|
|
|
NEBRASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION February 15-16, 2005 Staybridge Room Staybridge Suites Lincoln, Nebraska Opening Chairperson Gale convened a meeting of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission at 9:04 a.m. on February 15, 2005, in the Staybridge Room of the Staybridge Suites, located at 2701 Fletcher Avenue in Lincoln, Nebraska. All of the members of the Real Estate Commission were present, with the exception of Commissioners Grady and Strand, who were absent and excused. Also present were Director Les Tyrrell, Deputy Director for Education Teresa Hoffman, Deputy Director for Enforcement Terry Mayrose, and Administrative Assistant Heidi Burklund. Abbie Widger, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, was present for both hearings. Rob Kinsey, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, was present for the Coats hearing. Notice of Meeting (Adopt Agenda) Director Tyrrell presented a public notice and proofs of publication thereof relating to this meeting, all of which are attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairperson Gale reported that all Commissioners had been notified of the meeting simultaneously, in writing, and that a proposed tentative agenda accompanied the notification. Chairperson Gale pointed out to those in attendance that a public copy of the materials being used during the meeting was available to the public on the counsel table in the meeting room, and that the procedures followed were in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. Chairperson Gale asked that guests sign the guest list. Director Tyrrell noted that agenda item 18 had been updated since the tentative agenda was mailed to the Commissioners. After review of the final agenda, a motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Moline to adopt the final agenda as presented. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Minutes of January 12-13, 2005 The minutes of the Commission meeting held on January 12-13, 2005, were considered. Director Tyrrell noted that the date referenced for the minutes had been corrected to 2005. Chairperson Gale stated that the minutes were quite detailed and lengthy. Chairperson Gale asked if the minutes were reviewed by staff. Director Tyrrell said yes, he always reviewed them at least once prior to submitting them to the Commission for approval, and often several times. After review, a motion was made by Moline and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Receipts and Expenditures Report Director Tyrrell presented the Receipts and Expenditures Report for January. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Director Tyrrell noted that there was nothing unusual to report in Receipts, except that examination and application fees continued to be higher than in past years. Expenditures Category 510000, Personal Services, was $300.00 over the budgeted amount due to paying an employee =s vacation and sick leave balance upon separation; Category 519100, Other Personal Services, was to pay the separated employee=s earned overtime; and Category 521100, Postage Expense, was over for the month because of the December Commission Comment and the errors and omissions insurance renewal mailing, which was sent as certified mail. Director Tyrrell noted that several expenditure categories showed zero expenditure on this month=s report, because those bills were not paid due to the staff member responsible being on extended medical leave. Categories included Communication V/D Expense, Publication and Printing, Educational Services, Other Operating Expense, and State-Owned Transportation. The January bills will be reflected on the February report.Commissioner Moline asked that the Commission be provided a list of the expenses that were not paid this month, for explanation of why those expenditures would be over the budgeted amount on next month =s report. Director Tyrrell said he would provide it with next month=s report.The cash fund balance as of January 31, 2005, was $1,087,196.05, which compared to a cash fund balance of $984,903.51 on January 31, 2005. After discussion, a motion was made by Moline and seconded by Shepard to file the January Receipts and Expenditures Report for audit. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Specialized Registrations There were no specialized registrations to be presented at the meeting. Non-Resident Licenses and Resident Licenses Issued to Persons Holding Licenses in Other Jurisdictions Report Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Non-Resident Licenses and Resident Licenses Issued to Persons Holding Licenses in Other Jurisdictions Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. After review, a motion was made by Moline and seconded by Poskochil to ratify issuance of the licenses as set forth in the report. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Examination Report - January Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the January Examination Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. After review, a motion was made by Moline and seconded by Poskochil to ratify the January Examination Report for the purpose of issuing licenses. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Deputy Director Hoffman noted that criminal history background checks were being completed more quickly by the Nebraska State Patrol. Deputy Director Hoffman noted that the average length of time for processing the reports was 28 days in November, 13.4 days in December, and 8 days in January. Nebraska State Patrol staff felt they could maintain this completion time, but legislation was pending which might impact their workload again. Commissioner Moline said that complaints regarding the processing time had declined. Deputy Director Hoffman said that there was still a wide range in processing individual reports, which varied from 2 days to 40. Real Estate Education Matters Pre-License Education Provider Approval Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Pre-License Education Provider Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Deputy Director Hoffman noted that this provider was offering the first pre-license education over the Internet, and that the distance delivery structure was certified by ARELLO. Depending on how extensively the course was utilized, the provider might offer additional pre-license courses in the future. Pre-License Education Instructor Approval Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Pre-License Education Instructor Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Continuing Education Activity Approval Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Continuing Education Activity Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Continuing Education Instructor Approval Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Continuing Education Instructor Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. After review and discussion, a motion was made by Moline and seconded by Shepard to ratify the reports. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Pending Sworn Complaints and Investigative Matters Director Tyrrell presented a summary report of the pending complaints, which included a list of licensees presently under disciplinary action or on appeal. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes. No action was necessary on this report. The following sworn complaints and investigative matters were presented to the Commission:
