LEONARD ROBINSON AND MERRIS ROBINSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 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 Florida Real Estate Commission properly denied recovery under the Real Estate Recovery Fund because appellants obtained a judgment only against a corporate broker, which cannot be licensed under Florida law, rather than against an individual licensed broker or salesman.
Recovery under the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund is limited to judgments against licensed brokers and salesmen, and corporations acting as brokers are registered but not licensed.
[1] Recovery under the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund is limited to judgments against licensed brokers and salesmen, and corporations acting as brokers are registered but…
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 intelligenceAppellants Leonard and Merris Robinson obtained a judgment against a corporate broker in a real estate transaction but did not obtain a judgment again…
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 Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. The Florida Real Estate Commission correctly denied appellants’ claim for damages under the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund, section 475.482(1), Florida Statutes (1987).
Section 475.482(1) provides for:
reimbursement to any person or corporation adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have suffered money damages by reason of the following acts committed as a part of any real estate brokerage transaction involving real property in this state by any broker or salesman who was licensed under the provisions of this chapter at the time the alleged act was committed_ [emphasis added] § 475.482(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Recovery under section 475.482 is limited to judgments against “licensed” brokers and salesmen. Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that an applicant for licensure must be a natural person. Corporations who act as brokers are required to be “registered” with the commission, but are not “licensed.” See § 475.15, Fla.Stat. (1987). Appellants obtained a judgment against a corporate broker, but obtained no judgment against an individual broker. Thus, the Commission correctly denied appellants’ request for recovery under section 475.482(1).
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haggerty v. State, 531 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…er scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification” by creating “an intolerable adversary atmosphere” between himself and appellant. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1978). See also Diqeronimo v. Reasbeck, 528 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Ryon v. Reasbeck, 525 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); and A.T.S. Melbourne, Inc. v. Jackson, 473 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Therefore, we must reverse the denial of the motion for recusal and remand for resentencing by a d…