:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/children-traveling-KIDTRVL0719-f347c36eb8af40e5a4415ba352a93c65.jpg)
The McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act cause of action against an insurance company that alleged discrimination against minorities in the use of credit scores for underwriting because Texas state law had already answered those questions by passing a statute that specifically authorized credit scoring subject to statutory limitations and regulatory standards enforced by the Department of Insurance. Appellant was represented by a business attorney.
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner realtor appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied the realtor’s request for a writ of mandate to compel respondent real estate commissioner to vacate his order which revoked the realtor’s real estate license. The superior court had affirmed the decision of the commissioner, who revoked the realtor’s license during administrative hearings.
Overview
On two occasions the realtor promised sellers that if a sale did not go through, the realtor would split the deposit made by the respective buyers with the seller. In one of these instances, the realtor never received any deposit, and in the other instance, the realtor tried to avoid paying the one-half of the deposit which was owed to the seller. Additionally, the realtor did not place the one deposit he did receive in a trust account or a neutral depositary. Following an administrative hearing, the commissioner revoked the realtor’s license, and the lower court refused the realtor’s request to issue a writ of mandate against the commissioner to compel him to vacate the revocation of the realtor’s license. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to revoke the realtor’s license in both transactions. By falsely stating that he had received a deposit when he had received none, the realtor had engaged in fraudulent conduct in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10176(a)(i). By not placing the deposit he did receive with a proper institution, the realtor violated Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, § 2830.
Outcome
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, which held that the realtor was not entitled to a writ of mandate to vacate the commissioner’s revocation of the realtor’s real estate license.
