Can an out-of-state call center handle property maintenance calls and rental inquiries for Arizona properties without a real estate license?

Plain-English summary

Arizona Real Estate Commissioner Judy Lowe asked the AG three questions about whether out-of-state call center workers handling Arizona residential rental properties needed an Arizona real estate license. Specifically:

1. Workers in an out-of-state call center fielding maintenance calls from Arizona residential renters: collecting contact info, creating work orders for the property manager, dispatching repair crews in emergencies.
2. Workers in an out-of-state call center fielding inbound calls from prospective renters: answering basic questions about properties, confirming features, sharing pre-set price ranges, scheduling appointments with rental agents.
3. A broader question about how unlicensed natural persons could work for Arizona-licensed real estate entities or teams.

The AG answered the first two yes and declined the third as too broad.

The key statute is A.R.S. § 32-2121(A)(9), which exempts unlicensed natural persons performing "clerical, bookkeeping, accounting and other administrative and support duties" for an employing broker, a licensed person, or an exempt entity, provided they are not engaged in any other acts requiring a license. The Legislature broadened this exemption in 2017 to cover unlicensed people working for "a person otherwise licensed under this chapter" (not just for an employing broker), and the AG read the broader text.

The AG found four requirements to qualify:

1. Employed by a licensed person or exempt entity. Property owners (exempt under § 32-2121(A)(1)), property management companies (typically licensed brokers under § 32-2125 or with the (A)(6) exemption for residential leasing agents and on-site managers), or licensed brokers themselves all qualify.
2. Performing clerical, bookkeeping, accounting, or other administrative and support duties. The AG looked up the dictionary definitions: "clerical" means routine office work, "administrative" means relating to the running of a business, "support" means giving assistance. Maintenance call routing and basic property-question answering both fit.
3. Not engaged in any other acts requiring a license. A.R.S. § 32-2101(48) lists licensed-broker activities, including renting real estate, negotiating rentals, collecting rent, advertising rentals, and assisting in procuring rental prospects. The AG concluded that the call center workers in both scenarios were not engaged in those activities, because they were not negotiating, not making rental decisions, and not committing the property owner to anything.
4. Not employed to perform license-required duties. The questions presented did not suggest these positions were a workaround for license-required tasks.

For scenario two (prospective renter calls), there was a tension. A.R.S. § 32-2101(48)(i) defines a licensed broker activity to include "[a]ssist[ing] or direct[ing] in the procuring of prospects, calculated to result in the . . . rental of real estate." Sharing property information with prospective renters and scheduling appointments with rental agents arguably "assists in procuring prospects." But the AG harmonized the apparent conflict by reading § 32-2101 in light of the (A)(9) exemption: the (A)(9) exemption authorizes unlicensed clerical and administrative support, even if such support touches the kinds of activities the broker definition would otherwise sweep up. Under § 32-2101's introductory language ("unless the context otherwise requires"), the (A)(9) exemption controls when its four conditions are met. So scheduling a renter to meet with a rental agent qualifies as clerical/administrative support and not as unlicensed brokerage activity.

The AG declined the third question on the ground that the inquiry was too broad to be answered as a matter of law. Each unlicensed activity has to be tested against the specific statutory exemption in A.R.S. § 32-2121(A) that might apply.

The AG also noted that the Department's Substantive Policy Statement on unlicensed assistants (No. 2017.01) is advisory only under A.R.S. § 41-1001(22), and the opinion took no position on it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2018

For property management companies

The opinion was a green light for the call-center business model that had grown common in Arizona residential rental management. Companies could outsource maintenance dispatch and basic property inquiries to out-of-state call centers without each call center worker needing an Arizona real estate license, as long as the workers stuck to clerical and administrative tasks and did not slide into negotiating.

For licensed brokers

The opinion tightened the line between "clerical/administrative support" and "broker activity." The line: anything involving negotiation, decision-making about lease terms, or commitment of the broker/owner crosses into license-required territory. Sharing pre-set information and scheduling appointments was fine. Negotiating rent or lease terms was not.

