South Dakota Real Estate Com'n, In re, No. 17655

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtAMUNDSON; MILLER; SABERS; SABERS
Citation484 N.W.2d 123
PartiesIn re SOUTH DAKOTA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Action Regarding Licensure of CAMA Consultants, Inc., d/b/a High Plains Appraisal Service, H. Todd Holliday, and Jeffery D. Holliday. . Considered on Briefs
Decision Date19 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. 17655

Page 123

484 N.W.2d 123
In re SOUTH DAKOTA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Action Regarding
Licensure of CAMA Consultants, Inc., d/b/a High
Plains Appraisal Service, H. Todd
Holliday, and Jeffery D.
Holliday.
No. 17655.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs March 19, 1992.
Decided April 29, 1992.

Thomas H. Harmon of Tiezen Law Office, Pierre, for appellant, Statewide Real Estate.

Thomas K. Wilka of Hagen, Wilka, Schreier & Archer, Sioux Falls, for appellee, CAMA Consultants, Inc.

AMUNDSON, Justice.

ACTION

Statewide Real Estate Services (Statewide) appeals from an order denying its application to stay the effective date of the license from the South Dakota Real Estate Commission (Commission) to CAMA Consultants, Inc. (CAMA). This court filed an order granting Statewide's petition for allowance of appeal from an intermediate order. We affirm.

FACTS

CAMA is a real estate appraisal service. Its principal place of business is in Lincoln, Nebraska and it is licensed to do appraisals in Nebraska. One of its owners, Betty Holliday is licensed to do appraisals in Nebraska and in South Dakota.

CAMA applied to Commission for a real estate firm license. Todd Holliday, CAMA's president, and Jeffery Holliday, CAMA's vice president, each applied to Commission for a real estate appraiser's license.

Through its president, Lyle Wendell, Statewide, a real estate appraisal service licensed and doing business in South Dakota, filed motions to intervene in opposition to the issuance of each license. According to Statewide's notice of appeal to circuit court, Commission ruled that a license application before it is not a contested case within the meaning of SDCL 1-26, South Dakota's administrative procedure and rules. Commission additionally ruled that

Page 124

Statewide did not have standing to intervene even if a license application was a contested case.

Statewide appealed to circuit court and requested a stay to delay the effective date of any license already issued. The circuit court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order denying the application for a stay. The court found that this matter was not a contested case because Commission is not required to hold a hearing on the application for a brokerage license prior to its issuance. Therefore it concluded that the issuance of a real estate license is not a contested case within the meaning of SDCL 1-26-1(2). After making factual findings, the court also concluded that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT