ARELLO ® Latest Course Decisions 2013-2014

Report
ARELLO
Latest Court Decisions
2013-2014
ARELLO Law and Regulation Committee
September, 2014
LAW & REGULATION COMMITTEE &
VOLUNTEERS
Briefing Cases
Sincerest Thanks:
•
• Gene Allison
•
• Chris Booth
•
• Julie Cropp
•
• Terry Duggan
•
• Herb Freeman
•
• Mike Gamblin
•
• Kenneth Gill
•
• Ulani Gulstone
•
• Kevin Hypes
•
• Daniel Kehew
•
• Robert Kinniebrew •
• Trevor Koot
Jeanette Langford
Greg Lemon
Kerri Lewis
Charlie Moody
Tom Pool
David Raphael
Steve Sargenti
Nikki Senter
James Therrien
Janet Thoren
Allen Trammell
Kim Wells
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
Citation: 2013-Ohio-2896
Court:
Court of Appeals of Ohio,
8th Appellate District
Columbus, Ohio
December 13, 2010
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
Complaint Process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Complaint Filed
Division Investigates
Charges Filed / Notice of Hearing
Hearing (before Hearing Examiner 12/13/10)
Recommended Decision (1/27/11)
Commission Meeting (4/6/11)
Commission Adopts/Modifies/Rejects (4/6/11)
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
Hearing examiner found 10 violations and
recommended revocation.
Before the Ohio Real Estate Commission:
• Knight submitted evidence.
• No hearing or testimony.
• Commission adopted recommended order.
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
Judicial Review:
• Division initially filed incomplete record
• partial transcript due to inaudible recording
• Division files supplement to complete record
• complete transcript
• additional correspondence submitted by Knight
before the Commission meeting
• Court: Division improperly bootstrapped
evidence about Eral to Knight & remanded.
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohio Div. of Real Estate v. Knight
Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas
Court.
Incomplete record prejudiced licensee
• Delay in completing transcript not prejudicial
• Failure to include documents submitted by Knight
harmed her case before C.P. Court.
• Only evidence Knight submitted
• Court remanded and instructed C.P. Court to enter
judgment against the Division
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Oni v. Tenn. Dep’t of Health
Citation: 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467
2013 WL 3808214
Court:
Court of Appeals of Tennessee,
Nashville
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Oni v. Tenn. Dep’t of Health
2003 - Oni charged with burglary, theft, and
battery in Georgia
Oct. 2003 - Oni indicates no criminal charges on NY
renewal
Aug. 2007 - Oni accepted reprimand in lieu of formal
discipline in Tennessee and agreed to pay
$3,000 fine and $3692.65 costs
Nov. 2007 - Oni indicates no reprimand on NY renewal
Mar. 2011 - Oni’s NY license revoked for failing to
report criminal charges and reprimand
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Oni v. Tenn. Dep’t of Health
January 2012 Tennessee Order:
• Oni found in violation of prior reprimand to to
his failure to pay remaining $692.65 balance
• Oni found in violation of Tennessee law
because he was disciplined in New York
• Oni required to pay $692.65 costs remaining
from 2007 reprimand.
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Oni v. Tenn. Dep’t of Health
January 2012 Tennessee Order:
• Oni revoked based on
New York revocation.
– Page 3 –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Oni v. Tenn. Dep’t of Health
Judicial Review:
• Affirmed Board decision
requiring payment of 2007
costs
• Reversed Board decision
revoking TN medical license
• “By simply mirroring the New York Board’s
choice of discipline, the Board rendered an
arbitrary or capricious decision.”
– Page 3 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Tang v. Zhang
Citation: 2013 BCCA 52
Court:
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Tang v. Zhang
Issue: Buyer’s Forfeiture of $100,000 Deposit
on $2,030,000 Vancouver Home.
“amount paid by the Buyer
will be absolutely forfeited to
the seller in accordance with
the Real Estate Services Act,
on account of damages”
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Tang v. Zhang
Williamson Pacific
Developments v. Johns,
(1997) 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 180.
