Carlton v. State, Division of Occupations, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carlton v. State, Division of Occupations, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission

354 So. 2d 77, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17283

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1977

DocketNo. GG-172

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 77 (Carlton v. State, Division of Occupations, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlton v. State, Division of Occupations, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, 354 So. 2d 77, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17283 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

By petition for certiorari the petitioner, Loran C. Carlton, a real estate salesman, seeks review and reversal of a final order of the respondent Florida Real Estate Commission finding that petitioner had “actively concealed his personal interest” in a parcel of property of which he was the procuring cause of the execution of a contract to purchase by one Virgil Norris for which infraction the respondent Commission imposed the maximum penalty allowed by law, suspension of his license for a period of two years. A hearing officer submitted a recommended order containing findings and conclusions. The Commission accepted the findings but rejected the conclusions. It is clear that the public records revealed that petitioner had an interest in the subject property as did the abstract and title insurance binder ultimately submitted to the prospective purchaser. Although it is apparent that petitioner was guilty of a “technical” violation the record does not establish a conscious effort to deceive nor does it reflect such conduct as to justify imposition of the maximum penalty allowed by law. (See Poirier v. Division of Health, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 351 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), opinion filed August 5, 1977, authorities therein cited.) Accordingly, the petition is granted but the order of which review is sought is approved and affirmed except as to the period of suspension which is hereby reduced to one year.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, concur. ERVIN, J., concurring and dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

By petition for certiorari the petitioner, Loran C. Carlton, a real estate salesman, seeks review and reversal of a final order of the respondent Florida Real Estate Commission finding that petitioner had “actively concealed his personal interest” in a parcel of property of which he was the procuring cause of the execution of a contract to purchase by one Virgil Norris for which infraction the respondent Commission imposed the maximum penalty allowed by law, suspension of his license for a period of two years. A hearing officer submitted a recommended order containing findings and conclusions. The Commission accepted the findings but rejected the conclusions. It is clear that the public records revealed that petitioner had an interest in the subject property as did the abstract and title insurance binder ultimately submitted to the prospective purchaser. Although it is apparent that petitioner was guilty of a “technical” violation the record does not establish a conscious effort to deceive nor does it reflect such conduct as to justify imposition of the maximum penalty allowed by law. (See Poirier v. Division of Health, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 351 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), opinion filed August 5, 1977, authorities therein cited.) Accordingly, the petition is granted but the order of which review is sought is approved and affirmed except as to the period of suspension which is hereby reduced to one year.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, concur. ERVIN, J., concurring and dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 77, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlton-v-state-division-of-occupations-department-of-professional-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack