Stout

Stout v. Edmonds

Good Law
180 Cal. App. 3d 66·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1486·225 Cal. Rptr. 345
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 1986A026756California899 words

Opinion

Opinion

Racanelli, J.

This appeal by the Real Estate Commissioner (Commissioner) from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and respondents directing payment of $20,000 out of the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10470 et seq.) raises the single issue whether the offending real estate broker “performed acts for which a license is required” within the meaning of section 10471. We will conclude and explain that the licensee’s actions do not fulfill the statutory requirement for indemnity from the Real Estate Fund.

Facts

The facts are essentially uncontroverted:

Discussion

Section 10470 et seq. creates a special fund from license fees to compensate members of the public who are defrauded by real estate licensees. The statute provides for recovery from the fund of unpaid judgments against a licensee for actual or constructive fraud and conversion of trust funds “arising directly out of any transaction when the judgment debtor was licensed and performed acts for which a license is required.” (§ 10471, subd. (a); Froid v. Fox (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 832, 836 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 461 ].)

The right to recover from the fund is statutorily created, and a plaintiff…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.