Presentation of Stipulation and Consent Orders There were no stipulation and consent orders to be presented at the meeting. Hearings February 15, 10:00 a.m. - Complaint #2004-045, A hearing was held on February 15, at 10:07 a.m., in the matter of Complaint #2004-045, Elisabeth Jensen vs. Jane Hartman Heimbouch & Linda J. Dedic. Abbie Widger, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, appeared for the Complainant. Respondents Jane Hartman Heimbouch and Linda J. Dedic were present and represented by counsel Leland Kovarik of Gering. Counsel Kovarik noted for the record that his wife is co-owner of the business which employs the respondents. After opening statements, Counsel Widger presented 13 exhibits, all of which were offered and received by Chairperson Gale. Counsel Widger called Jane Hartman Heimbouch, Linda J. Dedic, and Elisabeth Jensen as witnesses. At 12:03 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 12:14 p.m. At 1:06 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the hearing at 2:06 p.m. At 3:57 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 4:10 p.m. Counsel Kovarik presented 12 exhibits, which were offered and received by Chairperson Gale. Counsel Kovarik recalled Ms. Heimbouch and called Amanda Barthel and Gloria Crist as witnesses. After closing arguments had been presented, Chairperson Gale declared the hearing concluded. Chairperson Gale said that he appreciated the professionalism exhibited by both counsel. Commissioner Johnson said this looked like a situation where everybody involved were very nice people. Commissioner Johnson said he could not believe that everybody involved made so many errors. Ms. Jensen had purchased many houses before, and should have demanded more of her buyer =s agent. As for Ms. Heimbouch, any training Commissioner Johnson had been through, in 40 years in the business, said not to rely on the county assessor=s information. The argument that Ms. Heimbouch relied on the county assessor=s information did not hold any water at all. To say the stove was there but the flue did not fit meant it did not do any good to be there. It was the same with the bathroom fixtures.Commissioner Shepard said he absolutely, totally agreed. He had been in the business for 33 years, and he would never rely on the assessor =s measurements. It was noted in the MLS special remarks section if there was a difference in square footage. In this instance, Ms. Heimbouch said she relied on the assessor for square footage, but she had not relied on it for calling it a one-story house. Ms. Heimbouch put that it was a two-story house in the MLS, when it was actually a 12-story house. There should have been some responsibility on the part of the buyer=s agent, who may get a letter from the Commission on that. Commissioner Shepard could not believe all the mistakes in the MLS listing, and it seemed like a big sloppy to him.Commissioner Poskochil said he noted the same things, and all the mistakes. Some mistakes could cost a consumer a lot of money. The biggest issue for him was with the crawlspace. For a licensee to go into the basement and not be able to tell 400 square feet from 3100 square feet was a major error in judgment. The bathroom issues were a sideline. Apparently, at one time, there had been 4 bathrooms in the house. The crawlspace was a significant misrepresentation, and a significant dollar difference in value. The rest could be remedied, such as the French doors and the unattached flue, but not the basement size. Even if the licensee considered it a partial basement, based on the assessor =s records which indicated a one-level home, 3100 was 2700 different than the actual partial basement. When Ms. Heimbouch walked into the basement, she should have been able to ascertain that something was not right, and should have moved a box if she could not see how far the crawlspace went. The other items were minuscule, but the basement could cost a lot of money in the value of the property.Commissioner Moline said there were two issues, with the agent and the broker. For false advertising, he looked at it as a representation to the public. The MLS was wrong, but that was not supposed to be available to the public. However, it got uploaded to realtor.com, which was available to the public. Commissioner Moline was not sure whether that was false advertising in material fact. Commissioner Moline said he did not know about detrimental reliance, because Ms. Jensen stood in that basement, so he did not know how she detrimentally relied on the MLS information. The term sloppy definitely applied. In Lincoln, agents were trained to not rely on the assessor =s information. Regarding the issue with Ms. Dedic, Commissioner Moline noted that the designated broker usually did not look at the house. Ms. Dedic had stated that the company policy was to rely on the assessor=s information, which seemed like a poor policy to have. In the counties Commissioner Moline had seen, assessors had no clue regarding square footage and what was actually in a house.Chairperson Gale said that, if sellers had materially misrepresented things not readily discoverable, buyers could sue for damages to make it right. What a buyer knew and discovered prior to buying was very relevant as to whether the buyer relied on representations to his/her detriment. This was not the same standard, it was whether the licensees involved had performed their licensed duties. If a doctor was about to botch up a surgery, but someone stopped him/her from cutting off the wrong leg, the doctor was still incompetent. Chairperson Gale said that this was not a basement by any definition, by his experience and by his ownership of homes in the area which had crawl space. 80% of the basements in the area only had crawl space. Even if incorrect information was shown on the assessor =s information, and Ms. Heimbouch said she could not see behind the boxes, that did not relieve her of her responsibility. This was pretty sloppy work. The buyer=s agent probably should have done some inspecting on Ms. Jensen=s behalf, with her being 200 miles away. Chairperson Gale did not know how much the opportunity to discover defects, like the sliding glass doors, should be weighed. There were discrepancies between the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement and the MLS listing, apparently due to Ms. Heimbouch=s assumptions.Commissioner Poskochil said it was some defense that the MLS form only gave certain options. The fireplace section was very confusing. It was not clear whether there was both a fireplace and a wood stove, or just one of them. A lot of the checks were marked the only way they could be checked. Ms. Heimbouch did say the fireplace was working. On Lincoln =s MLS form, it allowed a licensee to designate the source of the square footage, whether the information came from the county assessor, the agent, or blueprints. The Commission should not believe that agents were not relying on county assessor=s square footage, but in Lincoln they could indicate it on the MLS form. MLS forms were not intended for advertising. The buyer saw the house several times, and was not concerned about minor issues. His concern was the competency of the agent, for walking into a basement and not knowing there was a problem. Commissioner Poskochil did not know if the broker=s supervision was a cause for great harm. Commissioner Poskochil said that, if it was standard in their area to rely on county assessor=s information, and if that was their policy, he did not hold that against the broker. If a licensee saw something that was completely incorrect, there was liability if they continued relying on the original source. A small amount of square footage difference was one thing, but with this amount, Ms. Heimbouch should have done further investigation.Chairperson Gale said he was curious if the other Commissioners were mostly focused on the big discrepancy in the basement square footage. Commissioner Johnson said yes. Commissioner Shepard said that was his number one concern, but there were a number of other issues. Chairperson Gale said that for Ms. Dedic, as the broker, the issue was whether that was the policy of her office and common policy in the area. She would still have to stand by the policy, but presumably there must be some good faith in terms of salespeople doing listings, with the exception that the county assessor =s numbers did not make sense. Commissioner Poskochil said it was hard to hold the broker accountable for something she did not inspect. Commissioner Moline said he could vote to dismiss the charges against the broker. He still thought it was a poor policy, and Ms. Dedic should not think a bad policy made her not liable.A motion was made by Moline and seconded by Shepard to dismiss the failure to supervise charge against Ms. Dedic. