Suspending Salesperson License for Fraudulent Business Practice
Section 24-4-104(3) , C.R.S. 1999 provides that:
No . . . suspension . . . of a license by any agency shall be lawful unless, before institution of agency proceedings therefor, the agency has given the licensee notice in writing of facts or conduct that may warrant such action and afforded the licensee opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments with respect to such facts and conduct and, except in cases of deliberate and willful violation or of substantial danger to public health and safety, given the licensee a reasonable opportunity to comply with all lawful requirements.
For purposes of 24-4-104(3), if a notice of hearing explicitly details the charges made against the licensee and apprises him or her of the right to present evidence in answer to the charges, there is no requirement that the licensee receive yet another notice of the agency proceeding. See Dixon v. State Board of Optometric Examiners, 39 Colo. App. 200, 565 P.2d 960 (1977).
Further, 24-4-104(3) does not require an agency to provide written notice of the licensee's right to submit data and argument in advance of the agency proceeding. Speer v. Kourlis, 935 P.2d 43 (Colo. App. 1996).
While 24-4-104(3) provides that revocation of a license is improper unless the licensee is first given a reasonable opportunity to comply with all lawful requirements, there is an exception if the violation is willful and deliberate.
Further, the statute does not require an express finding that the licensee's conduct was willful and deliberate. See Sanchez v. State, 730 P.2d 328 (Colo. 1986).
The standard of review pertinent to the Board's decision is whether substantial evidence exists on the record to support its findings and conclusions. See Zamarripa v. Q & T Food Stores, Inc., 929 P.2d 1332 (Colo. 1997); United Financial Credit v. Colorado Collection Agency Board, 892 P.2d 446 (Colo. App. 1995).