ÿWPC… … %VX\ 0B´w@ö46JYja 0JË 0T 0^i 0hÇ 0N/ 0r} 0|ï 0†k UNñ 0? 1uÏ 0^D 0d¢U>fDU6ªB)à B DC& AMiU*¶<à D3v~OvÓÍ 0@  AOàÆ/ 0Dõ D/9 Bh%c:\office\wpwin\template\letter\letter0.wpt($U$¡¡Ñ„°ÑÑ  Ñ "D#U$U%D&'e(r‚)Ó€34DÒ 3|x9Letter - Blank Letterhead  '  0 .   2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔN0ClosingLetter Closing2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(6Ù Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(63W$§§Ý ƒ$U!ÝÑ„°ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€!&ÔÑ „ ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌOctober€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ šStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!&ÔÑ „ ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ћёÈÑNovember€5,€1996ÌÌÌTO€WHOM€IT€MAY€CONCERN:ÌÌÌÓ  ÓPlease€note€changes€on€the€cover€page€of€an€opinion€filed€October€25,€1996€re:€òòPorter€Williams€v.ÏReal€Estate€Appraisal€Commission€for€the€State€of€Tennessee.óó€€The€attorney's€have€been€reversed€toÏcorrectly€reflect€the€record.ÌÌÑ€"ÑÇÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÔ€#ÔÑ7€¤z%dÖ%%dÖ7ÑÑ  ÑPORTER€WILLIAMS,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPetitioner/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9604„CH„00177Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌREAL€ESTATE€APPRAISAL€à à)à àNo.€94„1089„IÌÙ€€ÙœßL€')&;+'h|i` ç `€€Lß›COMMISSION€FOR€THEà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)Ìà àà à)à àÌà àRespondent/Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÔ€#XÔMICHAEL€H.€œSNEEDÌSuite€1502,€Parkway€TowersÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219›Ìà àœATTORNEY›€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANT̛̜̜ÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€Reporter̛̜STEVEN€M.€RODERICKÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorney€General's€OfficeÌTax€DivisionÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2121ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0489›Ìà àœATTORNEYS›€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔœÌÌSAMUEL›€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€#°ÔœOÔ€#¼Ô›€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€#XÔà àPetitioner/appellant,€Porter€Williams,€appeals€the€chanceryÏcourt's€judgment€which€confirmed€the€decision€ofÏrespondent/appellee,€the€Real€Estate€Appraisal€Commission€for€theÏState€of€Tennessee,€and€denied€appellant€relief€under€a€writ€ofÏcertiorari.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€asÏfollows.€€ÌÌà àIn€late€1991,€petitioner€applied€to€œrespondent›€forÏcertification€as€a€certified€general€appraiser.€€œAlthoughÏrespondent›€approved€œpetitioner's›€œapplication,€he€still€had€to€passÏthe€appraiser's€certification€examination€before€respondent€couldÏcertify€him.›€€Petitioner€then€sat€for€the€œexamination€in€FebruaryÏ1992,€but€was€unsuccessful.€€He€tried€three€more€times€in€the€nextÏten€months,€but€never€passed€the€certification€examination.ÌÌà àWhile€attempting€to€pass€the€examination€and€despite€theÏfact€that€it€was€illegal,€petitioner€appraised€a€residence€locatedÍin€Hendersonville,€Tennessee.€€Petitioner€then€took€an€appraisalÏcertificate€belonging€to€one€Luther€Bratton,€with€whom€he€had€beenÏformally€associated,€and€altered€it€so€that€it€representedÏpetitioner€as€certified€residential€appraiser€number€621.€ÏPetitioner€used€the€forged€certificate€to€collect€the€fee€for€theÏHendersonville€appraisal.Ìà àÌà àRespondent€became€aware€of€petitioner's€activities€andÏfiled€a€complaint€against€him€in€August€1992.€€When€confronted€byÏrespondent,€petitioner€admitted€that€he€preformed€theÏHendersonville€appraisal€and€that€he€altered€Mr.€Bratton'sÏcertificate.€€After€receiving€petitioner's€response€to€theÏcomplaint€and€considering€his€actions,€respondent€deniedÏpetitioner€certification€and€referred€the€matter€to€the€districtÏattorney's€office€for€criminal€prosecution.