Thomas, Brandy

Thomas, Brandy | Salesperson | Little Rock, AR

02/01/2008 | Hearing No. 3050

By Consent Order, In Formal Hearing # 3050 the Commission ordered that “…Respondent Brandy Thomas shall receive a Letter of Reprimand to be placed in her license file, pay a $500 penalty to the Arkansas Real Estate Commission, and complete (six) 6 classroom hours of real estate education, approved in advance by Executive Director.  Said education shall be in addition to the annual Continuing Education requirement.  The $500 penalty and six (6) classroom hours of real estate education shall be completed within 90 days of the date of this Order.  Respondent shall be placed on probation for one (1) year from the date of this Order.”

“It is Further Ordered that the Commission shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of implementing and enforcing this Consent Order, and that Respondent’s failure to comply with any provision herein shall constitute a violation of a Commission order pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 17-42-311(a)(2) for which the Commission may impose disciplinary action upon that Respondent.”

  • The Commission found Respondent Brandy Thomas guilty of violating Commission Regulations 8.5(a) and 10.1(b), and Arkansas Code Annotated § 17-42-311(a)(13).
  • Respondent Thomas engaged in real estate activities independent of her principal broker.  Respondent prepared and presented the February 28, 2007 VA real estate contract without Complainant’s permission or knowledge.  Respondent attempted to have the February 28, 2007 VA contract transferred to her new firm without Complainant’s knowledge or permission.  Respondent signed the February 28, 2007 VA contract as “Principal Broker or Authorized Signature” without Complainant’s permission or knowledge.
  • Respondent did not protect and promote the interest of Buyer.  Respondent instructed Buyer to sign the March 6, 2007 VA contract identifying Respondent’s new real estate firm as the Selling firm, knowing that the February 28, 2007 VA contract signed by Buyer, identifying Complainant’s real estate firm as the Selling firm had previously been accepted by VA and that the Exclusive Buyer Agency Agreement between Buyer and Complainant’s firm was in force.
  • Respondent’s activities as described above constitute improper dealings.