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Commissioner Poskochil said that he could see eliminating the advertising portion of the charge against Ms. Heimbouch. Commissioner Moline wondered how the other Commissioners felt about the term Asubstantial misrepresentation in advertising.@ Commissioner Moline said he could definitely vote for unworthiness, and noted that where there was sloppy work, mistakes happened. Commissioner Shepard asked for clarification on whether the MLS was considered advertising. Commissioner Moline noted that it did get uploaded to the Internet. Chairperson Gale said that made it available to the public. Commissioner Moline agreed that it was big time public advertising. Commissioner Poskochil noted the advertisement from the newspaper, and said he did not get to review the realtor.com exhibit. Commissioner Poskochil asked if it was the same information as the MLS exhibit. Commissioner Johnson said he thought it had the same things on it. Commissioner Moline said he did not know if Ms. Jensen had printed the whole sheet. Commissioner Poskochil said the realtor.com exhibit stated that there were 4 baths, but did not reference room sizes or the basement area.Chairperson Gale asked if the county assessor =s card had been given to Ms. Jensen, because it would show that it was a farmhouse with a recent addition. Commissioner Poskochil said she had asked for and received one from the assessor=s office, but it did not correspond with this exhibit. In the letter dated May 16, 2004, to Ms. Heimbauch, Ms. Jensen claimed that she had ordered the Sioux County assessor information, which did not support her claims. The cards were the same, so Commissioner Poskochil did not know why that was stated in the letter. Commissioner Moline questioned whether Ms. Jensen should be asking her own buyer=s agent for this information, and relying on his expertise. Commissioner Poskochil said the buyer=s agent really let this person down.Chairperson Gale said the bigger question was advertising, which was what drew buyers to the house, and may cause buyers to waive their expectations based on false advertising. Chairperson Gale asked if it was OK to advertise incorrectly if the buyers discovered it prior to signing a contract. It seemed like Ms. Jensen =s eyes were open going in, but it happened that people felt committed to a property because of information received beforehand. Ms. Jensen only had a couple of weeks to make a decision, and Chairperson Gale had to presume there were others in that same circumstance who had been provide false information, but got it straight later.Commissioner Poskochil asked if it was false advertising if the information source was incorrect. Commissioner Poskochil asked if the office policy was to base the MLS listing on the assessor =s information, did a salesperson intentionally mislead someone by doing so. Chairperson Gale said the statute did not require the misleading to be intentional.Commissioner Shepard said he stopped counting the mistakes in the MLS listing when he got to 14. The advertising said there was a 4-car garage, and the MLS listing said it was a 3-car garage. Commissioner Shepard said he did not know where the difference started and stopped between a little neglect and sloppiness, and what the number was for too many mistakes, but there were a lot of mistakes in this information. Chairperson Gale said that, cumulatively, the Commission had to decide if it was offensive to their sense of conduct and what was an acceptable standard. Commissioner Shepard said that, to him, this was not acceptable at all. Chairperson Gale said he did not want this to be the bar. Commissioner Shepard said certainly not. Commissioner Moline noted that the statute referred to intentionally using misleading advertising, or in any way using false information. Discussion ensued about the intent of the statute, and by consensus the Commission decided it meant either intentionally using misleading information, or in any way using false information, not that intention was required for there to be a violation. A motion was made by Moline and seconded by Johnson to find Ms. Heimbouch guilty of violating 81-885.24(2) and 81-885.24(29). Commissioner Poskochil said that, if it was their policy to use the assessor =s information in that area, right or wrong, she was kind of doing it both ways. He could see unworthiness, for not inspecting the property to ascertain if the information was correct, but he thought it was a double whammy to include false advertising.Commissioner Moline said that, from reading the statute and going back to Commissioner Shepard =s noting 14 mistakes on the MLS listing alone, the aggregate was enough to say it was false advertising. Commissioner Poskochil said it was unworthiness. Chairperson Gale said he agreed with Commissioner Moline, because intent was not required for misrepresenting any property on a material fact. There were a number of things that were misrepresented regarding the property. There may be a question of whether Ms. Jensen relied on the MLS listing to her detriment, but public protection was the bigger issue. Chairperson Gale said he found negligence rather than unworthiness, and that this was not a professional standard which the Commission wanted to promote or accept. The message the Commission needed to send was that it was part of a licensee=s professional duty to get it straight, and not rely on a third source for information.Commissioner Poskochil asked if it would be the Commission =s policy that an MLS listing was advertising. Commissioner Moline said no, but this MLS listing got to the Internet.Commissioner Johnson said that Ms. Jensen deserved to have the room sizes. He did not know whether her agent did not provide that information to her, but she indicated that he could not get them. That was not right. She should not have had to drive 200 miles to measure rooms herself. Commissioner Johnson was not sure what the problem was there. Commissioner Johnson agreed that she was a sophisticated buyer, but the same issues arose for unsophisticated consumers, and did not sit well for the profession. Commissioner Shepard called the question. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Chairperson Gale then opened the disciplinary envelope. No prior disciplinary action was on file for Ms. Heimbouch. A motion was made by Moline and seconded by Shepard to censure Ms. Heimbouch =s salesperson license, and to require that 3 hours of additional continuing education, as decided by staff, be completed within 90 days. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused.Chairperson Gale notified the Respondent that the costs incurred for the court reporter and any witness fees would be billed to the Respondent, as provided for in 305 NAC Chapter 4, and that the Respondent would have thirty days from the date of the order to reimburse the Commission for said costs. With the consent of the Respondent, Chairperson Gale directed Counsel Widger to prepare the order. Chairperson Gale announced that all exhibits related to this hearing would be retained in the Commission office. The hearing was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Counsel Widger asked if an MLS sheet became advertising if it was handed out by licensees, and when staff should draw the line. Commissioner Moline noted that MLS listings were uploaded to the Internet anyway. Michael Matukewicz, representing NP Dodge of Omaha, asked if the broker consented to the upload to realtor.com. The consensus of the Commission was yes. Commissioner Moline noted that there was some MLS information that the public could not print out, but the rest was distributed to the public. Chairperson Gale noted that he would not be in attendance for the whole day at tomorrow =s meeting, because he needed to leave early. Director Tyrrell noted