text:
Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita, San Luis Obispo Co.
Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita, San Luis Obispo Co. Photo © Dylan M. Neubauer.
Generally sandy to loamy soils, often on n-facing slopes where there is less competition with taller shrubs. In various communities including coastal bluff scrub, maritime chaparral, and coastal prairie/non-native grassland, and in ecotones between coastal scrub and maritime chaparral and grassland or oak woodland. In areas affected by fog and wind, with infrequent frost (Parker et al. 2009 & 2017, CNDDB 2017).
Associates include Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum, Arctostaphylos hookeri subsp. hearstiorum, A. tomentosa subsp. tomentosa, A. t. subsp. rosei, Ceanothus maritimus, Ceanothus thyrsiflorus var. thyrsiflorus, and Frangula californica subsp. californica (Keil & McLeod 1989, USDA 2005, CNDDB 2017).
Prostrate, matting, or mounding shrub to 1 m tall, lacking basal burl; bark dull dark red, somewhat shreddy below; twig sparsely short-hairy to hairy, nonglandular; petiole to 2 mm long; leaf isofacial, overlapped, blade bright green, tomentose turning glabrous, shiny, oblong-ovate, base auriculate-clasping; inflorescence paniculate, immature pendent, bracts appressed, leaflike; corolla pink to white, ovary densely nonglandular-hairy; fruit depressed-globose, glabrous, stones free; 0–150 m (Parker et al. 2009 & 2017). It is the only heart-leaved manzanita that is prostrate to low-mounding besides A. imbricata (Kauffman et al. 2015).
The type specimen of Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita was collected in 1961 by James B. Roof near the mouth of Arroyo de la Cruz. At that time, it was the only known location for the species. Roof (1962) relates that Robert F. Hoover’s study of the botanically unique Arroyo de la Cruz area during the late 1940s–early 1950s led him to describe maritime ceanothus (Ceanothus maritimus), one of ca. six highly localized species occurring within this “pocket of endemism” (Hoover 1953 & 1970, Keil & McLeod 1989, Haydu 2012).
Roof (1962) observed a complex of “manzanita hybrids and intergrades” in this area and surmised that A. hookeri and A. tomentosa [subsp. tomentosa] were the “parents,” along with the entity he was describing as A. cruzensis. (3) He noticed that “pure” A. cruzensis was easily distinguished from the pure forms of the other two species by its sessile leaves and from other auriculate-leaved manzanitas (e.g., A. pajaroensis, A. pechoensis, and A. imbricata) by several other characters. Roof states that the manzanita was “commonly found in its pure form in the upland colonies, or all too frequently crossed therein with A. hookeri or A. tomentosa,” and, with its sessile leaves, Roof believed it could not be a hybrid. He described it as being low and spreading, “not upright,” reaching “3–6 dm high in the center, spreading to 3 m wide.” In July of 1961, Roof visited two stands on the Hearst Ranch (“cattle country”) in the s Santa Lucia Range and was told by managers that the manzanita “ranged north from Arroyo de la Cruz to San Carpoforo Creek and south to within ca. 3 miles of the Hearst Castle.
Roman Gankin (1966) disagreed with Roof’s circumscription of A. cruzensis, describing it as A. pechoensis (Abrams) Dudley ex Eastw. var. cruzensis (Roof) Gankin. Citing Roof’s description of the manzanita as having a prostrate habit vs. the more upright hybrids, Gankin claimed that he could not find any “evidence of F1 hybrids between these entities,” nor “was there any evidence of gene infiltration from either A. tomentosa or A. hookeri.” He described a large population in Arroyo de los Chinos as having “tremendous variation in growth habit with some specimens attaining heights of 1.8 m, highly reminiscent of A. pechoensis var. pechoensis in the San Luis Range farther south.” Gankin tentatively treated this entity “as a variety of A. pechoensis to be characterized solely by the lack of hispid hairs on the branchlets and the presence of pubescence on the mature fruit.” He also made a collection from “a single individual of decumbent habit” near [0.5 mile east of] the Pacific Valley Ranger Station, Monterey Co.”—the first record of A. cruzensis in Monterey County.
As was later determined, the Los Osos location actually refers to the highly restricted A. osoensis, another closely related, auriculate-leaved manzanita. Arctostaphylos osoensis was described in 1992 by Wells, from a 1989 specimen (Wells & Knight 31389A) collected on the n side of Los Osos Valley.
The Cambria location Hoover references was based on his 1965 collection (Hoover 9353) with “main branches spreading, almost prostrate; seen only in one place, scarce.” In 2000, Wells described the range of Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita as “restricted to a narrow coastal belt, often very foggy, from Pacific Valley, s Monterey Co., s to Arroyo de los Chinos and Arroyo de la Cruz,” excluding the Cambria location. However, reputable sources confirm that collections from “near the north end of the Cambria Pine Forest, where the terrace drops into the mouth of the San Simeon Creek” are indeed referable to A. cruzensis (Chesnut, pers. comm. 2016, Vasey, pers. comm 2017, Yost, pers. comm 2017). This location (and the Pacific Valley location) are not included in the range for this species in the 2015 Field Guide to Manzanitas by Michael Kauffmann et al.
The iconic genus Arctostaphylos (manzanita) is particularly diverse, comprising ca. 70 species in two major lineages (Boykin et al. 2005, Wahlert et al. 2009, Parker et al. 2016). Though fossils have been found in western Nevada dating back to the Middle Miocene, rapid and relatively recent diversification within the genus took place after it moved coastward, especially during the climatic/glacial oscillations of the Pleistocene (Kauffmann et al. 2015). The majority (ca. 62) of Arctostaphylos species occur within the California Floristic Province (CA-FP), an area considered to be a global biodiversity hotspot (Baldwin et al. 2012). The CA-FP is one of only five regions worldwide with a Mediterranean-type climate—characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, mild, wet winters. This climatic regime has been in place for at least 5 million years (Vasey & Parker 2014, Kauffmann et al. 2015). Mediterranean climatic areas are rich in endemic plant species, edaphically diverse, and dominated by evergreen shrublands adapted to a regime of relatively frequent, high-intensity, canopy-type fires. In California, this vegetation type is called chaparral (Vasey & Parker 2014, Kauffmann et al. 2015).
The coastal form of chaparral—known as maritime chaparral— is considered to be a special-status plant community under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act. Prevalent from Sonoma Co. south to Santa Barbara Co., it is strongly influenced by the Pacific Ocean and occurs within a narrow climatic zone characterized by summer fog and low clouds.
Maritime chaparral is dominated and defined by Arctostaphylos spp. (manzanitas) (ca. 40 taxa occur along the Central Coast) and often Ceanothus spp. Many of these species are locally endemic and restricted to patches with shallow, generally acidic, nutrient-poor substrates (Vasey et al. 2012 & 2014). Manzanitas are able to survive in these depauperate soils due to their mutualistic relationship with a diverse array of root-colonizing, or mycorrhizal, fungi, which provide nutrients and water in exchange for sugars. Due to their similar nutritional requirements, conifers often share habitat with manzanitas and participate in these fungal networks (Kauffman et al. 2015).
Excessive exposure to high temperatures during wildfires can be lethal to embryos (Parker 2015a), however, scatter-hoarding rodents such as mice and chipmunks may play a critical role in dispersal by burying manzanita seeds at a sufficient depth to protect them from killing heat. In addition, rodents disperse seed in a limited area, an esential requirement for an edaphically restricted species (Moore & Vander Wall 2015, Parker 2015a & b). Several obligate-seeder manzanitas examined in a 2016 study (Keeley et al.) were found to occupy more open habitats, often with trees interspersed. These openings may provide areas for post-fire seedling recruitment.
General threats to Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita include any alteration to the natural fire regime, whether human-caused or indirectly due to climate change. Longer or shorter fire return intervals and higher or lower fire intensities negatively impact reproductive cycles in obligate-seeding shrubs—causing alterations in community composition, seedbanks, and canopy structure, and disrupting mutualistic relationships (Keeley & Davis 2007, Vasey et al. 2014). Climate change may alter the pattern and prevalence of fog along the coast, negatively affecting maritime chaparral species (Vasey et al. 2014). Periods of drought can kill seedlings and stress mature plants (Odion & Tylor 2002) Vasey et al. (2014) suggest that ex situ conservation of living plants and possibly assisted migration may become necessary options as climate change progresses. Recreational use/trampling poses an additional threat to small populations.
