LOUIS GLASSER, PETITIONER,

v.

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND EDWARD A. CURRY, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 1960-02-08

No. 59-697

HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.

117 So. 2d 761 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1960) Positive Treatment

Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the Florida Real Estate Commission lacked substantial evidence to support its order suspending a real estate broker's license.

Facts & Procedural History

A respondent charged a petitioner with violating a statute by filing a document affecting real property title to coerce payment. The petitioner's regi…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Scienter Writ Of Certiorari Substantial Evidence Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scienter cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PEARSON, Judge.

This petition for writ of certiorari to review a final order of the Florida Real Estate Commission was filed in this court pursuant to section 475.35, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as amended by Chapter 59-197, § 4, 1959 Laws.1 The scope of review upon such a *762petition is not limited to that of common law certiorari.2

Pursuant thereto we have reviewed the record and arguments. We have determined that the petitioner has been denied a substantial constitutional right, in that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not have before it substantial evidence upon which to base its final order.

The respondent, Curry, charged on April 17, 1959, that petitioner violated section 475.42(1) (k), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,3 by filing for record on February 13, 1953, a document entitled “Exclusive Sales Agency”, which affected the title of real property, for the purpose of coercing the payment of money. Scienter is made a necessary element of the violation. There is no substantial evidence to support the finding that the petitioner had recorded a “known false document”.

The judgment of the commission, that the registration of the petitioner as a real estate broker be suspended until the petitioner should by appropriate instrument remove the offending document from the public records of Dade County, should be vacated. The writ is accordingly granted and the Florida Real Estate Commission is directed to vacate the final order entered September 29, 1959, wherein Edward A. Curry is designated plaintiff and Louis Glasser is designated defendant, and it is further directed to enter a final order dismissing the information filed therein.

It is so ordered.

HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.

. Section 475.35(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as amended reads as follows: “The final orders and rulings entered or issued in any proceeding before the Florida Real Estate Commission shall be reviewable only by a Writ of Certiorari issued by the District Court of Appeals [Ste] of the appropriate appellate district, or the Supreme Court, when permitted, as and in the manner provided by the Florida Appellate Rules or by law. The venue of the proceedings for such review shall be *762the appellate district which includes the county wherein hearings before the examiner are required to be heard under the provisions of Section 475.27; provided however, that if venue cannot be determined under Section 475.27, then the venue of such proceedings shall be the appellate district which includes the county wherein the executive offices of the commission are located. In all such cases the style of the cause in the Court of Appeals [sic] shall be -. Petitioner, vs. The Florida Real Estate Commission and (the original plaintiff), Respondents.”

. Section 475.35(3) and (4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as amended by Chapter 59-197 (§ 4), 1959 Laws reads as follows :

“(3) The final orders, rulings, and proceedings of the Commission shall be presumed to be valid unless reversible error or invalidity prejudicial to the Petitioner shall be affirmatively shown to exist. Certiorari shall not be granted for any cause except want of jurisdiction or substantial denial of a constitutional or statutory right, unless such cause was by appropriate motion or objection in the record made known to the Commission before entry of the final order, and the Commission has failed or refused to correct such cause, and any such cause, error, omission or defect not made known to the Commission by appropriate motion or objection in the record shall be deemed waived.

“(4) In all such cases the findings of fact, orders, rulings, determinations, and administrative interpretations by the commission shall be given great weight by the courts to carry out the purposes and objectives of the provisions of Chapter 475, and Certiorari shall not be granted unless it clearly appears that the Petitioner has been denied a substantial constitutional or statutory right. It is the intention of the legislature hereby to provide for effective administrative regulation and enforcement of a high standard of conduct in the real estate profession and industry in the State of Florida for the protection of the public.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)

…rty acted in reliance on such promise; nor * * * is the mere nonperformance of a promise evidence establishing fraud or lack of intent to perform.” A case very much in point is that of Glasser v. Florida Real Estate Commission et al., Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 761. There the Court held (117 So. 2d text 762): “We have determined that the petitioner has been denied a substantial constitutional right, in that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not have before it substantial evidence upon which to base its f…
Hancock v. Wilford J. Piper and Alida Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1966)

…useless delays in litigation is more than offset by the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal.” Other federal cases supporting this view are cited in footnote No. 2, Glasser v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App., 117 So. 2d 761. Compare also Johann Maria Farina v. Roger & Gallet, 2 Cir., 296 F. 2d 119. The decision in Western Electric Company v. Pacent Reproducer Corporation, 37 F. 2d 14, 15, held that an order dismissing a bill of complaint with leave to amend is merely…
Astore v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 374 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)

…e there have been no departures by the agency from the applicable principles of law, we hereby affirm the final orders of the Florida Real Estate Commission. The orders are affirmed in all respects. . See Glasser v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 117 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) and Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), where “scienter” is defined as “knowingly, to signify guilty knowledge”, and is an integral element of making “false promises” or committing a “breach of trust.”…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

LOUIS GLASSER, PETITIONER, v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND EDWARD A. CURRY, RESPONDENTS

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

LOUIS GLASSER, PETITIONER,

v.

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND EDWARD A. CURRY, RESPONDENTS