that there were some investigative matters for which some of the Commissioners in attendance may need to recuse themselves. Director Tyrrell suggested that the Commission address those items at 9:00 a.m., while Chairperson Gale was in attendance. Commissioner Shepard asked how long the hearing was expected to last. Director Tyrrell estimated 3 hours.A motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Johnson to have Director Tyrrell send a letter of admonition to the buyer =s agent.Commissioner Shepard said he did not think the buyer =s agent=s conduct required a complaint and investigation, but he wanted the licensee to know it was not acceptable.Commissioner Poskochil noted that one issue was that, once the offer was accepted and the measuring was being done, the buyer =s agent was talking to the sellers about calling their auction. That put the buyer at a disadvantage, because the licensee might not disclose adverse material facts if he was afraid it would affect his auction listing. Director Tyrrell noted that both licensees had to disclose any adverse material facts. He had the same concern, but the auction was of personal property. Commissioner Poskochil said the buyer=s agent was still benefitting from selling the personal property, and had been in and out of the house, moving property and preparing sale bills. He was probably in the house more than the buyer. Commissioner Moline asked if Director Tyrrell would bullet out items from the Commission=s discussion for the letter. Director Tyrrell said yes, he tried to provide a narrative about each issue, and he always copied the designated broker on such letters. Chairperson Gale asked that Director Tyrrell also inform the respondent=s counsel.A vote was taken on the pending motion. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, Moline, and Gale voting aye, and with Grady and Strand not participating or voting, being absent and excused. February 16, 9:30 a.m. - Complaint #2004-050, A hearing was held on February 16, at 9:30 a.m., in the matter of Complaint #2004-050, Trenton L. Reed vs. Kenneth Winston Coats. Rob Kinsey, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, appeared for the Complainant. Respondent Kenneth Winston Coats was present and represented by counsel Douglas Ruge of Omaha. Acting Chairperson Moline presided at the hearing because Chairperson Gale had to leave the meeting during the hearing. Abbie Widger, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, was present to assist Acting Chairperson Moline with rulings. Counsel Widger had not previously been involved with this complaint. Prior to commencement of the hearing, Counsel Kinsey stated that Mr. Reed requested a continuance, due to the fact that only 4 out of 7 Commissioners were available to determine the merits of the complaint. Counsel Kinsey made a motion to continue the complaint on the same basis that the Commission decided to postpone agenda item 13. Acting Chairperson Moline noted that, since action required 4 votes, any vote to find guilt or take disciplinary action would have to be unanimous. Counsel Ruge noted that he and his client had come fully prepared for the hearing. He and Mr. Coats had cleared their schedules for today, and would like to move forward today. A continuance would be an inconvenience to them. Chairperson Gale noted that the Commission had the legal requirement for a quorum. While having the minimum number might not be fully satisfactory, it met the legal requirement to proceed. Chairperson Gale said that he regretted that complications in his schedule required him to be gone during the hearing, but the Commission had a quorum, and the court reporter and the parties were prepared to go ahead. Chairperson Gale said that the merits of going ahead outweighed the merits of postponement, and there was no assurance that more Commissioners would be in attendance at a future hearing date. Commissioner Shepard agreed that everyone was prepared for the hearing today, and the Commission should move forward with it. Commissioner Johnson agreed that it was unfortunate that some Commission members were missing, but he agreed that the hearing should go forward. Commissioner Poskochil agreed that the hearing should go forward. Acting Chairperson Moline ruled that the hearing would be held today, and the motion for continuance was denied. After opening statements, Counsel Kinsey and Counsel Ruge presented exhibits 1-52 jointly, and Counsel Ruge offered exhibit 53, all of which were offered and received by Acting Chairperson Moline. Counsel Kinsey called Kenneth Coats and Trenton Reed as witnesses. At 10:55 a.m. on February 16, Chairperson Gale was excused from the remainder of the meeting. At 10:55 a.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 11:02 a.m. At 12:05 p.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 12:11 p.m. At 1:18 p.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the hearing at 2:00 p.m. Counsel Ruge called no witnesses. After closing arguments had been presented, Acting Chairperson Moline declared the hearing concluded. Commissioner Johnson said this issue may come up again, but maybe not every day. He subscribed to the theory that if it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck, i.e. a relocation transaction. However, he did question why Mr. Coats had to supply the company with documents that fit for a relocation company, if they were a relocation company. Acting Chairperson Moline agreed with the duck theory, but questioned the nature of the transaction, compared to the ultimate outcome. Acting Chairperson Moline was concerned about setting policy for the future. The rule said that an adverse material fact was a fact which significantly affected the value or desirability of the property. The parties talked about the roof before the purchase agreement, so Acting Chairperson Moline did not think it rose to the level of an undisclosed adverse material fact. Commissioner Shepard said he had a lot of relocation business. He tried to put himself in Mr. Coats = shoes, and considered at what point he would have figured out it was a relocation company. The documents they needed might have indicated that, but he had sent stuff like that to relocation companies, and they sent back their own information sheets. Commissioner Shepard said he tried to do business right and do a good job for his clients, but he did not think he would have caught it.Acting Chairperson Moline asked whether the issue regarding the roof was an adverse material fact. Commissioner Johnson wondered if Mr. Coats suspected it was an adverse material fact because of his comment about jumping on this contract because of a potential problem. He did not think it turned out as an adverse material fact after all the testimony was heard, but he wondered what Mr. Coats was thinking when he wrote that note to his seller. Commissioner Shepard said he was probably trying to figure out how to get that deal put together, and put the commission in his pocket. He was trying to convince someone far away. Commissioner Poskochil said it was not an adverse material fact. The moss was visible, Mr. Reed had a home inspector, and there was conflict in the testimony on what the seller knew. Commissioner Poskochil did not see where Mr. Coats had tried to cover up or conceal anything. The Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement was filled out by the seller. Mr. Reed had a whole house inspection, with the roof repair excluded. That was not made an issue by the home inspector. The problem Commissioner Poskochil saw was with the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement, based on whether Mr. Coats knew that was the seller or not. In his mind, the seller was the insurance company, based on the filing of a deed. If Mr. Coats was providing forms to the insurance company but getting nothing back, there was no indication that it was a relocation company, or as-is condition. Most relocation companies have disclaimers about sellers, inspection periods, etc. Commissioner Poskochil had