Because Arctostaphylos osoensis was misidentified as A. cruzensis for many years, until 2017 the range for Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) included Morro Bay area occurrences of A. osoensis, and possibly other manzanita species. Currently (2017), the CNDDB lists eight occurrences for Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita.
A single, small occurrence is present in the Pacific Valley area on Los Padres N.F. land in s Monterey Co. In 2002, the Los Padres N.F., in cooperation with the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG), wished to augment the population of ca. 20 shrubs due to destruction of plants in 2002 by a bulldozer line. Cuttings were taken from five plants and clones were planted out in the fall/winter of 2004. One plant is thought to have been planted at the Pacific Valley Fire Station. It is unknown how this outplanting project fared as access is difficult due to poison oak. Four remaining plants from this collection that were grown at the SBBG were destroyed during a 2009 fire (Wilken, pers. comm. 2017). A 2013 survey located two individuals in an area threatened by erosion and trampling by hikers (CNDDB 2017). This occurrence is additionally threatened by wildfire and fire-fighting and fire-suppression activities. Its small size makes it susceptible to random, stochastic events.
The Arroyo de la Cruz region—considered to be a biodiversity hotspot within San Luis Obispo County (Haydu 2012)—contains the highest numbers of Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita. There, the manzanita shares habitat with several other local endemics, all of which are of conservation concern.
Four Arroyo de la Cruz/Arroyo de los Chinos occurrences, totaling thousands of individuals, are on private land east of Highway 1 owned by the Hearst Corporation. Still a working cattle ranch, these lands have been subject to grazing for more than a century, and grazing is considered to be a threat to some stands (CNDDB 2017). A conservation easement for the Hearst Ranch was put into place in 2005, which protects the land in perpetuity. Though current information is not available regarding the status of the manzanita on the Hearst Ranch, the type locality (“mouth of Arroyo de la Cruz [just s of], on hill top”) is extirpated—possibly due to grazing along the fence line (Wilken, pers. comm. 2017).
In 2005, 1500 acres on the coastal side of Highway 1 were transferred to California State Parks and Caltrans. This area contains two occurrences of Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita composed of a few individuals. Threats are currently unknown, but likely include recreational use, erosion, and invasive species.
Field surveys are needed to determine the location and status of the single Cambria occurrence (CNDDB 2017).
Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita is part of the Center for Plant Conservation’s (CPC) National Collection of Endangered Plants. The primary custodian is the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG). The CPC’s collection contains plant material for more than 800 of the country’s most imperiled native species at 42 participating institutions, providing a ex situ backup in the event of extinction or lack of reproduction success in the wild (CPC 2017).
The cultivar ‘Arroyo Cascade’ is a natural hybrid of Arctostaphylos hookeri subsp. hearstiorum and A. cruzensis. It was collected in 1972 in San Luis Obispo Co. by former SBBG director Ralph Philbrick and horticulturist Dara Emery. The oldest specimen at the SBBG is over 30 years old.
1. Philip V. Wells (1968) later remarked that Willis L. Jepson’s approach to Arctostaphylos taxonomy involved “weighting conspicuous characters.” Therefore, “all auriculate-leaved manzanitas” became varieties of A. andersonii. Though A. pajaroensis and A. cruzensis do share auriculate leaves and ovaries with dense, white, nonglandular hairs, A. pajaroensis is erect-growing with shredding bark and bifacial leaves, and is restricted to a few sandy areas in s Santa Cruz and n Monterey cos. (see Factsheet at http://www.elkhornsloughctp.org/factsheet/factsheet.php?SPECIES_ID=8).
2. Since both A. cruzensis and C. maritimus are absent from the vicinity of San Simeon, Hoover speculated that this location was not the actual source of Katherine Brandegee’s 1889 specimens of both taxa labeled “San Simeon.” He explained that it was common practice during the 19th century to give the nearest town as the locality.
3. Arctostaphylos cruzensis is a diploid (n=13), while A. tomentosa subsp. tomentosa is a tetraploid (n=26). Both are members of the larger clade/lineage (see Wahlert et al 2009, Vasey & Parker 2014). Hybrids generally occur between diploids and tetraploids or between diploid species belonging to the same lineage. A. hookeri var. hearstiorum is a member of the small clade/lineage, and so generally (> 96% of the time) does not hybridize with A. cruzensis (Wahlert et al. 2009, Vasey & Parker 2014, Kauffmann et al. 2015).
Baldwin, B. G., D. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti, eds. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, 2nd ed. UC Press, Berkeley, CA.
Boykin. L. M., M. C. Vasey, V. T. Parker, and R. Patterson. 2005. Two lineages of Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae) identified using the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of the nuclear genome. Madroño 52(3):139–147.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2010. Arctostaphylos cruzensis. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/detail/23.html [acc. 16 Dec 2016].
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2017. [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [acc 16 Feb 2017].
Center for Plant Conservation. 2017. Arctostaphylos cruzensis. http://saveplants.org/plant-detail-page/?plant_id=44449#References [acc. 24 Dec 2016].
Chesnut, J. CNPS San Luis Obispo County Chapter, Rare Plant Coordinator, personal communication, Jan 2017.
Gankin, R. 1966. Some observations on the growth habit of certain manzanitas. Leaflets of Western Botany 10(13):247–249.
Greenlee, J. M. and J. H. Langenheim. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. American Midland Naturalist 124:239–253.
Griffin, J. R. 1978. Maritime chaparral and endemic shrubs of the Monterey Bay region, California. Madroño 25:65–81.
Haydu, K. 2012. Mapping plant biodiversity hotspots at the county scale: a new tool for establishing resource conservation strategies. Thesis, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=theses [acc. 25 Dec 2016].
Hoover, R. F. 1953. A new Ceanothus from San Luis Obispo County, California. Leaflets of Western Botany 7(4):111–112.
Hoover, R. F. 1970. Vascular plants of San Luis Obispo County. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
Kauffmann, M. et al. 2015. Field guide to manzanitas: California, North America, and Mexico. Backcountry Press, Kneeland, CA.
Keeley, J. E. and F. W. Davis. 2007. “Chaparral.” In Terrestrial vegetation of California, 3rd ed., M. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr eds. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Keeley, J. E., V. T. Parker, and M. C. Vasey. 2016. Resprouting and seeding hypotheses: a test of the gap-dependent model using resprouting and obligate seeding subspecies of Arctostaphylos. Plant Ecology 217:743– 750.
Keil, D. and M. McLeod. 1989. Rare plants in the Arroyo de la Cruz Endemic Area, San Luis Obispo County, California. In: Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants: proceedings from a conference of the California Native Plant Society. T. S. Elias, ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Moore, C. M. and S. B. Vander Wall. 2015. Scatter-hoarding rodents disperse seeds to safe sites in a fire-prone ecosystem. Plant Ecology 216:1137–1153.
NatureServe. 2015. Arctostaphylos cruzensis. NatureServe Explorer, Version 7.1. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Arctostaphylos+cruzensis [acc. 16 Dec. 2016].
Odion, D. and C. Tyler. 2002. Are long fire-free periods needed to maintain the endangered, fire-recruiting shrub Arctostaphylos morroensis (Ericaceae)? Conservation Ecology 6(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss2/art4/ [acc. 16 Dec. 2016].
Parker, V. T. 2015a. Dispersal mutualism incorporated into large-scale, infrequent disturbances. PloS ONE 10(7):e0132625.
Parker. V. T. 2015b. Seed bank divergence between Arctostaphylos Adans. (Ericaceae) and Ceanothus L. (Rhamnaceae) suggests different seed predator interactions. Ecologia Mediterranea 41(2):5–13.
Parker. V. T., M. C. Vasey, and J. E. Keeley. 2009. Arctostaphylos. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 8. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250092385 [acc. 18 Nov 2016].
Parker, V. T., M. C. Vasey, and J. E. Keeley. 2017. Arctostaphylos cruzensis, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=13921 [acc. 16 Dec 2016].
Roof, J. B. 1962. Two new species of Arctostaphylos from California. Leaflets of Western Botany 9(13&14):217–222.
Stephenson, J. R. and G. M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. GTR-PSW-175. USDA, Forst Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr172/psw_gtr172_ch5.pdf [acc. 16 Dec 2016].
USDA. 2005. Southern California Plant Diversity [or SoCal Biodiversity]. Arctostaphylos cruzensis. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3832682.pdf [acc. 16 Dec 2016].