• $45,000 deposit
• “nonrefundable” “deposit
on account of purchase”
forfeited “on account of
damages”
• Court: no power in equity
to relieve buyers’
forfeiture
Agosti v. Winter, 2009 BCCA
490.
• $10,000 deposit
• “amount paid by the
Buyer will be absolutely
forfeited to the seller in
accordance with the Real
Estate Services Act, on
account of damages”
• Court: sellers do not have
unconditional right to
payment of deposit
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Tang v. Zhang
Court of Appeal for British Columbia:
• noted deposit language identical to Agosti
• reconciled Williamson & Agosti
• overruled Agosti
• reversed trial court judgment for buyers
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Tang v. Zhang
General Principles With Respect to Deposits:
• Whether a buyer’s deposit is forfeited is a matter of
contractual intent.
• A true deposit is intended to motivate the parties to
carry through on their bargains and generally forfeited
by the buyer when the buyer defaults.
• A deposit is an exception to the general rule that a
contractual amount subject to forfeiture is an unlawful
penalty.
• A deposit forfeited “on account of damages” does not
mean the deposit is lost only if damages are shown.
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Westgate Smoky Mts. v. Phillips
Citation: 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1014,
Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH)
P8438.
Court:
Supreme Court of Tennessee
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Westgate Smoky Mts. v. Phillips
Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort
Gatlinburg, TN
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Westgate Smoky Mts. v. Phillips
Procedural History
11/2009 - Vukich-Daw terminated
12/2009 - Department of Labor: Vukich-Daw = employee.
- timeshare salesperson not a “real estate agent”
3/2010 - Labor Appeals Tribunal: Vukich-Daw = employee
10/2010 - Board of Review: Vukich-Daw = employee
2011 - Chancery Court: Vukich-Daw = not an employee
- timeshare salesperson is “real estate agent”
8/2012 - Court of Appeals: Vukich-Daw = employee
- timeshare salesperson not a “real estate agent”
12/2013 - Supreme Court: Vukich-Daw = not an employee
- timeshare salesperson is “real estate agent”
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Westgate Smoky Mts. v. Phillips
Statutory Timeline
1973 - Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act (REBLA)
• licensure of real estate “brokers” and “affiliate brokers”
1981 - REBLA amended to add time-share transactions to
activities performed by brokers and affiliate brokers
1983 - Time-Share Act
• created time-share “sales agents”
• time-share “sales agents” were required to be under
1987
supervision of a broker and subject to REBLA & TREC
- Employment Security Law excludes “qualified real estate
1989
agent”
- REBLA amended to add time-share “salespersons”
• “salespersons” under supervision of broker
– Page 18 –
BROKERAGE PRACTICE
Westgate Smoky Mts. v. Phillips
Criteria:
1. Qualified real estate agent
– legislative history shows intent to treat timeshare
salesperson as “qualified real estate agent”
– timeshare salesperson licensed by TREC
2. Paid on commission
3. Services performed under written contract
– Page 18 –
CONTRACTS
Conley v. Guerrero
Citation: 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 709
Court:
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division,
Somerset County
NOTE: Issue involves facsimile messages and
electronic mail, not regular mail as reported.
– Page 20 –
CONTRACTS
Conley v. Guerrero
• Conley agreed to
purchase property
from Guerrero.
• Attorney review
clause allowed either
party to cancel
during review period.
• Guerrero’s counsel
sent notice of
cancellation by
facsimile and email
during review period.
The Cedars
Bernards Township, NJ
– Page 20 –
CONTRACTS
Conley v. Guerrero
Issue: Whether cancellation of a contract that required
cancellation by personal service, certified mail, or telegram was
effective when the cancellation was sent by facsimile and email.
