IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
)
FRANK PARKS, )
) C.A. No.: S26A-02-002 RHR
Appellant, ) S26A-02-003 RHR
)
v. )
)
DELAWARE REAL ESTATE )
COMMISSION, )
)
Appellee. )
Submitted: July 16, 2026
Decided: August 13, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Appeal from the Delaware Real Estate Commission,
AFFIRMED.
Frank Parks, Appellant (pro se).
Nicholas D. Picollelli, Jr., Esq., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Dover, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Delaware Real Estate Commission.
Robinson, J.
Frank Parks, a Delaware licensed real estate broker, appeals the Delaware
Real Estate Commission’s (“DREC”) conclusion that he failed to ensure that two of
his licensees completed their continuing education (“CE”) credits within the renewal
period. This court affirms DREC’s decisions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
Parks is the broker of record at Century 21 Home Team Realty in Seaford,
Delaware. One of his responsibilities in that role is to oversee salespeople and
associate brokers, including ensuring their compliance with the CE requirements by
certain deadlines. Two of those employees, Jacob Calloway and Clarke Tobin, fell
short of meeting those requirements.
Calloway received his salesperson license2 in 2019. As part of his ongoing
requirements to maintain that license, he had to complete 21 CE credits between
May 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024. Calloway completed only three credits during that
period and finished the remaining credits on May 1, 2024, the day after the period
ended. Because Calloway renewed his license late, DREC audited him.3 DREC
required Calloway to submit a CE log and proof of completion of the CE
1
Parks filed two separate appeals based on DREC’s final orders regarding licensees Jacob Calloway and Clarke Tobin. C.A. No. S26A-02-002 is the appeal of the order pertaining to Calloway and C.A. No. S26A-02-003 is the appeal of the order related to Tobin. The docket items are the same in both matters except for the exhibit attached to the notice of appeal (D.I. 1). Reference to that exhibit will include the licensee’s name. Otherwise, both matters and docket items will be simultaneously discussed herein.
2
DREC issues three types of licenses: broker, associate broker, and salesperson. 3
24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900-14.6.8.
2
requirements. After submitting the certificates and a CE log signed by Calloway and
Parks, DREC determined that Calloway was deficient and failed to produce
compliant CE certificates for Modules 2 through 7.
Tobin received his salesperson license on February 28, 2023, and was required
to complete twelve hours of CE credits within ninety days of licensure. Tobin
completed three CE credit hours but failed to complete the rest until July of 2024,
over a year past the deadline. During this time frame, he was required to complete
another twelve hours but failed to complete three of those hours within his renewal
period. Tobin was to renew his license by April 30, 2024, but did not renew it until
May 1, 2024. At the time of the renewal, Tobin submitted a CE log—signed by both
Tobin and Parks—with several certificates of CE completion and mistakenly attested
that he had completed his CE requirements. The late renewal triggered an audit.
After DREC reviewed the submissions, it sent Tobin a notice of non-compliance
with its regulations.
A hearing officer from the Division of Professional Regulation (the
“Division”) conducted two evidentiary hearings on August 7, 2025, one for
Calloway and one for Tobin.4 In each hearing, three witnesses testified: the licensees,
Parks, and Jennifer Jacoby, a Division employee.
4
The hearings were held separately for each licensee but are discussed simultaneously here.
3
Jacoby is responsible for managing the team that oversees DREC’s
disciplinary proceedings. Jacoby testified about the documentation involved in the
audit and the hearing, as well as CE requirements generally and as specifically
applied to Calloway and Tobin. She also testified regarding Parks’ responsibility for
Calloway and Tobin’s compliance.
In Parks’ testimony at the Calloway hearing, Parks acknowledged his errors
and assured DREC that there would be no similar mistakes in the future. Parks
informed the hearing officer that he called Calloway about a week before the end of
the renewal period to tell him to get the remaining CE requirements completed as
quickly as possible. Parks told the hearing officer that he was experiencing
extenuating circumstances arising from the loss of a property to a fire. He then
informed the hearing officer about the brokerage’s policy to ensure that its
salespeople completed the CE requirements. Parks showed the hearing officer the
binder the brokerage keeps with all the CE certificates and a tracker for module
completion. Parks noted that reminders are also sent at the beginning of the renewal
years and CE credits are discussed during sales meetings.
