Newsletters

• "How-To" Video Library
• Quick Tips for a Successful License Renewal
• Hear ye, hear ye! New MLO Pre-License Education Course!
• Inside the Future of Appraisals at AARO 2026
• 2026 ARELLO Mid-Year Meeting
• 2026 Licensing Stats
• Rule Developments
• Licensing & Disciplinary Actions
• Division Calendar
• Social Media Links & Feedback QR Code
• Credits

These videos provide clear guidance for real estate professionals using the Division’s systems, helping reduce confusion and streamline routine processes. Each video is paired with written instructions so users can choose the format that works best for them.

Topics covered in the "How-To" Videos
The current video series includes guidance on several essential processes:

Some big news has arrived, hot off the press from the Utah Division of Real Estate (DRE) regarding changes to the state pre-license education requirements for the Utah MLO license.

With support from industry and NMLS, Utah has aligned its requirements with national standards. Historically, Utah required 15 hours of pre-license education—the highest in the nation—to ensure the public was protected by well-informed Loan Officers. However, to reduce barriers to entry for those wishing to do business in our state, we have updated this requirement.

Effective May 1, 2026, the Utah state pre-license education requirement has been reduced from 15 hours to 5 hours.

Please note the following details regarding this transition:

If you thought 2026 was going to be a quiet year for the appraisal profession, think again. The recent AARO conference in sunny San Diego made one thing abundantly clear: the industry is undergoing its most massive evolution in decades.

Regulators, appraisers, and industry heavyweights gathered to tackle a massive dual mission: radically modernizing how we work while fiercely protecting public trust. Missed the action? We’ve got you covered. Here are the three major plot twists uncovered during the latest conference.

The days of the traditional, often gate-kept supervisor-trainee model are officially numbered. 

The Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB) is shifting its philosophy from a strict numbers game—simply "counting hours"—to a far better metric: measuring actual proficiency.

And guess what? It’s working.

Stat of the Month: Graduates of the Practical Applications of Real Estate Appraisal (PAREA) program boast a mind-blowing 100% pass rate on the national exam.

Alternative pathways aren't just a backup plan anymore; they are the future. Look at California’s ACE program at West LA College. By partnering with the county, they’ve built a high-quality, community-college-based pipeline that proves we can diversify and grow the profession without ever lowering our standards.

The Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB) is continuing the conversation of Qualifications and has released its Second Exposure Draft of Proposed Changes to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria.

The overall goal is simple: streamline the process of becoming an appraiser without lowering the profession's actual standards.

You may be fully prepared and ready to just get back to the craft, but for those of you who haven’t started prepping for the transition to UAD 3.6, consider this your official wake-up call. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac confirmed that the new dataset becomes mandatory on November 2, 2026, with the legacy UAD 2.6 retiring for good by May 2027.  They have reported that there will be no delays in this requirement.

The major shakeups you need to know:

• Goodbye, GLA: "Gross Living Area" is out. Say hello to strict ANSI-aligned terminology focusing on "finished above grade" and precise interior "levels."
• Cleaner Data: All four Highest and Best Use (HBU) tests are now consolidated into one streamlined section with dedicated commentary space.
• Choose Your Flavor: Certifications are going dynamic, breaking down into three specific tiers (interior/exterior inspection, exterior-only, or no inspection).

WARNING: Fannie and Freddie didn't mince words about false certifications. They are actively tracking data patterns to catch appraisers who claim they inspected a property when they didn’t—and they will refer violators to state boards. Transparency is non-negotiable.

Artificial Intelligence has continued to be a regular topic of regulatory discussion. The Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) adopted the second exposure draft of Advisory Opinion (AO) 31, drawing a hard line in the sand regarding tech.

The bottom line? As always, you can use the tools, but you own the results. The appraiser remains 100% responsible for everything in the report.

This tech evolution is also changing how state investigators look at compliance. In a fascinating panel on the "Gray Areas" of disciplinary cases, investigators emphasized that they are looking at context more than ever—learning to draw a clear line between an honest technological slip-up, systemic negligence, and actual fraud.

This past April, the Division of Real Estate attended the 2026 ARELLO Mid-Year Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. Real estate regulators, jurisdiction leaders, and industry affiliates from across the country gathered to collaborate on the most pressing issues facing our industry today. The main focus was finding practical ways to update regulatory frameworks that keep up with industry changes, ensuring we maintain market stability while continuing to protect the public.

