Opinion ID: 1708923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Is a verified complaint required to be in the record under these circumstances?

Text: Finally, Ms. Harris suggests that the action against her was invalid since the complaint was unverified. Ms. Harris argues that Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-21 (Supp. 1985) restricts the Commission in its proceedings. The pertinent part of that provision states: The Commission may, upon its own motion and shall upon the verified complaint in writing, of any person, hold a hearing for the refusal of license, or the suspension or revocation of a license previously issued. Also pertinent is Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-23(a), which provides in part: The Commission is hereby authorized and directed to take legal action against any violator of this chapter. Upon complaint initiated by the Commission or filed with it, the licensee or any other person charged with a violation of this chapter shall be given fifteen (15) days' notice of the hearing upon the charges filed, together with a copy of the complaint. Appellant Ms. Harris argues § 73-35-21 should be read as requiring the Commission to only proceed where a complaint has been verified. She argues that the statute requires that a complaint brought by any person shall be verified... . We cannot agree with this argument. It states that the Commission shall hold a hearing when it receives a verified complaint. The Commission may also hold a hearing on its own motion and proceed by its own complaint. Ms. Harris counters that there is no evidence that the Commission proceeded by its own complaint in this case, and in fact the only evidence is that the complaint was that of Mrs. Burnside. Mrs. Burnside did identify the written complaint as hers, but the complaint is styled Eloise Burnside and the Mississippi Real Estate Commission v. Jessie Harris et al, and the complaint clearly states Comes now the Mississippi Real Estate Commission and files this complaint. The fact that Mrs. Burnside identified the substance of the complaint as hers did not prohibit the Commission from proceeding upon its own motion. Finally, we note that this case most assuredly would not be before us were it not for Kay Street's dealings. Though Kay Street was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Commission, the Commission might do well to pass a regulation prohibiting licensed brokers from employing persons whose licenses have been revoked. A similar position has been adopted by the Mississippi State Bar and the Commission might look there for guidance. Also, we note that though we leave the decision of what punishment to impose to the Commission, the mitigating factors and surrounding circumstances in this case make the penalty of revocation appear harsh. We suggest the Commission take this into account if Ms. Harris seeks reinstatement. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., not participating.