Van Dyke E., K. D. Holl, and J. R. Griffin. 2001. Maritime chaparral community transition in the absence of fire. Madroño 48(4):22–229.
Vasey, M. C., Director, San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; manzanita expert, Jan 2017.
Vasey, M. C. and V. T. Parker. 2014. Drivers of diversity in evergreen woody plant lineages experiencing canopy fire regimes in Mediterranean-type climate regions. In N. Rjaakaruna, R. S. Boyd, T. B. Harris, Plant ecology and evolution in harsh environments. Nova Publishers, Hauppauge, NY.
Vasey, M. C., M. E. Loik, and V. T. Parker. 2012. Influence of summer marine fog and low cloud stratus on water relations of evergreen woody shrubs (Arctostaphylos: Ericaceae) in the chaparral of central California. Oecologia 170:325–337.
Vasey, M. C., V. T. Parker, K. D. Holl, M. E. Loik, and S. Hiatt. 2014. Maritime climate influence on chaparral composition and diversity in the coast range of central California. Ecology and Evolution 4(18):3662 – 3674. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4224539/pdf/ece30004-3662.pdf [acc. 22 Dec 2016].
Wahlert, G. A., V. T. Parker, and M. C. Vasey. 2009. A phylogeny of Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae) inferred from nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 3(2):673–682.
Wells, P. V. 1968. New taxa, combinations, and chromosome numbers in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae). Madrono 19(6):193–210.
Wells, P. V. 1992. Four new species of Arctostaphylos from southern California and Baja California. Four Seasons 9(2):44–53.
Wilken, D. Research Associate, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, personal communication, Jan 2017.
Wells, P. V. 2000. The manzanitas of California, also of Mexico and the world. Lawrence, KS.
Michael Vasey, Director, San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and manzanita expert (18 Feb 2017); Dieter Wilken, Research Associate, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (19 Feb 2017).

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


1.1.1	Pursuant to 24 Del.C. §2906(a)(1), the Delaware Real Estate Commission is authorized and empowered and hereby adopts these Rules and Regulations.
1.1.2	Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 29 Del.C. Ch. 101, the Commission reserves the right to make any amendments, modifications or additions to the Rules and Regulations that, in its discretion, are necessary or desirable.
1.1.3	The Commission reserves the right to grant exceptions to the requirements of the Rules and Regulations upon a showing of good cause by the party requesting such exception, provided such exception is not inconsistent with the requirements of 24 Del.C. Ch. 29.
1.1.4	The Commission's Rules and Regulations are available on the Division of Professional Regulation's website, www.dpr.delaware.gov.
1.2.1	The Commission's Rules and Regulations are applicable to all current Licensees and to all applicants for licensure.
1.3.1	It is the responsibility of the employing Broker to insure that his or her Licensees comply with the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Every Broker is responsible for making certain that all of his or her Salespersons and Associate Brokers are currently licensed, make timely application for license renewal, and meet the Commission's continuing education requirements. The Broker shall maintain copies of continuing education certificates for his or her Salespersons and Associate Brokers for at least three years after the conclusion of each renewal period. A Broker's failure to meet these responsibilities may result in a civil fine against the Broker of up to $1,000.00 per violation.
1.3.2	Each office location shall be under the direction of a Broker, who shall provide complete and adequate supervision of that office. A Broker shall apply for and obtain a license in his or her name for each office and for each branch office. An application for an additional license shall state the location of the branch office and the name of the Designated On-Site Supervisor, who shall be a Delaware Licensee and who shall be in charge of managing the branch office on a full time basis. For new office applications submitted after February 3, 2012, pursuant to 29 Del.C. §2919(d), the Designated On-Site Supervisor shall be a Licensee with a minimum of five (5) years of continuous Real Estate Services experience, which shall be documented on the office application.
1.3.3	Where an unforeseen event, such as a resignation or termination from employment, death, emergency, illness, call to military service or training, or a sanction imposed by the Commission, causes or necessitates the removal of the sole licensed Broker in an office, a written request shall be submitted to the Division of Professional Regulation for substitution of another Broker for said office on a temporary basis.
1.3.4	The employment of a Designated On-Site Supervisor, sales manager, administrative manager, trainer, or other similar administrator shall not relieve the Broker of the responsibilities contained and defined in these Rules and Regulations.
1.3.5	The failure of any Licensee to comply with the provisions of 24 Del.C. Ch. 29 and the Commission's Rules and Regulations may also result in disciplinary action against his or her Broker's license.
1.4.1	Pursuant 24 Del.C. §2901(e)(4), Auctioneers are exempt from the Commission's licensing law, as the term "Auctioneer" is defined in 30 Del.C. §2301(a)(3): "every person engaged in the business of crying sales of real or personal property on behalf of others for profit."
1.4.1.1	For the purpose of the Auctioneer exemption set forth in 24 Del.C. §2901(e)(4), the "business of crying sales of real or personal property" shall mean the public event or sale occurring on an advertised date, when an auctioneer engages in the act of crying or calling for, the recognition of, and the acceptance of bids where the sale price of the property offered is determined by the increasing of competitive bids until the highest accepted bidder becomes the purchaser. The exemption shall only apply to the day of the auction.
1.4.1.1.1	Rule 1.4.1.1 does not prohibit an Auctioneer from advertising the auction prior to the date of the event.
1.4.1.2	Notwithstanding the Auctioneer exemption set forth in 24 Del.C. §2901(e)(4), a Licensee acting or providing service under this exemption, may be subject to discipline for violation of 24 Del.C. §2912.
1.4.1.3	In the event the property is sold by the broker, either before or after the auction date, the Auctioneer may be paid compensation from the sale of the property according to the terms of the written cooperation agreement, where an Auctioneer is actively engaged by written agreement with an owner of real property to sell real property at auction.
1.5	Change of address. A Licensee shall notify the Commission of any change of address from that registered with the Commission. Such notice shall be sent to the Commission by certified mail not later than 30 days following the change of address. A Licensee’s failure to notify the Commission of a change in address will not excuse the Licensee from continuing education audit requirements, including possible sanctions for non-compliance.
2.1	Has successfully completed the accredited Salesperson pre-licensing course through an approved course provider, as set forth in the Commission's Real Estate Education Guidelines.
2.2	Has passed in no more than 3 attempts, both the general and State portions of the Salesperson real estate examination, through the approved professional testing service.
2.2.1	The applicant shall obtain an original licensure application from the Division of Professional Regulation's website, www.dpr.delaware.gov, for use in making application for licensure.
2.2.2	An applicant shall retake the Salesperson pre-licensing course if the applicant is unable to pass the applicable portion(s) of the examination in 3 or less attempts.
2.3	Has submitted the licensure application within 12 months of completing the Salesperson pre-licensing course. If the application is not submitted within 12 months of completing the Salesperson pre-licensing course, the applicant shall submit proof of completion of continuing education, pro-rated pursuant to the pro-ration requirements of Rule 13.2.2.
2.3.1.1	A copy of the original school certificate(s) provided at course completion by the approved course provider(s).
2.3.1.2	If the applicant is currently licensed in another jurisdiction, or has ever been licensed in another jurisdiction, a licensure history provided by each licensing jurisdiction dated within 30 days of the application.
2.3.1.3	Written acceptance by a sponsoring Broker.
2.4	Applicants should refer to the Commission website for information on approved pre-licensing courses, course providers, fees, the professional testing service and testing application instructions. http://dpr.delaware.gov/boards/realestate/index.shtml.
3.1	Has been actively licensed in Delaware or another jurisdiction for 5 continuous years immediately preceding application.
3.1.1	Licensure shall be considered continuous even where the license has been renewed late, as long as the late renewal occurs within 60 days of the expiration date.
3.2	Has successfully completed the accredited Broker pre-licensing course through an approved course provider as set forth in the Commission's Real Estate Education Guidelines.
3.2.1	If the applicant is actively licensed as a Broker in another jurisdiction, Broker pre-licensing course hours completed in that jurisdiction may be used towards the course hour requirement.
3.3	Has passed in no more than 3 attempts, both the general and State portions of the Broker real estate examination through the approved professional testing service.
3.3.1	The applicant shall obtain an original licensure application from the Division of Professional Regulation's website, www.dpr.delaware.gov, for use in making application for licensure.
3.3.2	An applicant shall retake the Broker pre-licensing course if the applicant is unable to pass the applicable portion(s) of the examination in 3 or less attempts.