a hard time believing it was truly a relocation company. Mr. Coats did not get a true Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement from the seller at the time of the sale. Acting Chairperson Moline said there were lots of issues in the complaint, and asked if there was a motion regarding any of the charges listed. A motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shepard to dismiss all charges. Acting Chairperson Moline asked Director Tyrrell to clarify the ramifications of the vote. Director Tyrrell clarified that an affirmative motion was needed to find guilt, and that if this motion failed, it would not result in a guilty finding. The Commission would continue deliberations. Commissioner Poskochil said he was in favor of dismissing all the charges except failure to ensure that the current seller provided the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement. He felt there was a violation there, but would be in favor of dismissing the other charges. Commissioner Shepard asked if Commissioner Poskochil felt Mr. Coats should have known it was not a relocation company. Commissioner Poskochil said that was his belief. Commissioner Johnson asked if that was splitting hairs. Commissioner Poskochil said that, typically, a buyer knew if the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement came from the previous seller. If it was a blank one from a relocation company, that was usually noted, so that the buyer knew that it was from a relocation company when reviewing it. Acting Chairperson Moline said that, in this case, the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement would have been marked Ado not know@ throughout, which would do the buyer no good. Commissioner Poskochil said the buyer needed to know whose Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement it was, and whether it was from the actual owner or not. Whether it was from the previous owner or the current owner, the buyer should have knowledge of it. Acting Chairperson Moline said the buyer had knowledge of who the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement was from, because it was signed at the bottom. Acting Chairperson Moline asked Commissioner Poskochil to help him with the harm part. Commissioner Poskochil said that, if he had moved and had been at the new location for 6 months, and the house had not sold yet, he might not disclose all issues properly for the buyout company to purchase his house. Commissioner Poskochil has had it happen, and that the value and condition of the house affected the relocation package. If a buyer knew who the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement came from, they had full knowledge. That did not happen in this case.Acting Chairperson Moline said that was working two sides of the fence. There was no relocation company involved, but the parties involved used relocation terms. Commissioner Poskochil said the buyer did not. Commissioner Shepard said the buyer had a counteroffer, signed by the seller. Commissioner Shepard questioned why the buyer =s agent did not question that it was not a relocation company, and where was the other disclosure. The buyer=s agent did not have a red flag. Commissioner Poskochil said it may not be a red flag to her. When the parties were in the process of negotiation, they might not have paid attention to the signature, just the terms. When a buyer signs an offer, the buyer needs to know if the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement is from the past owner or the current owner.Commissioner Shepard said that he did not buy it that the buyer was paying attention to all the details except that. Commissioner Poskochil asked if Commissioner Shepard was stating that the seller =s agent should not have to disclose that the seller was a relocation company. Commissioner Shepard said he did not know if he was stating that. Acting Chairperson Moline said Commissioner Shepard was stating that this transaction was a relocation, and was handled as that type of transaction. Everything you looked at in this transaction said relocation.Counsel Kinsey offered the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement statute 76-2,120(6)(l) into evidence. There was no objection from Counsel Ruge, and Acting Chairperson Moline accepted the exhibit. Director Tyrrell read aloud the relocation exception from the statute. Commissioner Johnson questioned whether that provision put the insurance company in the same position, where they were both the seller and the third-party relocation company. Commissioner Johnson asked if they could be both. Acting Chairperson Moline said yes, if the court ruled that way. Motion failed with Johnson, Shepard, and Moline voting aye, with Poskochil voting nay, and with Grady, Strand, and Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Acting Chairperson Moline asked for Director Tyrrell =s opinion on whether the seconder had to vote for a motion. Director Tyrrell said he did not think either the mover or the seconder had to vote for a motion. Counsel Kinsey agreed.Acting Chairperson Moline noted that all the parties involved thought it was a relocation situation. There was no definition of a relocation company in the law. In the real estate business, a relocation was when an employer bought a house for someone who was transferred. There would be problems if the Commission tried to split hairs down to this level. The Commission may want to make the statute more clear, when this was all done, but the exception was done just 3 years ago. Commissioner Poskochil said the intent was not very clear. Acting Chairperson Moline said the intent was to take relocation companies out of the mix, so that consumers would get disclosures from the most recent residents of a home. Commissioner Shepard said that relocation companies would mark the entire Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement Ado not know.@ Licensees tried to get it from the previous seller, so the consumer would have some information. Acting Chairperson Moline agreed, and noted that otherwise, every relocation company would refuse to fill it out or fill in Ado not know@ on all items. Commissioner Poskochil said the statute was not real clear on what was a relocation company. Based on the discussion, he was now willing to dismiss all charges.A motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Johnson to dismiss all charges. Commissioner Poskochil said that, not having had the prior knowledge that other Commissioners had, and with relocation being a grey area, he was willing to vote for the motion. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, and Moline voting aye, and with Grady, Strand, and Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused. With the consent of the Respondent, Acting Chairperson Moline directed Counsel Kinsey to prepare the order. Acting Chairperson Moline announced that all exhibits related to this hearing would be retained in the Commission office. The hearing was adjourned at 3:58 p.m. Informal Special Appearances Patrick Chase, Potential Applicant Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit which included correspondence regarding Mr. Chase =s special appearance, Mr. Chase=s resume, and information regarding Mr. Chase=s criminal history. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Chase was present.Chairperson Gale reviewed the procedure for informal special appearances. Mr. Chase said he was born and raised in Omaha, and had always been interested in the real estate market. In his last position, he rose rapidly in a mortgage company which marketed to veterans across the country. Mr. Chase said he was the regional manager for Nebraska, Iowa, and South Dakota. That market had run its course, as there were a limited number of veterans in that area. Since then, he had been offered a position in Omaha which would require a real estate license. Chairperson Gale asked Mr. Chase to tell the Commission about the two felony convictions. Mr. Chase said it had been very embarrassing for him, and the anniversary of the event was yesterday. On Valentine =s Day in 2000, Mr. Chase came home from work and found his fiancee at their new home, where they were living with their two kids. Her old boyfriend was there also. Mr. Chase confronted them, and physically removed the fiancee from his home. The assault charge against him was dropped, but the domestic abuse charge was carried forward, for good reason. