Wallace

California Real Estate Loans, Inc. v. Wallace

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 1575·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 973·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 462·93 Daily Journal DAR 12404·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7303
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 1993A059552California3,058 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

California Real Estate Loans, Inc. (CREL), a California corporation, appeals from a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate, in which it challenged the revocation of its real estate broker’s license by the Real Estate Commissioner (the Commissioner). The revocation was based on a determination by the Commissioner that a civil judgment had been entered against CREL based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 10177.5.

In that portion of this opinion certified for publication, we consider CREL’s argument that the Commissioner’s action violated section 10179, which in some circumstances requires “guilty knowledge” by a broker before the broker can be disciplined for the wrongful acts of its agents. We hold that section 10179 does not create an exception to the unconditional language of section 10177.5; therefore, a broker against whom a judgment has been obtained may be disciplined pursuant to section 10177.5 even if its liability in that action was vicarious. We also hold that the three-year statute of limitations for an accusation based on section 10177.5 begins to run on the date of final judgment…

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.