Stone v. Ohio Real Estate Comm.
2021 Ohio 809
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Brett Stone, an Ohio real estate salesperson and property manager, was the subject of a Division of Real Estate investigation about management of a Medina rental property.
- The Division sent certified notices to Stone's listed residential addresses; at least one was returned and Stone later provided updated addresses during the investigation.
- The Division requested a written response and documents (information checklist); Stone did not provide a timely response and produced documents only after a subpoena was issued.
- A hearing examiner found Stone committed three violations: (1) failing to timely assist the Division (misconduct under R.C. 4735.18(A)(6) incorporating the Canons of Ethics); (2) failing to timely notify the superintendent of changes in residence (R.C. 4735.14(D)); and (3) failing to correct an inaccurate owner charge (violations under R.C. 4735.18(A)(9)/agency duties and an administrative ledger requirement).
- The Ohio Real Estate Commission adopted the examiner’s report and revoked Stone’s license; the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed.
- On appeal Stone raised three assignments: (1) adjudication order invalid / not in accordance with law; (2) insufficiency of substantial, reliable, probative evidence; and (3) due process / disproportionality. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stone) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Stone committed misconduct by failing to timely respond to the Division's notice and information request | Stone argued he produced all existing documents, substantially complied with requests, and was not charged under the subpoena-refusal rule | Commission argued Stone failed to provide a timely written response for ~15 months, forcing issuance of a subpoena; the charge was for delay/misconduct under the Canons | Court held evidence showed Stone failed to timely assist the Division; finding supported and law properly applied |
| 2. Whether Stone violated the requirement to notify the superintendent of residential address changes | Stone argued his business address remained on file and pointed to lack of proof when he moved | Commission pointed to returned certified mail, emails, and counsel’s later admission that Stone moved and provided new addresses belatedly | Court held Commission reasonably found Stone delayed notifying address changes; record supported finding |
| 3. Whether Stone improperly failed to correct an inaccurate owner charge (and whether sanctions were excessive) | Stone asserted an ongoing contractual dispute justified his actions and contested the evidence but failed to cite record support | Commission relied on ledger/agency duties and hearing evidence that an inaccurate charge was not corrected | Court declined to search record for Stone, found substantial evidence supported the violation, and held revocation was an authorized sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (establishes standard for common pleas review of administrative orders)
- Andrews v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (administrative orders must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review of administrative decisions is limited; common pleas court has broader review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Henry's Café, Inc. v. Board of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (agencies may impose authorized sanctions; courts defer to agency sanction where supported)
- Boggs v. Ohio Real Estate Commission, 186 Ohio App.3d 96 (discusses regulatory authority and ethical standards for real estate licensees)