Poulos v. Council on Real Estate Appraisers

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PETER POULOS, )
)
Appellant, )
) C.A. No. K24A-11-001 RLG
COUNCIL ON REAL ESTATE )
APPRAISERS, )
)
Appellee. )

Submitted: June 13, 2025
Decided: August 20, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Upon Appeal from a Disciplinary Decision of the
Council on Real Estate Appraisers – AFFIRMED.

Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esq., Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Appellant Peter Poulos.

A. Zachary Naylor, Esq., Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for
Appellee Council on Real Estate Appraisers.

GREEN-STREETT, J.
I. Introduction

A licensed real estate appraiser failed to file his license renewal on time. That

delay triggered an audit, revealing he erroneously certified completion of continuing

education requirements. The appraiser received disciplinary sanctions, and appealed

those sanctions to this Court. As the Council on Real Estate Appraisers based its

decision to impose sanctions on substantial evidence, and as its decision was free of

any legal error, its decision is AFFIRMED.

II. Factual and Procedural History

Peter Poulos obtained his Delaware real estate appraisers license (the

“License”) on April 17, 2020.1 Mr. Poulos maintains licenses “in several other

states, and practiced as a sole proprietor from approximately 2003 until 2023.” 2 In

2023, Mr. Poulos joined BBG Real Estate Services, “the largest commercial

appraisal firm in the United States.”3 Mr. Poulos’s new employer maintains a

“separate department [that] handle[s] renewals and [continuing education]

compliance for all its appraisers.”4

1
Opening Br. at 1.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Id.

2
In October 2023, Mr. Poulos needed to renew his License.5 The renewal

process required him to submit his renewal request by October 31, 2023. 6 Mr.

Poulos failed to meet that deadline, instead submitting his renewal request on

November 2, 2023.7 All late renewals are subject to audit, and the audit of Mr.

Poulos’s License revealed some deficiencies regarding his continuing education.8

Specifically, Mr. Poulos certified that he completed the mandatory two hours

of continuing education focused on Delaware law – when, in fact, he failed to

complete that requirement. 9 The Delaware Council on Real Estate Appraisers (the

“Council”) notified Mr. Poulos of that deficiency, and scheduled a Show Cause

hearing before a hearing officer for March 27, 2024.10 At the hearing, a

representative of the Council testified about the Council’s efforts to contact Mr.

Poulos to discuss the deficiencies in his continuing education.11

5
Id.
6
Id. at 2.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id. (The Council initially struggled to reach Mr. Poulos, sending him two notices regarding the
audit that went unanswered. Mr. Poulos did not respond to the Council until he received a notice
of the Show Cause hearing. See R. Tab 5 at 2).
11
R. Tab 5 at 2-3.

3
After the representative’s testimony, Mr. Poulos testified he failed to complete

the mandatory two hours of continuing education regarding Delaware law.12 His

proffered explanation focused on his acclimation to a large firm.13 He explained that

he most likely received the notices about the audit of his renewal, but would have

forwarded those notices to the department in his firm dedicated to renewals.14

Mr. Poulos acknowledged that he did not complete the requisite two hours of

classes focused on Delaware law, and admitted his lack of awareness regarding that

requirement.15 He stated, “I do know it’s not really an excuse[,] but, like I said, I’m

not really the one who is in control of my renewals, and I really just go off of what

they are having me do.”16 Mr. Poulos provided no other justification for his failure

to complete the required continuing education – or for his inaccurate certification on

his renewal.17 After advising Mr. Poulos on precautionary steps to prevent this type

of mistake in the future, the hearing officer informed him that, “my general pattern

here is the recommendations are maybe a letter of reprimand, perhaps, some fine.”

12
Id. at 3.
13
R. Tab 6 at 17-18.
14
Id. at 18.
15
Id. at 19.
16
Id.
17
Id.
4
The hearing officer further expounded that, typically, he would afford an appraiser

some time to correct the deficiency before seeking more severe penalty.18

The hearing officer issued his Recommendation on June 20, 2024.19

Although Mr. Poulos completed sufficient total hours of continuing education, he

failed to complete “a 2 hour [continuing education] course in Delaware law during

this period because he did not realize he had to complete it.”20 The hearing officer

found that “Mr. Poulos inaccurately certified he completed the required [continuing

education] when he renewed his license.”21 The hearing officer noted Mr. Poulos’s

explanation centered on a lack of awareness of the requirement, stemming from Mr.

Poulos having recently joined a large company.22 The hearing officer concluded,

“[i]gnorance of the law is not an excuse. Mr. Poulos’s violation of Council Reg.

2.5.2. was unjustified.”23

In contemplating what disciplinary action to recommend, the hearing officer

found that “the mitigating factors outweigh[ed] the aggravating factors.”24 The only

18
Id. at 22.
19
R. Tab 5 at 6.
20
Id. 4.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 5.
23
Id.
24
Id.
5
aggravating factor cited concerned “Mr. Poulos’s inaccurate certification to

complying with [continuing education] requirements when he renewed his

license.”25 As to mitigating factors, the hearing officer identified two – Mr. Poulos’s

lack of intent and lack of prior disciplinary infractions.26

Based on those findings, the hearing officer did not recommend issuing a letter

of reprimand.27 The hearing officer recommended: (1) the Council find that Mr.

