ÿWPC …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u  0d AMy Æ U6ÖB) DC5 AMxU*Åv~ï BmvÓŠ D3] 0X AOèÆ7 0Dý D/A Bp˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|x    D  DÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌOctober€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €' dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Geneva ÒÒ  eskto Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€~XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›PORTER€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„IÌœßL€ ;+'h|àl` 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  ÓÌÌÔ€XÔCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌSTEVEN€M.€RODERICKÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorney€General's€OfficeÌTax€DivisionÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2121ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0489Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌMICHAEL€H.€SNEEDÌSuite€1502,€Parkway€TowersÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔœSAMUEL›€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€°ÔOÔ€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€of€respondent/appellee,€theÏReal€Estate€Appraisal€Commission€for€the€State€of€Tennessee,€and€deniedÏappellant€relief€under€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€The€facts€out€of€which€thisÏmatter€arose€are€as€follows.€€ÌÌà àIn€late€1991,€petitioner€applied€to€œrespondent›€for€certificationÏas€a€certified€general€appraiser.€€œAlthough€respondent›€approvedÏœpetitioner's›€œapplication,€he€still€had€to€pass€the€appraiser'sÏcertification€examination€before€respondent€could€certify€him.›€€PetitionerÏthen€sat€for€the€œexamination€in€February€1992,€but€was€unsuccessful.€€HeÏtried€three€more€times€in€the€next€ten€months,€but€never€passed€theÏcertification€examination.ÌÌà àWhile€attempting€to€pass€the€examination€and€despite€the€factÏthat€it€was€illegal,€petitioner€appraised€a€residence€located€inÏHendersonville,€Tennessee.€€Petitioner€then€took€an€appraisal€certificateÍbelonging€to€one€Luther€Bratton,€with€whom€he€had€been€formallyÏassociated,€and€altered€it€so€that€it€represented€petitioner€as€certifiedÏresidential€appraiser€number€621.€€Petitioner€used€the€forged€certificateÏto€collect€the€fee€for€the€Hendersonville€appraisal.Ìà àÌà àRespondent€became€aware€of€petitioner's€activities€and€filed€aÏcomplaint€against€him€in€August€1992.€€When€confronted€by€respondent,Ïpetitioner€admitted€that€he€preformed€the€Hendersonville€appraisal€andÏthat€he€altered€Mr.€Bratton's€certificate.€€After€receiving€petitioner'sÏresponse€to€the€complaint€and€considering€his€actions,€respondent€deniedÏpetitioner€certification€and€referred€the€matter€to€the€districtÏattorney's€office€for€criminal€prosecution.€€The€district€attorney'sÏoffice€criminally€prosecuted€petitioner€who€ultimately€plead€guilty€toÏappraising€without€a€license.€€Petitioner€was€not€formally€convicted.€ÏInstead,€the€case€was€diverted€and€a€probationary€restraint€instituted.ÌÌà àIn€January€1993,€petitioner€moved€respondent€to€"reconsider"›€itsÏdenial€of€certification.€€œRespondent›€œmet›€the€following€month€andÏreconsidered€its€earlier€decision.€€Because€of€petitioner's€previous€acts,Ïit€approved€œcertification€conditioned›€œon€petitioner€successfullyÏcompleting€his€criminal€probation.€€Respondent€incorporated€the€decisionÏinto€a€consent€order€and€presented€the€consent€order€to€petitioner€for€hisÏapproval€and€signature.€€Petitioner€refused€to€sign€the€consent€order,€butÏcontinued€his€appraisal€business.€€ÌÌà àOn€20€September€1993,€a€Mark€McKenzie€filed€a€complaint€withÍrespondent€alleging€that€petitioner€had€incompetently€appraised€hisÏproperty€located€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€Respondent€did€not€refer€theÏMcKenzie€complaint€to€the€district€attorney's€office€because€petitionerÏdid€not€actually€write€the€McKenzie€appraisal€report.€€Respondent€didÏconclude,€however,€that€at€a€minimum€petitioner€had€improperly€involvedÏhimself€in€the€McKenzie€appraisal€and€that€his€firm€documentation€andÏletterhead€could€misrepresent€to€the€public€that€he€was€a€certifiedÏappraiser.€€Based€on€these€conclusions,€respondent€issued€a€cease€andÏdesist€letter€to€petitioner€instructing€him€to€correct€his€firm'sÏdocumentation.ÌÌà àPetitioner€submitted€a€second€application€for€certifiedÏresidential€appraisal€certification€on€2€February€1994.€€RespondentÏconsidered€petitioner's€second€application€at€its€meeting€and€votedÏunanimously€to€disapprove€it.