For call center operators

The opinion gave operators a usable framework for designing scripts. As long as the script confined the call center worker to (a) gathering information, (b) sharing pre-determined details, and (c) handing off to a licensed agent for negotiation, the work fell inside the (A)(9) exemption.

For the Arizona Department of Real Estate

The opinion gave ADRE a workable enforcement framework. ADRE could focus enforcement on situations where unlicensed workers crossed into negotiation or other license-required activity, rather than the routine clerical work that was clearly exempt. The opinion's harmonization analysis (using "unless the context otherwise requires" to give the (A)(9) exemption priority) provided the analytical anchor.

For nonresidents acting on Arizona properties

The opinion was clear that nonresidents engaging in license-required activity affecting Arizona real estate are subject to Arizona's licensing rules (A.R.S. §§ 32-2122(C), 32-2125.02, 32-2163). The (A)(9) exemption applied regardless of the worker's location, but only because the exempt activities are not license-required activities to begin with.

Common questions

Q: Does the (A)(9) exemption apply to in-Arizona call center workers too?
A: Yes. The exemption is not geographically limited. The questions presented happened to involve out-of-state call centers because of the underlying business model, but the same analysis would apply to a call center in Arizona.

Q: What is "negotiating" the rental of real estate?
A: The opinion does not define it precisely, but the implication is that any back-and-forth on rent, lease terms, deposit, occupancy date, or anything beyond pre-set property information would be negotiating. The cleanest line: if the script lets the worker say "yes, I can change that for you," it has crossed into negotiating.

Q: Could a call center worker tell a prospective renter the rent?
A: Yes, if the rent is "pre-determined" and the worker is just relaying information. The opinion's facts specifically allowed sharing "the pre-determined range of prices."

Q: Could a call center worker answer follow-up rental questions if a renter pushes back?
A: That depends on whether the answer is pre-set information (allowed) or a negotiation move (not allowed). A worker who says "the property manager would have to authorize that" stays inside the exemption. A worker who says "I can offer you a $100 discount" does not.

Q: What about emergency dispatch?
A: Allowed. The opinion explicitly treats emergency dispatch (calling a designated repair person) as part of the maintenance call-handling exemption. The dispatch is administrative coordination, not real estate brokering.

Q: What if the workers are not employed by a broker or exempt entity?
A: Then the (A)(9) exemption does not apply, and the workers may need a license depending on their actual activities. The opinion stresses the importance of the employer's status as a precondition.

Q: What is Substantive Policy Statement No. 2017.01?
A: ADRE's policy statement on unlicensed assistants. Per A.R.S. § 41-1001(22), substantive policy statements are advisory only: they tell the public the agency's current approach but do not have the force of law. The AG opinion explicitly takes no position on the policy statement.

Q: What are the penalties for unlicensed activity?
A: A.R.S. § 32-2165(A) makes unlicensed brokerage or salesperson activity a class 6 felony. So getting the (A)(9) line right matters.

Q: Is the exemption different for commercial vs. residential property?
A: The exemption itself is not residential-only, but the questions presented and the analysis focused on residential rental properties (which have additional exemptions like § 32-2121(A)(6) for residential leasing agents). The same (A)(9) exemption applies to other property types if its four conditions are met.

Background and statutory framework

Arizona's real estate licensing system

A.R.S. § 32-2122(A) requires anyone "acting in the capacity of" a real estate broker or salesperson to have an Arizona real estate license. The broker definition (§ 32-2101(48)) is broad: it covers renting real estate, negotiating rentals, collecting rent, advertising rentals, assisting in the procuring of prospects, and assisting in the negotiation of any rental transaction.

A real estate salesperson (§ 32-2101(50)) is anyone "engaged by or on behalf of" a licensed broker to perform any broker activity. Licensed brokers may also employ unlicensed residential leasing agents and on-site managers under § 32-2121(A)(6), with the broker exercising "reasonable supervision" under § 32-2155(D).