3.4	Has submitted the application within 12 months of completing the Broker pre-licensing course. Pre-licensing courses included in Rule 3.2.1 are exempt from this 12 month requirement. If the application is not submitted within 12 months of completing the Broker pre-licensing course, the applicant shall submit proof of completion of continuing education, pro-rated pursuant to the pro-ration requirements of Rule 13.2.2.
3.4.1.1	A copy of the original school certificate(s) provided at course completion by the approved course provider(s).
3.4.1.2	If the applicant is currently licensed in another jurisdiction, or has ever been licensed in another jurisdiction, licensure history provided by each licensing jurisdiction dated within 30 days of the application.
3.4.1.3	Written acceptance by a sponsoring Broker.
3.4.1.4	The Guaranty Fund fee shall not be required if the applicant has already paid the fee when obtaining their Salesperson license.
3.4.1.5	A list of at least thirty sale or lease transactions completed by the applicant in a licensed capacity within the 5 years immediately preceding application. Upon approval of the Commission, the thirty transactions may include real estate services performed for an employer, while licensed, during the 5 years immediately preceding application. If the applicant, as a designated agent or team leader, has directly supervised licensees who completed the transactions, then the transactions completed by those supervised licensees may be a part of this list. The list of transactions shall be signed by the Broker(s) who supervised the transactions.
3.4.1.5.1	The list shall contain the sale or lease completion date, property address, purchaser/lessee name, seller/lessor name, specify if completed by the applicant or designated agent subordinates and be signed by the applicant.
3.4.1.5.2	Time share and property management transactions are not considered as eligible sale or lease transactions.
3.5	Applications shall include the applicable fees as described in 24 Del.C. §2907(g) as a financial prerequisite for licensure.
3.6	Applicants should refer to the Commission website for information on approved pre-licensing courses, course providers, fees, the professional testing service and testing application instructions. http://dpr.delaware.gov/boards/realestate/index.shtml.
4.1	Submits evidence that the applicant has been actively engaged in the practice of Real Estate Services, either as a licensed Salesperson or licensed Associate Broker for 3 years immediately preceding application.
4.2	Submits a completed Application for a Real Estate Office Permit along with the fees as set forth in 24 Del.C. §2907(g).
4.3	An application shall include evidence to support that the Broker applicant has complied with, and will continue to comply with, the Escrow Account provisions set forth in 24 Del.C. §2923(a) and Rule 6.0.
4.4	The Broker shall attest that he or she is responsible for the day to day management and supervision of the office, as set forth in 24 Del.C. §2907(d).
4.5	If applying to be a replacement Broker for an established real estate office, the Broker shall submit with the application a letter signed by the current Broker naming the applicant as the replacement Broker. If the replacement Broker cannot supply a letter signed by the current Broker, the replacement Broker shall submit a letter of explanation.
5.1	Each applicant for a reciprocal license shall submit a complete and notarized application and the application fee.
5.2	In addition to meeting the requirements set forth in 29 Del.C. §2909(b), a Salesperson applicant who is seeking licensure pursuant to §2909(b)(1) shall provide a list of at least twenty sale or lease transactions completed by the applicant in a licensed capacity within the 3 years immediately preceding application. Upon approval of the Commission, the twenty transactions may include real estate services performed for an employer, while licensed, during the 3 years immediately preceding application. If the applicant, as a designated agent or team leader, has directly supervised licensees who completed the transactions, then the transactions completed by those supervised licensees may be a part of this list. The list of transactions shall be signed by the Broker(s) who supervised the transactions.
5.2.1	The list shall contain the sale or lease completion date, property address, purchaser/lessee name, seller/lessor name, specify if completed by the applicant or designated agent subordinates and be signed by the applicant.
5.2.2	Time share and property management transactions are not considered as eligible sale or lease transactions.
5.3	In addition to meeting the requirements set forth in 29 Del.C. §2909(c), an Associate Broker applicant shall provide a list of at least thirty sale or lease transactions completed by the applicant in a licensed capacity within the 5 years immediately preceding application. Upon approval of the Commission, the thirty transactions may include real estate services performed for an employer, while licensed, during the 5 years immediately preceding application. If the applicant, as a designated agent or team leader, has directly supervised licensees who completed the transactions, then the transactions completed by those supervised licensees may be a part of this list. The list of transactions shall be signed by the Broker(s) who supervised the transactions.
5.3.1	The list shall contain the sale or lease completion date, property address, purchaser/lessee name, seller/lessor name, specify if completed by the applicant or a designated agent subordinate and be signed by the applicant.
5.3.2	Time share and property management transactions are not considered as eligible sale or lease transactions.
5.4	In addition to meeting the requirements set forth in 29 Del.C. §2909(d), a Broker applicant shall also meet the requirements of Rules 4.3 and 5.3.
6.1	When the real estate transaction is a non-recurring residential rental agreement of one hundred twenty (120) days or less, the Broker may, in accordance with written authorization from his or her principal, transfer from the escrow account a management fee and an amount specified up to a stated dollar amount for authorized repairs or cleaning expenses. Any amounts transferred in accordance with this shall be reconciled and reflected in a written full accounting.
6.2	Unless agreed to in writing by the parties, a Licensee shall not accept, as a good faith or earnest money deposit in connection with a real estate transaction, a photocopy, facsimile, or other copy of a personal check or draft, nor shall a Licensee accept as a good faith or earnest money deposit a check or draft that is postdated.
6.3	A Broker shall maintain in his or her office, or have available electronically in his or her office, a complete record of all moneys received or escrowed on real estate transactions, including the sources of the money, the date of receipt, depository, and date of deposit; and when a transaction has been completed, the final disposition of the moneys. The records shall clearly show the amount of the Broker's personal funds in escrow at all times. Such records shall be retained for at least 3 years.
6.4	An Escrow Account shall be opened and maintained by the Broker in a bank with an office located in Delaware in order to receive and maintain a valid license.
6.5	Interest accruing on money held in escrow belongs to the owner(s) of the funds unless otherwise stated in the agreement of sale or lease.
7.1	All Licensees who transfer to another office, or Brokers who open their own offices, but who were associated previously with another Broker, shall present a completed Change Form to the Commission signed by the individual Broker with whom they were formerly associated, before the license will be transferred.
7.2	The Commission reserves the right to waive the requirement of Rule 7.1 upon a determination of good cause.
7.3	All Brokers who move the physical location of their office shall notify the Commission in writing at least 30 days, or as soon as practical, prior to such move by filing a new office application.
8.1.1	Listing Agreements for the sale, lease or exchange of real property, whether exclusive or open, shall be in writing and shall be signed by the seller, owner, Broker or Broker's designee.
8.2.1	Exclusive buyer agency agreements, or buyer agency agreements that obligate the buyer to pay the Broker, shall be in writing and signed by the buyer.
8.3	Cooperation agreements between Brokers and Auctioneers shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
8.4.1	Every party to a listing agreement, agreement of sale, written buyer agency agreement, cooperation agreement between a Broker and Auctioneer or lease shall be furnished with an executed copy of such agreement or agreements. It shall be the responsibility of the Licensee to deliver an executed copy of the agreements to the principals within a reasonable length of time after execution.
8.5.1	The purpose of the advertising rules is to protect the general public and to prohibit misrepresentation and false, misleading, untrue or deceptive advertising practices by Licensees.
8.5.2	"Advertise" or "advertising" shall mean a Licensee's use of Internet electronic communication, print, or other media, business cards, signs and billboards to publish information to promote a Real Estate Services provider or the sale or lease of real estate. Internet electronic communication shall include, but is not limited to, websites, social networks, e-mail, e-mail discussion groups and bulletin boards.
8.5.3	A Licensee who violates the advertising rules may be in violation of one or more of the provisions set forth in 24 Del.C. §2912(a) and subject to the disciplinary sanctions set forth in 24 Del.C. §2914.
8.5.4	A Licensee shall not knowingly use, publish or disseminate misrepresentations or any false, misleading, untrue or deceptive advertising in any manner.
8.5.5.1	Any Licensee who advertises real property personally owned or real property in which the Licensee has any ownership interest shall include in the advertisement that he or she is the owner of said property, and that he or she is a real estate licensee. This Rule does not apply to signs.
8.5.5.2	Any Licensee who advertises an offer to purchase real property shall include in the advertisement that he or she is a real estate Licensee.