One of the most prominent topics of discussion was the rapid integration of AI in real estate marketing and operations. Including the impact of AI on property descriptions and fair housing compliance, as well as ensuring transparency with AI-driven tools are used in consumer interactions and transactions.

This year's format prioritized peer-to-peer engagement with roundtable discussions centering on the real-world obstacles facing board administrators and commissioners. This roundtable tackled distance education standards, modernizing curriculum to match fast-evolving market practices, and managing disciplinary backlogs.

Through committee working sessions and team breakouts, attendees strengthened cross-jurisdiction relationships and opened doors to new possibilities.

Real Estate Licensing Stats

• Sales Agents: 18,629
• Branch Brokers: 129
• Associate Brokers: 1,828
• Principal Brokers: 2,447
• Inactive Licenses: 4,568

Companies and Branches

• Real Estate Companies: 2,419
• Branch Offices: 420
• Property Management Companies: 261

Real Estate Enforcement

• Total Open Cases: 231
• Complaints Received: 108
• Cases Pending with Utah Attorney General's Office: 30
• Cases Closed: 130

Education & Examination

• Pre-license Schools: 13
• Pre-license Instructors: 31
• Continuing Education (CE) Providers: 1,182
• CE Instructors: 505

Mortgage Licensing Stats

• Mortgage Loan Originators: 6,051
• Lending Managers: 1,503
• Inactive Individuals: 475

Mortgage Companies & Education

• Mortgage Companies: 989
• Branch Offices: 355
• Inactive Entities: 41
• Pre-license Schools: 3

Mortgage Enforcement

• Total Open Cases: 20
• Complaints Received: 19
• Cases Pending with Utah Attorney General’s Office: 2
• Cases Closed: 19

Appraisal Licensing

• Licensed Appraisers: 170
• Certified General Appraisers: 506
• Certified Residential Appraisers: 573
• Appraisal Trainees: 111
• Appraisal Management Companies: 102

Appraisal Education

• Pre-license Schools: 9
• Pre-license Instructors: 27
• Continuing Education (CE) Providers: 51
• Continuing Education (CE) Instructors: 93

Appraisal Enforcement

• Total Open Cases: 33
• Complaints Received: 2
• Cases Pending with Utah Attorney General’s Office: 7
• Cases Closed: 12

To view and comment on any proposed or amended rules during the public comment period, please visit the Utah State Bulletin.

Appraisal Management Company Rules

Currently, there are no proposed rule amendments under consideration for the AMC Administrative Rule. 

Appraisal

Currently, there are no proposed rule amendments under consideration for the Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Administrative Rules. 

Mortgage

The Utah Residential Mortgage Practicing and Licensing Rule was amended on March 24, 2026. The amendment reduced Utah-specific prelicensing education for a mortgage loan originator license from 15 hours to five hours.  

Real Estate

The Real Estate Rules Committee is working to draft a proposed amendment to the Real Estate Licensing and Practices Rule.  The proposed amendment addresses the licensing and practices of the new property manager license that will be available beginning January 1, 2027. The proposed rule amendment is being drafted and will be presented to the Real Estate Commission for their consideration. This is an ongoing process, and the Real Estate Rules Committee continues to meet to consider various aspects of the new property manager license.

Timeshare and Camp Resort

Currently, there are no proposed rule amendments under consideration for the Timeshare and Camp Resort Rule.

Affiliated Title Business Rule

The Affiliated Title Business Rule was first adopted October 26, 2021. By law, rules expire after five years, unless they are continued. The Affiliated Title Rule will expire later this year unless it is continued.  The authority and requirement for this rule are provided for in Utah Code Section 31A-23a-1002. The Division is preparing to file a Five-Year Review and Statement of Continuation to extend this Rule.

Please note that Utah law allows 30 days for appeal of an order. Some of the actions below might be subject to this appeal right or currently under appeal.

To view a copy of an order referenced in this article, please email us at [email protected].

APPRAISAL/AMC

E STREET, an Appraisal Management Company (E Street), and Daryle Jeanne Smith, Wexford, Pennsylvania. In a stipulated order dated May 4, 2026, E Street and Daryle Jeanne Smith admit that they broadcast a number of appraisal assignments and awarded five of the assignments to appraisers within 1-34 minutes of the broadcast, a violation of Utah administrative code. Utah law requires that an AMC, with certain exceptions, may not award an assignment broadcast to two or more appraisers until 120 minutes following the offering of the assignment. E STREET agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000. Docket number AP-2025-153 and Division case number 155968