Unlicensed activity in violation of § 32-2122(B) is a class 6 felony under § 32-2165(A).

The (A)(9) clerical/administrative exemption

A.R.S. § 32-2121(A)(9) exempts:

Natural persons who are in the employ of an employing broker, of a person otherwise licensed under this chapter or of a person or entity exempt under this section, who are unlicensed and perform clerical, bookkeeping, accounting and other administrative and support duties, who are not engaged in any other acts requiring a license under this chapter and whose employment is not conditioned on or designed to perform duties requiring a license under this chapter.

The 2017 amendment added "of a person otherwise licensed under this chapter," broadening the exemption beyond just an employing broker.

The four-element test

Per the opinion, to qualify under (A)(9), the unlicensed person must:

1. Be in the employ of an employing broker, otherwise-licensed person, or exempt entity.
2. Perform clerical, bookkeeping, accounting, or other administrative and support duties.
3. Not be engaged in any other acts requiring a license.
4. Not have employment that is conditioned on or designed to perform license-required duties.

Statutory construction principles

Where two statutory provisions appear to overlap, courts try to harmonize them. Chaparral Development, 170 Ariz. 309 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Thomas, 196 Ariz. 312 (Ct. App. 1999). The AG used § 32-2101's "unless the context otherwise requires" framing language to give the (A)(9) exemption priority over the broker-activity definition when all four (A)(9) conditions are met.

Plain-language interpretation: courts look at the plain meaning of statutory terms. Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 217 Ariz. 1 (2007); Mousa v. Saba, 222 Ariz. 581 (Ct. App. 2009) (a "real estate consultant" who provided assistance to procure prospects was required to have a license despite the consultant label, because the actual activities fell within the broker definition).

For undefined terms, courts give them ordinary meaning, including via dictionary definitions. A.R.S. § 1-213; Circle K Stores, 199 Ariz. 402 (Ct. App. 2001); Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261 (Ct. App. 2004).

Nonresident broker rules

A.R.S. § 32-2122(C) extends Arizona's licensing requirements to anyone engaging in license-required activity affecting Arizona real estate, regardless of where they are physically located. A.R.S. § 32-2125.02 sets the requirements for nonresident licensees. A.R.S. § 32-2163(B) allows licensed Arizona brokers to share commissions with out-of-state brokers but does not allow the out-of-state broker to do license-required Arizona activity. A.R.S. § 32-2163(E) prohibits out-of-state brokers from listing, marketing, or advertising Arizona real estate.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 32-2101 et seq. (Arizona's real estate licensing chapter)
- A.R.S. § 32-2121(A)(1), (6), (9) (specific licensing exemptions)
- A.R.S. § 32-2122(A), (B), (C) (license required; nonresident reach)
- A.R.S. § 32-2155(D) (broker supervision of unlicensed agents)
- A.R.S. § 32-2165(A) (class 6 felony for unlicensed activity)
- A.R.S. §§ 32-2125, -2125.02, -2163(B), (E) (entity and nonresident rules)
- A.R.S. § 41-1001(22) (substantive policy statements as advisory)

Cases:
- Realty Execs., Inc. v. Northrup, King & Co., 24 Ariz. App. 400 (1975) (comprehensive licensing scheme)
- Mousa v. Saba, 222 Ariz. 581 (Ct. App. 2009) (substance over label in license analysis)
- Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 217 Ariz. 1 (2007) (plain-language interpretation)
- Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193 (2016) (statutory harmonization)
- Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache Cty., 199 Ariz. 402 (Ct. App. 2001) (ordinary meaning of undefined terms)
- Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261 (Ct. App. 2004) (dictionary definitions in statutory construction)
- Chaparral Development v. RMED Int'l, Inc., 170 Ariz. 309 (Ct. App. 1991) (harmonizing apparently conflicting provisions)
- State v. Thomas, 196 Ariz. 312 (Ct. App. 1999) (specific-over-general harmonization)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i18-002-r16-023
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I18-002.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