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase had caused permanent harm to his fiancee. Mr. Chase said not physically, but probably psychologically. Mr. Chase served time in the Nebraska Penitentiary, made parole at his first eligibility, and served his parole in Omaha. The mortgage company hired him knowing about the felony, and he proved himself and was promoted to regional manager within the first three months.Chairperson Gale asked if these were his only felonies. Mr. Chase said yes. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase had taken anger management classes. Mr. Chase said yes. He was not sentenced for a full year after the incident, and he took quite a few classes between it and prison. Mr. Chase =s attorney had advised him that the longer the trial was put off, the better the chance that the judge would see that he was not a career criminal, but he was still incarcerated. Mr. Chase had pled no contest. Chairperson Gale asked if the anger management classes did Mr. Chase any good. Mr. Chase said yes. He had never been in a situation like that, and he felt especially bad for their two children, who were not home at the time. Anybody would have been angry in that situation, but he handled it wrong.Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase had lost contact with his children. Mr. Chase said no, they were very close. The kids were in 9th grade and middle school, and were both A+ students. Chairperson Gale asked if alcohol was a problem for Mr. Chase. Mr. Chase said no, and that the alcohol in public charge occurred when he and a date were drinking a bottle of wine while walking around. The officer took the bottle and wrote him up for consuming alcohol in a public place. The other charge was from when he and two friends had won while shooting pool, and when they came outside, there were 12 individuals waiting for them. Mr. Chase said he did not even throw a punch that day. He and his friends were pretty badly beaten up. He found out later that it was gang-related. Chairperson Gale asked about the disorderly conduct charge. Mr. Chase said the police sympathized with them for being beaten up, but since the police did not see who started the melee, they had to issue tickets to everyone they caught. He and his friends had hung around, and the others took off. Chairperson Gale asked if alcohol was involved on Mr. Chase =s part. Mr. Chase said not at all. He had shown up very late, and only had one beer. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase had quit drinking. Mr. Chase said he did not drink much, just socially. Chairperson Gale asked if it was a problem in Mr. Chase=s life. Mr. Chase said no. When in prison, everyone had to go through a drug and alcohol course. His form came back that it was not a problem in his life.Commissioner Poskochil asked about misdemeanors being upgraded to felonies. Mr. Chase said that the original charge was misdemeanor assault, and the prosecutor bumped it up to a felony. Commissioner Poskochil asked when Mr. Chase =s sentence was completed. Mr. Chase said it was completed in 2003, so there had been almost 2 years since he completed parole, and obviously had no further incidences.Commissioner Moline requested clarification that the assault happened on February 14, but additional charges had been added later with no additional incidents. Mr. Chase said that was correct, that they bumped up the charges by dropping the misdemeanors and charging him with felonies. There was not a separate case. Commissioner Shepard asked if Mr. Chase felt he was a victim of timing and circumstance. Mr. Chase said what he had done was wrong, but there was an article in the paper that the city was going to be more strict on domestic violence, and he was told that was why the charges were bumped up. It had nothing to do with the severity of the crime, or him trying to minimize what he had done. Chairperson Gale asked what Mr. Chase had studied in college. Mr. Chase said math, engineering, and sports nutrition. He had attended full time for three years, then was offered a supervisory position at a telemarketing company, and went part time after that. Mr. Chase said he only needed 10-12 more hours. Chairperson Gale asked Mr. Chase if he intended to finish his degree. Mr. Chase said yes. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase had met all parole conditions. Mr. Chase said yes. Chairperson Gale noted that the guidelines stated that extraordinary circumstances were required to overcome a felony violent crime conviction. The assault on another person with violent intent, when Mr. Chase dragged his fiancee from the home, seemed to be a felony violent crime. It appeared that Mr. Chase had done well since his release, was released early, and had served parole. It was a question if the Commission felt Mr. Chase had been out long enough to know if he was on a successful new track, was trustworthy and reliable, and had put that in the past. Mr. Chase noted the position he had held at the mortgage company, and the quickness of his promotion. Commissioner Moline asked when Mr. Chase was off parole. Mr. Chase said it was April 2003, which was almost 2 years ago. Commissioner Poskochil asked if Mr. Chase was 34 years old at the time of the assault. Mr. Chase said yes, he was 34 or 35. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase got along with his former fiancee when he visited their children. Mr. Chase said they got along fine. Chairperson Gale asked Mr. Chase if she would feel Mr. Chase was a good candidate for a license, if he was trustworthy, and if there was no restraining order. Mr. Chase said she was at his parole hearing, speaking on his behalf. She had realized the tension that day, and knew she needed him home for the kids = benefit. There was no protection order, or any animosity or further disturbances between them.Commissioner Johnson noted that Mr. Chase had listed the names of references, and said it would have been helpful to have a short letter from them. Chairperson Gale said the Commission was entitled to ask for that, if more background information was needed from his references and his former fiancee. If Mr. Chase was to meet the test of extraordinary, the Commission needed to decide what that would be. Chairperson Gale asked if Mr. Chase would have any problem with additional requirements being placed on him regarding notifying his employing broker, having the broker verify that notification to the Commission, and that Mr. Chase immediately notify the Commission of any future convictions. Mr. Chase said no. The company that wanted to hire him already knew of his situation, and wanted him to notify them as soon as he was approved. Chairperson Gale asked if there was any problem providing letters from references and his former fiancee. Mr. Chase said no problem. Chairperson Gale noted that it might delay the Commission =s decision, but may be what needed to be done. Mr. Chase asked if the Commission would require notarized signatures. Commissioner Poskochil said he would like proof that the misdemeanors were the original charges, and were bumped up to felonies, because the Commission had no proof of that. Director Tyrrell said he could attempt to get that from the courts. Mr. Chase said he would contact his old attorney, and see what he could find out.Commissioner Moline noted that violent crimes and financial crimes were assigned a high level of duty to show rehabilitation. These were unfortunate circumstances, but for extraordinary circumstances, Commissioner Moline wanted to hear from Mr. Chase =s parole officer and former fiancee. Extraordinary was a high level to attain. Commissioner