€€Respondent€based€its€decision€on€theirÏreview€of€petitioner's€file€and€their€consideration€of€his€entire€courseÏof€conduct€during€the€previous€three€years.ÌÌà àPetitioner€did€not€seek€a€rehearing€before€respondent,€€but€filedÏa€petition€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court.€He€alleged€thatÏrespondent€had€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€denied€his€application€andÏthat€respondent's€decision€was€not€supported€by€material€evidence.€ÏRespondent€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition€for€lack€of€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€and€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted.€€Respondent€argued€that€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€review€inÏthe€chancery€court€because€respondent's€decision€did€not€derive€from€aÍcontested€case€proceeding.€€Petitioner€responded€by€moving€to€amend€hisÏpetition€to€allege€a€cause€of€action€and€sought€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€TheÏchancellor€denied€petitioner's€motion€to€amend.€€Although€petitioner€hadÏnot€specifically€stated€that€he€was€proceeding€under€the€UniformÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act,€the€chancellor€treated€the€petition€as€oneÏbrought€under€that€act€and€ruled€that€the€UAPA€did€not€entitle€petitionerÏto€judicial€review€of€respondent's€decision.ÌÌà àPetitioner€then€moved€the€court€to€alter€or€amend€its€judgmentÏand€again€requested€leave€to€proceed€pursuant€to€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€OnÏ17€January€1990,€petitioner€filed€a€"First›€Amended€Petition€for€Writ€ofÏCertiorari€and€œSupersedeas."›€€On€16€August€1995,€the€chancellor€dismissedÏthe€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€and€supersedeas€because€petitioner€didÏnot€timely€file€his€brief.€€Petitioner€then€moved€to€reinstate€theÏpetition€and€the€chancellor€entered€an€order€granting€reinstatement.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€reinstatement€of€the€case,€respondent€answered€theÏœpetition.€€Petitioner€then€contended€that€he€was€proceeding€under€aÏstatutory€writ€of€certiorari€rather€than€a€common€law€writ.€€Subsequently,Ïthe€court€confirmed€the€matter€was€proceeding€under€the€common€law€writ.ÌÌà àThe€chancellor€heard€final€arguments€and€issued€a€memorandumÏopinion€denying€petitioner€the€relief€requested€in€the€writ.€€TheÏchancellor€held€that€respondent's€denial€of€petitioner's€secondÏapplication€was€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence€and€thatÏpetitioner€had€not€proved€that€respondent€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€orÍacted€capriciously,€illegally,€or€arbitrarily€by€denying€the€application.€ÏPetitioner€then€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€to€this€court.€€PetitionerÏpresented€one€issue:€€"Whether›€œ[respondent]›€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€orÏacted€illegally€or€arbitrarily€by€denying€petitioner's€application€forÏlicensure€as€a€state€certified€residential€real€estate€appraiser,€orÏwhether€œ[respondent]›€had€substantial€and€material€evidence€before€it€toÏjustify€denial€of€petitioner's€œapplication."›ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€actions€brought€under€a€common€law€of€writ€ofÏcertiorari€is€narrow€and€limited€to€a€determination€of€whether€the€agencyÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,€fraudulently,€orÏarbitrarily.€€ò òòòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Bd.,ó óóó€879€S.W.2dÏ871,€873€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€This€court€can€not€consider€the€intrinsicÏcorrectness€of€respondent's€decision€to€deny€petitioner's€œsecondÏapplication›€because€it€is€beyond€our€scope€of€review.€€ò òòòHenry€v.€BoardÏof€Claimsó óóó,€638€S.W.2d€825,€827€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€If€respondent's€orderÏis€not€supported€by€material€evidence€it€is€arbitrary€and€void.€€ò òòòHooverÏMotor€Express€Co.€v.€Railroad€&€Pub.€Utils.€Comm'nó óóó,€195€Tenn.€593,Ï606,€261€S.W.2d€233,€238„40€(1953).€€ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€following€a€complete€review€of€this€recordÏthat€respondent€denied€petitioner's€œsecond€application›€for€certificationÏbased€on€the€totality€of€petitioner's€conduct€for€the€three€years€prior€toÏhis€œapplication.›€€Respondent's€administrative€director€at€the€timeÏœrespondent€denied›€petitioner€œcertification€explained:€€"[Petitioner's]›Ïœreapplication›€was€denied€on€February€14,€œ1994€.