Standard NJ Attorney Review Provision:
“If an attorney for the Buyer or the Seller reviews and
disapproves of this contract, the attorney must notify the
Broker(s) and the other party named in this contract within the
three-day period. Otherwise this contract will be legally binding
as written. The attorney must send the notice of disapproval to
the Broker(s) by certified mail, by telegram, or by delivering it
personally. The telegram or certified letter will be effective upon
sending. The personal delivery will be effective upon delivery to
the Broker’s office.”
– Page 20 –
CONTRACTS
Goldman v. Olmstead
Citation: 414 S.W.3d 346
Court:
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District
Goldmans – Buyers
• Hewett – Buyers’ agent
Olmsteads – Sellers
• Smith – Sellers’ agent
• Smith is Mrs. Olmstead’s mother
– Page 21 –
CONTRACTS
Goldman v. Olmstead
3813 Stanford
“TREC may suspend or revoke a license . . . or take disciplinary action
. . . if a license holder engages in misrepresentation dishonesty, or
fraud when selling real property in the name of a person related to
the license holder.” – Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1101.652(a)(3)
– Page 21 –
FAIR HOUSING
Keller v. City of Fremont
Citation: 719 F.3d 931
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
Fremont, Nebraska
– Page 23 –
FAIR HOUSING
Keller v. City of Fremont
Ordinance 5165:
• “It is unlawful for any person or
business entity to rent to, or
permit occupancy by, an illegal
alien, knowing or in reckless
disregard of the fact that an
alien has come to, entered, or
remains in the United States in violation of law.”
• “An ‘illegal alien’ is an alien who is not lawfully present in
the United States, according to [federal law.]”
– Page 23 –
FAIR HOUSING
Keller v. City of Fremont
Fremont Rental Process:
1. Prospective renter obtains occupancy license
–
–
2.
3.
4.
5.
provide $5 fee and citizenship information and immigration status
minors and temp. residents exempt
City issues occupancy license
Renter may begin tenancy and
landlord must keep copy of
renter’s occupancy license
Police ask federal government to
verify immigration status.
If renter is unlawfully present, renter must establish lawful
presence or occupancy license is revoked.
– Page 23 –
FAIR HOUSING
Keller v. City of Fremont
“We find no hint in the FHA’s history and purpose that such a law or
ordinance, . . . violates the FHA if local statistics can be gathered to
show that a disproportionate number of the adversely affected
aliens are members of a particular ethnic group. In most cases
today, that would of course be Latinos, but at various times in our
history, and in various locales, the “disparate impact” might have
been on immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, Italy,
China, or other parts of the world. It would be illogical to impose
FHA disparate impact liability based on the effect an otherwise
lawful ordinance may have on a sub-group
of the unprotected class of aliens not
lawfully present in this country.”
– Page 23 –
FAIR HOUSING
Miami Valley Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Connor
Group
Citation: 725 F.3d 571
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
599/1br — Great Bachelor Pad! (Centerville)
Our one bedroom apartments are a great
bachelor pad for any single man looking to
hook up.
This apartment includes a large bedroom, walk
in closet, patio, gourmet kitchen, washer dryer
hook up and so much more. . . .
– Page 25 –
FAIR HOUSING
Miami Valley Hous. Ctr., v. Connor Group
Chesapeake Landing Apartments
Dayton, Ohio
– Page 25 –
FAIR HOUSING
Miami Valley Hous. Ctr. v. Connor Group
Connor Group Craigslist Headlines:
• "No Matter What They Say, Size Does Matter!"
• "Wanna Be on TOP?!!"
• "Single?? . . . Mingle at The Greene!!"
• "Hook-Up Here!"
• "E-Harmony thinks we are a match!"
• "Happy Hour!!"
• "Size DOES Matter!! And We Measure Up!!"
• "It's That Time of the Month Again . . . Feeling a
Different Kind of Cramp Though?"
– Page 25 –
FAIR HOUSING
Miami Valley Hous. Ctr. v. Connor Group
Jury Instructions:
“If an ordinary reader who is a member of a protected class
would be discouraged from answering the advertisement because
of some discriminatory statement or indication contained therein,
then the fair housing laws have been violated.”
