{
  "id": 8547911,
  "name": "WILLIAM E. PARRISH v. NORTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE LICENSING BOARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parrish v. North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7810SC588",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 102"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571022,
        8570992,
        8571090,
        8571064,
        8570909
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0731-03",
        "/nc/288/0731-02",
        "/nc/288/0731-05",
        "/nc/288/0731-04",
        "/nc/288/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554044
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 477,
    "char_count": 10531,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.798,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3755011818753488e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7962271159438253
    },
    "sha256": "3f2f97917c83b441692840941e352f21600cb0e60a1d3e22191abf088b31b3a4",
    "simhash": "1:dacfbd77000225c3",
    "word_count": 1750
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:40.540741+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge ARNOLD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM E. PARRISH v. NORTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE LICENSING BOARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nThe respondent first contends that the order of the Board was fatally defective and procedurally unlawful because it found respondent guilty of violating G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) when respondent was not notified that he was charged with violating that section of the statute.\nThe Board is an administrative agency subject to the requirements of Chapter 150A of the North Carolina General Statutes. G.S. 150A-23(b) provides that in contested cases:\n\u201cThe parties shall be given a reasonable notice of the hearing, which notice shall include:\n(2) A reference to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved; . . .\u201d\nThe letter of 21 July 1977, which notified respondent of a hearing before the Board, set forth the following facts:\n\u201c(3) That sometime in December, 1976 you received a written offer to purchase the property wherein J. C. Wheeler and Douglas Y. Perry, as buyers, offered to pay a purchase price of $160,000 and wherein it was represented that a $1,000 was being tendered with the offer as an earnest money deposit.\n(4) That you represented to the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hartman, that you were neither a partner nor investor in the purchase.\n(5) That the transaction was completed and closed on February 15, 1977 and the property was conveyed by the Hartmans.\n(6) That you received a $9,000 commission from the Hart-mans.\n(7) That you never received the $1,000 earnest money deposit as represented in the sales contract; that you were a co-equal partner with J. C. Wheeler and Douglas Y. Perry in the purchase of said property; that you acted for yourself, J. C. Wheeler, and Douglas Y. Perry, as buyers; and that all of this was accomplished without the knowledge or consent of the Hartmans.\u201d\nThe letter indicated that the stated facts, if found to be true would constitute violations of G.S. 93A-6(a)(1), (4) and (10). The letter, however, did not indicate that the respondent was also charg\u00e9d with a violation of G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) for failing to deposit $1,000 in an escrow account.\nG.S. 93A-6 which empowers the Board to revoke the license of a real estate broker or salesman is penal in nature. Licensing Board v. Woodard, 27 N.C. App. 398, 219 S.E. 2d 271, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 731, 220 S.E. 2d 621 (1975). In administrative proceedings, statutory procedures which are mandatory must be strictly followed, especially in proceedings that are penal in nature. 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law \u00a7 354 (1962). We must therefore strictly construe the notice requirements in G.S. 150A-23. In addition, in criminal proceedings, an \u201cindictment must charge the offense with sufficient certainty to apprise the defendant of the specific accusation against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense . ...\u201d 7 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9.1. The same rationale is applicable in proceedings pursuant to G.S. 150A-23.\nRespondent was notified that he was charged with violating G.S. 93A-6(a)(1), (4) and (10), which provide:\n\u201c(1) Making any substantial and willful misrepresentations, or\n(4) Acting for more than one party in a transaction without the knowledge of all parties for whom he acts, or\n(10) Any other conduct whether of the same or a different character from that hereinbefore specified which constitutes improper, fraudulent or dishonest dealing, . . .\u201d\nSection 4 is relevant only to the issue of whether the respondent had failed to inform the vendors of his status as purchaser of the property and provides no notice of charges relating to the respondent\u2019s failure to establish an escrow account. Sections (1) and (10) refer specifically to acts that are intentional or willful.\nA defense to either of these statutory violations is that the respondent did not act intentionally but acted through oversight. There is no reference in either section to incompetence. Nor is there any statement in the notice which would indicate that the respondent\u2019s competency and ability as a real estate broker were in question. Therefore, the notice did not adequately apprise the respondent of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense.\nThe Board contends that G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) is essentially a lesser included offense of the other violations, and, therefore, notice that respondent was charged with violations of G.S. 93A-6 (a)(1) and (10) is sufficient to constitute notice of charges of incompetence. The test is whether the offense charged includes all the essential elements of the offense of which the defendant is convicted. See 7 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 18. G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) provides that a real estate broker\u2019s license may be revoked or suspended if he is \u201cunworthy or incompetent to act as a real estate broker or salesman in such manner as to safeguard the interests of the public . . . .