Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission adopts multiple enforcement proposals for decision and authorizes two recovery‑fund settlements
Summary
The commission adopted several proposals for decision in enforcement cases resulting in license revocations or denials, and approved two recovery‑fund settlements totaling about $65,782; commissioners discussed use of temporary suspensions for egregious cases going forward.
The Texas Real Estate Commission on Tuesday adopted several proposals for decision (PFDs) in enforcement contested cases and authorized two recovery‑fund settlements.
Enforcement Director Mike Malloy summarized multiple matters where administrative law judges found violations ranging from mishandling trust funds and unlicensed property‑management activity to felony convictions involving theft or fraud. In cases where the ALJ recommended revocation, the commission moved to adopt the PFDs as presented and recorded voice votes adopting those recommendations.
Commissioners discussed the time it can take for cases to progress to a contested hearing: Malloy said contested‑case dockets at SOAH commonly run several months and a single contested matter in the record took roughly 12–18 months from complaint to final disposition, in part because of resets and evidentiary development. Members noted that the recently adopted temporary‑suspension rule will provide a clearer tool to address continuing public‑welfare threats in cases that merit immediate action.
On recovery‑fund matters, staff recommended and the commission authorized settlement payments for two claims: RF26002 (Arroyo v. David Brown) for $15,335 plus 8.5% post‑judgment interest, pending receipt of an amended verified application; and RF26003 (Peaceful Sunrise Properties LLC v. Total Property Care) for $50,446.52 plus 5% interest. Both motions passed by voice vote.
Malloy reiterated that some cases involve repeated or long‑running misconduct and that temporary suspension would now be a clearer option when staff can show a continuing threat to consumers during the pendency of a case. The commission instructed staff to implement adopted orders and process recovery‑fund payments once conditions for payment were met.