State of Arizona, Department of Real Estate

Questions Presented

You have requested an opinion concerning whether an Arizona real estate license is required for the following activities:

Persons located in a call center outside of Arizona receiving calls from Arizona property owners and property management companies handling maintenance calls from residential renters. The extent of this activity includes: (a) fielding in-bound calls from residents with maintenance issues; (b) collecting personal contact information from the resident callers; (c) creating a work order to be sent to the property manager; and (d) if the situation described is designated an emergency, dispatching the designated repair person or company under the property management company.

Persons located in a call center outside of Arizona that: (a) field in-bound calls from potential renters of a property and answer basic questions about the property based on information provided by the owner or property management company; (b) confirm details such as the number of bedrooms of units; (c) if requested, provide the pre-determined range of prices; and (d) set an appointment for the caller to visit the property and meet with a rental agent.

To what extent may unlicensed natural persons perform duties under the employ of an Arizona licensed real estate entity, real estate team, or within an unlicensed entity within or outside of Arizona without obtaining an Arizona real estate license.

Summary Answer

Persons engaged in handling property maintenance calls, as described above, are exempt from Arizona real estate licensing requirements because they are providing administrative and support duties and are not engaged in any other acts requiring a license.

Persons engaged in the activities described above, which involve communications with prospective renters of residential properties, are exempt from Arizona real estate licensing requirements because they are providing administrative and support duties and are not engaged in any other acts requiring a license.

Given the broad nature of this inquiry, the Attorney General is unable to answer this question as a matter of law. The various statutory exemptions available under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 32–2121(A)––which exempt unlicensed persons from real estate licensing requirements––should be consulted to determine whether unlicensed activity qualifies within any particular exemption.

Background

"The [L]egislature has enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the licensing and conduct of real estate salesmen and brokers." Realty Execs., Inc. v. Northrup, King & Co., 24 Ariz. App. 400, 402 (1975) (citing A.R.S. § 32–2101 et seq.). "Real estate" encompasses "leasehold-interests and any estates in land as defined in title 33, chapter 2, articles 1 and 2,[] regardless of whether located in this state." A.R.S. § 32–2101(47).

Although "the real estate activities requiring a license are very broad," Mousa v. Saba, 222 Ariz. 581, 586, ¶ 20 (Ct. App. 2009), the Legislature has provided for numerous statutory exemptions from the real estate licensing requirements in A.R.S. § 32–2121. If a person engages in activity that falls within one of these exemptions, the person is not required to obtain a real estate license.

As relevant here, "any person acting in the capacity of" a real estate broker or a real estate salesperson is required to have a real estate license. A.R.S. § 32–2122(A)(1), (2); see also A.R.S. §§ 32–2101(48) (defining activities of a "real estate broker"), –2101(50) (defining activities of a "real estate salesperson"). A person engages in activities of real estate brokers when, "for another and for compensation[,]" he:

(a) [R]ents ... real estate ...

(b) Offers to ... rent ... real estate ...

(c) Negotiates or offers, attempts or agrees to negotiate the ... rental ... of real estate...

...

(g) Collects or offers, attempts or agrees to collect rent for the use of real estate ...

(h) Advertises or holds himself out as being engaged in the business of ... renting ... real estate ...

(i) Assists or directs in the procuring of prospects, calculated to result in the ... rental of real estate ...

(j) Assists or directs in the negotiation of any transaction calculated or intended to result in the ... rental of real estate ...

A.R.S. § 32–2101(48).

"Real estate salesperson[s]," in turn, are "engaged by or on behalf of" licensed real estate brokers "to perform any act or participate in any transaction" that a real estate broker would perform, including the above-listed activities pertaining to the rental of real estate. Id. § 32 2101(50). Licensed real estate brokers are also permitted to "employ [unlicensed] residential leasing agents or managers of residential rental properties" as authorized by A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(6), and must "exercise reasonable supervision over these leasing agents or managers." A.R.S. § 32–2155(D).

