KARL E. MCDOWELL, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND ROBERT TANNER, 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 District Court of Appeal denied a petition for certiorari, upholding the Florida Real Estate Commission's six-month suspension of a real estate broker's registration. The court found the penalty was within statutory limits and that the commission did not abuse its discretion, despite acknowledging mitigating circumstances.
No, the six-month suspension was not excessive. The penalty was within the statutory limits, and the commission did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law.
“However, we note that the commission's determination was well within statutory limits as it could have prescribed suspension for a total of four years under F.S.A. § 475.25(1).”
Establishes that the penalty imposed was within the legal maximum.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarl E. McDowell, a registered real estate broker, was found guilty by the Florida Real Estate Commission of two counts of violating a state statute r…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, a registered real estate broker, asks certiorari review of a final order entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission wherein he was found guilty on two counts of violating F.S.A. § 475.25(1) (i), and his registration was suspended for a period of six months. He charges that the penalty was excessive under the circumstances. The record reflects that surely the broker was guilty of the violations which were not gross, and we agree that there were certain mitigating features in the transaction, as least according to the broker’s testimony. However, we note that the commission’s determination was well within statutory limits as it could have prescribed suspension for a total of four years under F.S.A. § 475.25(1). We assume, therefore, that the extenuating circumstances argued by petitioner were taken into account and given such weight as they *625deserved, resulting in an order appropriate on the record. Our examination leaves us not able to say that the commission abused its discretion or that its judgment was not in accord with the essential requirements of law. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Rogers, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 65; see also De Groot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912.
The Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. D. L. and Doris Rogers, 176 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1965)