White v. Dept. of Labor ( 2007 )

October 3 2007
DA 06-0353
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 253N
ROBERT L. WHITE,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and INDUSTRY and
MONTANA BOARD OF REALTY REGULATION,
Respondents and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Park, Cause No. DV 05-106
Honorable Wm. Nels Swandal, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Robert L. White (Pro Se), Livingston, Montana
For Appellees:
M. Gene Allison, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 31, 2007
Decided: October 3, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Robert L. White (White) appeals from an order of the Sixth Judicial District
Court, Park County, affirming a decision of the Montana Board of Realty Regulation,
Department of Labor and Industry (Board) dismissing White’s petition for relief. We affirm.
¶3 White is a real estate salesperson licensed in Montana and subject to the authority of
the Board. From time to time, White had sold properties for an individual named Sandra
McNamara (McNamara). On August 13, 2005, White advertised for sale real property
belonging to McNamara. However, at the time he did so, White did not have a signed listing
agreement covering the property advertised. A competing realtor did have a signed listing
agreement from McNamara regarding the same property and filed a complaint against White
with the Board.
¶4 A Board hearing examiner found White in violation of § 37-1-316(18), MCA,
establishing generally accepted standards for practice, and § 37-51-321(2)(a), MCA,
prohibiting a licensee from advertising property of others without a signed listing agreement.
The hearing examiner submitted Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Recommended Order to the Board.
2
¶5 A Board Adjudication Panel issued a Final Order that adopted the Hearing
Examiner’s recommended findings, conclusions and order. The Board fined White, ordered
him to attend remedial education classes, and suspended his license to sell real estate for one
year.
¶6 White petitioned for judicial review. After reviewing motions and hearing oral
argument, the District Court affirmed the Board’s decision and dismissed White’s petition.
This appeal followed.
¶7 A district court reviews an administrative decision to determine whether the findings
of fact are clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the
whole record and whether the Board correctly applied the law. We employ the same
standards when reviewing a district court order affirming or reversing an administrative
decision. Crismore v. Montana Bd. of Outfitters, 2005 MT 109, ¶ 11, 327 Mont. 71, ¶ 11,
111 P.3d 681, ¶ 11; § 2-4-704, MCA.
¶8 A complete review of the record leads this Court to the conclusion that the District
Court correctly affirmed the Board’s determination that White did not have a signed, written
listing agreement with McNamara at the time he advertised her real property.
¶9 It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that settled Montana law
clearly controls the legal issues and that the District Court correctly interpreted the law.
Upon review of the record and the corresponding exhibits, we affirm the District Court’s
holding that White did not have a signed, written listing agreement.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ JOHN WARNER
3
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4