8.5.5.3	Any Licensee who advertises any real property for sale, lease, exchange, or transfer that is listed with a Broker shall include in legible print in the advertisement the complete Brokerage Organization name that has been registered with the Commission, and Brokerage Organization phone number registered by the Broker with the Commission for that office location. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the listing of additional licensee names and/or team names or phone numbers. All such advertising shall also contain language or abbreviations that clearly identify each phone number listed; examples include, but are not limited to: "Office"; "Home"; "Res."; and "Cell".
8.5.5.4	All advertisements for personal promotion of Licensees shall include the complete Brokerage Organization name that has been registered with the Commission, and office phone number registered by the Broker with the Commission for that office location.
8.5.5.5	In the case of Internet electronic communication, the disclosures required in Rule 8.5.5.3 shall be included in every viewable page or message and may be made by link to a full disclosure. In addition, the disclosures shall include the city and state in which the Broker's main office is located and the Broker's jurisdiction of licensure.
8.5.5.6	A Licensee advertising for sale for an exempted party under 24 Del.C. §2901, where an unlicensed salesperson conducts on-site sales, shall disclose in any advertising that: "On-site unlicensed salespeople represent the seller only."
8.5.6	The publisher of advertising provided by a Licensee pursuant to agreement between the publisher and the licensee is not subject to discipline under these Rules.
8.6.1	For each office location, the Broker shall submit an application and applicable fee. The application shall include a telephone number, and, as applicable, a fax number, e-mail address and web address.
8.6.2	At each office location, the Broker shall place, in a conspicuous location, a permanent sign indicating the name under which the office is registered with the Commission.
8.6.3	Prior to commencing business, an office located in a private home shall be approved by the Commission and have a separate entrance.
8.6.4	Licensees may interact by electronic means with other licensees or members of the public from places other than an approved office location.
8.6.5	Brokerage Organizations may share facilities approved by the Commission with other businesses, such as insurance, banking, Auctioneers or others that the Commission shall deem compatible.
8.7.1	Licensees cannot use commissions or income received from commissions as rebates or compensation paid to or given to non-licensed persons, partnerships or corporations as inducements to do or secure business, or as a finder's fee, unless those fees are paid pursuant to a written cooperation or affiliation agreement signed by all parties as permitted under this Chapter.
8.7.2	This Rule does not prohibit a Licensee from giving a rebate or discount or any other thing of value directly to the purchaser or seller of real estate.
8.7.3	A Licensee has an affirmative obligation to make timely disclosure, in writing, to his or her principal of any rebate or discount that may be made to the other party.
8.7.4	Licensees shall not accept compensation from more than one party to a transaction, even if permitted by law, without timely disclosure to all parties to the transaction.
8.7.5	When acting as agent, a Licensee shall not accept any commission, rebate, or profit on expenditures made for his or her principal without the principal's knowledge and informed consent.
8.7.6	A Licensee may pay a referral fee to a person licensed as a real estate broker in another jurisdiction.
8.7.7.2	For property that is not predominantly 1-4 family residential, the licensee from another jurisdiction affiliates with a Delaware Licensee and agrees, in writing, as to the responsibilities of each broker and agrees, in writing, as to the terms of compensation, if any.
9.1	A Licensee who is the owner, the prospective purchaser, lessor or lessee or who has any personal interest in a transaction, shall disclose his or her status as a Licensee to all persons with whom he or she is transacting such business, prior to the execution of any agreements and shall include on the agreement such status.
9.2	Any Licensee advertising real estate for sale stating in such advertisement, "If we cannot sell your home, we will buy your home", or words to that effect, shall disclose in the original listing agreement at the time he or she obtains the signature on the listing agreement, the price he will pay for the property if no sales agreement is executed during the term of the listing. Said Licensee shall have no more than sixty (60) days to purchase and settle for the subject property upon expiration of the original listing or any extension thereof.
9.3	A written confirmation of the agency relationship shall be included in the agreement for the real estate transaction regardless of whether the relationship is a statutory agency relationship or a common law agency relationship.
9.4.1	The Commission shall approve a CIS which will be available on its website for use by Licensees. The Commission may also approved alternative CIS's, which also will be posted on its website. Any changes to a CIS shall be approved by a quorum of the Commission.
9.5.1	When acting as a common law agent, the disclosure as to whom the Licensee represents shall be made at the first substantive contact to each party to the negotiation or transaction. In all cases such disclosure shall be made prior to the presentation of an offer to purchase.
9.5.2.1	With respect to agent for seller: "This Broker, any cooperating Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working with either, are representing the seller's interest and have fiduciary responsibilities to the seller, but are obligated to treat all parties with honesty. The Broker, any cooperating Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working with either, without breaching the fiduciary responsibilities to the seller, may, among other services, provide a potential purchaser with information about the attributes of properties and available financing, show properties, and assist in preparing an offer to purchase. The Broker, any cooperating Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working with either, also have the duty to respond accurately and honestly to a potential purchaser's questions and disclose material facts about properties, submit promptly all offers to purchase and offer properties without unlawful discrimination."
9.5.2.2	With respect to agent for buyer: "This Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working for this Broker, is representing the buyer's interests and has fiduciary responsibilities to the buyer, but is obligated to treat all parties with honesty. The Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working for the Broker, without breaching the fiduciary responsibilities to the buyer, may, among other services, provide a seller with information about the transaction. The Broker, and any Associate Broker or Salesperson working for the Broker, also has the duty to respond accurately and honestly to a seller's questions and disclose material facts about the transaction, submit promptly all offers to purchase through proper procedures, and serve without unlawful discrimination."
9.5.2.3	In the case of a transaction involving a lease in excess of 120 days, substitute the term "lessor" for the term "seller", substitute the term "lessee" for the terms "buyer" and "purchaser", and substitute the term "lease" for "purchase" as they appear above.
9.6	If a property is the subject of an agreement of sale or lease but being left on the market for backup offers, or is the subject of an agreement of sale or lease which contains a right of first refusal clause, the existence of such agreement shall be disclosed by the listing Broker to any individual who makes an appointment to see such property at the time such appointment is made.
9.7.1	Licensees shall obtain a Condition Report from the seller of residential property prior to accepting a written listing agreement and shall make the Condition Report available to any buyer. The Condition Report shall be completed by the seller on the form approved by the Commission. Licensees shall provide the seller's most recent Condition Report to a buyer before the buyer enters into an agreement of sale and make the Condition Report a part of any agreement of sale.
9.7.1.1	For any residential property that is being offered for sale and which has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, the Condition Report approved by the Commission for New Construction shall be used in place of the standard Condition Report. If a certificate of occupancy is received by a seller prior to entering into an agreement of sale, then the Licensee shall obtain the standard Condition Report from the seller and make it available to any prospective buyer.
9.7.1.2	Exempt Property Certification. A Condition Report shall not be required from a seller of residential property if the seller meets one of the exemptions contained in the Seller's Disclosure of Real Property Condition Report and Radon Disclosure Exempt Property Certification. Licensees shall obtain a certification in lieu of the Condition Report and Radon Disclosure prior to accepting a written listing agreement and shall make the certification readily available to any prospective buyer. Licensees shall provide the certification to a buyer before the buyer enters into an agreement of sale and make the certification a part of any agreement of sale.
9.8.1	Licensees shall obtain a Radon Disclosure from the seller of residential property prior to accepting a written listing agreement, unless the property qualifies for exemption as outlined in 9.7.1.2, and shall make the Radon Disclosure readily available to any prospective buyer. Licensees shall provide the seller's most recent Radon Disclosure along with a copy of "Radon Rights, Risks and Remedy for the Home Buyer" to a buyer before the buyer enters into an agreement of sale and make the Radon Disclosure a part of any agreement of sale.
10.1	For any property listed with a Broker for sale, lease or exchange, only a Licensee shall be permitted to host or staff an open house or otherwise show a listed property. That Licensee may be assisted by non-licensed persons provided a Licensee is on site. This Rule shall not prohibit a seller from showing their own house.
10.2	For new construction, subdivision, or development listed with a Broker for sale, lease or exchange, a Licensee shall always be on site when the site is open to the general public, except where a builder and/or developer has hired a non-licensed person who is under the direct supervision of said builder and/or developer for the purpose of staffing said project.
11.1	All licenses shall be renewed biennially. Licenses shall expire on April 30 of each even numbered year. A Licensee who fails to renew a license before the expiration date may renew on a late basis for a period not to exceed sixty days with submission of a late fee. The failure of the Commission to give, or the failure of the Licensee to receive, notice of the expiration date of a license shall not prevent the license from becoming invalid after its expiration date.
