IRVIN R. SCHINDLER AND FAIR REALTY, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND EDWARD A. CURRY, RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Real Estate Commission found petitioners Schindler and Fair Realty guilty of employing unregistered real estate salesmen and participating in unjust commission claims. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the employment finding was clearly erroneous and that the underlying transactions fell outside the Real Estate License Law's scope.
The Commission's finding that Graham and Nobbs were employed as real estate salesmen was clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. The business sale transactions at issue were not subject to regulation under Florida's Real Estate License Law, and petitioners' license suspension was therefore improper.
“That finding of the Commission is clearly wrong and against the weight of the evidence. The record does not justify a finding or conclusion that Graham and Nobbs were so employed.”
Establishes the standard for review and demonstrates that the primary factual finding was unsupported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Schindler and Fair Realty were charged with employing Graham and Nobbs as unregistered real estate salesmen and participating with them in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Real Estate License Law cases and more on FLexlaw
By certiorari we review an order of the Florida Real Estate Commission,1 which held petitioners guilty of certain violations of the Real Estate License Law, Ch. 475, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. One of the charges made by the Commission against petitioners was that they had employed certain persons (Graham and Nobbs) as real estate salesmen, who were not registered under chapter 475. An examiner heard and reported the evidence as provided for by the statute (§ 475.27). Based on such evidence the Commission found that Graham and Nobbs had been employed by petitioners as real estate salesmen as charged. That finding of the Commission is clearly wrong and against the weight of the evidence. The record does not justify a finding or conclusion that Graham and Nobbs were so employed.2
The remaining charges against petitioners grew out of their alleged participation with Graham and Nobbs in claims for commissions. The two transactions on which those charges were based, related to the sale of businesses, and the leases transferred in connection therewith were incidental. Those transactions, therefore, were not subject to control under the Florida Real Estate License Law. Hughes v. Chapman, 5 Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 193. Moreover, even if chapter 475 were applicable, it was not established on the record that petitioners knew the commission claims of Graham and Nobbs were unjust. See Potter v. Curry, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 127.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the order suspending the licenses of the petitioners is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & George J. Saunders, 188 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…and to protect the public against financial loss through future repetition of unscrupulous practices in transactions involving the sale and purchase of real estate." (Emphasis supplied). In Schindler v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 862, 863, the real estate broker Schindler was charged with having employed certain non-registered persons (Graham and Nobbs) as real estate salesmen, and also with having participated with Graham and Nobbs in claims for commissions. A Commission order…
-
Willner v. Wilder, 280 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…le, and would not bar recovery of the commission notwithstanding the services relied on as the basis of the right to the commission were performed by the broker’s unregistered salesman. See Schindler v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 862; Hughes v. Chapman, 5 Cir. 1959, 272 F. 2d 193. In our view the facts of this case were such as to place this transaction in the former category; that is, as being essentially and principally a lease of real estate. [*4] When the lease was made the…
-
Lutsch v. Smith, 397 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…for a period of five years following the sale. The court clearly had before it sufficient evidence supporting its finding that the parties’ primary purpose was to convey a business operation. Compare also Schindler v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 144 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) and Chapman v. Hughes, 272 F. 2d 193 (5th Cir. 1959). We agree with appellees’ cross-appeal that the lower court should have entered judgment against Mrs. Lutsch. The lower court’s judgment found that since Mrs. Lutsch did not si…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Jack King, 119 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Hughes v. Chapman, 272 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Bluesten v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Joseph Conderman, 125 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1960)
- Condermann v. Potter, 126 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Potter v. Curry, 104 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)