Real Estate Commission of Maryland v. Tyler, 284
| Decision Date | 25 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 284,284 |
| Citation | 268 Md. 641,303 A.2d 778 |
| Parties | REAL ESTATE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. George S. TYLER, III t/a Severn Realty Company. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Thomas G. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Submitted to: MURPHY, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
The Real Estate Commission of Maryland (the Commission) is unhappy because a circuit court judge (Wray, J.) reversed the Commission's order denying the appellee's application for renewal of his license as a real estate broker and remanded the case to that Commission for rehearing. Code Art. 56, § 225(a) requires the Commission 'at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing (to) notify in writing the . . . license holder of the charges made . . ..' He is to be afforded 'an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.' The 'notice may be served by delivery of same personally to the . . . license holder, or by mailing same by registered mail to the last known business address of such . . . license holder.'
In this case notice was timely mailed to the business address of the appellee. However, it was mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to the addressee. Notice was left for the appellee by the postal authorities, but he did not pick up the letter. Of course, he could have had a dozen employees at his place of business, but if the delivery were restricted to the addressee it would have been necessary for him to go to the appropriate post office window during its regular hours if he were not personally present on the premises when the postman arrived. The appellee was personally served by an investigator for the Commission two days before the Commission's hearing. Since this service quite obviously failed to comply with the statutory requirement of ten days' notice, the order of the trial judge must be affirmed.
We are reluctant to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu when the case was submitted on brief by the appellant, no brief was filed by the appellee and no consideration has been given to the right of the Commission to appeal. We have grave doubts that the Commission has a right of appeal. Cf. e. g. Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co., Md., 302 A.2d 200 (1973) (decided March 28, 1973); Board of Zoning Appeals v. Guns, 259 Md. 368, 269 A.2d 833 (1970); Subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calvert v. Howlin
...286 Md. 353, 407 A.2d 1148 (1979); see also Insurance Comm'r v. Allstate Ins., 268 Md. 428, 302 A.2d 200 (1973); Real Estate Comm'n v. Tyler, 268 Md. 641, 303 A.2d 778 (1973). In more recent times, however, both this Court and the General Assembly have significantly constrained that As we p......
-
Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects v. McWilliams, s. 101
...Appeal By Public Officer or Board 117 A.L.R. 216 (1938). We have continued this line of reasoning. See, e. g., Real Estate Comm'n v. Tyler, 268 Md. 641, 642, 303 A.2d 778 (1973); Insurance Comm'r v. Allstate Ins., 268 Md. 428, 444, 302 A.2d 200 (1973); Board of Zoning Appeals v. Guns, 259 M......
-
Maryland Port Administration v. C. J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc.
...in the law. See, for example, Board of Liquor License Commissioners v. Leone, 249 Md. 263, 239 A.2d 82 (1968); Real Estate Commission v. Tyler, 268 Md. 641, 303 A.2d 778 (1973), and, more recently, Employment Security Administration, Board of Appeals v. Smith, 282 Md. 267, 383 A.2d 1108 (19......
-
Maryland Real Estate Com'n v. Johnson
...but did not decide whether the Commission could appeal a circuit court reversal of a Commission decision. Real Estate Commission v. Tyler, 268 Md. 641, 642-43, 303 A.2d 778, 779 (1973). In Tyler, this Court affirmed the trial court's order reversing the Commission's denial of a renewal appl......