Court Opinion

ID: 9750919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:48:10.053622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:29.004783
License: Public Domain

MARCHIANO, P. J.,
Concurring. — I concur in the majority opinion and add the following perspective. Business and Professions Code section 10177, subdivision (b), enacted in 1943, allows the Real Estate Commissioner to suspend or revoke a license for the conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude.1 The section was interpreted literally so that such convictions provided a basis for license suspension or revocation. (See Watkins v. Real Estate Commissioner (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 397, 400 [6 Cal.Rptr. 191]; Denny v. Watson (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 491, 494 [250 P.2d 692].) As discussed below, however, due process considerations eventually caused the courts to require that the felony and moral turpitude crime convictions have a relationship to the qualifications and duties of the profession. To incorporate this restriction for the suspension and revocation of all covered licensed professions, some of which did not have the limitation that the crime be so related, section 475, subdivision (b) of division 1.5 applied the limiting provision by stating that “[notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, the provisions of this division shall govern the suspension and revocation of licenses” on the grounds of a conviction of a crime.2 Section 490 of division 1.5 requires that the crime be related to the qualifications and duties of the profession.
A review of the historical evolution of the present disciplinary provisions aids in understanding the result in this case. Section 10177, passed in 1943 to establish grounds for real estate licensee discipline, did not and does not contain the requirement that the crime be substantially related to the profession’s duties and qualifications. Conviction of a felony first appeared in 1943 and “a crime involving moral turpitude” was added by a 1949 amendment. (§ 10177, as amended by Stats. 1949, ch. 826, § 6, p. 1572.) After many *569amendments during the last 60 years, the Legislature has not changed the wording of conviction of “a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude” as grounds that the Real Estate Commissioner may use to suspend or revoke a license under section 10177. Subdivision (b) describes unambiguously “a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude” as the predicate criminal offense for license suspension or revocation without the requirement that the crime be substantially related to the profession. The Legislature, however, passed comprehensive division 1.5 in 1972 to fill in the gap. Section 490 of division 1.5 imposes the additional requirement that the predicate crime be substantially related to the qualifications for all licensed professionals, including real estate brokers. Section 490 does not set forth a separate basis for suspension or revocation, but is an additional requirement that must be met to satisfy due process. (See Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 461, 466 [163 Cal.Rptr. 566].)
The text of some of the sections of division 1.5 demonstrates that part of the purpose of division 1.5 was to adopt a uniform requirement of a substantial relationship of the crime to licensed professions for suspensions and revocations based on conviction of a crime. The Legislature expressed the need for this nexus in new division 1.5, section 481, subdivision (a) : “No act shall be grounds for denial, however, which does not have a substantial relationship to the functions and responsibilities of the licensed business or profession.” (Stats. 1972, ch. 903, § 1, pp. 1605, 1606.) Section 490 then read: “Each board, when considering the suspension or revocation of a license under this code on the ground that the licensee has been convicted of a crime, shall take into account the relationship of the crime to the licensed activity.”3 (Stats. 1972, ch. 903, § 1, pp. 1605, 1607.) And the Legislature’s 1972 Summary Digest further explained in part that the new division “[establishes [a] standard for suspension or revocation of licenses on ground of conviction of crime . . . .” (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1349 (1972 Reg. Sess.) 2 Stats. 1972, Summary Dig., p. 122.) The subsequent amendments to division 1.5 are rooted in the original language and purpose expressed in 1972. The overarching purpose was not to provide an independent basis for suspension or revocation based on section 490, but to ensure that whatever crimes were specified in the individual sections covering licensed professions included the substantial relationship nexus 4
*570An exposition of the purpose and interplay of section 490 with section 10177 is found in Donaldson v. Department of Real Estate (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 948, 954-955 [36 Cal.Rptr.3d 577]: “ ‘The commissioner may suspend or revoke the license of a real estate licensee . . . who has . . . [e]ntered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or been found guilty of, or been convicted of, a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude . . . .’ Standing alone, this provision would authorize discipline for any conviction involving moral turpitude. It is ‘tempered,’ however, by section 490, which limits the discretion of licensing authorities. [Citations.] Section 490 states in pertinent part, ‘A board may suspend or revoke a license on the ground that the licensee has been convicted of a crime, if the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued.’ Thus a determination that a licensee’s conviction justifies discipline cannot rest on the moral reprehensibility of the underlying conduct, but requires a reasoned determination that the conduct was in fact substantially related to the licensee’s fitness to engage in the profession. [Fn. 4 omitted.] [Citation.]”
Footnote 4 in Donaldson v. Department of Real Estate, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at page 955 explains: “Prior to the adoption of section 490, the Department had been held to have the power under Business and Professions Code section 10177 to impose discipline for any conviction involving ‘moral turpitude,’ whether or not the underlying conduct reflected in any articulable manner on the licensee’s fitness to practice the profession. (Jennings v. Karpe (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 709 [111 Cal.Rptr. 776].) Section 490 was manifestly intended to rein in that power.” Section 490 did not provide an independent basis for discipline, but was intended to add an additional limiting requirement to section 10177’s requirements for discipline.
Pieri v. Fox (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 802 [158 Cal.Rptr. 256] likewise demonstrates how the provisions of division 1.5 work in tandem with section 10177. In that case, a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude was not sufficient by itself to deny a license where the crime bore no relationship to the applicant’s qualifications and the applicant had complied with the division’s remedial requirements. Although the language of section 10177 would have permitted denial of the license, section 480 of division 1.5 also applied to limit the effect of section 10177.
*571In this case, the Department of Real Estate first had to prove the crime constituted moral turpitude under section 10177 and, if established, then secondly, that the crime was substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a real estate broker. (See Pieri v. Fox, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at p. 807.) The administrative law judge correctly found that the predicate misdemeanor did not involve moral turpitude, making it unnecessary to reach section 490’s requirement that the crime additionally be substantially related to the qualifications of the profession.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 21, 2006, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

 All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code.

 Division 1.5 refers to division 1.5 of the Business and Professions Code, entitled “Denial, Suspension and Revocation of Licenses.”

 “Board” includes the Department of Real Estate. (§ 477.)

 Cf. section 493 that allows the applicable board to look beyond the record of conviction to inquire into the circumstances of the crime in order to determine if it is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of the licensee. And section 489 was amended in 1978 to delete “lacks good character” in favor of referring back to section 480 that included the crime must be substantially related to the qualifications for denial of a license. (Stats. 1978, ch. 1161, § 2, p. 3586 [§ 489 was formerly § 116, added by Stats. 1955, ch. 1151, § 1, p. 2145].)