Nonresidents are subject to Arizona's licensing statutes if they engage in activities affecting real estate interests in Arizona that would require a real estate license. See A.R.S. §§ 32–2122(C) ("A person, corporation, partnership or limited liability company ... that is engaging in any work for which a license is required under this article is subject to the requirements of this chapter in the performance of any acts included in the definition of a broker unless otherwise provided in this chapter."); 32–2125.02 (establishing requirements for nonresident licensees); 32–2163(B) (stating that a licensed broker is permitted to "pay to and receive compensation from an out-of-state broker, [but] this authority shall not be construed to permit an out-of-state broker to conduct activity in this state that would otherwise require a broker's license issued by the department"); 32–2163(E) (prohibiting "an out-of-state broker who is not licensed in this state to list, market or advertise in this state real property located in this state for sale, lease or exchange").

It is unlawful for a person to "engage in any business, occupation or activity" of a real estate broker or real estate salesperson without a license. A.R.S. § 32–2122(B); see also A.R.S. § 32–2165 (A) ("A person who acts as a broker or salesperson within the meaning of this chapter, or who advertises in a manner that indicates that the person is licensed as a broker or salesperson, without being licensed as prescribed by this chapter is guilty of a class 6 felony.").

Analysis

Arizona law provides an exemption from licensing requirements for unlicensed persons who are employed by either a licensed person or an exempt person or entity, provided that certain statutory conditions are satisfied. This exemption provides:

Natural persons who are in the employ of an employing broker, of a person otherwise licensed under this chapter or of a person or entity exempt under this section, who are unlicensed and perform clerical, bookkeeping, accounting and other administrative and support duties, who are not engaged in any other acts requiring a license under this chapter and whose employment is not conditioned on or designed to perform duties requiring a license under this chapter.

A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9) (hereafter "(A)(9) exemption").

Notably, the Legislature amended the (A)(9) exemption in 2017, after this opinion request was made. The prior version exempted only natural persons "who [we]re in the employ of an employing broker" or "of a person or entity exempt under this section." See A.R.S. § 32 2121(A)(9) (2016). The amended statute broadened the exemption to encompass unlicensed persons who are in the employ "of a person otherwise licensed under this chapter" as reflected above. This Opinion interprets the amended 2017 statute.[1]

In interpreting statutes, courts first look at the plain language of the statute. Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 217 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 5 (2007); see also Mousa, 222 Ariz. at 586, ¶ 21 (holding that real estate consultant's services qualified as activities of a real estate broker "under the plain meaning" of the statutory definition of "real estate broker" and reasoning that licensing statutes "do not exempt a 'middleman' whose conduct otherwise falls within the tasks that one must have a real estate license to perform"). Courts "seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions." Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193, 195, ¶ 9 (2016).

Accordingly, the plain language of the (A)(9) exemption affords an unlicensed person an exemption from licensing requirements if the person: (1) is "in the employ of an employing broker [or] a person otherwise licensed under this chapter or of a person or entity exempt under [A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)]"; (2) "perform[s] clerical, bookkeeping, accounting and other administrative and support duties"; (3) is not "engaged in any other acts requiring a license"; and (4) has not been employed to "perform duties requiring a license" under Arizona law. A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9).

In determining whether certain conduct requires a real estate license, Arizona courts "look at the actual tasks [the person] perform[s], not [the person's] characterization of them." Mousa, 222 Ariz. at 586, ¶ 18. Application of these principles to the activities described in the questions presented demonstrates that the persons engaged in such activities are exempt from licensing requirements, as discussed below.