11.2	As a condition of renewal, all Licensees shall be required to satisfy the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule 13.0 and pay the renewal fee.
11.3	A Licensee shall not practice Real Estate Services after a license has expired.
11.4	License renewal shall be completed online at www.dpr.delaware.gov.
12.1	A license expired for more than sixty days shall be reinstated only after the Licensee pays the necessary fees and passes any examinations required by the Commission and provides proof of completion of the required continuing education. If the Licensee fails to apply for renewal within 6 months of the expiration date, the Licensee shall be required to take the state portion of the examination. If the Licensee fails to apply for renewal before the next renewal period commences (two years), the Licensee shall be required to pass both the state and the general portions of the examination.
12.2	No person whose license has been revoked will be considered for the issuance of a new license for a period of at least two (2) years from the date of the revocation of the license. Such person shall then fulfill the following requirements: he or she shall attend and pass the applicable real estate course for Salespersons or Brokers; take and pass the Commission's applicable examination for Salespersons or Brokers; and any other criteria established by the Commission. Nothing above shall be construed to allow anyone to take the course for the purpose of licensing until after the waiting period of two (2) years. Nothing contained herein shall require the Commission to issue a new license upon completion of the above mentioned requirements, as the Commission retains the right to deny any such application. Where a person's license has been permanently revoked by the Commission, the person is not eligible for issuance of a new license at any time.
12.3	Subsection 12.2 does not apply to a Licensee whose license has been permanently revoked.
13.1.1.1	Three (3) hours in agency and fair housing (Module 1).
13.1.1.2	Three (3) hours in professional standards (Module 2).
13.1.1.3	Three (3) hours in real estate documents (Module 3).
13.1.1.4	Three (3) hours in office management (Module 4).
13.1.1.5	Three (3) hours in legislative issues (Module 5).
13.1.1.6	Three (3) hours in practices of real estate (Module 6).
13.1.1.7	Three (3) hours in elective courses (Module 7).
13.1.2.1	Three (3) hours in professional standards.
13.1.2.2	Three (3) hours in agreement of sale and buyer representation.
13.1.2.3	Three (3) hours in real estate documents and seller representation.
13.1.2.4	Three (3) hours in real estate professionalism.
13.1.3	Courses approved for Modules 1 – 6 automatically qualify for credit for Module 7. Students are not required to submit a separate application for Module 7 approval for courses in Modules 1 – 6. This Rule does not apply to out-of-state courses.
13.2.1.1	No continuing education is required for fewer than six months of licensure.
13.2.1.2	Six (6) hours of continuing education are required after at least six months but less than twelve months of licensure. The required six hours shall consist of two different modules, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.1.3	The twelve (12) hours of continuing education set forth in Rule 13.1.2 are required after at least twelve months but less than eighteen months of licensure.
13.2.1.4	Eighteen (18) hours of continuing education are required after at least eighteen months but less than twenty-four months of licensure. The required eighteen hours shall include the twelve (12) hours of continuing education set forth in Rule 13.1.2 and two of the following modules: Modules 1, 5, or 6.
13.2.1.5	Twenty-one (21) hours of continuing education are required after twenty-four months of licensure, consisting of: the twelve (12) hours of CE set forth in Rule 13.1.2, three (3) hours in agency and fair housing (Module 1), three (3) hours in legislative issues (Module 5) and three (3) hours in practices of real estate (Module 6).
13.2.2.1	No continuing education is required for fewer than six months of licensure.
13.2.2.2	Six (6) hours of continuing education are required after at least six months but less than twelve months of licensure. The required six hours shall consist of two different modules, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.2.3	Twelve (12) hours of continuing education are required after at least twelve months but less than eighteen months of licensure. The required twelve hours shall consist of four different modules, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.2.4	Eighteen (18) hours of continuing education are required after at least eighteen months but less than twenty-four months of licensure. The required eighteen hours shall consist of six different modules, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.2.5	Twenty-one (21) hours of continuing education are required after twenty-four months of licensure, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.3.1	Twelve (12) hours of continuing education are required more than twelve months but less than eighteen months after course completion. The required twelve hours shall consist of four different modules, as set forth in Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.3.2	Twenty-one (21) hours of continuing education are required more than eighteen months but less than twenty-four months after course completion, in compliance with the requirements of Rule 13.1.1.
13.2.3.3	For more than twenty-four months after course completion, twenty-one (21) hours of CE are required for each biennial renewal period, in compliance with the requirements of Rule 13.1.1.
13.3	At the time of renewal, the Licensee shall attest to completion of the required CE. Attestation shall be completed electronically.
13.3.1	The Licensee's attestation as to completion of CE does not relieve the Broker of his or her duty to ensure that the Licensee has completed the required CE during the licensure renewal period. Each Broker shall maintain copies of CE certificates for his or her Salespersons and Associate Brokers for at least three years after the conclusion of each renewal period.
13.3.2	Licensees selected for random audit are required to supplement the attestation with attendance verification as provided in Rule 13.3.6.
13.3.3	Random audits shall be performed by the Commission to ensure compliance with the CE requirements.
13.3.4	The Commission shall notify Licensees within sixty (60) days after June 30 of each biennial renewal period that they have been selected for audit.
13.3.5	Licensees selected for random audit shall be required to submit verification within twenty (20) business days of receipt of notification of selection for audit.
13.3.6	Verification shall include such information necessary for the Commission to assess whether the course meets the CE requirements in Rule 13.0. While course brochures may be used to verify CE hours, they are not considered to be acceptable proof for use of verification of course attendance. Verification shall include the official certificate of completion, as provided by the course provider.
13.3.7	The Commission shall review all documentation submitted by Licensees pursuant to the continuing education audit. If the Commission determines that the Licensee has met the continuing education requirements, his or her license shall remain in effect. If the Commission determines that the Licensee has not met the continuing education requirements, the Licensee shall be notified and a hearing may be held pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The hearing will be conducted to determine if there are any extenuating circumstances justifying noncompliance with the continuing education requirements. Unjustified noncompliance with the continuing education requirements set forth in these Rules and Regulations shall constitute a violation of 24 Del.C. §2912(a)(9) and the Licensee may be subject to one or more of the disciplinary sanctions set forth in 24 Del.C. §2914.
13.3.8	Licensees who renew their licenses under the late renewal provision shall be audited for CE completion. These Licensees shall submit documents that evidence satisfactory completion of their CE requirements for the prior licensure period.
13.3.9	A Licensee’s failure to notify the Commission of a change in address, as required by subsection 1.5, will not excuse the Licensee from continuing education audit requirements, including possible sanctions for non-compliance.
13.4.1	All CE activities shall be pre-approved by the Commission, pursuant to the Commission's Real Estate Education Guidelines.
13.4.2	Activities shall be a minimum of one (1) hour and delivered in one (1) hour increments.
13.5	The Commission may waive or postpone all or part of the continuing education requirements of these Rules and Regulations if a Licensee submits a written request for a waiver and provides evidence to the satisfaction of the Commission of an illness, injury, financial hardship, family hardship, or other similar extenuating circumstance which precluded the Licensee's completion of the requirements. Application for waiver or postponement shall be made in writing to the Commission and shall be received by the Commission no later than 60 days prior to the biennial license renewal date.
13.6	The Commission may appoint a committee to assist in the Commission's educational objectives.
13.7	Members of the Real Estate Commission who attend at least eighty percent (80%) of Commission meetings during a biennial licensure period may receive one hour of CE for each Commission meeting attended and said hour may be applied to any CE required for licensure renewal.
13.8	Completion of broker’s licensing course.
13.8.1	Delaware broker’s licensing course: Upon successful completion of an approved Delaware broker’s licensing course, a licensee shall receive 21 hours of continuing education credit. These 21 hours shall satisfy the continuing education requirements (Modules 1 – 7) for the biennial licensing period in which the course was completed. The course provider shall provide the licensee with a certificate stating that Modules 1 – 7 have been satisfied upon successful completion of the broker’s licensing course. This Rule shall be retroactive for all licensees who have successfully completed the broker’s licensing course after May 1, 2012.
13.8.2	Out-of-state broker’s licensing course: Upon successful completion of a broker’s licensing course in a state outside of Delaware, consisting of at least 99 hours of education, a licensee shall receive 18 hours of continuing education credit, satisfying Modules 1 – 4 and 6 – 7, for the biennial licensing period in which the course was completed. This Rule shall be retroactive for all licensees who have successfully completed the broker’s licensing course after May 1, 2012.
