and (C)(6) (including USPAP ethics/recordkeeping rules) and imposed discipline: 30‑day suspension, one year probation with monitoring, fines, costs, and limits on serving as trainee supervisor.
District court affirmed the Board; Appellants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals (emergency stay of suspension granted by Oklahoma Supreme Court). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Board's order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board had sufficient evidence to find violations of § 858‑723(C)(1) (procurement by false statement) and (C)(5) (dishonesty/fraud)	Bales/Pearce: No evidence the changes were false or misrepresentations; modifications were teaching/training, not false work product	Board: Appellants submitted reports that were not the actual work product and knowingly altered them to procure certification	Held: Substantial evidence supports violations of (C)(1) and (C)(5); Board reasonably found Pearce’s certification was procured by submission of altered work product.
Whether the discipline was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond the Board’s discretion	Appellants: 30‑day suspension (and collateral industry effects) is disproportionate and effectively a professional "death sentence"	Board: Discipline falls within statutory options to protect public and profession; no requirement to adopt rigid sanctioning guidelines	Held: Sanctions were within statutory authority and not a manifest abuse of discretion.
Whether additional findings (C)(6)/USPAP ethics and recordkeeping violations lacked specificity or evidence	Appellants: Board’s citations to ethical/recordkeeping violations were vague and unsupported	Board: Even if those findings were uncertain, primary violations (C)(1) and (C)(5) adequately support discipline	Held: Court declined to resolve USPAP specificity issue because discipline is adequately supported by (C)(1) and (C)(5).
Standard of review applied on appeal	Appellants: Board must prove violations by clear and convincing evidence; appellate review should reflect that standard	Board: The Board uses clear and convincing for findings, but appellate review applies the OAPA standard (substantial evidence; defer to agency expertise)	Held: Appellate review governed by OAPA substantial‑evidence/deference standard; statutory issues reviewed de novo.

Key Cases Cited

Tulsa Area Hosp. Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts Univ., 626 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1981) (courts must accord great weight to agency expertise).
Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Safety v. McCrady, 176 P.3d 1194 (Okla. 2007) (standard for appellate review of agency factual findings: substantial evidence).
State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Behavioral Health Licensure v. Vanita Matthews‑Glover, 455 P.3d 16 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019) (agency discipline reviewed for abuse of discretion; primary purpose is public protection).
Johnson v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Oklahoma, 913 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1996) (agency has discretion in choosing sanctions; no statutory requirement to pre‑set disciplinary guideline grid).
Matter of Reinstatement of Cantrell, 785 P.2d 312 (Okla. 1989) (foremost consideration in licensing discipline is protection of public welfare).