Chodur

Chodur v. Edmonds

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 3d 565·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2763·220 Cal. Rptr. 80
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1985D002256California3,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lewis, J.

Philip Michael Chodur appeals the judgment denying his petition for peremptory writ of mandate directed to Real Estate Commissioner James A. Edmonds, Jr. (Commissioner), seeking to set aside the Commissioner’s order revoking Chodur’s real estate broker’s license subject to a right to apply for a restricted license. Chodur claims: (1) Business and Professions Code section 10177, subdivision (j), is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the facts do not support the conclusion of violation of the statute; (3) the failure to perform a contractual promise made in good faith does not constitute “dishonest dealing”; and (4) the court erred in determining the evidence did not establish the existence of mitigation.

We hold: (1) Section 10177, subdivision (j), is not unconstitutionally vague; (2) substantial evidence supports the findings of the trial judge; (3) the findings of the trial judge support the conclusion of violation of the statute for “dishonest dealing”; (4) the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion by revoking Chodur’s license and providing for issuance of a restricted license.-

Facts

Chodur held a real estate broker’s license since 1976…

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.