A. Property maintenance activities.

The first question relates to activities performed by "[p]ersons located in a call center outside of Arizona," which consist of "fielding in-bound calls" from residential renters regarding property maintenance issues and requested repairs, collecting personal information associated with those calls, submitting work orders to property managers, and contacting designated repair persons or companies in situations described as emergencies.

The first statutory requirement for the (A)(9) exemption––which requires the unlicensed persons to be "in the employ of an employing broker [or] a person otherwise licensed under this chapter or of a person or entity exempt under [A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)]"––appears to be satisfied because the question suggests the unlicensed persons are employed by "Arizona property owners" or "property management companies." Such employers must be either licensed real estate brokers or exempt from licensing requirements. See A.R.S. §§ 32–2121(A)(1) (providing exemption for a natural person or company that rents or manages the person's or entity's own property); 32–2121(A)(6) (providing exemption for natural persons "who are acting as residential leasing agents or on-site managers of residential rental property"); 32–2125 (describing requirements for issuing broker's licenses to entities); 32–2155(D) (authorizing licensed brokers to "employ [unlicensed] residential leasing agents or managers of residential rental properties").

The second requirement––that the unlicensed persons "perform clerical, bookkeeping, accounting and other administrative and support duties"––is also satisfied. Because these terms are not further defined by statute, they are given their ordinary meanings. See Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache Cty., 199 Ariz. 402, 408, ¶ 18 (Ct. App. 2001) ("By declining to define a statutory term, the [L]egislature generally intends to give the ordinary meaning to the word."); A.R.S. § 1 213 ("Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language."). "Clerical" is defined as "[c]oncerned with or relating to work in an office, especially routine documentation and administrative tasks." Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/clerical (last visited Mar. 28, 2018); see Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261, 273, ¶ 35 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting that courts may reference well-known and reputable dictionaries in construing statutes). In turn, "administrative" means "relating to the running of a business, organization, etc." Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/administrative (last visited Mar. 28, 2018). "Support" is defined as "[g]ive assistance to[.]" Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/support (last visited Mar. 28, 2018). Finally, "duties" is a term commonly understood in this context as "task[s] or action[s] that one is required to perform as part of one's job." Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duty (last visited Mar. 28, 2018). Here, the persons fielding in-bound calls from residents in the call center outside of Arizona are performing duties that are clerical, administrative, and supportive in nature––i.e., duties that assist Arizona property owners and property management companies with the day-to-day maintenance of residential rental property.

The third statutory requirement––that the persons are not "engaged in any other acts requiring a license"––is also satisfied. A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9); see also § 32–2101(48) (listing activities of a "real estate broker"). As noted above, a real estate broker's activities include renting or offering to rent real estate, negotiating the rental of real estate, collecting rent, advertising the rental of real estate, and assisting or directing in the negotiation of any transaction calculated to result in the rental of real estate. Id. § 32–2101(48). Persons located in a call center communicating with renters about property maintenance issues are not engaging in activities of a real estate broker or any other acts requiring a license.

The fourth statutory requirement also appears to be satisfied, because the question presented does not suggest that the persons in the call center have been employed to "perform duties requiring a license" under Arizona law. A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9).

B. Communications with prospective renters.

Likewise, the unlicensed persons' activities in the second question presented qualify under the (A)(9) exemption. In this scenario, persons located in a call center outside of Arizona "field in-bound calls from potential renters of a property and answer basic questions about the property based on information provided by the owner or property management company" and confirm property details, which may include a "pre-determined range of prices." Additionally, these persons may schedule appointments for callers to "visit the property and meet with a rental agent."

Application of the foregoing analysis illustrates that the four statutory requirements are satisfied. First, this Opinion assumes that the unlicensed persons engaging in these activities within the call center are employed by a licensed person or by an exempt entity or person. See A.R.S. § 32 2121(A)(9). Second, the communications with prospective renters confirming property details and pre-arranged prices and scheduling appointments for prospective renters to meet with a rental agent, constitute "clerical" and "administrative and support duties," because these activities assist Arizona property owners, rental agents, and property management companies with the day-to-day administration and operation of their businesses. Id.

