Foulk v. Florida Real Estate Commission

113 So. 2d 714, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2647
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 1959
Docket1034
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 113 So. 2d 714 (Foulk v. 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
Foulk v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 113 So. 2d 714, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2647 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

113 So.2d 714 (1959)

L.R. FOULK, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1034.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 10, 1959.
Rehearing Denied August 4, 1959.

*715 Barnes & Wagner, Dade City, for appellant.

Benjamin T. Shuman, Orlando, for appellee.

KANNER, Judge.

The appellant, an appraiser, resident of Charlotte County, Florida, entered into a contract with the Board of County Commissioners of Pasco County to re-appraise, for a specified compensation, all of the real property within that county for purposes of tax roll preparation by its tax assessor for the fiscal year 1959-60. As the result of a suit brought by the appellee, Florida Real Estate Commission, appellant was enjoined by the tribunal below from performance of the contract. The basis for this holding was that appellant had not qualified under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Real Estate License Law, which embraces appraising, and was thereby prohibited from doing the work called for under the contract. This appeal has been taken from the final decree so adjudicating.

It is well first to review pertinent sections of the contract under which appellant was employed by the Pasco County commissioners. The parties agreed as follows:

"Whereas, the said party of the second part is in the business of appraising and making the valuation of the various properties within a governmental unit for tax purposes and the said party of the first part desires a reappraisal of all of the property within Pasco County, Florida, to be made by the said party of the second part.
"* * * the said parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree to and with each other:
"1. That the said party of the first part does hereby employ and hire the said party of the second part as a contractor to revalue and appraise all of the taxable real property within Pasco County, Florida.
"2. That the said party of the second part may arrange for the setting up of his work schedule and all preliminary work connected therewith prior to January 1, 1959, but that the actual reappraising and value of said property within the said county shall begin on or promptly after January 1, 1959 and shall be completed in ample time to make such information available to the County Assessor of Taxes for Pasco County, to be used in the making up of his tax roll for the fiscal year 1959-60."

It is also provided that the party of the first part shall pay the party of the second part on the basis of unit appraisal under a schedule of $1.75 per unit for parcels of real property upon which there is no structure, $3 per unit for parcels where there is a structure or up to five structures subject to appraisement, and $4.25 per unit for all parcels upon which there are more than five buildings.

The contract further specifies:

"The said party of the second part shall render to the said party of the first part on or soon after the first day of each month a statement showing the number of taxable units of each of the three classes hereinabove set forth which have been appraised during the *716 preceding month and the said party of the first part shall thereupon pay to the said party of the second part, an amount equal to 75% of the amount accrued to the said party of the first part for such work completed in said month until such payments shall have reached Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). That when the said work shall have been completed and the final report made thereon and the total amount extended that is to be paid for the said work by the said party of the first part to the said party of the second part, that the said party of the first part shall pay to the said party of the second part such amount as may be necessary to make the total payments to said date equal to Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) and shall issue to the said party of the second part, its written obligation agreeing to pay the remaining amount of said balance to the party of the second part, the said payment to be made on or before January 1, 1960 together with interest thereon at the rate of six (6%) per cent per annum."

The resolution authorizing execution of the contract sets forth that L.R. Foulk "has made a proposition to this Board for the re-appraising and re-assessing of all the real property within Pasco County."

Appellant is here contending in essence that Chapter 475 does not apply to the work contemplated, but rather that section 193.111, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., furnishes the authority for the service to be performed without the necessity of his qualifying under Chapter 475. He insists that Chapter 475 neither contemplates nor indicates any legislative intent that a person who evaluates or appraises property for taxation purposes is required to qualify under its provisions. He also urges that the legislature, in enacting section 193.111, had it intended this section to operate under control of the older Chapter 475, would have articulated this requirement. The purpose of the enactment of Chapter 475, he says, is for the protection of the public against overreaching or fraudulent practices by persons in the making of real estate transactions and that such chapter does not prescribe any particular requirements or qualifications necessary for one to engage in the business of appraising.

We here point out that section 193.111 is simply an act authorizing boards of county commissioners in the various counties of the state to have appraisement of property within the counties made by some company or board of appraisers to be selected by the respective boards of county commissioners and to levy taxes and expend county funds for appraisement purposes.

The applicable provisions of subsection (2) of 475.01 may now be considered:

"Every person who shall, in this state, for another, and for a compensation or valuable consideration directly or indirectly paid or promised, expressly or impliedly, or with an intent to collect or receive a compensation or valuable consideration therefor, appraise, auction, sell, exchange, buy or rent, or offer, attempt or agree to appraise auction or negotiate the sale exchange, purchase or rental of any real property, or any interest in or concerning the same, including mineral rights or leases; or who shall advertise or hold out to the public by any oral or printed solicitation or representation that such person is engaged in the business of appraising, auctioning, buying, selling, exchanging, leasing or renting real estate, or interests therein, including mineral rights or leases, of others; and every person who shall take any part in the procuring of sellers, purchasers, lessors or lessees of the real property, or interests therein, including mineral rights or leases, of another; or who shall direct or assist in the procuring of prospects, or the negotiation or closing of any transaction which does, or is calculated to, *717 result in a sale, exchange, or leasing thereof, and who shall receive, expect, or be promised any compensation or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly therefor; and all persons who are members of partnerships or officers or directors of corporations engaged in performing any of the aforesaid acts or services; each and every such person shall be deemed and held to be a `real estate broker' or a `real estate salesman,' * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)

Then follow certain exceptions with which we are not concerned.

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

Related

Robbins v. Mori
44 Fla. Supp. 2d 64 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
Llera Realty, Inc. v. BD. OF REAL ESTATE
385 So. 2d 1131 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. GENEVA INVEST. LTD.
285 So. 2d 593 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
Boise Cascade Home v. DIV. OF NJ REAL ESTATE
296 A.2d 545 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1972)
Burke v. Metropolitan Dade County
213 So. 2d 40 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Burke v. Dade County
28 Fla. Supp. 197 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1967)
Horne v. Florida Real Estate Commission
163 So. 2d 515 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Alligood v. Florida Real Estate Commission
156 So. 2d 705 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Parker v. Panama City
151 So. 2d 469 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr
18 Fla. Supp. 102 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1961)
Murphy v. Florida Real Estate Commission
115 So. 2d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Hollingsworth v. Arcadia Citrus Growers' Association
165 So. 369 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Batchelder v. Prestman
138 So. 473 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Randall v. Mickle
141 So. 317 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 So. 2d 714, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foulk-v-florida-real-estate-commission-fladistctapp-1959.