Stassi v. Isom
2017 Ark. App. 334
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Lisa Stassi prepared and signed an "Agreement to Sell Real Estate" with owner Grover Crossland listing Stassi as buyer and giving her unilateral rights to extend closing, market the property, and assign the contract; the contract stated Stassi would have an equitable interest.
- Stassi recorded a "Memorandum of Agreement" asserting an interest and a lien for fees payable to Franklin Escrow, LLC; she had a separate agreement to share proceeds with Franklin Escrow.
- Crossland terminated the contract in mid‑2014; he later filed a complaint with the Arkansas Real Estate Commission alleging unlicensed real‑estate activity by Stassi.
- The Commission found Stassi had engaged in unlicensed real‑estate activity, assessed a $5,000 penalty and hearing costs, but did not rule on Stassi’s statutory exemption defense that she owned an equitable interest under the contract.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court affirmed the Commission’s decision; Stassi appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stassi was exempt from real‑estate licensure because she "owned" an equitable interest under the executory contract | Stassi: §17‑42‑104(a) exempts acts regarding property she "owns, leases, or purchases," and her equitable interest satisfies "owns" | Commission/Director: Stassi engaged in unlicensed brokerage activity and is subject to licensure requirements | Court: Reversed and remanded because the Commission failed to make findings on the exemption issue; remand required for the agency to decide it |
| Whether administrative findings were sufficient for judicial review | Stassi: Commission must address the exemption claim and supporting facts | Commission: (implicit) existing findings supported the violation and penalty | Court: Agency findings insufficient under the APA; specific findings and conclusions on the contested exemption are required |
Key Cases Cited
- Voltage Vehicles v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 424 S.W.3d 281 (Ark. 2012) (administrative orders must include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit judicial review)