Poulos failed to complete the requisite continuing education, and inaccurately

certified that he had completed said continuing education; (2) that Mr. Poulos be

allotted 60 days to complete the continuing education; (3) that Mr. Poulos be

assessed a $250.00 fine; (4) that any failure to comply with the Council’s orders

allow for the Council to suspend Mr. Poulos’s License without further notice; (5)

that Mr. Poulos be subject to an audit during the next license renewal period; and (6)

that the resulting final order of the Council “constitute a public disciplinary action

reportable to pertinent public practitioner data bases [sic].”28

29 Del. C. § 8735(v)(1)(d) afforded Mr. Poulos twenty days to “submit any

written exceptions, comments, and arguments concerning the conclusions of law and

25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id. at 6.

6
recommended penalty” contained within the hearing officer’s Recommendation.

Mr. Poulos declined to exercise that right.29 The hearing officer also sent Mr. Poulos

a letter accompanying the Recommendation, which informed Mr. Poulos of his right

to attend the Council’s public meeting where the Recommendation would be

considered.30 When the Council rescheduled that hearing, it provided Mr. Poulos

with notice of the new date.31 Mr. Poulos did not attend the Council’s public

hearing.32

The Council issued its Order on October 15, 2024.33 The Council affirmed

the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommendation.34 The Council also adopted

the proposed disciplinary action outlined in the Recommendation.35 The Council

mailed its Order to Mr. Poulos on October 24, 2024.36

29
R. Tab 1 at 2.
30
R. Tab 5 at 7.
31
R. Tab 4.
32
R. Tab 1 at 3.
33
Id. at 4.
34
Id. at 3.
35
Id. at 3-4.
36
Id. at 4.

7
Mr. Poulos filed a timely appeal to this Court on November 11, 2024.37 He

filed his Opening Brief on January 21, 2025.38 The Council filed an Answering Brief

on March 24, 2025.39 Mr. Poulos filed a Reply on April 3, 2025.40 The Court held

oral argument on this matter on June 13, 2025.

III. Standard of Review

24 Del. C. § 4017 permits a practitioner to appeal an order from the Council

to this Court. The Court considers whether the challenged order “is supported by

substantial evidence and free from legal error.”41 “Substantial evidence is evidence

which affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be

reasonably inferred.”42 “The Court does not re-weigh the evidence, nor does the

Court substitute its judgment for the factual determinations made by the Council

below.”43

37
D.I. 1 (Nov. 11, 2024).
38
D.I. 9 (Jan. 21, 2025).
39
D.I. 11 (Mar. 24, 2025).
40
D.I. 12 (Apr. 2, 2025).

41
McCain v. Council on Real Est. Appraisers, 2009 WL 1515594, at *2 (Del. Super. May 29, 2009)
(citing Phillips v. Div. of Pro. Regul., 2004 WL 440414, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 20, 2004)).
42
Phillips, 2004 WL 440414, at *2 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Down Under, Ltd. v.
Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 576 A.2d 675, 681 (Del. Super. 1989)).
43
McCain, 2009 WL 1515594, at * 2 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Hoopes v. Del. Council
of Real Estate Appraisers, 2006 WL 3308203, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 19, 2006)).

8
IV. Analysis

Mr. Poulos does not contest the factual findings made by the Council. His

only contention on appeal centers on the Council’s finding that his inaccurate

certification and failure to comply with continuing education requirements were

unjustified.44 Mr. Poulos contends a licensee can only be subject to discipline when

he cannot justify his noncompliance.45 As Mr. Poulos asserts he provided ample

justification for his admitted noncompliance, he posits the Council abused its

discretion by deciding to discipline him.46

Mr. Poulos did not object to any of the findings – factual or legal – contained

within the Recommendation.47 The Council affirmed the legal conclusions set forth

in the Recommendation.48 The hearing officer found: (1) the requirement that a

licensee complete two hours of continuing education in Delaware law “was duly

noticed and published;”49 (2) Mr. Poulos needed to comply with that requirement;50

44
Opening Br. at 7.
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
R. Tab 1 at 2.
48
Id. at 3.
49
Id. at 4.
50
Id. at 5.

9
(3) Mr. Poulos’s explanation for his failure to comply derived from his lack of

awareness of the requirement;51 (4) “[i]gnorance of the law [was] not an excuse;”52

and (5) “Mr. Poulos’s violation of Council Reg. 2.5.2. was unjustified.”53

Additionally, the Recommendation outlined the aggravating and mitigating

factors present in Mr. Poulos’s matter. The only aggravating factor concerned Mr.

