Business and corporate attorney
Appellant contractor submitted an application to respondent department of real estate for payment of damages from the department’s recovery account. The application was denied. The contractor then sought a court order directing payment from the recovery account. The department opposed the application. The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (California) denied the order. The contractor appealed.
The contractor performed services for a real estate broker, who died without paying the contractor. The contractor filed a creditor’s claim in the broker’s probate estate and obtained a judgment on February 13, 1996, but did not file his application for reimbursement from the recovery account until December 19, 2000. The contractor argued that the one-year filing requirement was not triggered by the February 13, 1996, judgment and did not begin to run until entry of the June 2, 2000, probate court order settling the broker’s estate. The appellate court found that: (1) the contractor failed to timely file his application with the department, as the February 1996 judgment was a final judgment that did not require business and corporate attorney for further approval by the probate court; (2) it was the finality of the judgment for fraud or conversion, not the finality of subsequent procedures to enforce the judgment, which triggered the limitations period for filing an application for relief from the recovery account; and (3) the February 1996 judgment conformed to the terms of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10471(a), while the judgment settling the broker’s estate did not comply with the statute.
The superior court’s judgment was affirmed.
Plaintiff psychologist appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied his petition to mandate defendant, the State Board of Behavioral Science Examiners, to restore his marriage, family, and child counseling license under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17800 et seq.
Plaintiff psychologist was a licensed counselor pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2900 et seq. who applied for and was issued a marriage, family, and child counseling license by defendant, the State Board of Behavioral Science Examiners, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17800 et seq. After defendant revoked the license, plaintiff filed a petition to mandate defendant to restore the license, which the trial court denied. The court held that plaintiff’s § 2900 counseling license was not a valid license issued by a corresponding authority pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17809 because it was issued in the same state and that implying a grandfather clause would have given him more rights than ever legislatively intended. The court also held that defendant could not be estopped from revoking because plaintiff had not shown detrimental reliance and that education requirements of the counseling license law were valid. As plaintiff did not meet the educational requirements, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff psychologist’s petition for mandate. Defendant, the State Board of Behavioral Science Examiners, properly revoked plaintiff’s marriage, family, and child counseling license, which was issued by administrative error, because plaintiff did not meet the requisite, valid educational requirements.
