McGrath, In re, 241-79
| Decision Date | 05 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 241-79,241-79 |
| Parties | In re Robert T. McGRATH. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Jonathan N. Brownell and Mary M. Teachout of Brownell & Hoyt, Norwich, for plaintiff.
M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., and Richard M. Finn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order made by the Vermont Real Estate Commission. On the basis of a conclusion that appellant violated 26 V.S.A. § 2292(c), the Commission denied appellant the right to sit for the real estate broker's examination until December 5, 1979, some nine months after the date he would otherwise have been able to take the exam. Appellant filed this appeal, and the Commission, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 13(d), certified two questions to this Court:
1. Does 26 V.S.A. Section 2211 require an employee who is not a stockholder or owner of that corporation to obtain a real estate license in order to offer and sell property owned by the corporate employer?
2. Does the record of this proceeding justify the findings by the Real Estate Commission that the appellant is not qualified for a real estate license under the provisions of 26 V.S.A. Section 2292(c)?
For the reasons given below, we answer both questions in the negative.
According to the findings of the Commission, the appellant, at all times material to this appeal, was an employee of Stanmar, Inc., a corporation with a group of condominiums in Jeffersonville, Vermont, known as the Village at Smugglers Notch. In June 1978, appellant moved from out of state to Jeffersonville to serve Stanmar as Director of Homeowner Relations and Senior Sales Manager at the Village condominium project. Although not a licensed Vermont real estate broker or salesman, appellant was involved in homeowner relations; development, construction and sales of new condominium homes; and direct dealings with lending institutions and attorneys. All of these activities, however, were pursued in connection with properties owned by appellant's corporate employer, Stanmar. Appellant did not participate in any "resales" 1 of Village at Smugglers Notch properties.
We turn now to the first certified question. Section 2212 of Title 26 requires all persons who act as a real estate broker or salesman to first obtain a license, except as otherwise provided in the chapter. "Real estate broker" and "real estate salesman" were defined by 26 V.S.A. § 2211 at the time of the Commission's decision as follows:
For the purposes of this chapter, a real estate broker means a person, firm, partnership, association or corporation who, for a consideration, lists for sale, sells, exchanges, or offers for sale or exchange, buys or offers to buy, or negotiates the purchase, exchange or sale of real estate, or rents or offers to rent real estate or improvements therein, as a whole or partial vocation; and a real estate salesman is defined to be a person employed by a licensed real estate broker to list for sale, sell or offer for sale, to buy or offer to buy or to negotiate the purchase, sale or exchange of real estate for or in behalf of a real estate broker. However, this definition does not apply to an owner of real estate who sells or rents or offers to sell or rent his own property . . . . All salesmen or solicitors employed by a real estate broker and all officers, agents, stockholders or other persons engaged in the purchase, sale or conveyance of real estate in behalf of or in the interest of any corporation having as one of its purposes the purchase, sale or conveyance of real estate shall be held to be within the meaning and intent of this chapter.
(Emphasis added).
In the absence of ambiguity, a statute will be enforced according to the plain meaning on its face. Christie v. Dalmig, Inc., 136 Vt. 597, 599 396 A.2d 1385, 1387 (1979). This statute, however, is ambiguous. On the one hand, it clearly excludes from its operation sales of real estate by the owner of the real estate. On the other hand, by the broad language "all . . . agents . . . or other persons engaged in the . . . sale . . . of real estate in behalf of . . . any corporation having as one of its purposes the . . . sale . . . of real estate," it could be construed to include all sales of real estate by practically all corporations. This is because virtually all corporations have, as one of their purposes, the sale of their own real estate. Furthermore, it is indisputable that a corporation can only act through its agents. Therefore, the apparent inclusion in the licensing process of all persons who sell real estate on behalf of corporations that have, as one purpose, the sale of real estate, would make it impossible for a corporate owner of real estate to sell its own property without licensing one of its agents. Strumpf v. State, 31 Ala.App. 409, 413, 18 So.2d 104, 107 (1944).
This Court will not construe a statute to lead to absurd or irrational consequences. Audette v. Greer, 134 Vt. 300, 302, 360 A.2d 66, 68 (1976). To deem the appellant to be a person selling real estate on behalf of a corporation with the sale of real estate as one of its purposes, as we are urged to do by the Commission, would lead to an irrational result. The statute, which in its second sentence clearly excludes from its operation sales by owners of real estate, would be twisted by construction of its third sentence to include sales by corporate owners of their own real estate. Such a distinction could not have been intended. As we read this statute, the legislature intended that no person, partnership, corporation, or other association requires a license to sell its own property.
The third sentence of § 2211 is best understood by examining its evolution. In its original form, it stated: "All salesmen or solicitors employed by a real estate broker shall be held to be within the meaning and intent of this act." 1931, No. 173, § 2. This wording was later amended to:
All salesmen or solicitors employed by a real estate broker and all officers, agents, stockholders or other persons engaged in the purchase, sale or conveyance of real estate in behalf of ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Smith, 97-417.
...reviewing the Board's decision, we will not set aside its findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re McGrath, 138 Vt. 77, 82, 411 A.2d 1362, 1365 (1980). In this case, we find no evidence of clear error. The Board found credible the three witnesses that testified concerni......
-
Grievance of Muzzy, In re, 364-80
...that the findings were clearly erroneous." In re Young, 134 Vt. 569, 570, 367 A.2d 665, 666 (1976). See also In re McGrath, 138 Vt. 77, 82, 411 A.2d 1362, 1365 (1980). This difference, however, is more semantic than substantive. As we have had occasion to note, the substantial evidence rule......
-
Agency of Administration, State Bldgs. Division, In re
...agency will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, In re Young, supra, conclusions of law are not so protected. In re McGrath, 138 Vt. 77, 82, 411 A.2d 1362, 1365 (1980). With this understanding in mind we must first look to the statutes for guidance in determining whether or not this d......
-
O'Bryan Const. Co., Inc. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 369-79
...we do not read § 1604 as narrowly as the trial court did. "(A) corporation can only act through its agents," In re McGrath, 138 Vt. 77, 80, 411 A.2d 1362, 1364 (1980), and therefore the trial court's construction of § 1604 would deny the statute's benefits to all corporations. We prefer a m......