Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Department of Real Estate

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1207·51 Cal. App. 4th 1289·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 652·96 Daily Journal DAR 15537·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9480
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1996A074922California4,060 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

In this case, we hold that the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate does not violate a real estate broker’s due process rights by suspending the broker’s license as an automatic consequence of granting a defrauded client’s claim for payment from the department’s client recovery account. Current legal requirements of notice to the broker and an opportunity to submit written argument challenging the claim are sufficient to satisfy due process, despite the lack of any provision for a formal administrative hearing at which the licensee may offer evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

In the matter before us, the trial court denied appellant Gustavo Rodriguez’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate, effectively allowing respondent Department of Real Estate to suspend his real estate broker’s license. Rodriguez appeals, contending that (1) the automatic suspension provision of Business and Professions Code section 10475 violates his right to due process; and (2) on statutory grounds, he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before his license was suspended. We affirm the judgment.

I. Facts

Appellant Gustavo Rodriguez is a real estate broker licensed by…

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.