Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate

405 So. 2d 435, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21327

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 435 (Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate) 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

Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, 405 So. 2d 435, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The hearing officer found that the appellant-licensees had not committed the offenses of which they were accused and concluded that the charges against them should be dismissed. On review, the Board of Real Estate nevertheless entered an order suspending their licenses for 90 days on the asserted 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 reached by the trier of fact and accordingly must be reversed. Section 120.-57(l)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1979); Chakford v. Strum, 87 So.2d 419 (Fla.1956); Gruman v. State, Department of Revenue, 379 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the proceedings.

Reversed.¹

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

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The hearing officer found that the appellant-licensees had not committed the offenses of which they were accused and concluded that the charges against them should be dismissed. On review, the Board of Real Estate nevertheless entered an order suspending their licenses for 90 days on the asserted 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 reached by the trier of fact and accordingly must be reversed. Section 120.-57(l)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1979); Chakford v. Strum, 87 So.2d 419 (Fla.1956); Gruman v. State, Department of Revenue, 379 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the proceedings.

Reversed.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 435, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kout-v-department-of-professional-regulation-board-of-real-estate-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack