Nichandros v. Real Estate Division

California Court of Appeal May 23, 1960 No. Civ. 19065Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence in an administrative hearing does not invalidate the proceedings if there is sufficient competent evidence to support the findings, and that intent to deceive is not a required element for finding actionable misrepresentation if the licensee made false assertions to induce a contract.

Issues

Whether the admission of hearsay testimony regarding statements made by a third party constitutes reversible error in an administrative license suspension proceeding.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the appellant made false representations to induce a real estate purchase.
Whether proof of intent to deceive is a necessary element for a finding of misrepresentation under Business and Professions Code section 10176.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the admission of irrelevant or incompetent evidence by the board is not ground to annul its action if there is sufficient competent evidence to support its determination.”

“Proof that appellant intended to and did induce the purchasers to enter into the contract of sale by the representations is sufficient.”

STONE, J. pro tem.

This is an appeal from a 30-day suspension of appellant’s real estate salesman’s license. Niehandros Development Company subdivided a 20-lot tract in Alameda County. Nineteen of the lots had been cleared for the building of new homes but there was an old house and

[181]

windmill on the 20th lot. Appellant was employed as a salesman by the Crest Realty Company, a real estate agency engaged in the sale of the lots in the tract. During October of 1955, appellant sold Mr. and Mrs. Seymour Bachman one of the lots on which a new home had been built. They testified that before purchasing the property, they asked appellant about the old building and he advised them it was to be torn down or replaced by a modern home. Appellant denied making such representations. Nothing was done about the old building for some months so the Bachmans complained to the State Real Estate Commissioner and an accusation was filed. At the time of the first hearing which was held before an administrative officer on September 19, 1958, the old house was still standing and being used as an office by the real estate agency and by the development company. Following the initial hearing, an amended accusation was filed and a hearing thereon was held January 26,1959. At the second hearing, the purchaser of another lot in the subdivision was permitted to testify, over objection, that an agent of Crest Realty, other than the appellant, also represented that the old house was to be torn down or remodeled.

The hearing officer found that the representations were made by appellant as charged by the Bachmans; that the representations were not true; and that the Bachmans, by said representations, were induced to purchase the house and lot. The real estate commissioner ordered appellant’s license suspended for a period of 30 days pursuant to Business and Professions Code, section 10176. The pertinent portion of this section provides:

“The commissioner may, upon his own motion, and shall, upon the verified complaint in writing of any person, investigate the actions of any person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a real 'estate licensee within this State, and he may temporarily suspend or permanently revoke a real estate license at any time where the licensee, while a real estate licensee, in performing or attempting to perform any of the acts within the scope of this chapter has been guilty of any of the following:

Nichandros v. Real Estate Division

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief