Ruel v. New Hampshire Real Estate Appraiser Board

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a superior court order remanding a disciplinary matter involving a licensed real estate appraiser to the New Hampshire Real Estate Appraiser Board for a new hearing. The court held that the grievance process properly became a formal disciplinary proceeding, that statutory time-limit violations did not deprive the Board of authority absent material prejudice, and that the Board could accept the investigator’s testimony. The court also rejected dismissal as the remedy for the quorum-related due process issue and denied attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. Once the Board abandoned informal settlement efforts and initiated a formal adjudicative disciplinary hearing, the grievance was converted into a complaint and the complaint procedures governed thereafter.
2. The governing statute and administrative rules did not limit who could file a grievance; a written grievance was sufficient, so LeMay was permitted to initiate the Board's investigation.
3. The Board retained authority to conduct the disciplinary proceeding despite assuming, without deciding, that it failed to comply with the statutory ninety-day deadlines.
4. Ruel failed to demonstrate material prejudice from the Board's delay, so the delay did not warrant reversal or dismissal.
5. Even assuming due process required a five-member quorum to complete the disciplinary hearing, Ruel identified no authority requiring dismissal as the remedy; remand for a new hearing was permissible.
6. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in admitting Shea's testimony and report because agencies have broad discretion over admissibility and Shea was a certified appraisal instructor with relevant investigation and appraisal experience.

Questions Presented

1. Whether LeMay had standing to file a grievance against Ruel.
2. Whether the Board's failure to comply with statutory ninety-day time limits deprived it of jurisdiction to conduct the disciplinary proceeding.
3. Whether the Board's delay materially prejudiced Ruel.
4. Whether conducting the disciplinary hearing and issuing the final order without a five-member quorum violated due process and required dismissal rather than remand.
5. Whether the Board improperly admitted investigator Barry Shea's testimony and report because he allegedly lacked the qualifications to testify as an expert.
6. Whether Ruel was entitled to attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed