Legal Opinion

Buccella v. Mayo

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 20, 1980No. Civ. 21250PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KAUFMAN, J.

Plaintiff, Franklin Buccella, obtained an order directing payment of $6,946.28 from the Real Estate Education Research and Recovery Fund (hereinafter Fund) on account of an unsatisfied default judgment against defendant, Eugene Mayo. Both defendant 2 and Fund appeal from the order. We conclude the order must be reversed because the record discloses that no evidence was presented to the trial court establishing that the conduct of defendant complained of by plaintiff constituted or involved acts for which a real estate license is required.

Plaintiff’s original complaint for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Robinson v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Middelsteadt v. KarpeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. Fox v. Prime Ventures, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1978

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Booth v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. Merrifield v. EdmondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real EstateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  4. Murphy v. Today's Properties, Ltd.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Brody v. AlfieriNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API