13.9	Licensees successfully completing a minimum of 6 hours of a National Accreditation Program during a licensure renewal period and receiving a nationally recognized designation or providing proof of successfully completing a section towards a nationally recognized designation may submit pursuant to 7.2 for six (6) credit hours to satisfy Modules 6 and 7. The instructor shall be considered an approved instructor.
14.1	If the report is received by the chairperson of the regulatory Board, that chairperson shall immediately notify the Director of Professional Regulation or his/her designate of the report. If the Director of Professional Regulation receives the report, he/she shall immediately notify the chairperson of the regulatory Board, or that chairperson's designate or designates.
14.2	The chairperson of the regulatory Board or that chairperson's designate or designates shall, within 7 days of receipt of the report, contact the individual in question and inform him/her in writing of the report, provide the individual written information describing the Voluntary Treatment Option, and give him/her the opportunity to enter the Voluntary Treatment Option.
14.3	In order for the individual to participate in the Voluntary Treatment Option, he/she shall agree to submit to a voluntary drug and alcohol screening and evaluation at a specified laboratory or health care facility. This initial evaluation and screen shall take place within 30 days following notification to the professional by the participating Board chairperson or that chairperson's designate(s).
14.4	A regulated professional with chemical dependency or impairment due to addiction to drugs or alcohol may enter into the Voluntary Treatment Option and continue to practice, subject to any limitations on practice the participating Board chairperson or that chairperson's designate or designates or the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/her designate may, in consultation with the treating professional, deem necessary, only if such action will not endanger the public health, welfare or safety, and the regulated professional enters into an agreement with the Director of Professional Regulation or his/her designate and the chairperson of the participating Board or that chairperson's designate for a treatment plan and progresses satisfactorily in such treatment program and complies with all terms of that agreement. Treatment programs may be operated by professional Committees and Associations or other similar professional groups with the approval of the Director of Professional Regulation and the chairperson of the participating Board.
14.5	Failure to cooperate fully with the participating Board chairperson or that chairperson's designate or designates or the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/her designate in regard to the Voluntary Treatment Option or to comply with their requests for evaluations and screens may disqualify the regulated professional from the provisions of the Voluntary Treatment Option, and the participating Board chairperson or that chairperson's designate or designates shall cause to be activated an immediate investigation and institution of disciplinary proceedings, if appropriate, as outlined in section 15.8.
14.6.1	Entry of the regulated professional into a treatment program approved by the participating Board. Board approval shall not require that the regulated professional be identified to the Board. Treatment and evaluation functions must be performed by separate agencies to assure an unbiased assessment of the regulated professional's progress.
14.6.2	Consent to the treating professional of the approved treatment program to report on the progress of the regulated professional to the chairperson of the participating Board or to that chairperson's designate or designates or to the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/her designate at such intervals as required by the chairperson of the participating Board or that chairperson's designate or designates or the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/her designate, and such person making such report will not be liable when such reports are made in good faith and without malice.
14.6.3	Consent of the regulated professional, in accordance with applicable law, to the release of any treatment information from anyone within the approved treatment program.
14.6.4	Agreement by the regulated professional to be personally responsible for all costs and charges associated with the Voluntary Treatment Option and treatment program(s). In addition, the Division of Professional Regulation may assess a fee to be paid by the regulated professional to cover administrative costs associated with the Voluntary Treatment Option. The amount of the fee imposed under this subparagraph shall approximate and reasonably reflect the costs necessary to defray the expenses of the participating Board, as well as the proportional expenses incurred by the Division of Professional Regulation in its services on behalf of the Board in addition to the administrative costs associated with the Voluntary Treatment Option.
14.6.5	Agreement by the regulated professional that failure to satisfactorily progress in such treatment program shall be reported to the participating Board's chairperson or his/her designate or designates or to the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/ her designate by the treating professional who shall be immune from any liability for such reporting made in good faith and without malice.
14.6.6	Compliance by the regulated professional with any terms or restrictions placed on professional practice as outlined in the agreement under the Voluntary Treatment Option.
14.6.7	The regulated professional's records of participation in the Voluntary Treatment Option will not reflect disciplinary action and shall not be considered public records open to public inspection. However, the participating Board may consider such records in setting a disciplinary sanction in any future matter in which the regulated professional's chemical dependency or impairment is an issue.
14.6.8	The participating Board's chairperson, his/her designate or designates or the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation or his/her designate may, in consultation with the treating professional at any time during the Voluntary Treatment Option, restrict the practice of a chemically dependent or impaired professional if such action is deemed necessary to protect the public health, welfare or safety.
14.6.9	If practice is restricted, the regulated professional may apply for unrestricted licensure upon completion of the program.
14.6.10	Failure to enter into such agreement or to comply with the terms and make satisfactory progress in the treatment program shall disqualify the regulated professional from the provisions of the Voluntary Treatment Option, and the participating Board shall be notified and cause to be activated an immediate investigation and disciplinary proceedings as appropriate.
14.6.11	Any person who reports pursuant to this section in good faith and without malice shall be immune from any civil, criminal or disciplinary liability arising from such reports, and shall have his/her confidentiality protected if the matter is handled in a nondisciplinary matter.
14.6.12	Any regulated professional who complies with all of the terms and completes the Voluntary Treatment Option shall have his/her confidentiality protected unless otherwise specified in a participating Board's rules and regulations. In such an instance, the written agreement with the regulated professional shall include the potential for disclosure and specify those to whom such information may be disclosed.
15.1.5	Assault in the first degree. 11 Del.C. §613.
15.1.22	Home invasion; class B felony. 11 Del.C. §826A.
15.1.57	Sexual exploitation of a child; class B felony. 11 Del.C. §1108.
15.2	Crimes substantially related to the practice of Real Estate Services shall be deemed to include any crimes under any federal law, state law, or valid town, city or county ordinance, that are substantially similar to the crimes identified in this Rule.


text:
Case: Robert Lombardi v. Alpine Overhead Doors, Inc.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated December 14, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendant third‑party plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while working as a laborer in the construction of the 100th Street bus depot in Manhattan. As the plaintiff was attempting to lift a roll‑up door with his hands, it rapidly descended and caused him to fall onto his back. At the time of the occurrence, the plaintiff was employed by nonparty Perini Corp. (hereinafter Perini), the general contractor on the project. Perini subcontracted the installation of roll‑up doors at the bus depot to the defendant third‑party plaintiff (hereinafter the defendant), and the defendant subcontracted the installation of the subject roll‑up door to the third‑party defendant.
"As a general rule, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts" (Langner v. Primary Home Care Servs., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1007, 1009, 922 N.Y.S.2d 431 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 273-274, 598 N.Y.S.2d 149, 614 N.E.2d 712; Rosenberg v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d 663, 668, 584 N.Y.S.2d 765, 595 N.E.2d 840). "Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee for the purposes of tort liability is usually a factual issue for the jury. However, where there is no conflict in the evidence, the question may properly be determined as a matter of law" (Langner v. Primary Home Care Servs., Inc., 83 A.D.3d at 1009, 922 N.Y.S.2d 431 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the third‑party defendant was an independent contractor for whose alleged negligence it could not be held liable (see Rosenberg v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d at 668, 584 N.Y.S.2d 765, 595 N.E.2d 840).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider his expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion. The expert was not identified by the plaintiff until after the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed attesting to the completion of discovery, and the plaintiff did not provide any excuse for failing to identify the expert in response to the defendant's discovery demands (see CPLR 3101[d]; Kopeloff v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 890, 890_891, 923 N.Y.S.2d 168; Ehrenberg v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 82 A.D.3d 829, 830-831, 918 N.Y.S.2d 556; Gerardi v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 66 A.D.3d 960, 961, 888 N.Y.S.2d 136).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Verdict is contrary to evidence and without evidence to support it.
Verdict is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence.
Verdict is contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity.
The Trial Court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine and prohibiting the defendant from introducing evidence of non-disclosure witnesses.
The Trial Court erred by not requiring the State to turn over to the defense the notes and records of Safe Path that were produced pursuant to this case.
The Trial Court erred in requiring Defendant to turn over work product; specifically the notes of defense witness Dr. Amy Morton.
The Trial Court erred in allowing into evidence out-of-court statements made by the alleged victims that were without sufficient indicia of reliability.
