Nechtman v. Saker, No. 72--518
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Before BARKDULL; HENDRY |
| Citation | 271 So.2d 26 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--518 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1972 |
| Parties | William NECHTMAN, Petitioner, v. A. D. SAKER and the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondents. |
Page 26
v.
A. D. SAKER and the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondents.
Page 27
Gerson & Fuller, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Frank A. Wilkinson, Orlando, for respondents.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
HENDRY, Judge.
Petitioner, a real estate broker, seeks review by certiorari of a final order of the respondent commission which found him in violation of § 475.25(1)(c), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and suspended him pending payment of a commission allegedly due to one of his employees.
In June of 1969, the petitioner employed a saleswoman (Treadwell) and voluntarily paid her 20% Of a $3,300.00 share of a total commission earned by petitioner on the sale of a piece of property to one of petitioner's clients. Treadwell claimed a 50% Share based on an alleged oral agreement with the petitioner. She complained to the commission, an information was filed, a hearing was held, and the commission adopted the examiner's recommended order and suspended the petitioner for failure to pay the remaining amount due to Treadwell.
Petitioner's major contention is that the respondent commission lacked the jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner for an act that was not within the purview of a § 475.25(1)(c) (1969), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., 1 as it existed on the date of the alleged misconduct. In support of this contention petitioner cites the case of Cannon v. Florida Real Estate Comm., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 240, cert. denied, Fla., 226 So.2d 817. We are of the opinion that the facts of the case sub judice fall squarely in line with those in the Cannon case, supra, and, accordingly, quash the final order of suspension by the commission.
The Cannon case involved a complaint brought against the petitioner broker by a saleswoman in his employ for her share of certain earned commission. The commission filed an information against the broker for violation of § 475.25(1) (c) (1967), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and a final order of suspension was entered against the petitioner Cannon. In finding that the commission lacked the authority to suspend the petitioner the court said at pages 241 and 242:
'(2) Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was enacted for the purpose of protecting the public in dealings with real estate agents. (citations omitted.)
'The role of the judiciary is usurped if the commission is permitted to decide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. Department of Environmental Protection, No. 96-4182
...469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Lewis v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm'n, 462 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Nechtman v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). DEP does not contend otherwise Citing Florida Cable Television Association v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14 (Fla.1994), DEP argues ......
-
Lewis v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Com'n, No. AW-189
...prospectively. See: McClung v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, 458 So.2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Nechtman v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA We find that the Commission improperly charged appellant under authority of a statute which has no retroactive application. Ther......
-
Childers v. Department of Environmental Protection, No. 96-4182
...469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Lewis v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm'n, 462 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Nechtman v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). DEP does not contend otherwise Citing Florida Cable Television Association v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14 (Fla.1994), DEP argues ......
-
Lewis v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Com'n, No. AW-189
...prospectively. See: McClung v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, 458 So.2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Nechtman v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA We find that the Commission improperly charged appellant under authority of a statute which has no retroactive application. Ther......