MINSON, SPENCER L, Certified Residential Appraiser, Herriman, Utah. Mr. Minson completed an appraisal for a tax appeal. After a complaint was received and an investigation conducted, the Division noted numerous errors and inconsistencies in the appraisal report and in Mr. Minson’s workfile. These errors and inconsistencies violated Utah law and USPAP. In a stipulated order dated April 2, 2026, Mr. Minson admits the errors and inconsistencies. He agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to complete eight hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2025-165 and Division case number 157234

RICHEY, DAVID B, Certified Residential Appraiser, Haleiwa, Hawaii. In an order dated March 31, 2026, the Appraiser Board found that Mr. Richey certified several appraisal reports for properties located in Utah. The appraisals stated that he personally inspected the Utah properties when he was not physically present in the State. When the Division requested copies of the reports, Mr. Richey provided altered reports indicating that another person had inspected the properties. He later acknowledged that another person had inspected the Utah properties and provided altered reports to the Division, concealing the fact that in the original reports, he had certified that he had done the inspections.  

Mr. Richey violated USPAP Standards and Rules and Utah law when he:

• signed reports indicating that he inspected properties even though he had not inspected them;
• delivered reports that were misleading;
• altered reports without disclosing the alterations;
• Failed to notify the Division when he moved to Hawaii. 

The Appraiser Board concluded that Mr. Richey committed a total of 12 violations and ordered that he pay a total civil penalty of $47,000 for the violations. Docket number RE-24-098 and Division case number 147821.  

SPENCER, TODD, Certified Residential Appraiser, Herriman, Utah. In a stipulated order dated May 5, 2026, Mr. Spencer admitted that an appraisal he completed failed to adhere to professional standards, failed to adequately define the scope of work, his workfile did not contain true copies of all written reports or an engagement letter, and photos of the interior were MLS photos and were not, at all times, relevant current photos of the subject property. Mr. Spencer admits that his conduct violated Utah law and the USPAP. He agreed to complete eight hours of mentorship training with a mentor approved by the Division. Docket number AP-2025-151 and Division case number 149604

WEBBER, JERRY R, Certified General Appraiser, Salt Lake City, Utah. In a stipulated order dated April 4, 2025, Mr. Webber admits that while completing two appraisal assignments, he committed multiple violations of the USPAP Standards and Rules, including the Scope of Work Rule, Record Keeping Rule, General Development Requirements, and General Reporting Requirements. Mr. Webber agreed to pay a civil penalty of $6,000 and to complete 12 hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2025-126 and Division case numbers 156182 and 162343

MORTGAGE

There were no disciplinary actions in the Mortgage industry in the second quarter.  

REAL ESTATE

BAILEY, JACOB HYRUM, Sales Agent, Salt Lake City, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Mr. Bailey admitted that he advertised a property for sale without the written consent of the owner, the listing agent, or the listing brokerage in violation of Utah Administrative Code. Mr. Bailey agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2025-067 and Division Case number 148320

BOONE, JESSE, Dual Broker for Redzone Real Estate, “Redzone” and Wasatch Leasing and Property Management, “Wasatch”, Sandy, Utah.  In a stipulated order dated May 20, 2026, Mr. Boone admitted to having committed multiple violations of Utah law and administrative rules involving a number of both sales and property management transactions.  

Real Estate Sales Activity: In one transaction, Redzone made changes to the terms of a listing in the MLS without the authorization of the owner. The MLS status of the property reflected that it was “under contract” on two occasions. However, Redzone did not provide documentation supporting these status changes. In addition, Redzone received an offer to purchase the property, but did not present the offer to the owner. When the property was sold, Redzone charged a transaction fee that was not disclosed or approved by the seller. In a second transaction, Mr. Boone represented the buyer but failed to provide the required written agency agreement.  

Property management activity: In one transaction, a property owner was dissatisfied with Wasatch due to delayed rent payments and terminated the property management agreement for alleged breach of the contract terms and other allegations. Despite explicit instructions and after termination of the property management agreement, Wasatch entered into a new 36-month lease agreement for the property with new tenants. The Salt Lake Board of Realtors found Mr. Boone in violation of multiple provisions of the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics, imposed a $15,000 fine, and suspended his membership for one year.  

In a second property management transaction, the property owner specified no pets. The owner also instructed that keys were not to be duplicated and no key box should be placed on the property. Wasatch installed a key box and advertised the property for less than the authorized rental amount. The advertisement indicated that the property was pet-friendly. After seeing the advertisement, the owner canceled the property management contract. The deadbolt to the apartment was damaged during removal of the key box. Wasatch filed a lien to collect the disputed charges.

