Grounds for discipline
Source:
Section 696.301 — Grounds for discipline, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors696.html.
See also annotations under ORS 696.300 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 696.300)
Breach of legally enforceable agreement by real estate broker is not requisite to finding of “bad faith,” “untrustworthiness” and “improper dealing” which include breach of moral obligation or duty owed to another. Blank v. Black, 14 Or App 470, 512 P2d 1016 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
Additional violations similar to violation charged were admissible in administrative hearing under this section to show that violation charged was deliberate. Flagg v. Layman, 16 Or App 129, 517 P2d 329 (1973)
Conduct demonstrating untrustworthiness is limited to acts by licensee in his capacity as broker or salesman, excepting where licensee is acting for himself in private capacity or he has been convicted of certain enumerated crimes. Klein v. Real Estate Commr. Holbrook, 19 Or App 646, 528 P2d 1355 (1974)
Realtor purchasing property for himself was obligated to advise seller that realtor had changed the terms of the option prepared by seller’s counsel by eliminating 10-year provision for realtor to pay the balance of contract. Macdonald v. Dormaier, 272 Or 122, 535 P2d 527 (1975)
In general
“Guilty knowledge” of a violation of this section on the part of the broker must be proved to find a violation. Vincent v. Real Estate Div., 24 Or App 913, 548 P2d 180 (1976)
Prohibition against conduct of same or different character that demonstrates “bad faith, incompetency or untrustworthiness or dishonest, fraudulent or improper dealing” is not unconstitutionally vague. Stanfill v. Real Estate Division, 35 Or App 549, 581 P2d 980 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence that real estate broker failed to disclose, and instructed another person not to disclose, that repairs, on which consummation of sale was contingent, had not been made, was sufficient to show bad faith and improper dealing in violation of this section. Stanfill v. Real Estate Division, 35 Or App 549, 581 P2d 980 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Real Estate Commissioner erred in concluding same conduct by real estate licensee violated different subsections of this section. Pratt v. Real Estate Division, 76 Or App 483, 709 P2d 1134 (1985)
“Improper dealings” is not limited to actions taken with culpable mental state. Garton v. Real Estate Commissioner, 127 Or App 340, 873 P2d 359 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Authority of Real Estate Commissioner to discipline licensee who “has done” any of listed acts does not allow discipline based on potential future actions. Dearborn v. Real Estate Agency, 334 Or 493, 53 P3d 436 (2002)
Act or conduct of same or different character as listed actions must be substantially related to trustworthiness, competence, honesty or good faith to engage in real estate activity. Dearborn v. Real Estate Agency, 334 Or 493, 53 P3d 436 (2002)
Under pre-2003 version of statute, Real Estate Commissioner may suspend, revoke or deny license for act or conduct substantially related to fitness of licensee, notwithstanding that act or conduct occurred before issuance of license. Kerley v. Real Estate Agency, 337 Or 309, 96 P3d 1211 (2004)
Attorney General Opinions
In general
Advertisement by real estate salesperson as member of “Million Dollar Club,” (1979) Vol 39, p 511
Up to date