€.€.€.›€€The€denial€wasÍbased€on€the€œ[petitioner's]›€course€of€conduct€over€the€previous€years,Ïwhich€in€the€œCommission's›€discretion€constituted€dishonest€acts,€or€thoseÏinvolving€œmisrepresentation,›€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€62„39„326(4),€asÏwell€as€his€refusal€to€comply€with€the€conditions€contained€in€the€consentÏorder,€which€œ[petitioner]›€never€œsigned."›€€This€finding€was€confirmed€byÏthe€chancellor.€€The€chancellor€found€after€argument€by€counsel€for€eachÏof€the€parties€and€careful€consideration€of€petitioner's€allegations€thatÏrespondent€had€denied€the€œsecond€application›€based€on€petitioner's€entireÏcourse€of€conduct€over€the€previous€three€years.€€This€course€of€conductÏincluded€violating€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„103€byÏappraising€a€Hendersonville€residence€without€being€œlicensed,›€œviolating›ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„326€by€intentionally€altering€andÏusing€Mr.€Bratton's€appraisal€certificate€to€collect€a€œfee,€improperllyÏinvolving€himself€in€the€McKenzie€appraisal,€and€using€potentionallyÏmisleading€firm€documentation.›ÌÌà àRespondent€has€the€power€to€approve€or€disapprove€applicationsÏfor€appraiser€licensure€and€certification.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€62„39„316€specifically€authorizes€respondent€to€deny€an€appraiserÏcertificate€to€an€applicant€on€any€grounds€set€forth€in€title€62,€chapterÏ39.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„39„316€(Supp.€1995).€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€62„39„326(4)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àViolations€„€Revocation€or€suspension.€„€The€rights€ofÏany€applicant€or€holder€under€a€certificate€as€a€stateÏlicensed€or€certified€real€estate€appraiser€may€beÏrevoked,€suspended,€or€restricted,€or€the€owner€of€theÏcertificate€may€be€assessed€a€civil€penalty€of€up€to€oneÏthousand€dollars€($1,000)€per€violation,€or€otherwiseÏdisciplined€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€thisÍchapter,€upon€any€of€the€following€grounds:ÌÌà àœ€€.›€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(4)€An€action€or€omission€involving€dishonesty,€fraud€orÏmisrepresentation;ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„39„326(4)(Supp.€1995).€€ÓÓThis€section,€in€conjunctionÏwith€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€62„39„316,€authorizes€respondent€toÏconsider€an€applicant's€acts€of€dishonesty€when€deciding€whether€toÏapprove€or€disapprove€an€application€or€when€exercising€its€disciplinaryÏand€regulatory€jurisdiction.€€Twice€within€the€three€years€prior€toÏreapplying€petitioner€had€been€the€subject€of€complaints€filed€withÏrespondent.€€Both€of€the€complaints€involved€acts€of€dishonesty€orÏmisrepresentation.€€Thus,€respondent€acted€within€its€statutory€authorityÏwhen€it€considered€petitioner's€previous€conduct€and€denied€his€œsecondÏapplication.›€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€claims€that€respondent€based€its€decision€on€anÏerroneous€conclusion.€€To€explain,€petitioner€answered€œ"no"›€to€a€questionÏon€the€application€which€asked:€œ"[H]ave›€you€ever€been€convicted€or,€pleadÏguilty,€or€plead€no€contest€to€any€criminal€offense,€or€is€there€anyÏcriminal€charge€now€pending€against€œyou?"›€€It€is€petitioner's€contentionÏthat€he€answered€the€question€truthfully€because€he€was€not€formallyÏconvicted€and€the€charge€was€expunged€and€dismissed,€but€that€respondentÏbelieving€petitioner€had€lied€decided€to€deny€his€application€on€thatÏbasis.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner's€argument€rest€on€the€single€statement€of€a€member€ofÍrespondent.€€This€argument€is€contradicted€by€the€record€and€derives€fromÏpetitioner's€misapprehension€of€the€facts.€€Respondent's€members€wereÏaware€of€the€legal€effect€of€petitioner's€guilty€plea€and€the€subsequentÏcriminal€diversion€and€restraint.€€The€record€reveals€that€respondent€wasÏrepeatedly€advised€concerning€the€legal€effect€of€the€guilty€plea€and€thatÏœrespondent's›€members€understood€why€petitioner€answered€œ"no"›€to€theÏquestion€on€the€application.€€In€addition,€the€record€only€contains€oneÏcomment€by€a€single€member€of€œrespondent›€indicating€that€respondent€evenÏtook€notice€of€the€way€petitioner€answered€that€particular€question€on€theÏapplication.€€That€comment€was€immediately€countered€by€the€comment€ofÏanother€member€who€pointed€out€that€petitioner€had€attached€a€statementÏexplaining€his€answer€to€the€question.