€€The€districtÏattorney's€office€criminally€prosecuted€petitioner€who€ultimatelyÏplead€guilty€to€appraising€without€a€license.€€Petitioner€was€notÏformally€convicted.€€Instead,€the€case€was€diverted€and€aÏprobationary€restraint€instituted.ÌÌà àIn€January€1993,€petitioner€moved€respondent€toÏ"reconsider"›€its€denial€of€certification.€€œRespondent›€œmet›€theÏfollowing€month€and€reconsidered€its€earlier€decision.€€Because€ofÏpetitioner's€previous€acts,€it€approved€œcertification€conditioned›Ïœon€petitioner€successfully€completing€his€criminal€probation.€ÏRespondent€incorporated€the€decision€into€a€consent€order€andÍpresented€the€consent€order€to€petitioner€for€his€approval€andÏsignature.€€Petitioner€refused€to€sign€the€consent€order,€butÏcontinued€his€appraisal€business.€€ÌÌà àOn€20€September€1993,€a€Mark€McKenzie€filed€a€complaintÏwith€respondent€alleging€that€petitioner€had€incompetentlyÏappraised€his€property€located€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€RespondentÏdid€not€refer€the€McKenzie€complaint€to€the€district€attorney'sÏoffice€because€petitioner€did€not€actually€write€the€McKenzieÏappraisal€report.€€Respondent€did€conclude,€however,€that€at€aÏminimum€petitioner€had€improperly€involved€himself€in€the€McKenzieÏappraisal€and€that€his€firm€documentation€and€letterhead€couldÏmisrepresent€to€the€public€that€he€was€a€certified€appraiser.€ÏBased€on€these€conclusions,€respondent€issued€a€cease€and€desistÏletter€to€petitioner€instructing€him€to€correct€his€firm'sÏdocumentation.ÌÌà àPetitioner€submitted€a€second€application€for€certifiedÏresidential€appraisal€certification€on€2€February€1994.€ÏRespondent€considered€petitioner's€second€application€at€itsÏmeeting€and€voted€unanimously€to€disapprove€it.€€Respondent€basedÏits€decision€on€their€review€of€petitioner's€file€and€theirÏconsideration€of€his€entire€course€of€conduct€during€the€previousÏthree€years.ÌÌà àPetitioner€did€not€seek€a€rehearing€before€respondent,€€butÏfiled€a€petition€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court.€He€allegedÏthat€respondent€had€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€denied€hisÏapplication€and€that€respondent's€decision€was€not€supported€byÏmaterial€evidence.€€Respondent€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition€forÏlack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€for€failure€to€state€aÏclaim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€Respondent€argued€thatÏpetitioner€was€not€entitled€to€review€in€the€chancery€courtÏbecause€respondent's€decision€did€not€derive€from€a€contested€caseÏproceeding.€€Petitioner€responded€by€moving€to€amend€his€petitionÏto€allege€a€cause€of€action€and€sought€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€TheÏchancellor€denied€petitioner's€motion€to€amend.€€AlthoughÏpetitioner€had€not€specifically€stated€that€he€was€proceedingÏunder€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€the€chancellorÏtreated€the€petition€as€one€brought€under€that€act€and€ruled€thatÏthe€UAPA€did€not€entitle€petitioner€to€judicial€review€ofÏrespondent's€decision.ÌÌà àPetitioner€then€moved€the€court€to€alter€or€amend€itsÏjudgment€and€again€requested€leave€to€proceed€pursuant€to€a€writÏof€certiorari.€€On€17€January€1990,€petitioner€filed€a€"First›ÏAmended€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€and€œSupersedeas."›€€On€16ÏAugust€1995,€the€chancellor€dismissed€the€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€and€supersedeas€because€petitioner€did€not€timely€fileÏhis€brief.€€Petitioner€then€moved€to€reinstate€the€petition€andÏthe€chancellor€entered€an€order€granting€reinstatement.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€reinstatement€of€the€case,€respondentÏanswered€the€œpetition.€€Petitioner€then€contended€that€he€wasÏproceeding€under€a€statutory€writ€of€certiorari€rather€than€aÏcommon€law€writ.€€Subsequently,€the€court€confirmed€the€matter€wasÏproceeding€under€the€common€law€writ.