Moline thought he could potentially vote yes with the additional information, but nothing today rose to the level of extraordinary. Mr. Chase said it would be no problem at all.Chairperson Gale noted that he sat on the Pardons Board, and they had timelines for staying out of trouble. Two years was a short time, or three if the Commission included his parole time. If there was a longer period, that would be more evidence that the path was reestablished. Chairperson Gale said he thought Commissioners Moline and Poskochil wanted that, with proof of the reduced original charges, references from Mr. Chase =s list and from his former fiancee, and a letter from his parole officer that all went well. Mr. Chase asked if the Commission wanted anything notarized, or any special requirements. Director Tyrrell noted that, if a reference did not have a business, there would be no letterhead. Director Tyrrell asked if the Commission wanted notarized affidavits instead of letters of reference. Chairperson Gale said yes, he wanted notarized statements from the parole officer and the former fiancee. The references could just provide letters, on letterhead if possible. Commissioner Poskochil said the parole officer letter would not be notarized. Commissioner Moline said it was not needed if it was received directly from the parole officer, but it had to be notarized if it was received from the applicant.Director Tyrrell noted that another special appearance for Mr. Chase will be scheduled at an upcoming meeting. Steven DeBoom, Nonresident Applicant Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit which included correspondence regarding Mr. DeBoom =s special appearance, Mr. DeBoom=s application, and information regarding Mr. DeBoom=s criminal history. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. DeBoom was not present, and had requested an appearance by exhibit.Director Tyrrell said the issue was a 30-year-old conviction for misuse of bank funds, which had occurred in 1971 in California. There was an account in the bank which was used to pay interest on CDs. Mr. DeBoom borrowed the funds, then paid back restitution of approximately $5000.00. The conviction was a felony. Mr. DeBoom had filed a previous application, on which he had not included any indication of the felony conviction. Director Tyrrell asked Mr. DeBoom why he did not disclose it on his previous application, and Mr. DeBoom indicated that his attorney had been trying to expunge it, and had not gotten it done. Acting Chairperson Moline noted that Mr. DeBoom had an Iowa license, and asked if they required a background search. Director Tyrrell said he did not know. Acting Chairperson Moline asked if Mr. DeBoom would have told Iowa about the conviction, or if Iowa =s application asked for that. Director Tyrrell said he did not know. Some jurisdictions asked for very little information. Our renewal form was much more detailed than any other jurisdiction, most of which used postcards.Acting Chairperson Moline said he did not consider whether information was provided to other states, but considered the Commission =s guidelines, which required extraordinary circumstances for financial crimes. This conviction was for stealing money, even though it was 30 years ago. Director Tyrrell said it was a question of whether the Commission felt that 30 years without problems was extraordinary. Acting Chairperson Moline noted that the Commission could not talk to him in person and get a feel for his character. Acting Chairperson Moline asked if Director Tyrrell had gotten an impression from the phone call. Director Tyrrell said Mr. DeBoom was fairly straightforward. Director Tyrrell had asked him all his questions by telephone, and told Mr. DeBoom he needed the answers in writing. Director Tyrrell noted that Mr. DeBoom was now 60 years old. Acting Chairperson Moline said that Sioux City was not that far away. Director Tyrrell said he gave Mr. DeBoom the choice of an appearance by exhibit or in person, since he was out of state. Mr. DeBoom preferred it be done by exhibit, so Director Tyrrell got his questions answered in writing.Commissioner Poskochil asked if the Commission had only the information on the background report. Director Tyrrell said yes. Commissioner Poskochil asked whether it showed misdemeanors. Director Tyrrell said it depended on what the local police did when a person was arrested. Acting Chairperson Moline asked what Director Tyrrell would do. Director Tyrrell said he would probably let Mr. DeBoom have a license. This had happened 34 years ago, when he was probably just married, and there was nothing since to indicate that he had not lived a good life. Commissioner Shepard noted that most applicants making special appearances had another whole list of contacts with the law. Director Tyrrell said the only thing that concerned him was that Mr. DeBoom had not disclosed the felony conviction previously, but it sounded like he meant the explanation regarding expungement. After discussion, a motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Johnson to issue the license, with the conditions that Mr. DeBoom must notify his initial employing broker of his criminal conviction and the circumstances of the conviction; and the employing broker must confirm said notification in writing to the Commission prior to issuance of the license. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, and Moline voting aye, and with Grady, Strand, and Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Proposed Amendments to Title 299, Chapter 2 - Advertise and Do Business in Multiple Trade Names Chairperson Gale noted that this agenda item was postponed until the next Commission meeting, so that more than four Commissioners could participate in the discussion of the proposed amendments. Approval of Contract with Special Assistant Attorneys General Chris Heinrich of Harding, Schultz, & Downs told the Commission that Tim Engler would not be the Commission =s litigator, as they had stated at the previous meeting. Counsel Heinrich introduced Neal Stenberg, and stated he would be the Commission=s litigator. Mr. Heinrich said that Mr. Stenberg had handled thousands of administrative hearings, and was a better fit for the position.Mr. Stenberg said he graduated from UNL in 1974, and had administrative law experience. For 6 or 7 years, he was an administrative law judge for the Department of Labor =s unemployment insurance compensation court. His areas of expertise were public school and labor law. He did personnel work which included investigating complaints against teachers and administrators. He had worked with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, the Federal Equal Opportunity Commission, the State Personnel Board, and the Liquor Commission. He had authored an article of how to take appeals from administrative agencies, and it was work he enjoyed.Chairperson Gale said he knew Mr. Stenberg =s brother well, and his brother was doing well in private practice. Counsel Heinrich said that Mr. Stenberg would stay for the hearing to get a flavor of how the Commission operated.After the hearing on February 16, the Commission resumed discussion of this agenda item. Director Tyrrell noted that he had held a telephonic meeting with the Budget and Planning Subcommittee. The contract negotiations resulted in charges of $170 per hour for attorneys Engler and Stenberg, and $150 per hour for attorney Heinrich. Work by associates and clerks would be billed at lower rates. Rather than going back to the Attorney General =s office again to get it down to $140, the Budget and Planning Subcommittee recommended entering into the contract as per the Attorney General=s appointment. Director Tyrrell had still not received appointment letters on the three of them. The appointment would increase the Commission=s budget by approximately 33% for next biennium=s legal expenditures, raising the budgeted amount from $71,400 to $95,000. The committee had already approved the Commission=s budget as requested, so he would have to request an additional $23,600 at the hearing. Director Tyrrell did not think it would be a problem.A motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Johnson to give Director Tyrrell the authority to enter into the contract with the appointed Special Assistant Attorneys General, and to request the additional budget funding at the hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked about the term of the contract. Director Tyrrell said it would be in effect until the attorneys were removed by the Attorney General or the Commission. The Commission could tell the Attorney General that they were not getting the service they should be, and request that they no longer be required to contract with the attorneys. That had been done by the Commission in the past, with two previous attorneys. A vote was taken on the pending motion. Motion carried with Johnson, Poskochil, Shepard, and Moline voting aye, and with Grady, Strand, and Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused. Report on HUD-1 Closing Issue Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit consisting of correspondence from HearthStone Homes Inc., regarding their one-time close program. