IRVING WALTMAN AND ALBERT N. COHEN, PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND RONALD L. MYERS, 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.
Petitioners Waltman and Cohen, real estate brokers who were also attorneys, sought certiorari review of a Florida Real Estate Commission order suspending their licenses for 30 days based on violations of the Real Estate License Law. The court affirmed the suspension but modified the Commission's findings to remove unsupported conclusions of dishonest dealings and breach of trust, limiting the violations to mismanagement of trust funds.
The Commission has adequate statutory authority under sections 475.05 and 475.25 of the Florida Statutes to make and enforce rules regulating broker conduct, and petitioners' status as attorneys does not exempt them from these rules. However, the evidence did not support findings of dishonest dealings and breach of trust; it only established mismanagement of trust funds.
[1] The Florida Real Estate Commission has the statutory authority to promulgate rules governing the conduct of real estate brokers.
[2] Attorneys licensed as real estate brokers are not exempt from the rules and regulations of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Commission's authority to make the rules in question finds an adequate basis in sect. 475.05 and sect. 475.25, Florida Statutes”
Establishes the statutory foundation for the Commission's rule-making authority over real estate brokers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Real Estate Commission found Waltman and Cohen guilty of violations of the Real Estate License Law on seven counts, including charges in C…
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.
Petitioners have sought review here by certiorari of an order of the Florida Real Estate Commission which found them guilty of violations of the Real Estate License Law, F.S. § 475.25, F.S.A., and suspended their registration as brokers for a period of thirty days. The period of suspension runs concurrently upon each of seven counts upon which petitioners were found guilty. We have reviewed the record and heard argument upon the petition and find no ground upon which the final order of the Commission should be quashed. We do, however, find one provision which should be modified and which will be further discussed.
No useful purpose would be served by an extensive discussion of the evidence which was before the Commission. On this review the petitioners attack the right of the Commission to make rules regarding conduct of the real estate broker’s profession and urges that because petitioners are also attorneys they are exempt from the rules. It is sufficient to say that we find that the Commission’s authority to make the rules in question finds an adequate basis in sect. 475.05 and sect. 475.25, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Miller Company v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 667; Lee v. Delmar, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 252. It may further be noted that petitioners were not exempt from the rules of the Commission simply because they were also attorneys. See Tobin v. Courshon, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 785; State ex rel. Bodner v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.1956, 99 So.2d 582.
We turn now to the finding which must be modified. Counts 5 and 7 of the charges alleged that the petitioners converted certain funds to their own use. The *33Commission found these counts proven and in its order concluded as a matter of law that the petitioners were guilty of dishonest dealings and breach of trust in a public transaction. We find that these conclusions are not supported by the evidence and that while the record does support a finding that petitioners have been guilty of the mismanagement of trust funds it does not establish dishonest dealings and breach of trust.
Therefore the petition for certiorari is granted and the final order of the Commission is amended by striking therefrom the language of paragraph four and five of the “Conclusions of Law” insofar as this language purports to find the petitioners guilty of dishonest dealings and breach of trust. In all other particulars the final order of the Commission stands as written together with the penalty imposed.
Certiorari granted and order modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dreyer v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 370 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…se its trust account placed the broker on notice. Petitioners argue that mere mismanagement of trust funds is not in and of itself sufficient to establish dishonest dealings on their part. Petitioners cite Waltman v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 254 So. 2d 32 (Fla.3d DCA 1971) for this proposition. This very brief decision does not support such a position. More closely on point is Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). Therein the Second District Court of Appeal modified the suspension of a…
-
Kout v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 405 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ground that the facts found by the officer established violations of Section 475.25(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Our analysis of the findings reveals that this determination was completely incorrect. See Waltman v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 254 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Rivard v. McCoy, 212 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), cert. denied, 219 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1968); see generally, Pauline v. Borer, 274 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1973). The order below is therefore completely unsupported by the conclusions re…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Charles J. Bodner v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 99 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1956)
- State ex rel. Young v. Kelly, 66 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1953)
- Tobin v. Courshon, 155 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1963)
- The Miller Co., Inc. v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Ronald L. Myers, 156 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)