In his testimony during Tobin’s hearing, Parks stated that he did not
understand the new licensee modules as opposed to the standard modules, which he
admitted was an error. Parks asserted that as soon as he and Tobin discovered the
error, upon receipt of the audit notice, he made sure Tobin completed the CE
4
requirements. Parks again explained the brokerage’s policy as it applies to ensuring
compliance with CE requirements, adding that the brokerage does its own routine
audits of the salespersons’ CE credits before renewal. Parks assured DREC that he
would institute new policies and procedures because of the error.
After hearing the evidence, the hearing officer concluded that it was proper to
discipline Calloway, Tobin, and Parks. In her findings regarding Parks, the hearing
officer explained that there was no justification for his failure to ensure Calloway
and Tobin complied with their CE requirements. The hearing officer noted that
because Parks is held to a higher standard as the employing broker, he should have
been mindful of his professional responsibilities. The hearing officer considered
mitigating factors such as Parks’ tracking system of his salespersons’ CE
requirements, his successful record of ensuring compliance, and his extenuating
circumstances arising from the loss of a property. The hearing officer appreciated
that Parks took responsibility, found his testimony about the confusion with the new
licensee requirements credible, and sympathized with his circumstances that
impeded attention to his responsibilities. She ultimately concluded that Parks must
be held accountable for Calloway and Tobin’s deficient CE requirements.
Parks, Tobin, and Calloway had twenty days to file written exceptions or
arguments challenging the hearing officer’s decisions. They did not file anything,
but Parks and Tobin appeared at DREC’s December 11, 2025 hearing and objected
5
to the hearing officer’s decisions. At that hearing, DREC reviewed the hearing
officer’s findings and recommendations. It issued its final orders on each matter on
January 8, 2026. Those final orders adopted the hearing officer’s recommended
disciplinary actions against Calloway, Tobin, and Parks.5 In doing so, DREC found
that Parks should be disciplined for his violations of 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1
and 24 Del. C. § 2912(a)(9), in the Calloway matter as follows:
1. The Commission shall issue Parks a letter of reprimand based on his
failure to ensure that Calloway had complied with his CE
requirements for the 2022-2024 renewal period;
2. A monetary fine of $750 shall be imposed on Parks’s Delaware
license, to be paid within 90 days of the date of the final order in this
case in the form of a draft made payable to the ‘State of Delaware.’
If this monetary penalty is not paid timely, the Commission may,
without further notice and a hearing, suspend Parks’s Delaware
license until satisfaction of the monetary penalty; and
3. The Final Order of the Commission constitutes public disciplinary
action reportable to pertinent public practitioner data bases.6
DREC found the same disciplinary actions should be taken against Parks for the
Tobin matter but added that Parks was required to complete a Module 4 in-person
course within 120 days of the final order.7
5
DREC is bound by the hearing officer’s findings of fact, but it can modify the hearing officer’s conclusions of law and suggested penalties. 29 Del. C. § 8735(v)(1)(d).
6
D.I. 1, Notice of Appeal re Calloway, Ex. at 6.
7
This requirement was not part of the hearing officer’s recommendations.
6
Parks appealed both final orders separately in this court on February 27,
2026,8 and filed an opening brief on April 29, 2026.9 DREC filed its response on
May 19, 2026.10 Parks filed (late) a reply brief on July 16, 2026.11
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Parks’ Claims
Parks asks this court to reverse DREC’s decisions and to vacate the fines and
reprimand imposed against him. Parks’ argument rests on the following assertions:
(1) DREC misinterpreted 24 Del. Admin. C. §§ 2900.1.3.1 and 2900.14.5, (2)
DREC’s decisions were not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the sanctions
imposed were arbitrary and capricious.
