Appeal from the Order of the State Real Estate Commission in case of State Real Estate Commission v. William E. Perry, William E. Perry, Inc. and Louis J. Beemer, No. 2055.
C. Barry Buckley, for appellants.
Robert D. Chamberlain, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 582]
This appeal is from an order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Real Estate Commission's (Commission) six month suspension of the Real Estate Brokers' Licenses of William E. Perry and William E. Perry,
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 583]
Inc. (hereinafter referred in the singular as Appellant).*fn1 We allowed a supersedeas of that order pending final determination.
On sworn statement of complaint filed by Robert Schaefer (Complainant) the Commission issued a citation and notice of hearing on October 1, 1973, against Appellant and Louis J. Beemer, and in accordance with the Real Estate Brokers' License Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 1216, as amended, 63 P.S. § 440 et seq. and the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, as amended, 71 P.S. § 1710.1 et seq. a hearing was held. The complaint alleged, inter alia, violations of Section 10(a) subsections (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (9) of the Real Estate Brokers' License Act, 63 P.S. §§ 440(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9).
Briefly summarized, the facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows: In March of 1969, Complainant came to Appellant's office and indicated an interest in purchasing real estate in Chester County. Appellant suggested a property which was titled in part in William E. Perry. Complainant viewed the property and it seemed acceptable, but recognizing the prospect of difficulty in obtaining a mortgage, he told Appellant's salesman, Beemer, that he would make an offer subject to a 7% mortgage contingency, and a 30% down payment clause. Beemer agreed and Appellant, William E. Perry, then prepared an agreement of sale which omitted the mortgage contingency clause. The record does not tell us precisely why it was not included in the agreement of sale (which Complainant executed without a full reading), but suffice it to say that Beemer and Appellant reached some sort of impasse on the subject of the clause's inclusion, and it was not included in the final
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 584]
formal agreement. Complainant executed the agreement of sale but Appellant failed to deliver a copy until Complainant's insistence a few days prior to settlement. It was then that the absence of the mortgage contingency clause was discovered. When Complainant was unable to obtain the necessary financing, Appellant invoked a forfeiture provision in the agreement and retained the down payment.
Commission found Appellant in violation of Sections 10(a)(7) and 10(a)(9), 63 P.S. §§ 440(a)(7); ...