Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided July 30, 1987·No. 87-207·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

------------------------------- : OPINION : No. 87-207 : of : JULY 30, 1987 : JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP : Attorney General : : CLAYTON P. ROCHE : Deputy Attorney General : ----------------------------------------------------------------

THE CALIFORNIA AUCTIONEER COMMISSION has requested an opinion on the following questions:

1. Is a licensee of the California Auctioneer Commission subject to the provisions of the Auctioneer and Auction Licensing Act with regard to sales conducted by the licensee outside of California?

2. If a licensee of the California Auctioneer Commission holds a sale described in section 5730, subdivision (d) of the Auctioneer and Auction Licensing Act (automobile auction regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles), is the sale exempt from all of the requirements of the act?

CONCLUSIONS

1. A licensee of the California Auctioneer Commission is not subject to the provisions of the Auctioneer and Auction Licensing Act with regard to sales conducted by the licensee outside of California.

2. If a licensee of the California Auctioneer Commission holds a sale described in section 5730, subdivision (d) of the Auctioneer and Auction Licensing Act (automobile auction regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles), the sale is exempt from all the requirements of the act.

ANALYSIS

The Auctioneer and Auction Licensing Act, Business and Professions Code, sections 5700 through 5791.5 (hereinafter the "Auctioneer Act") was first enacted in 1982, (Stats. 1982, ch. 1499) and thereafter amended and greatly expanded in 1984 (Stats. 1984, ch. 1676).1 The Auctioneer Act provides for the establishment of the California Auctioneer Commission as a public corporation whose powers are to be exercised by a seven member board of governors appointed by the Governor. (§§ 5710, 5714, 5715.) Accordingly, the "board shall govern, control, and administer the affairs of the commission" and the "commission is invested with all duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction regarding auctions and auctioneering in California." (§ 5714, emphasis added.)

The Auctioneer Act presents a comprehensive regulatory scheme. With respect to "administration", the act provides for the appointment of an executive officer to the commission, the appointment of two disciplinary review committees, and the adoption by the board of governors of rules and regulations concerning the scope of licensing and the standards for the approval of "schools of auctioneering." (§§ 5710-5724.) The act then provides for the licensing of auctioneers and persons who operate auction companies, and examinations therefor. (§§ 5730-5747.) The act also provides for the bonding of licensees, for the terms of bonds, and for actions upon such bonds under specified circumstance. (§§ 5760-5764). The act then provides in great detail the manner in which auctioneers and auction companies are to conduct their business and includes the specification of prohibited acts. In this respect, "administrative fines" are prescribed for violation of many of these particular provisions. (§§ 5770-5777.) A citation procedure is then provided for the hearing on and assessment of administrative fines. (§§ 5780-5784.) Thereafter, the act provides that the "board may deny, suspend, or revoke a license of any person for the violation of . . . [the act] or any regulation of the board", and sets forth procedures therefor. (§§ 5785-5789.) And finally, the act provides for the fixing of fees and the deposit of all fees and administrative fines in the Auctioneer Commission Fund. (§§ 5790-5791.5.)

It is in the context of this comprehensive licensing and regulatory scheme that we are presented two questions for resolution herein.

1. Auctions Conducted By a Licensee Outside of California

The first question presented concerns auctions conducted by a licensee of the California Auction Commission outside of California. As to such sales we are asked whether the licensee is subject to requirements of the California Auctioneer Act. Subdivision (m) of section 5775 is cited by the requester as an example. It provides:

"Every person licensed under this chapter shall do all of the following:

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Section references will be to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

"(m) Within 30 working days after a sale transaction of goods, pay or cause to be paid, all moneys and proceeds due to the owner or the consignor of all goods that were the subject of an auction engaged in or conducted by the licensee, unless delay is compelled by legal proceedings or the inability of the licensee, through no fault of his or her own, to transfer title to the goods or to comply with any provision of this chapter, the Commercial Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, or any other applicable provision of law. A first violation of this subdivision is subject to a fine of one thousand dollars ($l,000); a second violation is subject to a fine of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500); and a third or subsequent violation is subject to a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000)."

This question is asked so that the Auctioneer Commission may know whether it should consider disciplinary action against a licensee when it receives complaints of alleged violations of this type of provision with respect to out-of-state auctions conducted by its licensees.

An examination of the Auctioneer Act discloses that section 5775 is one of three sections of the act wherein it is specified how licensees are to conduct their auctioneering businesses generally, and the auctions they conduct specifically. The other sections are section 5774 and 5776. These sections essentially set forth the requirements and prohibitions of the act in this respect. Also, the so-called prohibitions in many cases may be said to be requirements of the act as to how an auction is to be conducted. For example, section 5776, subdivision (k) "prohibits" the sale at auction of goods before a written contract is entered into with the consignor containing certain specified statutory requirements as to its terms. Conversely, this provision would require such a contract.

Returning to the primary example specified in the request, that is, subdivision (m) of section 5775, we note that it is one of a sequence of subdivisions which, if violated, will trigger a right to make a claim against the licensee's bond. (See §5764, subdivision (a): failure "to comply with subdivision (m), (o), (p) or (q) of Section 5775.") Subdivisions (o), (p) and (q) require of the auctioneer sequentially (l) disclosure to the audience of any liens on the goods to be auctioned, (2) return within 2 days of deposits of each potential buyer who made no purchases, and (3) return within 30 days of any excess deposits of actual purchasers at the auction.

With this brief explanation of the requirements of the Auctioneer Act, we now proceed to the statutory and decisional law we believe to be applicable to resolve the question as to the possible power of the California Auctioneer Commission to discipline its licensee for out-of-state activities.

Section 110 of the Government Code provides that "[t]he sovereignty and jurisdiction of this State extends to all places within its boundaries. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, "[a] state cannot regulate or proscribe activities conducted in another state or supervise the internal affairs of another state in any way, even though the welfare of its citizens may be affected when they travel to that state. . . ." (Archibald v. Cinerama Hawaiian Hotels, Inc. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 152, 159.)

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

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1987).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Commission
542 P.2d 1371 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehicles
696 P.2d 141 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Otsuka v. Hite
414 P.2d 412 (California Supreme Court, 1966)
Brown v. Superior Court
691 P.2d 272 (California Supreme Court, 1984)
People v. Davis
166 Cal. App. 3d 760 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
California Highway Patrol v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
178 Cal. App. 3d 1016 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Cook v. Department of Motor Vehicles
33 Cal. App. 3d 265 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Archibald v. Cinerama Hawaiian Hotels, Inc.
73 Cal. App. 3d 152 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
In Re Richardson
102 P.2d 1076 (California Supreme Court, 1940)
Wilkinson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
564 P.2d 848 (California Supreme Court, 1977)
North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury
162 P. 93 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Barnes v. District Court of Appeal
173 P. 1100 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Stevens v. Brown
20 W. Va. 450 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1882)