Parks claims that 24 Del. Admin. C. §§ 2900.1.3.1 and 2900.14.5 do not
impose strict liability on brokers regarding their licensee’s compliance with the CE
requirements. Parks argues that those provisions only require reasonable
supervision. Parks claims that DREC’s interpretation of these provisions transforms
brokers into insurers of independent professional conduct, which is not supported by
the regulations and exceeds DREC’s regulatory authority.
8
D.I. 1, Notice of Appeal.
9
D.I. 9, Appellant’s Opening Br.
10
D.I. 10, Appellee’s Answering Br.
11
D.I. 13, Appellant’s Reply Br. (On June 10, this court sent Parks a delinquency notice because it had not received his reply brief and asked that the brief be filed within ten days. After receiving no response, the court signed an order on July 10 stating that the matter would be decided on the pleadings filed. The court received and accepted the reply brief on July 16 and considered it in this decision.).
7
Parks alleges that the evidence relied on by DREC does not demonstrate that
he failed to supervise Calloway and Tobin. Parks argues that Calloway completed
his CE requirements by the deadline, renewed his license immediately after, and paid
a late fee. He states that because Calloway’s license expired on April 30 and was
renewed on May 1, 2024, there was no period of time when Calloway engaged in
unlicensed activity.
Parks also alleges that the deficiency in Tobin’s completion of the CE
requirements was an administrative technicality and not a substantive failure. Parks
reasons that although Tobin selected incorrect modules, he still completed more than
the required number of CE credits. Parks asserts that Tobin was reprimanded in June
of 2024 after receiving the renewal audit, and that Parks immediately took corrective
action. Parks states that Tobin was instructed not to engage in the practice of real
estate until the CE requirements were completed. He notes that Tobin did not engage
in the practice of real estate until July 10, 2024.
Parks asserts that there was no evidence showing he ignored known
violations, obstructed compliance, or failed to act once deficiencies were discovered.
Parks states that DREC did not cite any underlying audit reports, CE transcripts, or
other documentation to support its conclusions. Parks argues that this court cannot
determine whether DREC made proper decisions without the audit documentation.
8
Parks concludes, therefore, that DREC did not meet the substantial evidence
standard.
Lastly, Parks argues that the sanctions imposed on him are disproportionate
with DREC’s primary purpose of protecting the public. Parks points out that no
consumers were harmed, no transactions were compromised, no one suffered a
financial loss, and no unlicensed activity occurred. He further claims that DREC
failed to consider mitigating factors such as his good-faith efforts to comply, absence
of public harm, and the licensees’ prompt cure or substantial compliance. Parks
argues that because the penalties are not rationally related to DREC’s regulatory
purpose, the penalties are an arbitrary exercise of discretion.
B. DREC’s Claims
DREC responds that it did not err, its decisions were supported by substantial
evidence, and the sanctions imposed were not arbitrary, capricious, or
disproportionate.
DREC states that Parks’ arguments regarding its interpretations of 24 Del.
Admin. C. §§ 2900.1.3.1 and 2900.14.5 were incorrect because in a prior decision of
this court, the court found that § 2900.1.3.1 imposes strict, or vicarious, liability on
9
brokers where a licensee violates the CE requirements.12 DREC claims this court
should reach the same conclusion.
DREC finds fault with Parks’ assertions that DREC lacked substantial
evidence and alleges that Parks misstated Calloway and Tobin’s violations. DREC
states that both Calloway and Tobin failed to complete their CE requirements by the
April 30, 2024, deadline. It explains that Calloway completed most of his CE credits
after the deadline on May 1, 2024, and Tobin failed to complete nine new licensee
CE modules for over a year past the deadline. DREC also noted that Tobin
incorrectly attested that he completed the CE requirements when he renewed his
license. DREC points out that this court has upheld similar disciplinary actions
against brokers under similar facts.
