IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Stephen Izzi, No C.D Petitioner Submitted January 10, 2014 v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Real Estate Commission, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED February 27, 2014 Stephen Izzi petitions for review of the August 6, 2013, letter of the State Real Estate Commission (Commission), which denied Izzi s application for reactivation of his real estate broker s license. The Commission previously revoked the license, pursuant to a consent agreement with Izzi, for violations of the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act (Act), Act of February 19, 1980, P.L. 15, as amended, 63 P.S We quash Izzi s petition for review. Izzi s company, Termite Contractors, LP (Termite), purchased property in Philadelphia from Theodore Hantwerker and William J. Tobin, who verbally agreed to sell the property for $86,000. (Pet. for Review, 6.) On October 4, 2006,

2 closing took place, and Izzi executed a settlement agreement on behalf of Termite. (Id., 8.) Izzi did not record the deed or provide a copy of the deed to Hantwerker or Tobin. (Id., 9.) On October 20, 2006, Termite agreed to sell the property to Giovanni Nieves for $99,000. (Id., 10.) On January 7, 2007, Izzi filed a deed and a real estate tax transfer certification incorrectly stating that Hantwerker and Tobin conveyed the property to Nieves on November 30, (Id., 11.) The deed included Hantwerker and Tobin s signatures as well as the signature of Jean Percell, a notary public. (Id., 12.) None of these individuals had actually signed or notarized the deed. (Id.) The Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA) initiated disciplinary proceedings before the Commission, alleging that Izzi was attempting to misappropriate the settlement charges for the conveyances and requesting that Izzi s license be revoked or suspended. (Id., 16.) On April 13, 2011, Izzi entered into a consent decree with BPOA to settling the disciplinary action and agreeing to have his license revoked effective June 15, (Id., 20, 22.) On April 23, 2013, Izzi wrote a letter to the Commission requesting reinstatement of his license. By letter dated August 6, 2013, the Commission responded that it cannot entertain your reinstatement request until June 15, (Commission s Letter at 1.) Izzi petitions this court for review. 1 1 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Commission abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence. Schoenhut v. State Real Estate Commission, 455 A.2d 225, 226 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). 2

3 Izzi contends that the Commission abused its discretion by denying his application for reinstatement. Because the Commission s letter is not an adjudication, however, we quash the petition for review. Pursuant to section 752 of the Local Agency Law, any person aggrieved by an adjudication of an agency has the right to appeal. 2 Pa. C.S A letter can constitute an adjudication... if a two-prong test is met 1) the letter must be an agency s final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling; and 2) it must impact on a party s personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations. NHS Human Services of PA v. Department of Public Welfare, 985 A.2d 992, 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Here, Izzi agreed to have his license revoked in the consent decree. Because his license was revoked, Izzi has no property rights or privileges that the Commission s letter could impact. Keeley v. State Real Estate Commission, 501 A.2d 1155, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) ( [T]he former holder of a revoked real estate license retains no property interest in that license once it has been revoked by the Commission. ). Thus, the Commission s letter was not an adjudication and is not appealable. Moreover, even if the letter were an adjudication, the Commission did not abuse its discretion because section 501(c) of the Act, 63 P.S (c), 2 2 Section 501(c) of the Act states (Footnote continued on next page ) 3

4 makes it clear that unless this court orders otherwise, the Commission lacks discretion to entertain a license reinstatement until five years have passed from the date of revocation. Accordingly, we quash Izzi s petition for review. ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge (continued ) 63 P.S (c). (c) Unless ordered to do so by Commonwealth Court, the [C]ommission shall not reinstate the license, within five years of the date of revocation, of any person whose license has been revoked under this act. Any person whose license has been revoked may reapply for a license at the end of the five-year period but must meet all of the licensing qualifications of this act for the license applied for, to include the examination requirement. 4

5 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Stephen Izzi, No C.D Petitioner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Real Estate Commission, Respondent O R D E R AND NOW, this 27 th day of February, 2014, we quash Stephen Izzi s petition for review of the August 6, 2013, letter of the State Real Estate Commission. ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge