2019 Ohio 2885
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Carl H. Woodford, a licensed Ohio real estate salesperson, and his company entered into a scheme where Woodford's company would bid at a tax-foreclosure auction so a third party (Jackson) could repurchase the property; First National (Woodford's company) failed to convey the property or return funds and Jackson paid Woodford $41,000 in 2014.
- Jackson filed a complaint with the Ohio Division of Real Estate; the Division mailed a Notice of Formal Hearing to Woodford's last-known address by certified mail and later rescheduled the hearing after a telephone scheduling conference in which Woodford participated.
- Woodford did not attend the January 26, 2018 hearing; the hearing officer found violations of R.C. 4735.18(A)(6) (incorporating the Canons of Ethics) and recommended revocation of Woodford's salesperson license; the Commission adopted the recommendation and revoked the license.
- Woodford paid $10,000 back to Jackson before the Commission’s final action and then appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Commission’s order and denied Woodford’s motion to supplement the administrative record.
- On appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Woodford raised six assignments of error challenging notice, waiver, address-update obligations, denial to supplement the record, the trial court’s wording, and whether the Commission should have abstained pending related litigation; the appellate court affirmed the common pleas judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woodford) | Defendant's Argument (Commission/Division) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice and timing of hearing (R.C. 119.07 / 4735.051(J)) | Hearing notice was not timely mailed after rescheduling, prejudicing Woodford | Division provided proper notice initially; Woodford had actual knowledge and participated in rescheduling | Actual knowledge and participation in scheduling waived notice defect; no due-process violation |
| Waiver of notice | Woodford did not waive statutory notice requirements | Participation in the scheduling conference constitutes waiver of objection to form/timing of notice | Waiver found; participation precludes later challenge to notice |
| Failure to update address and consequences | Division’s reliance on outdated address caused missed mailings; revocation cannot rest on address mistake | R.C. 4735.14(D) requires licensee to notify superintendent of address change; failure delayed receipt of scheduling order but Woodford had actual knowledge | Court did not rely on a rule that address lapse alone mandates revocation; any error was harmless given Woodford’s actual knowledge |
| Motion to supplement administrative record | Trial court improperly denied additional evidence that Woodford could not present without notice | Additional materials were not newly discovered or existed at time of the agency hearing; R.C. 119.12(K) limits supplementation | Denial proper: proffered items were not newly discovered or part of certified record, so trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lies v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Bd., 2 Ohio App.3d 204 (1st Dist. 1981) (describes the hybrid standard of review for common pleas courts reviewing administrative records)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review of trial court’s administrative-review decision is limited to abuse-of-discretion)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (1980) (trial court must determine whether agency order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Fogt v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 3 Ohio App.2d 423 (3d Dist. 1965) (statutory notice may be waived by participation or conduct acknowledging notice)