ÌÌà àThe€chancellor€heard€final€arguments€and€issued€aÏmemorandum€opinion€denying€petitioner€the€relief€requested€in€theÏwrit.€€The€chancellor€held€that€respondent's€denial€ofÏpetitioner's€second€application€was€supported€by€substantial€andÏmaterial€evidence€and€that€petitioner€had€not€proved€thatÏrespondent€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€capriciously,Ïillegally,€or€arbitrarily€by€denying€the€application.€€PetitionerÏthen€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€to€this€court.€€PetitionerÏpresented€one€issue:€€"Whether›€œ[respondent]›€exceeded€itsÏjurisdiction€or€acted€illegally€or€arbitrarily€by€denyingÏpetitioner's€application€for€licensure€as€a€state€certifiedÏresidential€real€estate€appraiser,€or€whether€œ[respondent]›€hadÏsubstantial€and€material€evidence€before€it€to€justify€denial€ofÏpetitioner's€œapplication."›ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€actions€brought€under€a€common€law€ofÏwrit€of€certiorari€is€narrow€and€limited€to€a€determination€ofÏwhether€the€agency€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,Ïfraudulently,€or€arbitrarily.€€ò òòòPowell€v.€Parole€EligibilityÍReview€Bd.,ó óóó€879€S.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€This€courtÏcan€not€consider€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€respondent'sÏdecision€to€deny€petitioner's€œsecond€application›€because€it€isÏbeyond€our€scope€of€review.€€ò òòòHenry€v.€Board€of€Claimsó óóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€825,€827€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€If€respondent's€order€is€notÏsupported€by€material€evidence€it€is€arbitrary€and€void.€€ò òòòHooverÏMotor€Express€Co.€v.€Railroad€&€Pub.€Utils.€Comm'nó óóó,€195ÏTenn.€593,€606,€261€S.W.2d€233,€238„40€(1953).€€ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€following€a€complete€review€of€thisÏrecord€that€respondent€denied€petitioner's€œsecond€application›€forÏcertification€based€on€the€totality€of€petitioner's€conduct€forÏthe€three€years€prior€to€his€œapplication.›€€Respondent'sÏadministrative€director€at€the€time€œrespondent€denied›€petitionerÏœcertification€explained:€€"[Petitioner's]›€œreapplication›€was€deniedÏon€February€14,€œ1994€.€.€.€.›€€The€denial€was€based€on€theÏœ[petitioner's]›€course€of€conduct€over€the€previous€years,€which€inÏthe€œCommission's›€discretion€constituted€dishonest€acts,€or€thoseÏinvolving€œmisrepresentation,›€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€62„39„326(4),€as€well€as€his€refusal€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÏcontained€in€the€consent€order,€which€œ[petitioner]›€never€œsigned."›€ÏThis€finding€was€confirmed€by€the€chancellor.€€The€chancellorÏfound€after€argument€by€counsel€for€each€of€the€parties€andÏcareful€consideration€of€petitioner's€allegations€that€respondentÏhad€denied€the€œsecond€application›€based€on€petitioner's€entireÏcourse€of€conduct€over€the€previous€three€years.€€This€course€ofÍconduct€included€violating€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„103€by€appraising€a€Hendersonville€residence€without€beingÏœlicensed,›€œviolating›€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„326€byÏintentionally€altering€and€using€Mr.€Bratton's€appraisalÏcertificate€to€collect€a€œfee,€improperlly€involving€himself€in€theÏMcKenzie€appraisal,€and€using€potentionally€misleading€firmÏdocumentation.›ÌÌà àRespondent€has€the€power€to€approve€or€disapproveÏapplications€for€appraiser€licensure€and€certification.€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€62„39„316€specifically€authorizesÏrespondent€to€deny€an€appraiser€certificate€to€an€applicant€on€anyÏgrounds€set€forth€in€title€62,€chapter€39.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„39„316€(Supp.€1995).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„326(4)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àViolations€„€Revocation€or€suspension.