Appeal from the Order of the State Real Estate Commission in case of State Real Estate Commission v. Earl L. Miller, RB and Earl L. Miller, II, RS, Case No. 2091.
M. A. Della Vecchia, with her Evashavik, Capone & Evans, for appellant.
Richard W. Baseman, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Kramer and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 484]
Earl L. Miller, II, appeals from an adjudication and order of the State Real Estate Commission (Commission) suspending his real estate broker's license for 180 days for violating Subsections 10(a)(1), 10(a)(2) and 10(a)(7) of the Real Estate Brokers License Act.*fn1 We affirm.
The sequence of events leading to the Commission's action began in 1970 when Joseph Costanzo deposited $5000 with his friend, Earl L. Miller, Sr., appellant's father (who was a licensed real estate broker) toward the purchase of a building on Walnut Street in Pittsburgh. Although that sale was never consummated Miller, Sr. nevertheless retained the money until another building could be purchased. In the spring of 1971, appellant, who was then a real estate salesman in his father's agency,*fn2 approached Costanzo about the purchase of a building on Murray Street in Pittsburgh. At the time appellant informed Costanzo that Gulf Oil Corporation might be interested in purchasing the property so that they might be able to sell it shortly after purchase at a sizable profit. The possibility of that resale, however, disappeared before the date set for the purchase by them.
Appellant also approached Julius Tamburi who was then renting space for his bar business in the Murray
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 485]
Street building. Tamburi was naturally interested in acquiring a part-ownership in the building in order to avoid the possibility that his lease might not be renewed. Appellant promised him a fifteen-year lease and so Tamburi expressed interest in entering into a partnership with appellant and Costanzo for the purpose of acquiring the building. Appellant also indicated to Costanzo that he was arranging for the creation of a partnership, consisting of himself, Costanzo and Tamburi for the purpose of acquiring the Murray Street property. Costanzo and Tamburi were each to invest $5000 toward the purchase, while appellant would pay certain costs and perform services connected with the transfer and would also eventually act as a rental agent for the property. Costanzo's $5000 investment was to be derived from the deposit he had placed with Miller, Sr. for the Walnut Street property.
The seller of the property and the three would-be partners convened on December 1, 1971, the scheduled date for closing. However, Tamburi's attorney was also present and he advised his client not to go through with the deal for several reasons which he later explained to the Commission:
1) The documents necessary to create the partnership had not been drafted;
2) Mrs. Tamburi and Mrs. Costanzo were required at the last moment to sign the mortgage, contrary ...