Here you go guys and gals. The first motion (we believe in the U.S.) appealing an Appraisal Boards discussion. Just keep watching, it is just starting to get good. Now we will see what a real judge says about these shenanigans
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
STEPHEN J. VERTIN, )
Plaintiff-Respondent )
v. )
)
No.
OFFICE OF BANKS AND REAL ESTATE, REAL )
ESTATE APPRAISAL DIVISION, WILLIAM A. )
DARR, as Commissioner, and THE REAL ESTATE)
APPRAISAL BOARD,)
)
Defendants )
COMPLAINT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
NOW COMES STEPHEN VERTIN, by and through his attorneys, Law Offices of Eugene T. Sherman, and for his complaint for administrative review pursuant to the Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act (225 ILCS 457, et seq.) and the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq.), states as follows:
1. At all times pertinent, Plaintiff, STEPHEN VERTIN (“Vertin”), was duly licensed certified real estate appraiser, said license having been issued by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulations.
2. At all times pertinent, Defendant, Office of Banks and Real Estate of the State of Illinois (“OBRE”), was an Illinois agency, and the Real Estate Appraisal Division a division thereof.
3. At all times pertinent, Defendant, WILLIAM A. DARR (“Commissioner”), has been the Commissioner of OBRE.
4. At all times pertinent, the Real Estate Appraisal Board (the “Board”) has consisted of individual members, and has served as a tribunal and/or arm of OBRE to conduct hearings relating to OBRE matters.
5. On July 22, 1999, OBRE filed a thirteen count complaint alleging generally that Vertin and a co-respondent, Katherine Raila, were negligent and/or deficient in conducting numerous appraisals to the extent that disciplinary action was warranted.
6. Prior to the institution of these proceedings, Vertin has never been disciplined in connection with his real estate appraiser license.
7. After pre-hearing discovery and investigation, a hearing took place before the Board on or about the dates April 10, 2001, through April 11, 2001, in Chicago, Illinois.
8. By way of decision and 20-day notice mailed July 17, 2001, the Board made findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations to the Commissioner.
9. After briefing and consideration of Vertin’s motion for reconsideration which constituted exhaustion of Vertin’s administrative remedies, the Commissioner entered an order dated March 1, 2002, which adopted the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and reprimanded Vertin and ordered that Vertin pay a $10,000.00 find. (A copy of said order is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).
10. The March 1, 2002, order is erroneous, illegal and/or void, and/or should be reversed or remanded, for the following reasons:
1) its findings that Vertin violated U.S.P.A.P. Standards Rule 1-1(b), 1-1©, 2-5, and Illinois Statutes Compiled (1996) Ch. 225, sections 455/36.18a(7) and 455/36.21(a) in Counts 1-13 of the Complaint is against the manifest weight of the evidence and/or his violations were not established by sufficient evidence or by the appropriate standard of proof, particularly where the Board had no competent evidence and/or opinion testimony criticizing Respondent in his actions and Respondent was not culpable given the misconduct, if any, was that of co-respondent whom Vertin had no reason to doubt as to the veracity of information provided when certifying, and the underlying U.S.P.A.P. rule 2.5 is no longer in existence;
2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious and/or nor supported by the evidence;
3) the administration of discipline where respondent was not culpable is a violation of Respondent’s due process and/or equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution, and equivalent provisions of the Illinois Constitution, both in the interpretation and application of pertinent U.S.P.A.P. and other rules or statutes;
4) one Board member, Andrew Brorsen, should have been disqualified and/or proofs reopened given Mr. Brorsen’s erroneous conduct and wrongful introduction of evidence or statements into the record; and
5) the discipline imposed was too severe given the lack of culpability on Respondent Vertin’s part, or the minimal misconduct and/or violation of rules which occurred, in consideration of all mitigating factors, including Vertin’s lack of disciplinary record.
11. Defendant(s) should be required to file an answer which includes all applicable transcripts, pleadings, evidence and other documentation which culminated in the March 1, 2002 order.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, STEPHEN VERTIN, requests that this Court reverse the March 1, 2002 order finding he violated applicable rules and/or statutes as to his discipline, remand this matter with directions for appropriate modification, and grant such other relief as is just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHEN VERTIN
By: __________________________________
One of his Attorneys
Eugene T. Sherman
Law Offices of Eugene T. Sherman
70 W. Madison St., Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 332-2200
Attorney Code 091
