Opinion ID: 1852713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: License Suspension

Text: The Commission argues that the suspension should be affirmed under subpart (u) of N.D.C.C., § 43-23-11.1(1), although the district court rejected that reason. Subpart (u) empowers the Commission to suspend or revoke a license to sell real estate for: u. Failure of the licensee to reduce an offer to writing where a proposed purchaser requests that such offer be submitted to the seller, ... The Commission held that Wisdom violated this provision by failing to reduce the counteroffer communicated by Caroline Lutkat [seller] to writing and present it to Gordon and Ione Eckroth [purchasers], as requested by Mrs. Lutkat. Wisdom correctly points out that subpart (u) authorizes suspension only when a prospective purchaser requests a licensee to submit an offer to a seller and the licensee does not do so. Oddly, neither it nor any other subpart expressly authorizes suspension when a licensee fails to submit an offer of the seller to a prospective purchaser. The Commission acknowledges this is troublesome, but asks us to construe the provision as also requiring action where a seller requests submission of an offer, so that the statute will not be left in the uncomfortable position of saying that the agent owes a greater duty to the purchaser than to his principal, the seller. When the wording of a statute is clear and free of all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. N.D.C.C., § 1-02-05. Since the wording of subpart (u) is clear, we cannot expand it as the Commission asks. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the Commission's finding, that Wisdom failed to carry Lutkat's counteroffer to the Eckroths, is not an express statutory ground to suspend his license. Subpart (m) of N.D.C.C., § 43-23-11.1(1) empowers the Commission to suspend or revoke a license to sell real estate for: m. Failing to disclose to an owner his intention or true position if he ... acquires or intends to acquire any interest in or any option to purchase property which has been listed with his office for sale or lease. The Commission found that Wisdom violated this provision: 8. That at the time of presenting [Ibach's] earnest money offer and obtaining Mrs. Lutkat's signature thereto, she was not advised that [Wisdom] was intending on acquiring an interest in the property for himself through a proposed partnership arrangement with Mr. Ibach. Wisdom argues that this finding, insofar as it infers that he intended to acquire an interest in the property before Lutkat accepted Ibach's offer, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. N.D.C.C., § 28-32-19(5). But, we determine that there is sufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding. Lutkat testified that Wisdom informed her that he might acquire an interest in the property immediately after she signed and accepted the offer. And, Gordon Eckroth testified that he and Wisdom earlier discussed the possibility of purchasing the property as partners, when the Eckroths were preparing to make their offer to purchase. Certainly, a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined that the factual conclusions reached were proved by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D.1979). Wisdom also contends that subpart (m) of N.D.C.C., § 43-23-11.1(1) violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. He did not raise these issues in his specifications of error nor in his brief to the district court. Wisdom first raised constitutional issues by moving to amend the judgment of the district court. He has not advanced either persuasive authority or reasoning. Our consideration of a suggested constitutional issue is guided by Justice Vogel's familiar stricture that [o]ne who attacks a statute on constitutional grounds,... should bring up his heavy artillery or forego the attack entirely. So. Valley Grain Dealers v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977). Under the circumstances, Wisdom has not sufficiently raised a constitutional issue. We affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Wisdom's license.