€„€The€rightsÏof€any€applicant€or€holder€under€a€certificate€as€aÏstate€licensed€or€certified€real€estate€appraiserÏmay€be€revoked,€suspended,€or€restricted,€or€theÏowner€of€the€certificate€may€be€assessed€a€civilÏpenalty€of€up€to€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000)€perÏviolation,€or€otherwise€disciplined€in€accordanceÏwith€the€provisions€of€this€chapter,€upon€any€ofÏthe€following€grounds:ÌÌà àœ€€.›€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(4)€An€action€or€omission€involving€dishonesty,Ïfraud€or€misrepresentation;ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„39„326(4)(Supp.€1995).€€ÓÓThis€section,€inÏconjunction€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„316,Ïauthorizes€respondent€to€consider€an€applicant's€acts€ofÏdishonesty€when€deciding€whether€to€approve€or€disapprove€anÍapplication€or€when€exercising€its€disciplinary€and€regulatoryÏjurisdiction.€€Twice€within€the€three€years€prior€to€reapplyingÏpetitioner€had€been€the€subject€of€complaints€filed€withÏrespondent.€€Both€of€the€complaints€involved€acts€of€dishonesty€orÏmisrepresentation.€€Thus,€respondent€acted€within€its€statutoryÏauthority€when€it€considered€petitioner's€previous€conduct€andÏdenied€his€œsecond€application.›€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€claims€that€respondent€based€its€decision€on€anÏerroneous€conclusion.€€To€explain,€petitioner€answered€œ"no"›€to€aÏquestion€on€the€application€which€asked:€œ"[H]ave›€you€ever€beenÏconvicted€or,€plead€guilty,€or€plead€no€contest€to€any€criminalÏoffense,€or€is€there€any€criminal€charge€now€pending€against€œyou?"›€ÏIt€is€petitioner's€contention€that€he€answered€the€questionÏtruthfully€because€he€was€not€formally€convicted€and€the€chargeÏwas€expunged€and€dismissed,€but€that€respondent€believingÏpetitioner€had€lied€decided€to€deny€his€application€on€that€basis.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner's€argument€rest€on€the€single€statement€of€aÏmember€of€respondent.€€This€argument€is€contradicted€by€the€recordÏand€derives€from€petitioner's€misapprehension€of€the€facts.€ÏRespondent's€members€were€aware€of€the€legal€effect€ofÏpetitioner's€guilty€plea€and€the€subsequent€criminal€diversion€andÏrestraint.€€The€record€reveals€that€respondent€was€repeatedlyÏadvised€concerning€the€legal€effect€of€the€guilty€plea€and€thatÏœrespondent's›€members€understood€why€petitioner€answered€œ"no"›€toÍthe€question€on€the€application.€€In€addition,€the€record€onlyÏcontains€one€comment€by€a€single€member€of€œrespondent›€indicatingÏthat€respondent€even€took€notice€of€the€way€petitioner€answeredÏthat€particular€question€on€the€application.€€That€comment€wasÏimmediately€countered€by€the€comment€of€another€member€who€pointedÏout€that€petitioner€had€attached€a€statement€explaining€his€answerÏto€the€question.€€œAfter›€this€exchange€between€œrespondent's›Ïmembers,€legal€counsel€advised€respondent€that€they€had€grounds€toÏdeny€œpetitioner's›€œsecond€application›€based€on€the€entire€course€ofÏhis€conduct€during€the€previous€three€years.€€It€was€on€œthis›€basis€Ïœthat›€respondent€voted€to€deny€petitioner's€œsecond€application.›ÌÌà àPetitioner€also€argues€that€respondent€exceeded€itsÏjurisdiction€because€it€certified€another€individual€who€hadÏappraised€without€a€license.€€The€heart€of€petitioner's€argumentÏis€that€because€a€Mr.€Meeks€and€petitioner€both€appraised€withoutÏa€license€they€must€be€similarly€œsituated,›€œand›€therefore,Ïrespondent€must€treat€them€exactly€the€same.€€We€respectfullyÏdisagree.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Meeks€and€petitioner€shared€oneÏexperience€does€not€make€them€similarly€situated€and€it€does€notÏrequire€respondent€to€treat€œthem€identically.›ÌÌà àThe€only€significant€commonality€shared€by€Mr.€Meeks€andÏpetitioner€is€that€they€both€appraised€without€a€license.