\u201d This section requires findings on issues that are not included in the other sections. G.S. 93A-6(a)(1) and (10) do not raise any issues of respondent\u2019s worthiness or competency to act as a real estate agent or broker, or his ability to safeguard the interests of the public. Therefore, the ap-pellee\u2019s contention that G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) is a lesser included offense of G.S. 93A-6(a)(1) and (10) is without merit.\nFurther, assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the notice was sufficient, the facts do not support a finding that respondent violated G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) in that he was \u201cunworthy or incompetent.\u201d The finding was based solely on respondent\u2019s admission that he had failed, through oversight, to obtain a $1,000.00 earnest money deposit. There was no evidence that respondent had failed on any other occasion to obtain such deposit or that he was otherwise incapable of performing the duties of real estate broker. The evidence tends to show that the sale of the property was assured from the time it was offered for sale, and that complainant would suffer no loss as a result of respondent\u2019s failure to obtain the deposit. \u201cIncompetency\u201d is defined as, \u201cLack of ability, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duty.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 906 (4th ed. 1957). \u201cUnworthy\u201d is defined as, \u201cUnbecoming, discreditable, not having suitable qualities or value.\u201d Id. at 1709. The finding that respondent on a single occasion failed to obtain an earnest money deposit is insufficient to support the conclusion that he was unworthy and incompetent in violation of G.S. 93A-6(a)(8).\nThe order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for vacation of the order of the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge ARNOLD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James E. Scarbrough for the State, appellee.",
      "Smith, Debnam,' Hibbert and Pahl by W. Thurston Debnam, Jr.; Lake and Nelson by I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the plaintiff appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM E. PARRISH v. NORTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE LICENSING BOARD\nNo. 7810SC588\n(Filed 1 May 1979)\n1. Brokers and Factors \u00a7 8\u2014 real estate broker \u2014 notice of statutory violations \u2014 insufficiency for suspension of license for violation of another statute\nNotice to a real estate broker that he was charged with violations of G.S. 93A-6(a)(l), making substantial and willful misrepresentations, and G.S. 93A-6(a)(10), improper, fraudulent or dishonest dealing, because of his failure to collect a $1,000.00 earnest money deposit as required by a contract of sale was insufficient to support the suspension of his real estate broker\u2019s license for 90 days pursuant to G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) for being \u201cunworthy or incompetent to act as a real estate broker or salesman in such manner as to safeguard the interests of the public.\u201d\n2. Brokers and Factors \u00a7 8\u2014 real estate broker \u2014 failure to obtain earnest money \u2014 insufficiency to support conclusion he was \u201cunworthy or incompetent\u201d\nThe finding that a real estate broker on a single occasion failed to obtain an earnest money deposit was insufficient to support the conclusion that he was \u201cunworthy or incompetent\u201d in violation of G.S. 93A-6(a)(8), especially where the sale of the property was assured from the time the property was offered for sale, and the seller suffered no loss as a result of the broker\u2019s failure to obtain the deposit.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from McLelland, Judge. Order entered 10 March 1978 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 March 1979.\nThis is a proceeding pursuant to G.S. 93A-6 before the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as Board), for the revocation of the real estate broker\u2019s license of the respondent.\nThe petitioner, Mabel M. Hartman, brought a complaint before the Board alleging that on 17 December 1976, the respondent made an offer to purchase petitioner\u2019s property in Knightdale for $160,000.00 on behalf of J. C. Wheeler and Douglas Perry. Petitioner asked the respondent if he was also purchasing the property and he denied any involvement in the transaction other than as agent for the purchasers. Respondent received $9,000.00 commission from the sale. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the respondent had purchased the property with Wheeler and Perry.\nOn 21 July 1977, the Board notified the respondent that a complaint had been filed and that the investigation tended to show that he had failed to disclose that he was purchasing the property and that he had failed to place $1,000.00 in escrow as required by the contract of sale. The notice stated that the allegations, if true, would warrant the suspension or revocation of his license pursuant to G.S. 93A-6(a)(l), (4) and (10).\nAt hearing before the Board, the respondent admitted that he had failed to obtain the $1,000.00 earnest money deposit, stating that it was an oversight. An order was entered in November 1977, finding that respondent failed to collect the $1,000.00 earnest money deposit and concluded as a matter of law that Respondent had violated G.S. 93A-6(a)(8) as \u201c[b]eing unworthy or incompetent to act as a real estate broker or salesman in such manner as to safeguard the interests of the public,\u201d and suspended respondent\u2019s real estate license for 90 days.\nThe Board found that there was insufficient evidence of his failure to disclose his status as purchaser to support a finding of a violation of G.S. 93A-6(a)(l), (4) or (10).\nRespondent appealed to the Superior Court from the order of the Board pursuant to G.S. 150A, Article 4. On 10 March 1978, the court entered an order which affirmed the decision of the Board.\nFrom this order, respondent appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James E. Scarbrough for the State, appellee.\nSmith, Debnam,' Hibbert and Pahl by W. Thurston Debnam, Jr.; Lake and Nelson by I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the plaintiff appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 130,
  "last_page_order": 135
}