In a third property management transaction, Wasatch charged an unjustified tenant placement fee and other unapproved charges after termination of the property management agreement. Wasatch filed a lien to collect the disputed charges.

In a fourth property management transaction, Wasatch charged an unjustified tenant placement fee and other unapproved charges after termination of the property management agreement. Wasatch filed a lien to collect the disputed charges.

In a fifth property management transaction, an agent of Wasatch told the owner that if no tenant was found for the property, there would be no charge. After termination of the Property management agreement, Wasatch filed a lien to collect disputed charges.

In a sixth property management transaction, the spouse of a property owner signed the property management agreement, but the property owner did not sign the agreement. Wasatch executed a rental agreement and signed as owner of the property. After termination of the Property management agreement, Wasatch filed a lien to collect disputed charges.

In a seventh property management transaction, the property owner obtained a civil judgment against Wasatch for breach of the management agreement for failing to collect and remit rental payments to the owner.

In an eighth property management transaction, the owner disputed fees charged by Wasatch.

Mr. Boone’s actions are in violation of Utah law and administrative rules. He agreed that his dual broker and principal broker licenses be revoked, including all residual rights, and that he be prohibited from reapplying for a broker’s license for five years from the date of the Commission’s Order. Mr. Boone was issued a real estate sales agent license, with the license on probation for two years. In addition, Mr. Boone agreed to pay a civil penalty of $15,000. Docket number RE-2025-061 and Division case numbers 141645, 151543, 160734, 159967, 157761, 158269, 156496, and 156459

BOVE, MJ AUGIE, Sales Agent, Saratoga Springs, Utah. In a stipulated order dated May 20, 2026, Mr. Bove admits that he was a partner in a real estate training and coaching business and had control and authority over scripts for radio advertisements promoting seminars. The advertisements were deceptive and contained false and unsubstantiated claims.  The advertisement promoted “free” events that were sales pitches for expensive training packages.  After a civil judgment in a related matter, the court entered a stipulated judgment of $12,000,000 with a provision that upon payment of $2,800,000, the judgment would be suspended. Mr. Bove’s conduct violates Utah real estate law. He agreed to surrender his real estate sales agent license and that he would not reapply for licensure for 10 years. Docket number RE-2026-050 and division case number 157316

BRADY, SCOTT R, Sales Agent, Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Brady represented the seller of a commercial property. The property went under contract with the buyer intending to complete a 1031 exchange transaction. The title report revealed an encumbrance to the seller’s title. After several months, the title issue was resolved. The buyer then presented an addendum to the purchase agreement requesting that seller pay buyer’s attorney fees due to the delay and because buyer was not able to timely complete the 1031 exchange transaction. Seller declined to sign the addendum and would not pay buyer’s attorney fees. Mr. Brady admitted to his client (the seller) that he knew the buyer and had helped them (the buyer) purchase two other properties in the last six months. The buyer then asked Mr. Brady to join the transaction as a buyer and purchase a fractional interest in the property. Mr. Brady agreed. He asserts that he informed his client, the seller, that he was putting money into the purchase of the property to keep the buyer in the deal, but did not communicate this information in writing. Later, his client expressed concern that Mr. Brady  was putting money into the purchase but had not disclosed this information to them. Mr. Brady admits that he failed to provide a written disclosure of his purchase of a fractional interest in the buyer entity. He admits that his conduct in the transaction is a violation of Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. Brady agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-056 and Division case number 166666

BROWNE, CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Sales Agent, Salt Lake City, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Mr. Browne admits that he failed to timely remit a security deposit to his client (the property owner) following the termination of a property management agreement. This conduct is a violation of Utah law. Mr. Browne agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-023 and Division case number 168847

DIAZ, ANDRES, Principal Broker, Eagle Mountain, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Mr. Diaz admits that he failed to verify information uploaded by mistake in an advertisement for a rental property and that he failed to timely deliver trust money to his client (the property owner) following the termination of the property management agreement. These actions are violations of Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. Diaz agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,500 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-028 and Division case number 167641

JACKSON, AMANDA, Sales Agent, Riverton, Utah. In a stipulated order dated April 22, 2026, Ms. Jackson admits that she acted as a licensed real estate sales agent in a transaction in which she also acted as buyer. The purchase agreement was a contract for deed. The contract was not a state approved form and was not prepared by legal counsel. Ms. Jackson then advertised the property for sale offering terms that included a downpayment and monthly seller-financed payments. She published the advertisement without the written consent of the property owner.  Ms. Jackson admits that her conduct violated Utah law and administrative rules. She agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for her next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-046 and Division case number 158500