€€WhenÏœone€examines€the›€œcircumstances€under›€which€Mr.€Meeks€obtainedÏtransitional€œlicensure,›€œone€finds€fundamental›€differences€œwhichÍpreclude€a€finding€that€petitioner€and€Mr.€Meeks€are€similarlyÏsituated.€€The€distinction€between€Mr.€Meeks€and€petitionerÏinclude:€1)€petitioner€was€criminally€prosecuted€for€his€violationÏof€the€appraisal€statute€and€Mr.€Meeks€was€not;€2)€Mr.€WilliamsÏdemonstrated€an€intent€to€violate€the€law€by€fraudulently€alteringÏand€then€using€Mr.€Bratton's€appraisal€certificate,€but€theÏdistrict€attorney€determined€that€Mr.€Meeks€did€not€intend€toÏviolate€the€law€and€declined€to€prosecute;€and€3)€Mr.€Williams€hadÏan€additional€complaint€filed€against€him€after€appraising€withoutÏa€license€and€Mr.€Meeks€did€not.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Meeks€agreed€toÏconditional€licensure,€an€alternative€refused€by€petitioner.ÌÌà àPetitioner€and€Mr.€Meeks€were€not€similarly€situated€andÏthere€is€no€merit€to€petitioner's€argument€that€respondentÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction.€€There€are€fundamental€distinctionsÏbetween€the€two€situations.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€respondentÏhas€properly€exercised€its€jurisdiction€in€this€matter€and€notÏacted€in€excess€of€it.ÌÌà àPetitioner's€final€argument€is€that€respondent€could€notÏrely€on€the€complaint€because€he€was€not€involved€in€preformingÏthe€McKenzie€appraisal.›€€The€record€clearly€shows€that€petitionerÏparticipated€in€the€appraisal€and€misrepresented€his€status.€€AnÏassociate€of€petitioner,€Eunice€Newsom,€went€to€the€McKenzieÏproperty€with€petitioner€to€preform€the€appraisal.€€PetitionerÏadmits€that€while€he€was€at€the€property€he€measured€the€dwellingÍthat€was€the€subject€of€the€appraisal€and€collected€data€necessaryÏto€the€appraisal€process.€€Petitioner's€involvement€was€confirmedÏby€Ms.€Newsom.ÌÌà àDespite€petitioner's€presence€at€the€property,€his€activeÏinvolvement€in€measuring€the€residence,€his€collecting€other€dataÏnecessary€to€issue€the€appraisal€report,€and€the€fact€thatÏpetitioner€as€principal€of€the€appraisal€firm€was€ultimatelyÏresponsible€for€the€completion€of€the€appraisal,€petitioner€wouldÏhave€us€find€that€he€simply€was€not€involved€in€the€McKenzieÏappraisal.€€While€petitioner€did€not€write€the€appraisal€report,Ïthe€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€that€he€was€involved€in€œtheÏappraisal€process.€€Moreover,€it€was€the€aspect€of€the€appraisalÏthat€petitioner€admitted€being€involved€in,€the€measurement€of€theÏdwelling,€that€Mr.€McKenzie€claimed€was€preformed€incompetently.€ÏMoreover,€as€a€principal€of€Williams€and€Associates,€petitioner'sÏpresence€at€the€McKenzie€property€during€the€appraisal€inÏconjunction€with€his€misleading€firm€letterhead€and€documentationÏconstituted€at€least€a€silent€misrepresentation€to€Mr.€McKenzieÏthat€petitioner€was€a€certified€appraiser.€€Petitioner€wasÏinvolved€in€the€McKenzie€appraisal€and€it€was€within€respondent'sÏjurisdiction€to€consider€that€fact€when€denying€petitioner'sÏsecond€application.€ÌÌà àOur€review€of€this€record€reveals€that€respondent€actedÏwithin€its€jurisdiction€and€based€its€denial€of€petitioner'sÍsecond€application€on€substantial€and€material€evidence€thatÏincluded€multiple€violations€of€the€appraisal€statutes.€ÏThroughout€the€pendency€of€petitioner's€two€applications,Ïrespondent€acted€fairly€with€respect€to€petitioner€and€endeavoredÏto€give€petitioner€the€benefit€of€the€doubt.€€This€record€showsÏthat€respondent€fairly€and€properly€exercised€the€disciplinaryÏjurisdiction€granted€it€by€the€General€Assembly.ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€deny€petitioner's€second€application€isÏaffirmed€with€costs€on€appeal€assessed€to€petitioner/appellant,ÏPorter€Williams.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€chancery€court€forÏany€further€necessary€proceedings.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÔ€!ÔÔ€!&Ô