Stockton Mortgage v. Zinnemann
Filed 5/30/06 Stockton Mortgage v. Zinnemann CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
STOCKTON MORTGAGE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PAULA REDDISH ZINNEMANN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C046886, C046913 (Super. Ct. Nos. CV011517, CV015157) |
The trial court sustained the restriction, and eventual revocation, of plaintiffs' real estate brokers' licenses. Plaintiffs claim the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and resulted from procedural error. We agree there was one instance of error, but adequately supported grounds for revocation remain. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Stockton Mortgage, Inc. (Stockton Mortgage) is licensed by defendant Department of Real Estate (DRE) as a corporate real estate broker acting by and through plaintiff Ross F. Cardinalli. Cardinalli is also a licensed real estate broker. Defendant Paula Zinnemann serves as the Commissioner of DRE.
Plaintiffs operate a mortgage loan brokerage. They solicit lenders and borrowers for loans secured by liens on real property. They negotiate, process, consummate, and service these loans. They also sell and purchase promissory notes secured by liens on real property, and they perform services for the note holders.
In 1998, DRE, in an amended accusation, charged plaintiffs with violating statutes and regulations that govern the practice of real estate brokers, and it sought to revoke their licenses. (For convenience, we refer to the proceedings arising from this accusation as â€