The Trial Court erred by allowing the Videotapes of the alleged victims to be presented to the jury when the videotaped statements were without sufficient indicia of reliability.
The Trial Court erred by allowing, over objection, testimony of behavioral changes of the alleged victims.
right to contact the Consulate of Peru was a violation of his rights under the Vienna Convention and the U. S. Constitution.
The Trial Court’s improper admission of massive amounts of hearsay testimony from the parents and through videotapes of interviews with the complainants violated Mr. Fiek’s State and Federal Confrontation and Due Process Clause rights.
The Trial Court’s improper ruling prohibiting Mr. Fiek from using videotapes of 41 non-accusers or even their statements, deprived Mr. Fiek of the opportunity to cross-examine state witnesses and mount a defense, in violation of his State and Federal Confrontation and Due Process Clause rights.
Bolstering and vouching testimony by the state’s experts invaded the providence of the jury and violated Mr. Fiek’s State and Federal Confrontation and Due Process Clause rights.
The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
Court of Appeals Decision on March 24, 2004. Judgment affirmed.
Same issues raised with the Appeals Court.
Note: Trial attorneys were also involved in the direct appeal process, steps I through IV; thus, ineffective assistance of trial counsel was not claimed.
Trial counsel failed to seek a change of venue from Cobb County in light of the continuing, pervasive, and prejudicial pretrial publicity against him and the supportive and complementary pretrial publicity of the State’s Attorneys conducting the case that were published on both the area and local newspaper on an almost daily basis.
Trial counsel failed to seek the sequestration of the jury in light of the continuing and pervasive pretrial publicity and media coverage.
Trial counsel failed to seek the admission of certain videotaped interviews and related documentation of non-accusatory witnesses (children) on the grounds of and for the purpose of using these interviews to impeach the trial testimony of the complaining witnesses (children) whereby these non-accusing witness’s directly contradicted and impeached statements made by the accusing witnesses that the non-accusers were subjected to or witnesses to the alleged acts of molestation.
Trial counsel failed to seek the admission of videotaped interviews and related documentation of non-accusatory witnesses (children) on the grounds of and for the purpose of using these interviews to show that the interviewers (police officers) 1) failed to follow the mandates of the Cobb County Child abuse interview protocols; 2) testified inconsistently at trial regarding both their interviews techniques and the leading and suggestive nature of the interview questions propounded to and about the allegations of molestation and to impeach their testimony as to these issues; and 3) used interview methods that are scientifically proven to corrupt children’s memories and recall ability and thereby induce children to believe they have experienced events that have not actually occurred to them.
Trial counsel failed to subpoena and call the non-accusatory witnesses (children) to testify at trial; such witnesses’ testimony would have impeached the complaining witnesses (children’s) trial testimony and impeached the testifying / interviewing police officer’s testimony, as to heretofore uncontradicted trial evidence of the allegations of molestation.
Trial counsel failed to adequately prepare Mr. Fiek’s case for trial and in doing so failed to properly present the case or have necessary information by which to impeach testifying witnesses, thereby prejudicing Mr. Fiek’s defenses, including but not limited to failed to subpoena and review the school records of the complaining witnesses, failed to subpoena and review the records of an agency, AlphaCare, that interviewed many of the complaining witnesses, failed to research scientific interview tactics and techniques of the very types used by the police detectives interviews to extract the children’s statement, and failed to present Mr. Fiek’s case defense seriatim, which clearly shows the pervasive hysteria created by the parents and the interview techniques.
Trial counsel failed to take action and/or explore potential juror bias resulting from the jurors viewing Petitioner on 2 separate occasions being transported to and from the courtroom and elevators while in handcuffs and waist chain.
Hearing on Petitioner’s writ was on December 12, 2005.
Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on February 22, 2006.
The Habeas Court abused its discretion by finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia for failing to seek a change of venue given the evidence presented of the media exposure, both print and television, regarding Petitioner’s arrest, the claims, the investigation, the history of the D. A. ‘s office, etc. in the community in which he was to be tried.
The Habeas Court abused its discretion by finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia for failing to seek sequestration of the trial jury given the evidence presented of the media exposure, both print and television, regarding and during Petitioner’s Trial.
The Habeas Court abused its discretion by applying the “cumulative errors doctrine” to uphold the exclusion of 14 critical impeaching and substantive non-trial witnesses presented through the videotape (DVD) evidence to find that Petitioner’s Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia for failing to make obvious and fundamental evidentiary arguments for the admission of this evidence at trial.
* Application was denied on November 6, 2006.
Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel under to Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was violated when the trial counsel did not properly rise that state used massive amounts of hearsay to convict Petitioner.
Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel and confrontation under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was violated when counsel did not properly preserve the record with the evidence that would have severely impeached the alleged victims.
Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was violated by State’s key witnesses improper bolstering of the alleged victims and vouching for their veracity.
The Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel when the trial court precluded the defense from acquiring very important material, which was exculpatory, relating to evidence in Safe Path Children’s Advocacy Center’s control; concomitantly, the court denied the defendant substantive due process, contrary to the United States Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments when it failed to identify material exculpatory evidence when conducting an in-camera inspection of Safe Path’s files, 24 each, of accusing witnesses.
The Petitioner was denied substantive due process, contrary to the United States Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments when the State Habeas Corpus Court unreasonably and ridiculously attempted to use Strickland v. Washington to determine ineffective assistance of counsel as denying the cumulative effects of trial counsel’s errors because Georgia chose not to recognize the cumulative errors doctrine (see Bringes v. The State, 268 Ga. 200, 492 S.E. 2d 877 (1997)) and did not cure the erroneous doctrine that was in conflict with United States Supreme Court law, Strickland (Supra.) until Schofield v. Holsey, 281 Ga. 809, 812 (2), 642 S.E. 2d. 56 (2007), which disapproved eight (8) cases which held the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
Grounds 4 through 6, including Actual Innocence / Miscarriage of Justice claim were filed by Petitioner, acting Pro Se.
The improper admission of massive amounts of hearsay testimony from parents and through videotapes on interviews with the complainants violated Mr. Fiek’s State and Federal constitutional rights under the sixth amendment confrontational clause and due process, fifth and fourteenth amendment.
The Petitioner was denied a full and fair hearing at the state habeas level when the court unreasonably and ridiculously attempted to use Strickland v. Washington to determine ineffective assistance of counsel by refusing to consider the cumulative effects of trial counsel’s errors on the fundamental fairness of the trial by following the unconstitutional case law in Georgia – Bringes v. The State, 268 Ga 200, 492 S. E. 2d 877 (1997), which does not allow any cumulative error doctrine even in a single ground (i. e.: ineffective assistance of counsel). The unconstitutional case law, Bringes (Supra.) remained in conflict with the United States Supreme Court law in Strickland until Schofield v. Nolsey, 281 Ga 809, 812(2), 642 S. F. 2d 56 (2007) was decided which disapproved eight (8) case which held cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 22, 2010 and denied on November 15, 2010.
Did the District Court give deference to a state habeas court ruling on ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel without using sound discretion when the trial records show he did not call children who vehemently denied witnessing molestation of others who said they were present (video tapes of the denials existed and available to defense) and the trial court itself made defense counsel ineffective when the trial court precluded the second page of a Safe Path interview form which indicated no approved method was used by detectives in their interviews with children?
Did the District court wrongfully conclude that deference should be given to the State Habeas ruling and misidentify the effect of Bringes (Supra.) which was contrary to clearly established federal law by Strickland?
Did the District Court have sufficient expert knowledge to know if the improper methods of interviewing children by detectives, if brought to light about how those methods could create false memories in children would have influences a reasonable juror to acquit the defendant because of unreliable testimony (not based on credibility or believability of testifying children)?
Does a fact finder abuse its discretion when it determines the reliability of scientific evidence when such independent determination is outside its field of knowledge (such as reliability and suggestibility of child witnesses)?
Whether the District Court used sound discretion when it made clearly erroneous findings of fact denying an evidentiary hearing thus preventing Petitioner from proving his actual allegations?
Where the findings of fact and conclusions of the District Court objectively reasonable without the benefit of the limited discovery and evidentiary hearing to learn about reliability and suggestibility of child witnesses?
Whether the suppression of probative evidence deprived Applicant of his right to a fair trial?
When should a fact finder seek advice in determining evidence that is outside their field of knowledge (e. g. reliability and suggestibility of child witnesses)?
Motion for Reconsideration denied on May 6, 2011.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.