Tuesday
April 24, 2018

Law & Ethics: In Court Articles

  • Sat, 01/01/2005

    A Texas appeals court has ruled that a licensee doesn’t have to disclose litigation involving a property if the lawsuit is no longer pending.

  • Wed, 12/01/2004

    Iowa’s highest court has ruled that a relocation company is not liable when a home’s sellers fail to disclose flooding problems on the property.

  • Wed, 12/01/2004

    A federal appellate court has supported a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development statement of policy that markups on loan-related services provided by third parties are illegal unless additional settlement services are provided.

  • Mon, 11/01/2004

    Minnesota’s highest court has decided that if a brokerage was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker is entitled to a commission even though the sale came after the listing agreement had been terminated.

  • Fri, 10/01/2004

    Florida’s highest court has ruled that a broker may be entitled to receive a commission when property is condemned and purchased by the state.

  • Wed, 09/01/2004

    An Ohio appellate court has ruled that sellers and their sales associates who were both unaware of the presence of lead-based paint in a home weren’t liable for negligence in failing to tell buyers about the paint.

  • Thu, 07/01/2004

    A North Carolina appellate court has determined that because two commercial licensees had a business agreement on a commission split, whether or not one of the brokers was a procuring cause in the sale was not the deciding factor on whether he should receive a commission.

  • Thu, 07/01/2004

    The fact that a seller tried to discriminate in the sale of his home didn’t implicate the seller’s broker or the broker’s franchisor, a Georgia court has ruled.

  • Tue, 06/01/2004

    Mississippi's highest court has ruled that a buyer's representative was not entitled to a commission from her client when the client backed out of a transaction just before the scheduled closing date.

  • Tue, 06/01/2004

    A federal court ruling that administrative assistants working for a solo practitioner lawyer were employees instead of independent contractors may raise a possible tax issue for many real estate practitioners who use assistants.