DREC relies on In re Delaware Real Estate Commission13 to argue that the
sanctions imposed here are not arbitrary, capricious, or disproportionate under the
circumstances. DREC argues that the sanctions imposed in that case—which
included letters of reprimand and fines of $500—were upheld by this court where
there were similar violations. Although the penalty in the present case was $750,
DREC claims it is still reasonable and should be upheld. DREC also notes that
mitigating factors were sufficiently considered.
12
D.I. 10, Appellee’s Answering Br., at 11 (citing In re Del. Real Est. Comm’n, 2024 WL 4888922, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 25, 2024)).
13
2024 WL 4888922, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 25, 2024).
10
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from DREC under 24 Del. C. §
2913(b).14 On appeal, this court must “determine whether the agency’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.”15 “Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.”16 Instead of weighing evidence, assessing credibility, or
making factual findings, the court “must search the entire record to determine
whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before the agency, it could
fairly and reasonably reach the conclusion that it did.”17 Where questions of law are
raised, this court must review the agency’s decision for legal error de novo.18
DISCUSSION
DREC’s final orders were thoroughly supported by substantial evidence and
did not exceed its statutory authority. Therefore, its decisions must be affirmed.
1. DREC’s Interpretation of the Administrative Code Was Not Legal Error.
Parks’ challenge to DREC’s statutory interpretation raises a question of law,
which this court will review de novo. 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1 states:
It is the responsibility of the employing Broker to ensure that the
Broker’s Licensees comply with the Commission’s Rules and
Regulations. Every Broker is responsible for making certain that all of
14
Id.
15
Bowers v. Del. Real Est. Comm’n, 2025 WL 275418, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2025). 16
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
17
In re Del. Real Est. Comm’n, 2024 WL 4888922, at *7.
18
Id.
11
the Broker’s Salespersons and Associate Brokers are currently licensed,
make timely application for license renewal, and meet the
Commission’s continuing education requirements. The Broker shall cosign continuing education logs and shall maintain copies of continuing
education certificates for the Broker’s Salespersons and Associate
Brokers for at least three years after the conclusion of each renewal
period.
Further, 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.2, holds that failure to do the above “may
result in disciplinary action and possible disciplinary sanctions pursuant to 24 Del.
C. §2914.” 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1 does not necessarily impose strict liability
on brokers but rather makes them jointly responsible or vicariously liable for their
licensees’ compliance with CE requirements.19
The hearing officer found that Calloway and Tobin were deficient in their CE
requirements, which Parks was responsible for overseeing pursuant to this statute.
After reviewing the hearing officer’s findings, DREC concluded that Parks failed to
satisfy the requirement of “making certain that all of the Broker’s Salespersons . . .
meet the Commission’s continuing education requirements.”20 Thus, because Parks
had a responsibility clearly outlined in this statute and failed to comply with it,
DREC properly applied the statute in its conclusions.
Also of relevance is 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.14.5, which states:
The Licensee’s attestation as to completion of CE does not relieve the
Broker of the Broker’s duty to ensure that the Licensee has completed
the required CE during the licensure renewal period. Each Broker shall
19
Id. at *11-12.
20
24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1.
12
maintain copies of CE certificates for the Broker’s Salespersons and
Associate Brokers for at least three years after the conclusion of each
renewal period.21
This provision shows that DREC’s regulations are internally consistent.22 DREC
does not rely heavily on this statute in its final orders but cites to it in asserting that
Parks was Calloway and Tobin’s broker who was responsible for ensuring their
compliance. Because this section establishes that Parks had a continuing duty to
ensure compliance with CE requirements throughout the renewal period, DREC’s
reference to this statute is proper.
“In essence, the General Assembly tasks DREC with overseeing a tiered
licensing system and monitoring CE compliance within that system. The
Regulations, which hold a supervisory broker responsible for a subordinate’s failure
to meet CE requirements, do not exceed DREC’s statutory authority.”23 Therefore,
in applying the statutes to its decisions, DREC did not misinterpret them, but rather
applied them according to their meaning without exceeding its authority.