€€œAfter›€this€exchange€betweenÏœrespondent's›€members,€legal€counsel€advised€respondent€that€they€hadÏgrounds€to€deny€œpetitioner's›€œsecond€application›€based€on€the€entire€courseÏof€his€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€its€jurisdictionÏbecause€it€certified€another€individual€who€had€appraised€without€aÏlicense.€€The€heart€of€petitioner's€argument€is€that€because€a€Mr.€MeeksÏand€petitioner€both€appraised€without€a€license€they€must€be€similarlyÏœsituated,›€œand›€therefore,€respondent€must€treat€them€exactly€the€same.€€WeÏrespectfully€disagree.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Meeks€and€petitioner€shared€oneÏexperience€does€not€make€them€similarly€situated€and€it€does€not€requireÏrespondent€to€treat€œthem€identically.›ÌÌà àThe€only€significant€commonality€shared€by€Mr.€Meeks€andÏpetitioner€is€that€they€both€appraised€without€a€license.€€When€œoneÏexamines€the›€œcircumstances€under›€which€Mr.€Meeks€obtained€transitionalÏœlicensure,›€œone€finds€fundamental›€differences€œwhich€preclude€a€finding€thatÏpetitioner€and€Mr.€Meeks€are€similarly€situated.€€The€distinction€betweenÏMr.€Meeks€and€petitioner€include:€1)€petitioner€was€criminally€prosecutedÏfor€his€violation€of€the€appraisal€statute€and€Mr.€Meeks€was€not;€2)€Mr.ÏWilliams€demonstrated€an€intent€to€violate€the€law€by€fraudulentlyÏaltering€and€then€using€Mr.€Bratton's€appraisal€certificate,€but€theÏdistrict€attorney€determined€that€Mr.€Meeks€did€not€intend€to€violate€theÏlaw€and€declined€to€prosecute;€and€3)€Mr.€Williams€had€an€additionalÏcomplaint€filed€against€him€after€appraising€without€a€license€and€Mr.ÏMeeks€did€not.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Meeks€agreed€to€conditional€licensure,€anÏalternative€refused€by€petitioner.ÌÌà àPetitioner€and€Mr.€Meeks€were€not€similarly€situated€and€there€isÏno€merit€to€petitioner's€argument€that€respondent€exceeded€itsÏjurisdiction.€€There€are€fundamental€distinctions€between€the€twoÏsituations.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€respondent€has€properly€exercisedÏits€jurisdiction€in€this€matter€and€not€acted€in€excess€of€it.ÌÌà àPetitioner's€final€argument€is€that€respondent€could€not€rely€onÏthe€complaint€because€he€was€not€involved€in€preforming€the€McKenzieÏappraisal.›€€The€record€clearly€shows€that€petitioner€participated€in€theÏappraisal€and€misrepresented€his€status.€€An€associate€of€petitioner,ÏEunice€Newsom,€went€to€the€McKenzie€property€with€petitioner€to€preformÍthe€appraisal.€€Petitioner€admits€that€while€he€was€at€the€property€heÏmeasured€the€dwelling€that€was€the€subject€of€the€appraisal€and€collectedÏdata€necessary€to€the€appraisal€process.€€Petitioner's€involvement€wasÏconfirmed€by€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€that€petitioner€asÏprincipal€of€the€appraisal€firm€was€ultimately€responsible€for€theÏcompletion€of€the€appraisal,€petitioner€would€have€us€find€that€he€simplyÏwas€not€involved€in€the€McKenzie€appraisal.€€While€petitioner€did€notÏwrite€the€appraisal€report,€the€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€that€he€wasÏinvolved€in€œthe€appraisal€process.€€Moreover,€it€was€the€aspect€of€theÏappraisal€that€petitioner€admitted€being€involved€in,€the€measurement€ofÏthe€dwelling,€that€Mr.€McKenzie€claimed€was€preformed€incompetently.€ÏMoreover,€as€a€principal€of€Williams€and€Associates,€petitioner's€presenceÏat€the€McKenzie€property€during€the€appraisal€in€conjunction€with€hisÏmisleading€firm€letterhead€and€documentation€constituted€at€least€a€silentÏmisrepresentation€to€Mr.€McKenzie€that€petitioner€was€a€certifiedÏappraiser.€€Petitioner€was€involved€in€the€McKenzie€appraisal€and€it€wasÏwithin€respondent's€jurisdiction€to€consider€that€fact€when€denyingÏpetitioner's€second€application.€ÌÌà àOur€review€of€this€record€reveals€that€respondent€acted€withinÏits€jurisdiction€and€based€its€denial€of€petitioner's€second€applicationÏon€substantial€and€material€evidence€that€included€multiple€violations€ofÍthe€appraisal€statutes.€€Throughout€the€pendency€of€petitioner's€twoÏapplications,€respondent€acted€fairly€with€respect€to€petitioner€andÏendeavored€to€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€is€affirmedÏwith€costs€on€appeal€assessed€to€petitioner/appellant,€Porter€Williams.€ÏThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€chancery€court€for€any€further€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÓÓÌà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