KING, ROBERT MONTE, Sales Agent, Sandy, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Mr. King admits that he removed items from the property of a listed home while showing the property to a prospective buyer. Mr. King apologized, admitted his conduct, and returned the items. His conduct is a violation of Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. King agreed to the revocation of his license. He is prohibited from reapplying for licensure for three years. In addition, Mr. King agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000. Docket number RE-2026-031 and Division case number 168851

LEAVITT, TRENT, Principal Broker, St George, Utah. In a stipulated order dated May 20, 2026, Mr. Leavitt admits that he entered into a property management agreement to oversee a client’s rental property in St George. After the death of his client, Mr. Leavitt continued managing the property for his client’s sister. No new management agreement was signed with the sister. Sometime later, the sister transferred the property to a corporation, in trust. No new agreement was signed between Mr. Leavitt and the trustee. Mr. Leavitt’s conduct is a violation of Utah administrative rules. He agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,500.  Docket number RE-2026-068 and Division case number 151646

MORTENSEN, KRISTEN, Principal Broker and Dual Broker, Draper, Utah. Over a period of approximately 18 months, an employee of the property management company for which Ms. Mortensen is the broker embezzled a large amount of money by intercepting tenant rent payments and depositing them into her personal accounts. The employee concealed the theft by manipulating internal property management software.  The brokerage’s accounting department failed to detect the embezzlement.  In a stipulated order dated April 9, 2026, Ms. Mortensen admits that she failed to perform active and reasonable supervision of the employee and failed to perform required monthly trust account reconciliations, in violation of Utah law and administrative code. Utah law provides that failing to exercise active and reasonable supervision is grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee. Utah Administrative Code requires that the principal broker reconcile the brokerage trust account records with the bank or credit union records at least monthly. Ms. Mortensen agreed to pay a civil penalty of $8,000, with a credit for restitution paid to the property management company, and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for her next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-030 and Division case number 162118

PETERSON, JEREMY, Dual Broker, Ogden, Utah. In a stipulated order dated April 22, 2026, Mr. Peterson’s property management company managed two residential properties for a client. Mr. Peterson sent an email to his client terminating the contract “effective immediately.” The property management agreement expressly stated that it could be terminated by either party upon 60 days’ written notice. The property owner had remitted a check for $5,000 to fund renovations and repairs at one of the properties. Mr. Peterson diverted those funds to pay off a pre-existing negative ledger balance on the owner’s accounts without authorization or consent and in violation of Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. Peterson agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-042 and Division case number 155345

SMITH, JAMISON CY, Principal Broker, St George, Utah. In a stipulated order dated April 22, 2026, Mr. Smith admits that he used an unlicensed assistant to perform duties that require a license. Mr. Smith also represented to the buyers of two lots that they could use the related water rights to service homes they intended to build, despite the fact that the water service to the properties is restricted to recreational use and is only available during the months of April through October. This conduct and these misrepresentations violate Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. Smith agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 and that his license be placed on probation until the next renewal period in September 2027.  In addition, Mr. Smith is required to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2025-095 and Division case number 145261

SUMSION, MATTHEW, Associate Broker, Springville, Utah. In a stipulated order dated May 20, 2026, Mr. Sumsion admitted that he left his clients unsupervised at a showing, with the keys to the house. The homeowner returned 15 or 20 minutes later to find Mr. Sumsion’s clients sitting in the living room talking. Mr. Sumsion admits that his conduct is a violation of Utah law and administrative rules. Mr. Sumsion agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-069 and Division case number 161869

THRUSTON, HOWARD F., Principal Broker, Saratoga Springs, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Mr. Thruston admitted that he refused to remove a property from the MLS as leverage to secure the payment of a disputed commission, in violation of Utah administrative rules. Mr. Thruston agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for his next license renewal. Docket number RE-2026-022 and Division case number 160144

WALKER, ANGELA BEA, sales Agent, Vernal, Utah. In a stipulated order dated March 18, 2026, Ms. Walker admitted that she advertised a property listed for sale in the MLS without the written consent of the owner, the listing agent, or the listing brokerage, in violation of Utah Administrative Code. Ms. Walker agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to complete three hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education required for her next license renewal. Docket number RE-2025-060 and Division Case number 152842

TIMESHARE

There were no disciplinary actions in the Timeshare industry in the second quarter.