Third, the call center persons are not "engaged in any other acts requiring a license" because they are merely sharing information with prospective renters (as opposed to negotiating with prospective renters). Id. Because this specific type of communication with prospective renters "[a]ssists ... in the procuring of prospects, calculated to result in the ... leasing or rental of real estate[,]" it could be argued that it is an activity requiring a real estate broker's license under A.R.S. § 32–2101(48)(i). But the statutory language of the (A)(9) exemption contemporaneously authorizes unlicensed persons to engage in "clerical ... administrative and support duties" for persons who are licensed or otherwise exempt from licensing requirements. As discussed above, the commonly understood meaning of "support" is to "[g]ive assistance to." Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/support (last visited Mar. 28, 2018).

Although these statutes may appear to conflict because they both address activity that assists in the procuring of prospects intended to result in the rental of real estate, they can be harmonized. See Chaparral Development v. RMED Int'l, Inc., 170 Ariz. 309, 313 (Ct. App. 1991) ("We must harmonize apparently conflicting language of different parts of the statute so as to give effect to both."). Indeed, the introductory statement in the definitions section of the licensing statute explains that the definitions provided control "unless the context otherwise requires[.]" A.R.S. § 32–2101. The general definition listing this activity as one of a "real estate broker" can be harmonized with the (A)(9) exemption authorizing this conduct as a permissible non-licensed activity because the (A)(9) exemption only applies when an unlicensed person has satisfied all four statutory requirements. For example, an unlicensed person who is not employed by a licensed broker or by an exempt entity or person, as required to satisfy the first part of A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9), does not qualify for the (A)(9) exemption. Therefore, if such a person engages in activities that assist in the procuring of prospects intended to result in the rental of real estate––and does not qualify under any other statutory exemption in A.R.S. § 32–2121––such conduct would require a real estate license under A.R.S. § 32–2101(48)(i). See Mousa, 222 Ariz. at 585, ¶¶ 18–21 (concluding an unlicensed person who described himself as a "real estate consultant" was required to have a real estate license for "procuring prospects calculated to result in the sale of the [p]roperty" because the statutes "do not except a 'middleman' whose conduct otherwise falls within the tasks that one must have a real estate license to perform"). This construction gives effect to both statutes and "protect[s] the public from unscrupulous and unqualified persons" in real estate transactions. Mousa, 222 Ariz. at 585, ¶ 17; see also State v. Thomas, 196 Ariz. 312, 315, ¶¶ 10–11 (Ct. App. 1999) (harmonizing a general provision with "a subsequently enacted, more specific provision relating only to persons placed on probation under the very limited circumstances outlined by the statute" and reasoning this interpretation furthered legislative intent).

Fourth, the question presented does not suggest that the unlicensed persons have been employed to "perform duties otherwise requiring a license" under Arizona law. A.R.S. § 32 2121(A)(9).

Conclusion

The unlicensed natural persons located in call centers outside of Arizona who are employed by licensed or exempt persons or entities to conduct property maintenance activities for residential renters and provide prospective residential renters with property information are exempt from licensing requirements, assuming they satisfy the foregoing conditions under A.R.S. § 32–2121(A)(9).

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General

[1] The opinion request notes that the Arizona Department of Real Estate relies on the licensing and exemption statutes and "Substantive Policy Statement No. 2005.04" in determining "the duties that can be completed by an unlicensed assistant." This Substantive Policy Statement, entitled "Unlicensed Assistants," was revised in 2017 and renumbered as No. 2017.01. It sets forth additional duties that an unlicensed assistant may perform "under the direct supervision of an Arizona licensee." "A substantive policy statement is advisory only" and "informs the general public of an agency's current approach to, or opinion of, the requirements of ... [a] state statute[.]" A.R.S. § 41 1001(22) (2014). Consequently, this opinion takes no position on Substantive Policy Statement No. 2017.01.