COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman 

GORDON N. DEMPSEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2592-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 2, 2002 

REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD OF 

 THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY 

Richard C. Pattisall, Judge 

 (Sam Garrison, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General; 

Richard B. Zorn, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; John B. Purcell, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Gordon N. Dempsey (Dempsey) appeals a decision of the 

circuit court affirming the revocation of his real estate 

appraiser's license by the Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Board 

(Board). Dempsey contends the trial court erred by refusing to 

reverse the Board's decision or remand his case to the Board 

because (1) the Board lost a letter making it unavailable for 

consideration by the Board at its October 17, 2000 meeting; (2) 

the Board allowed the testimony of a licensed real estate 

appraiser who was not a party to the proceedings; and (3) the 

Board did not record and transcribe the October 17, 2000 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
proceedings. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, 

we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party 

prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 

391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). 

Procedural Background

 In its August 28, 2001 final order, the circuit court 

affirmed the Board's October 17, 2000 monetary sanctions and 

license revocation against Dempsey. 

 Dempsey supervised Evie Kinsey, who was not a licensed 

appraiser, from 1997 until March 1999. During this time, Kinsey 

signed numerous appraisal reports as "Appraiser" and Dempsey 

signed them as "Supervisory Appraiser." Following complaints 

involving Dempsey's appraisals, the Board conducted informal fact 

finding conferences on February 24, 2000 and September 27, 2000, 

pursuant to Code § 9-6.14:11. The Board entered its Final 

Opinions and Orders on December 24, 2000. The Board determined 

Dempsey violated a number of provisions of the Uniform Standards 

of Professional Appraisal Practice, which has been adopted by the 

Board, relating to the preparation of appraisal reports. The 

violations included allowing Kinsey to sign the reports as an 

appraiser, using falsified comparable sales data, failing to 

report accurately the properties, and failing to make use of tax 

- 2 -
records and sales within the subject's development to obtain a 

more accurate estimated value. 

 Dempsey claims the Board or its staff lost or misplaced a 

letter from Joseph Straub, Kinsey's former employer, before the 

October 17, 2000 Board hearing. The letter, a recreation of which 

was presented to the trial court, positively recommended Kinsey. 

During the Board's October 17, 2000 meeting, John M. Foster and 

Pat E. Turner, licensed real estate appraisers and complainants in 

two of the cases, addressed the Board. Foster had reappraised one 

of the properties appraised by Dempsey. The Board did not record 

the meeting. 

Analysis

 "It is well established that agency action is presumed 

valid on review, and the burden rests upon the party complaining 

to overcome this presumption. Code § 9-6.14:17." EDF v. State 

Water Control Bd., 15 Va. App. 271, 277, 422 S.E.2d 608, 611 

(1992). 

I. 

 Dempsey argues that by misplacing the letter recommending 

Kinsey, the Board denied him his right to present evidence upon 

relevant factual issues. See Code § 9-6.14:12. The Straub letter 

was discussed at the February 24, 2000 and September 27, 2000 

conferences. The transcripts from these conferences reference the 

letter and note that it is missing. The parties disagree as to 

whether Dempsey introduced the letter during the February 

- 3 -
conference. It is evident from the transcripts that the presiding 

conference officer, David N. Castle, was familiar with the letter 

and its contents and duly considered it when he made his 

recommendations to the Board. References in the February 

conference transcript substantiate the limited content of the 

letter. The circuit court assumed the letter had been made part 

of the record by Dempsey at the February conference, and did not 

err in holding that any error by the Board in not preserving the 

document was harmless. 

 "No reversible error will be found . . . unless there is a 

clear showing of prejudice . . . ." Johnston-Willis v. Kenley,

6 Va. App. 231, 258, 369 S.E.2d 1, 16 (1988). The conferences 

investigated complaints made on appraisals signed by Dempsey. By 

signing the appraisals, Dempsey vouched for the accuracy of the 

appraisals and compliance with all statutes and regulations. 

Although the letter may have relayed Kinsey's qualifications, it 

did not excuse Dempsey's obligation to properly supervise her 

work. Castle and the Board were aware of the contents of the 

missing letter. The Board made its decision based upon the entire 

record, including the testimony regarding the recommendation of 

Kinsey and repeated references to the letter contained in the 

transcripts. The letter's unavailability as part of the record 

did not affect the Board's decision. 

 Dempsey argues Foster's comments were inflammatory, 

inappropriate and potentially prejudicial. However, he also 

- 4 -
concedes that it is impossible to determine what effect, if any, 

the remarks had on the Board's decision. 

[T]he rules of evidence are relaxed in an 

administrative proceeding and . . . "[n]o 

reversible error will be found . . . unless there 

is a clear showing of prejudice arising from the 

admission of [improper] evidence, or unless it is 

plain that the agency's conclusions were 

determined by the improper evidence, and that a 

contrary result would have been reached in its 

absence." 

Id. at 258, 369 S.E.2d at 16 (citations omitted). We assume 

without deciding that Foster's remarks were improper. Dempsey 

has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of the 

remarks. Additionally, the evidence that Dempsey violated Board 

rules is admitted or overwhelming in each of the seven cases 

against him. Therefore, even if it was error to consider the 

remarks, the error is harmless. 

II. 

 Dempsey next argues the trial court erred by finding no 

violation of his due process rights when the Board permitted 

Foster, a licensed real estate appraiser, to testify before it 

at its October 17, 2000 meeting. Code § 9-6.14:11(C) permits 

"persons who participated in the prior [conference] . . . an 

opportunity to respond at the board . . . meeting to any 

summaries of the prior proceeding prepared by or for the board." 

As a complainant who testified at the conference against 

Dempsey, Foster was a "participant" authorized to respond. 

Foster's comments at the October 17, 2000 meeting were 

- 5 -
consistent with Code § 9-6.14:11(C) and did not exceed the 

bounds of the statute. He highlighted the nature and facts of 

his complaint and specifically responded to the summary. 

III. 

 Finally, Dempsey contends the Board was obligated to record 

and transcribe the October 17, 2000 proceedings. Code 

§ 2.1-343, governing public meetings, only requires that the 

"[m]inutes shall be recorded at all open meetings." Code 

§ 2.1-343(I). The Board duly recorded the minutes of the 

October 17, 2000 proceedings. Furthermore, pursuant to Code 

§ 2.1-343(H), Dempsey was permitted to "record or otherwise 

reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open." He 

chose not to do so. Dempsey stated no error of law. "The 

burden shall be upon the party complaining of agency action to 

designate and demonstrate an error of law subject to review by 

the court." Code § 9-6.14:17. 

 Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

- 6 -