and submitted November 28, 2016.
Estate Agency 201390
Roberts argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the
opening brief was Roberts Law Group PC. With him on the reply
brief were Jordan Roberts and Roberts Law Group PC.
J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Lagesen,
Summary: Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of
the Oregon Real Estate Agency in which the agency concluded
that petitioner had violated three professional standards and
then revoked his real estate broker license based on those
three violations. Petitioner argues, among other things, that
the agency was not entitled to summary determination and that
he should have been afforded a hearing. Held: The
agency was not entitled to summary determination on two of
three alleged violations of professional standards because
there exist disputed issues of fact that are material to such
a determination and because the agency did not carry its
burden to produce evidence that petitioner violated one of
those standards. Because the agency's decision to revoke
petitioner's license was based on all three violations
found by the agency, the entire case is reversed and remanded
for further proceedings.
Or. 757] TOOKEY, J.
seeks judicial review of a final order of the Oregon Real
Estate Agency in which the agency concluded that petitioner
had violated professional standards and then revoked his real
estate broker license. Petitioner asserts, among other
things, that the agency erred in issuing a final order based
on the administrative law judge's (ALJ) grant of the
agency's motion for summary determination because
petitioner had raised genuine issues of material fact and the
agency was not entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of
law. We conclude that the agency was not entitled to summary
determination and, accordingly, we reverse and
this matter is on review from a grant of summary
determination for the agency, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to petitioner, the nonmoving party.
Wolff v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 284
Or.App. 792, 800, 395 P.3d 44 (2017).
held an active Oregon real estate broker license until March
31, 2013, when he let it expire. His license was associated
with Pacific Commercial Group, LLC, which was a real estate
brokerage firm formed by petitioner and his brother-in-law,
Richard Baek. Richard and his sister Grace Baek,
petitioner's then-wife, held two parcels of property in
Oregon through two limited liability companies- Baek 124th
LLC and Baek Holdings, LLC (the Baek LLCs). At some point,
Grace gave petitioner a 25 percent interest in each of the
Baek LLCs, such that Richard held 50 percent, Grace held 25
percent, and petitioner held 25 percent interest in each LLC.
Petitioner was also the manager of the Baek LLCs.
March 2010, the Baek LLCs entered into an exclusive listing
agreement with petitioner to sell the Oregon parcels. By the
terms of that agreement, it expired on February 28, 2011, but
also provided that the owner of the parcels would pay a
commission to the broker if,
[290 Or. 758] "within Three Hundred Sixty (360) days
after the expiration of this Authorization or any extension
hereof, the Property or any interest therein is sold,
transferred, or conveyed to any person or entity with whom
Broker has negotiated or to whom Broker has submitted the