2021 Ohio 1641
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Collateral Management LLC (AMC) applied for an Ohio appraisal management company license in December 2018; its owner and controlling person is Jessica Massad.
- Massad previously held an Ohio residential appraiser license and voluntarily surrendered it by affidavit in February 2011, in the midst of several pending disciplinary complaints; the affidavit stated she would cease activity requiring the license and would not seek future Ohio licensure.
- The Ohio Department of Commerce superintendent denied Collateral Management's AMC application (April 23, 2019), reasoning Massad had surrendered her appraiser license "for a substantive reason."
- Collateral Management requested a Board hearing (Aug. 15, 2019); a majority of the Board voted to adopt the superintendent's denial; the Board relied in part on the existence of pending complaints at the time of surrender and federal guidance discussing "substantive" vs. "technical" grounds.
- Franklin County Common Pleas Court affirmed the Board; Collateral Management appealed to the Tenth District, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the Board to expressly determine whether Massad’s surrender was for a "substantive reason."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board ignored the statutory "substantive reason" inquiry in R.C. 4768.06(B)(4) | Collateral Management: Board failed to evaluate the reasons/circumstances of Massad's 2011 surrender (and should follow 80 Fed.Reg. guidance); must consider merits of underlying complaints and Massad's testimony | Dept. of Commerce: Board reasonably interpreted statute; federal examples are informative; surrender amid complaints can be substantive | Court: Board must consider whether the surrender was for a substantive reason; remanded for all Board members to review record and make that determination (sustain in part; remand) |
| Whether the Board had to determine if the surrender was "in lieu of revocation" | Collateral Management: federal rules require the "in lieu of revocation" inquiry to trigger registration restrictions | Dept. of Commerce: Ohio statute uses different language and allows stricter state requirements; "in lieu of revocation" inquiry not required here | Court: Ohio's statute is plain—surrender for a substantive reason alone can bar eligibility; Board not required to determine "in lieu of revocation" (assignment overruled) |
| Whether applying R.C. 4768.06(B)(4) violated due process by retroactive effect | Collateral Management: application of the statute here is retroactive and unconstitutional as-applied | Dept. of Commerce: Massad/Collateral had no vested right to an AMC license; licensing is regulatory and revocable | Court: No vested right to AMC license; as-applied retroactivity claim fails (assignment overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (standard for common pleas review of administrative orders: reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and accordance with law)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1955) (administrative-review principles)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Gralewski v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 167 Ohio App.3d 468 (10th Dist. 2006) (plenary review applied to legal questions in administrative appeals)
- Natoli v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 177 Ohio App.3d 645 (10th Dist. 2008) (appellate limits on reweighing administrative evidence)
- Pour House, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 185 Ohio App.3d 680 (10th Dist. 2009) (statutory interpretation principles; examine plain language and legislative intent)
- State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 2003) (deference to agency statutory interpretations unless unreasonable)
- Reading v. Public Util. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 2006) (facial constitutional challenges may be raised in administrative appeals)
- Leon v. Ohio Bd. of Psychology, 63 Ohio St.3d 683 (Ohio 1992) (courts may consider constitutional challenges to administrative regulations)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 1998) (discussion of vested-rights and retroactivity principles)