April 20, 2018

Law & Ethics: In Court Articles

  • Sun, 06/01/2003

    A Kansas federal district court concluded that the only reason the brokerage didn’t conduct negotiations with the buyer was the owner’s “deceit and misrepresentations” in failing to refer the buyer to the broker, as required in the listing agreement.

  • Thu, 05/01/2003

    The Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a transaction broker earned a commission by securing a buyer, even though the broker had not performed all the obligations for a transaction broker listed in the state’s real estate statute.

  • Tue, 04/01/2003

    An Illinois Appellate Court has ruled that because a seller failed to refer a prospective buyer to a broker with an exclusive listing agreement, the broker is entitled to a commission on the sale to the prospect, even after the listing has expired.

  • Tue, 04/01/2003

    The court based its decision on an assessment of the salesperson’s status as an independent contractor, finding that some policies of the company qualified the salesperson as an employee.

  • Sat, 03/01/2003

    In a reversal of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an owner or officer of a real estate corporation isn't personally liable for violations of federal fair housing laws by an agent or employee except under certain circumstances. However, the high court did state that under legal principles of vicarious liability, the corporation itself could be held liable for an employee or agent's actions.

  • Sat, 02/01/2003

    A Texas appellate court has decided in favor of a challenge by the insurance company and reduced a jury verdict that awarded over $32 million dollars to homeowners whose house had become uninhabitable because of mold. The court affirmed the trial court’s award of approximately $4 million in actual damages to the 7,400 square foot home, plus interest, but found that the evidence didn't support the additional awards.

  • Wed, 01/01/2003

    Oregon’s highest court has decided that the state’s real estate commission couldn't declare a broker untrustworthy and revoke his license when he was found guilty of crimes that didn't directly relate to licensed real estate activity.

  • Wed, 01/01/2003

    Prospective homebuyers in Mississippi received a property condition disclosure statement that revealed prior termite damage.

  • Sun, 12/01/2002

    A New York court found neither the broker, home inspector, or sellers were guilty of fraud or negligent misrepresentation for failing to warn buyers of past water damage to a property. Several factors contributed to the decision.

  • Sun, 12/01/2002

    A court ruled that a radon test comment didn’t constitute fraud because the statement was made after the purchase agreement was signed, and thus the seller couldn’t have relied on this information in deciding to accept the offer.