[Cite as Sekulovski v. Ohio Real Estate Comm., 2019-Ohio-280.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Tony Sekulovski, : 

 Appellant-Appellant, : 

 No. 18AP-235 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 17CV-9599)

Ohio Real Estate Commission, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Appellee-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 29, 2019 

 

On brief: Fisher, Skrobot & Sheraw, LLC, Brett R. Sheraw, 

and John C. Ridge, for appellant. Argued: Brett R. Sheraw.

On brief: [Dave Yost], Attorney General, and Brian R. 

Honen, for appellee. Argued: Brian R. Honen.

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

HORTON, J. 

{¶ 1} Tony Sekulovski is appealing from the trial court's affirming of an 

adjudication of the Ohio Real Estate Commission. He assigns five errors for our 

consideration: 

[I.] THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION AND 

ENTRY JOURNALIZED ON MARCH 9, 2018, WHICH 

AFFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION ORDER, AND THE 

ADJUDICATION ORDER BECAUSE THE NOTIFICATION 

DID NOT INCLUDE THE LAWS AND RULES THAT WERE 

THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING THAT RESULTED IN 

THE ADJUDICATION ORDER AS REQUIRED BY OHIO 

REVISED CODE § 119.07 AND DID NOT ENABLE 

APPELLANT TO PREPARE AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE TO 

THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AS REQUIRED BY DUE 

PROCESS UNDER THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTIONS. 
No. 18AP-235 2 

[II.] THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION AND 

ENTRY JOURNALIZED ON MARCH 9, 2018, WHICH 

AFFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION ORDER, AND THE 

ADJUDICATION ORDER BASED UPON APPELLANT 

HAVING AN INACTIVE OHIO REAL ESTATE 

SALESPERSON LICENSE BECAUSE APPELLANT IS AN 

OUT OF STATE COMMERCIAL BROKER AS DEFINED BY 

OHIO REVISED CODE § 4735.01(S) AND OHIO REVISED 

CODE § 4735.022(A) AUTHORIZES AN OUT OF STATE 

COMMERCIAL BROKER TO PROVIDE THE REAL ESTATE 

SERVICES PROVIDED BY APPELLANT THAT ARE THE 

SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL. 

[III.] THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION 

AND ENTRY JOURNALIZED ON MARCH 9, 2018, WHICH 

AFFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION ORDER, AND THE 

ADJUDICATION ORDER BASED UPON APPELLANT NOT 

PROVIDING MR. BRIGDON WITH A CERTIFICATE GOOD 

STANDING RELATED TO HIS ARIZONA LICENSE 

BECAUSE ARIZONA DOES NOT ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF 

GOOD STANDING REGARDING ITS LICENSED REAL 

ESTATE BROKERS, APPELLANT PROVIDED MR. 

BRIGDON WITH A DOCUMENT THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY 

SIMILAR TO A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING AND 

WAS IN GOOD STANDING AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT TO 

THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE, AND THE OHIO 

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE SUBSEQUENTLY ACCEPTED 

A DOCUMENT SIMILAR TO THE DOCUMENT 

ORIGINALLY PROVIDED TO MR. BRIGDON AS BEING 

SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD 

STANDING. 

[IV.] THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION 

AND ENTRY JOURNALIZED ON MARCH 9, 2018, WHICH 

AFFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION ORDER, AND THE 

ADJUDICATION ORDER BASED UPON MR. BRIGDON 

NOT REVIEWING EVERY TRANSACTION DOCUMENT 

RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE AS THE 

RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION 

AND APPELLANT IS NOT STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO 

ENSURE THAT MR. BRIGDON REVIEW EVERY 

TRANSACTION DOCUMENT. 

[V.] THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION AND 

ENTRY JOURNALIZED ON MARCH 9, 2018, WHICH 

AFFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION ORDER, AND THE 
No. 18AP-235 3 

ADJUDICATION ORDER BASED UPON A FAILURE TO 

DEPOSIT COMMISSIONS FROM THE TRANSACTIONS AT 

ISSUE IN MR. BRIGDON'S TRUST ACCOUNT AS NEITHER 

APPELLANT NOR MR. BRIGDON WERE REQUIRED TO 

DEPOSIT COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FULLY 

EARNED IN MR. BRIGDON'S TRUST ACCOUNT. 

{¶ 2} Proceedings before the Ohio Real Estate Commission were conducted by a 

hearing examiner. The hearing examiner conducted the proceedings after Sekulovski 

received a notice of formal hearing, which notified Sekulovksi of the charges against him 

and informed him of the date and time of the formal hearing. The notice included a 

document called Schedule A, which includes the following: 

You, Tony Sekulovski, a licensed real estate salesperson 

(License # 0000344422), did the following between 

approximately February of 2014 and approximately October 

of 2014 with respect to one or more of the following 

properties: 9311 Mason Montgomery Road, Mason, Ohio; 

2364 Kings Center Court, Mason, Ohio: 

1. Due to your arrangement or relationship with Christopher 

Brigdon (Brk # 2009001773) failing to comply with one or 

more requirements found in Ohio Revised Code Section 

4735.022(A), you acted like an Ohio broker even though you 

did not maintain an Ohio broker's license and/or you acted 

like an active Ohio real estate licensee even though your Ohio 

real estate salesperson license was inactive. This conduct 

constitutes a violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 

4735.18(A)(6), misconduct as that section incorporates Ohio 

Revised Code Section 4735.02(A) which provides that no 

person shall act as a real estate broker without being licensed 

pursuant to Chapter 4735 or Ohio Revised Code Section 

4735.18(A)(6), misconduct, as that section incorporates Ohio 

Revised Code Section 4735.02(A) which provides no person 

shall provide services that require a license pursuant to 

Chapter 4735 when the licensee's license is inactive. 

{¶ 3} The formal hearing was conducted on June 6, 2017. 

{¶ 4} In light of the above, the first assignment of error has no merit and is 

therefore overruled. 

{¶ 5} The second assignment of error acknowledges that Sekulovksi's Ohio Real 

Estate License was inactive at the time of the transactions, but alleges that Sekulovksi had 

a valid Arizona broker's license which enabled him to conduct the alleged transactions. 
No. 18AP-235 4 

The problem with appellant's argument is that he never proved to the Ohio Real Estate 

Commission that he had the necessary Arizona broker's license. Appellant cannot 

reasonably assert that his inactive Ohio license allowed him to conduct the transactions. 

Considering those two facts, the second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 6} The third assignment of error is related to the second assignment of error. 

Sekulovksi did not provide a certificate of good standing from Arizona and the Ohio Real 

Estate Commission had the discretion to reject the documents he submitted in lieu of the 

documents required by Ohio law. 

{¶ 7} The third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 8} In light of the other findings above, the fourth and fifth assignments of error 

are moot. Since Sekulovski never demonstrated that he had the legal authority to conduct 

the real estate transactions in Ohio, what documents were or were not reviewed is 

irrelevant. Likewise, the account or accounts into which the commissions were deposited 

is irrelevant. 

{¶ 9} The fourth and fifth assignments of error are rendered moot. 

{¶ 10} In summary, the first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. 

Our rulings as to the first, second, and third assignments of error render the fourth and 

fifth assignments of error moot. 

{¶ 11} The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirming the 

ruling of the Ohio Real Estate Commission is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

TYACK, J., concurs. 

DORRIAN, J., dissents. 

_________________