Legal Opinion

Harbeitner v. Superintendent, Ohio Department of Commerce

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1997No. 95-1925PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether the judgment awarded to the Harbeitners is the type of judgment that must be paid, upon proper application, from the Real Estate Recovery Fund (the “Fund”). For the reasons that follow, we hold that the judgment was not obtained “on the grounds of conduct associated with an act or transaction of a broker or salesman” within the meaning of R.C. 4735.12(B). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

The Fund was created in 1974 with the enactment of R.C. 4735.12. 135 Ohio Laws, Part II, 1196. R.C. 4735.12(B) states that “[w]hen…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dent v. WinkleOhio Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harbeitner v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Real EstateOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API