Poulos inaccurately certifying that he completed the required continuing education,

when, in fact, he had not completed that requirement.54 As for mitigating factors,

the hearing officer noted Mr. Poulos’s “lack of intent and the fact that he [had] never

been disciplined before.”55 The hearing officer specifically noted Mr. Poulos’s

switch to a larger company, and Mr. Poulos’s proffered explanation that “he lost track

of his responsibilities.”56

Mr. Poulos’s sole contention focuses on the hearing officer – and

subsequently, the Council – declining to find that Mr. Poulos’s excuses for his failure

to comply with the continuing education requirement justified his failure.57 The

51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Opening Br. at 9.
10
Recommendation, and the Council’s Order, considered Mr. Poulos’s excuses as a

mitigating factor. Implicit in that consideration, the Council rejected those excuses

as a “justification” that would immunize Mr. Poulos from discipline for his failure

to comply with licensure requirements. Mr. Poulos’s conclusory statement that the

Council “did not consider [his proffered excuses’] potential as justification for

noncompliance” does not rise to the level of abuse of discretion by the Council.58

The record reflects that the hearing officer did consider Mr. Poulos’s excuses.

That the hearing officer did not find those excuses transformed Mr. Poulos’s conduct

from unjustified to justified stands as a reasonable finding based on substantial

evidence. Mr. Poulos’s argument that the hearing officer needed to define

“unjustified noncompliance” does not find support in any governing statutes, the

Council’s regulations, or any decisional law cited by Mr. Poulos. Further, the

hearing officer clearly and directly rejected Mr. Poulos’s reasoning as a justification

when stating, “[i]gnorance of the law is not an excuse.”59 Mr. Poulos raised no

objection to that finding, and the Council adopted it in its Order. As a licensed

professional, Mr. Poulos also knew the ultimate responsibility for renewing his

58
Id.
59
R. Tab 1 at 5. (“excuse” is a commonly accepted synonym for “justification.” See e.g.
Justification, DICTIONARY.COM, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justification (last visited June
2, 2025); Justification, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
/justification (last visited June 2, 2025)).

11
license – and certifying the veracity of any attestations made in furtherance of that

renewal – rested with him.60

During his testimony, Mr. Poulos stated he maintains an appraisal license in

over twenty states.61 His lack of disciplinary record, and his own testimony,

evidence that he successfully renewed those licenses over his multi-decade career.62

As a sole proprietor, Mr. Poulos “took care of [his] license renewals and there were

never any issues. [He] was never late. [He] never had any deficiency.”63

Accordingly, the record reflects that Mr. Poulos, as an experienced appraiser with

licenses in many different states, possessed sufficient familiarity with the license

renewal process to understand that he needed to apprise himself of the individualized

requirements of each jurisdiction.

Mr. Poulos does not argue he complied with the requisite continuing education

requirements to maintain his license. He does not allege his proffered explanations

were not considered by the hearing officer for any reason, only that they were not

60
See R. Tab 6 at 21 (in relation to the license renewal process, the hearing officer remarked,
“[a]nd that’s your responsibility, not your administrator’s, not anybody else.” Mr. Poulos
responded, “[r]ight. I understand that.”).
61
Id. at 17.
62
Id. (“I have kept my license active in all those states with no disciplinary actions ever coming to
a head on any of my licenses in any of those states.”).
63
Id.

12
properly considered as a justification for his noncompliance. Given the placement

within the text of the Recommendation of the hearing officer’s recitation of Mr.

Poulos’s excuse – “Mr. Poulos was not aware [of] this requirement and did not meet

it”64 – directly before the hearing officer found, “Mr. Poulos’s violation of Council

Reg. 2.5.2. was unjustified,”65 Mr. Poulos’s assertion that the hearing officer failed

to consider his excuse as a proper justification does not follow logically.

Further, the Council possessed substantial evidence to support a finding that

Mr. Poulos both failed to complete the continuing education requirement and

incorrectly certified that he successfully completed that education. Mr. Poulos

admitted as much himself. The Council did not find – and the Court agrees – that

moving to a bigger firm somehow justifies a lapse in meeting licensure requirements.

Mr. Poulos also agreed at the time of his appearance before the hearing officer when

he acknowledged, “I know it’s not really an excuse but, like I said, I’m not really the

one who is in control of my renewals, and I really just go off of what they are having

me do.”66 The Court does not find the Council’s decision to impose disciplinary

penalties constituted an arbitrary or capricious decision. Moreover, the Court finds

the Council based its decision on substantial evidence.

64
R. Tab 1 at 5.
65
Id.
66
R. Tab 6 at 19 (emphasis added).

13
V. Conclusion

Mr. Poulos did not comply with the continuing education requirement to

renew his License. Mr. Poulos attributed that noncompliance to a change in jobs

that altered his practice of handling his license renewals. A hearing officer

considered that reasoning, and determined it did not excuse Mr. Poulos’s

noncompliance. The Council’s decision to adopt that finding, and impose

disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Poulos, was not the product of arbitrary or

capricious decision making. The Council’s decision was based on substantial

evidence, the veracity of which remains uncontested by Mr. Poulos. Accordingly,

the Council’s Order is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14