2. DREC’s Decisions Were Supported by Substantial Evidence.
DREC’s conclusions that Parks failed to satisfy his requirements under 24
Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1 and 24 Del. C. § 2912(a)(9) were supported by
substantial evidence on the record.
21
24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.14.5.
22
In re Del. Real Est. Comm’n, 2024 WL 4888922, at *12.
23
Id.
13
The factual record developed by the hearing officer contained detailed
evidence discussing the number of CE credits Calloway and Tobin needed to
complete and how the deficiencies were discovered. Relevant documentation was
testified to by Jacoby and admitted as exhibits at the hearing. The record shows that
Calloway, Tobin, and Parks admitted to the violations. Parks’ testimony,
specifically, shows that he knew he had an obligation regarding his licensees’ CE
requirements and had procedures in place to keep track of CE completion. Parks
took responsibility and apologized for his errors. In making its final orders, DREC
relied upon the hearing officer’s factual findings. This record sufficiently meets the
substantial evidence standard.
Although Parks is correct in stating that there was no evidence showing he
ignored violations, obstructed compliance, or failed to act on discovered
deficiencies, the absence of those actions does not negate a violation of the
provisions raised by DREC. Under 24 Del. Admin. C. § 2900.1.3.1, a broker will be
in violation and subject to disciplinary action for failure to make certain that the
salespersons have met their CE requirements, which is what Parks did here.
Therefore, upon review of the entire record, it is apparent that DREC properly
relied on substantial evidence and reasonably reached its conclusions.
3. The Sanctions Imposed by DREC are Not Arbitrary and Capricious.
14
A “sanction is lawful if the agency (1) does not exceed its statutory authority,
and (2) substantial evidence supports its decision.”24 According to 24 Del. C. § 2914,
disciplinary actions or sanctions may include letters of reprimand, monetary
penalties up to $5,000.00, suspension of licenses, and completion of specific CE
courses. As discussed above, DREC’s decisions were sufficiently supported by
substantial evidence. As to whether DREC exceeded its statutory authority and made
an arbitrary and capricious decision, this court finds it did not.
“An arbitrary or capricious decision is one that is willful and unreasonable
and without consideration or in disregard of the facts.”25 Here, DREC’s orders show
the opposite. DREC considered the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions. It
relied on the hearing officer’s factual findings in support of its legal conclusions.
DREC relied on many relevant statutes that supported its conclusions. DREC
imposed sanctions in accordance with the hearing officer’s recommendations as is
permitted under 24 Del. C. § 2914.
Furthermore, the hearing officer considered mitigating factors, which DREC
accepted and relied upon in its final orders. Those factors included Parks’ tracking
system for salespersons’ CE requirements, his various communication channels used
with salespersons, his record of success in ensuring CE compliance, his
24
Id. at *12.
25
Carrion v. City of Wilm., 2006 WL 3502092, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2006).
15
misunderstanding of the new licensee requirements, and his distraction stemming
from the loss of a property. The hearing officer noted that there was no evidence
showing Parks had an intent to deceive.
Although Parks argues that the sanctions have no rational relationship to the
alleged misconduct, these sanctions have been imposed against brokers in nearly
identical situations.26 Even where harm has not occurred, an agency may still impose
disciplinary sanctions.27 Because the sanctions imposed were founded in the
substantial evidence on the record and were proper disciplinary acts pursuant to
statute, DREC’s decisions were not arbitrary or capricious.28
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, DREC’s final orders imposing disciplinary sanctions
against Parks for his failure to ensure Calloway and Tobin complied with the CE
requirements must be AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
See In re Del. Real Est. Comm’n, 2024 WL 4888922 (finding that three brokers who failed to ensure their licensees complied with CE requirements were properly sanctioned by a $500 fine and public reprimand).
27
Id. at *12 n. 131 (citing Cooper v. Del. Bd. of Nursing, 2021 WL 4938135, at *2 (Del. 2021)). 28
Id. at *15 (“The records in all three cases contain the substantial evidence necessary to support DREC’s findings. As a result, those findings were not arbitrary or capricious.”).
16