RANDOLPH E. KOUT AND MARY ANN BERLIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF REAL ESTATE, APPELLEE
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.
The Board of Real Estate's 90-day license suspension was reversed because the hearing officer found no violations, and the Board's determination that the facts established a statutory violation was completely unsupported by the record.
A licensing board cannot suspend a licensee's license when the hearing officer has found that the licensee did not commit the offenses charged.
[1] A licensing board's disciplinary order must be supported by findings of fact made by the hearing officer and cannot impose sanctions based on violations the hearing offic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandolph Kout and Mary Ann Berlin, real estate licensees, were accused of violations. The hearing officer found they had not committed the offenses an…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agency Review cases and more on FLexlaw
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
. Pursuant to the discretionary authority conferred by Section 120.57(l)(b)(9), Fla.Stat. (1979), we have awarded attorney’s fees to the appellants in the sum of $2,000.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bekiempis v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 421 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…indings are rejected and why. Lewis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 410 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See Kibler v. Department of Professional Regulation, 418 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, 405 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We now hold that the Board may not avoid this requirement by adopting by reference “supplemental findings” which directly conflict with those of the hearing examiner and then base the final order on the supplemental findings. The…
-
Morris v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 474 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…0 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (the question of motive is one of fact); Bouchelle v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. dismissed, 200 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1967); cf. Kout v. Department of Professional Regulation, 405 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). Similarly, the other grounds alleged by the complaint all require a finding of wrongful intent or scienter, which the hearing officer found was absent in this case. While this court must not substitute its findings of fact for…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Cont'l Inv., Inc. v. Borofsky, 87 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1956)
- Pauline v. Charles F. Borer & the Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 274 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. Dep't of Commerce v. Davies, 379 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- William v. Gruman, 379 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Rivard v. Janies C. McCOY & Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 212 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Waltman v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Ronald L. Myers, 254 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Keville v. Baker, 219 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1968)
- Meer v. Garvey, 219 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1968)