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Counsel Widger noted that Director Tyrrell had researched other jurisdictions = policies regarding the timing of paying out commissions. It was common practice to pay commissions when the HUD-1 form was completed and the deed was transferred. Due to changes that HearthStone Homes Inc. had agreed to make to their program, and because they would not pay the referral fee until the HUD-1 form was completed and the deed was transferred, it was staff=s position that the referral fee could be paid to the referring agent at that time.Director Tyrrell clarified that most of the jurisdictions which had responded either had no language in their law regarding when payment of the commission was appropriate, or the law stated that the commission could be paid when the HUD-1 form was completed and the deed was transferred. Chairperson Gale asked if a motion was needed, because this was just a staff interpretation at this point. Chairperson Gale said the Commission should adopt a policy or interpretation, and requested that staff present proposed language for a formal interpretation at the next meeting. Commissioner Moline noted that, if the HUD-1 form was the closing statement, that meant the closing statement was the same trigger. Counsel Widger agreed, if that was when the deed was transferred without strings. Legislative Matters Director Tyrrell presented exhibits consisting of legislative bills introduced in the 2005 Legislature. Director Tyrrell reviewed legislation of interest to the Commission. Director Tyrrell noted that the Commission =s bill, LB 88, was still sitting on select file. After the hearing where Director Tyrrell appeared as neutral to LB 149 and LB 315, both bills were indefinitely postponed by the committee. There were three more methamphetamine bills, and Director Tyrrell was keeping an eye on those in case of amendment. The budget hearing for LB 425 was scheduled on February 23, and Director Tyrrell planned to make the request for additional funding for the newly-appointed attorneys at the hearing. According to the Commission=s fiscal analyst, the Commission got all the funding it had requested, including funding for the additional insurance costs. Director Tyrrell had not heard what was the status of the home inspector licensing bill.Director Tyrrell noted that there was a bill to lower the age of majority from 19 to 18, and Director Tyrrell was not planning to appear at the hearing. Commissioner Shepard asked if it was likely to pass. Director Tyrrell said it was doubtful. Commissioner Shepard asked that, if it passed, an article be placed in the Commission Comment as soon as possible. Director Tyrrell noted that the earliest possible effective date of the legislation would be September. No action was necessary on this report. Information Matters ARELLO Mid-Year Meeting - March 31-April 2 in Monterey, CA Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit regarding the ARELLO Mid-Year Meeting, which will be held March 31-April 2 in Monterey, CA. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Director Tyrrell asked that Commissioners planning to attend fill out the registration form and send it to the Commission office, with a check for the guest registration, if applicable. Director Tyrrell reported that the deadline for hotel reservations is February 28, 2005. Deputy Director Hoffman noted that there were two hotels for the overflow, and Commissioners had to call the overflow service if needed. No action was necessary on this report. Trust Account Examination Evaluation Report - Fourth Quarter 2004 Director Tyrrell presented the Trust Account Examination Evaluation Report - Fourth Quarter 2004. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Director Tyrrell reported that comments were again very positive. He reviewed some of the comments received, and how the situations were handled. Director Tyrrell noted that there were conflicting comments on one examiner, where one broker said the examiner took too much time, and another said the examination was conducted quickly. No action was necessary on this report. Future Meeting Dates March 17-18, 2005 - Ramada Limited South, Lincoln Recesses and Adjournment At 9:55 a.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 a.m. At 12:03 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 12:14 p.m. At 1:06 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the hearing at 2:06 p.m. At 3:57 p.m., Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 4:10 p.m. The hearing was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. on February 15. At 5:30 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 5:33 p.m. At 5:44 p.m. on February 15, Chairperson Gale recessed the meeting. At 9:04 a.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline reconvened the meeting. Chairperson Gale had passed the gavel to Acting Chairperson Moline because he would not be in attendance for the entire hearing. At 9:37 a.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 9:49 a.m. At 10:55 a.m. on February 16, Chairperson Gale was excused from the remainder of the meeting. At 10:55 a.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 11:02 a.m. At 12:05 p.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess, and reconvened the hearing at 12:11 p.m. At 1:18 p.m. on February 16, Acting Chairperson Moline declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the hearing at 2:00 p.m. At 3:58 p.m. on February 16, the hearing was adjourned, and Acting Chairperson Moline declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 4:12 p.m. At 4:42 p.m. on February 16, there being no further business to come before the Commission, Acting Chairperson Moline adjourned the meeting. I, Les Tyrrell, Director of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the February 15-16, 2005, meeting of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission were available for inspection on March 3, 2005, in compliance with Section 84-1413(5) R.R.S. 1943, of Nebraska. Respectfully submitted, Guests Signing the Guest List Perre Neilan, Nebraska REALTORS 7 Association, LincolnMichael Matukewicz, NP Dodge, Omaha Ernest R. Faubion, NP Dodge Real Estate, Omaha Jane Heimbouch, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Scottsbluff Linda Dedic, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Scottsbluff Leland Kovarik, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Gering Darlene Kovarik, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Scottsbluff Gloria Crist, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Guernsey, WY Amanda Barthel, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Hartvill, WY Brian Heimbouch, Century 21 Home Team Realty, Gering Elisabeth Jensen, Complainant, Henry Joe Valenti, CBSHOME, Omaha Chris Heinrich, Lincoln Neal Stenberg, Lincoln Trenton Reed, Omaha |