“Focus on the message being conveyed by the advertisement at
issue in this matter. Ask yourselves whether the message focuses
on the suitability of the property to the renter, which is
permissible, or whether it impermissibly focuses on the
suitability of the renter to the owner.”
– Page 25 –
GOVERNMENT
Baumgart v. Mont. Dept. of Commerce
Citation: 2014 MT 194
Court:
Supreme Court of Montana
– Page 26 –
GOVERNMENT
Baumgart v. Mont. Dept. of Commerce
– Page 26 –
GOVERNMENT
Baumgart v. Mont. Dept. of Commerce
– Page 26 –
GOVERNMENT
Kansas Bldg. Industry Workers
Compensation Fund v. State of Kansas
Citation: 49 Kan. App. 2d 354
310 P.3d 404
Court:
Court of Appeals
Kansas
Legislature Swept Fee Funds:
• Insurance Department
• Bank Commissioner
• Real Estate Commission
– Page 28 –
GOVERNMENT
Kansas Fund v. State of Kansas
Trade associations (including Kansas Association of
Realtors) challenged the sweep alleging:
• invalid exercise of police power because amount
swept exceeded cost of services
• was an unauthorized and unconstitutional tax
intended to raise general fund revenue
• unconstitutional taking in violation of the
commerce clause and 5th and 14th amendment
• denied equal protection rights
– Page 28 –
GOVERNMENT
Kansas Fund v. State of Kansas
• Status: Kansas Supreme Court granted State of
Kansas’ request to review ruling on standing.
• Court of Appeals suggested sweep may be
unconstitutional under Panhandle Easter Pipe
Line Co. v. Fadely, 332 P.2d 568 (Kan. 1958).
– Page 28 –
HEARINGS
Bobo v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Citation:
Court:
2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 266
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Smith – purchased property with aid of her broker, Donna
Bobo
Bobo – real estate broker who represented Smith in the
purchase and rental of property
Global – Bobo’s partnership with Horton. Under
agreement with Smith, took title to Smith’s properties
and was responsible for paying Smith’s mortgage.
– Page 30 –
HEARINGS
Bobo v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Global (Bobo’s
company) “is
acting as the
principal owner in
this transaction
and plans to
make . . . an
unconscionable
profit with this
property.”
– Broker’s
agreement with
her client, Ms.
Smith
Dungreen Avenue
Memphis, TN
– Page 30 –
HEARINGS
Bobo v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Bobo’s Contention:
• Decision
improperly based
on complainant
Smith’s hearsay
statements.
Court of Appeals:
• Hearsay may be substantial
evidence if corroborated by
other competent evidence.
• Bobo’s admissions
corroborated Smith’s hearsay
statements.
– Page 30 –
HEARINGS
Bobo v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Bobo’s Contention:
Court of Appeals:
• Lack of
• Bobo had notice of the
opportunity to
hearing and notice that Smith
confront
did not intend to testify, yet
complainant Smith
did not continue hearing or
was denial of due
procure Smith’s testimony.
process.
– Page 30 –
HEARINGS
Bobo v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Bobo’s Contention:
• Commission biased
by its prior
consideration of
rejected consent
order
Court of Appeals:
• Bobo failed to object.
• Commission was required to
serve in multiple, overlapping
roles. Dual functions are
inherent in administrative
agencies and this structure does
not, without other evidence,
demonstrate bias.
• No evidence any Commissioner
was prejudiced by knowledge of
rejected consent order.
– Page 30 –
HEARINGS
Pagel v. Iowa Real Estate Comm’n
Citation: Cause No. CVCV037875 (2014).
Court:
Iowa District Court,
Crawford County
Jane Pagel – real estate broker
who was preparing a BPO
Jack Seuntjens – real estate
broker who listed 1554 Oneida
– Page 33 –
HEARINGS
Pagel v. Iowa Real Estate Comm’n
Pagel removed personal property. In a police
report, she was quoted as saying: “no one
realtor has exclusive right to show the house”
and on repossessions, the personal property “is
considered up for grabs.”
