DA 12-0402

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2013 MT 96N

DONALD HEPPNER,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND INDUSTRY, and BOARD OF

REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS,

 Respondents and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 09-842(B)

Honorable Katherine R. Curtis, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Patrick F. Flaherty, Attorney at Law; Great Falls, Montana

For Appellee:

Don Edwin Harris, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department of Labor 

and Industry Board of Real Estate Appraisers; Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 13, 2013

 Decided: April 9, 2013

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

April 10 2013
2

Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve 

as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s 

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. 

¶2 Appellant Donald Heppner (Heppner) appeals from the order of the Eleventh Judicial 

District Court, Flathead County, on judicial review of the decision of the Board of Real 

Estate Appraisers (Board) that Heppner had violated Rules 1 and 2 of Uniform Standards of 

Professional Appraisal Practice (Uniform Standards). We affirm.

¶3 Heppner works as a certified residential real estate appraiser on a license issued by the 

Board. The Uniform Standards apply to the licensed real estate appraisers when they 

develop or report an opinion of value. Real estate agent Elsa Putzier (Putzier) filed a 

complaint against Heppner on October 7, 2004, in which she alleged that Heppner 

improperly had prepared an appraiser report for Sherry Darsow (Darsow). 

¶4 The Board’s screening panel determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that 

Heppner had violated the Uniform Standards. The Department of Labor and Industry 

(Department) appointed a hearing examiner to preside over the contested case proceedings. 

The hearing examiner issued proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 

recommended order. The Board adopted these recommendations with minor modifications 

on June 1, 2009. 
3

¶5 The Board placed Heppner’s license on probation for one year, required him to pay a 

$250.00 fine, required him to attend a fifteen hour Uniform Standards course, and required 

him to submit work for Board review. Heppner timely filed a petition for judicial review. 

The District Court found that Heppner’s repeated admissions that his work for Darsow had 

been an appraisal and that the purpose of the work had been to develop an opinion of value 

constituted judicial admissions. The District Court affirmed. Heppner appeals.

¶6 Heppner argues that both he and Darsow intended that he would perform a mere 

“consulting appraisal” despite the fact that he used what he describes as a “boilerplate 

appraisal form.” He alleged that Putzier was the only person harmed by his work due to the 

fact that Putzier had lost a real estate sale at a price that would have harmed Darsow. He 

further challenges the court’s interpretation of two relevant Uniform Standards’ definitions 

of “appraisal” and “appraisal consulting” and the hearing examiner’s decision to accord 

weight to testimony from the Department’s witness. Heppner finally challenges the District 

Court’s determination that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that 

Heppner had produced an appraisal.

¶7 A district court reviews an administrative agency's decision in a contested case to 

determine whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the agency 

correctly interpreted the law. Mont. Solid Waste Contractors, Inc. v. Mont. Dep. of Pub. 

Serv. Reg., 2007 MT 154, ¶ 16, 338 Mont. 1, 161 P.3d 837. We employ the same standard 

when reviewing the district court's decision, and must accordingly determine whether an 
4

agency’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law were 

correct. Solid Waste Contracors, ¶ 17.

¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 

1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, that provide for memorandum opinions. 

It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that substantial evidence supports 

the agency’s findings and that the agency correctly applied the law.

¶9 Affirmed.

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS

We Concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ BETH BAKER

/S/ JIM RICE