Based, in part, on police
report, Pagel’s testimony
was deemed not credible.
– Page 33 –
LICENSING
Curd v. Ky. State Bd. of Licensure for
Prof’l Eng’rs & Land Surveyors
Citation: 433 S.W.3d 291
2014 Ky. LEXIS 226
Court:
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Southwoods
(exp: CURD)
Eadsville Highway
Matthews Tract
Denneys
(exp: WEST)
– Page 36 –
LICENSING
Curd v. Ky. State Bd. of Licensure
The purpose
of immunity
for witnesses
at trial is to
encourage
witnesses to
testify freely.
– Page 36 –
LICENSING
Curd v. Ky. State Bd. of Licensure for
Prof’l Eng’rs & Land Surveyors
Expert Immunity =
Typically Immunity From Civil Liability
Allowing Discipline for Expert Testimony:
• Promotes Public Trust in Profession
• Encourages Accurate Testimony Through
Accountability to Peers
• Judges = Not Experts
– Page 36 –
LICENSING
Izzi v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational
Affairs, State Real Estate Comm’n
Citation: 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub.
LEXIS 128
2014 WL 803622
Court:
Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania
– Page 38 –
LICENSING
Izzi v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Fall 2006
– Hantwerker/Tobin
agree to sell to
Izzi’s company
($86,000)
Oct. 4, 2006 – Hantwerker/Tobin –
Izzi Sale Closes
Oct. 20, 2006 – Izzi’s company sells
to Nieves ($99,000)
Jan. 7, 2007 – Izzi files deed, transfer
certificate stating H/T
conveyed to Nieves
– Page 38 –
LICENSING
Izzi v. State Real Estate Comm’n
2011
– Discipline initiated against Izzi
Jun. 15, 2011 – Consent agreement revoking Izzi’s license
Apr. 23, 2013 – Izzi reinstatement
request
Aug. 6, 2013 – Commission denies
reinstatement
Jun. 15, 2016 – Izzi eligible for
reinstatement
– Page 38 –
LICENSING
Izzi v. State Real Estate Comm’n
Only an adjudication is reviewable.
Adjudication:
• Final order, decree, determination, or ruling?
– and –
• Impact personal or property rights?
– Page 38 –
LICENSING
Izzi v. State Real Estate Comm’n
“Unless ordered to do so by Commonwealth
Court, the Commission shall not reinstate the
license, within five years of the date of
revocation, of any person whose license has
been revoked under this act.”
– 63 P.S. §455.501(c).
– Page 38 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Gussio v. Mississippi Real Estate
Commission
Citation: 122 So. 3d 783
Court:
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
John Gussio (father)
• responsible broker
• owns Gussio Realty
Greg Gussio (son)
114 Carriage Lane
Florence, MS
• affiliate broker
• owns Lexus Homes, builder of subject home
– Page 42 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Gussio v. Mississippi R.E. Commission
Spring 2010 – Keen & Davis make offer through
Hancock. Greg informs Hancock home
is under contract.
March 29 – Greg informs Hancock contract will
expire Mar. 30 and invites offer.
April 2
– Keen and Lexus Homes (Greg) sign
contract with Apr. 28 closing date.
April 15
– Davis drives by and sees people moving in.
Sale to first buyer closes.
– Page 42 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Gussio v. Mississippi R.E. Commission
• Keen filed complaint with MREC on April 16.
• MREC investigated. Gussios submitted some
information, but the information provided was
not responsive to MREC’s requests.
• MREC initiated discipline.
• MREC held a hearing and found the Gussios made
substantial misrepresentations and failed to
comply with the investigation.
• MREC imposed 60 day suspensions and extra CE.
– Page 42 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Gussio v. Mississippi R.E. Commission
MREC:
• Determined it was irrelevant
whether Gussio & Keen had
valid contract.
• Decision supported by
substantial evidence of
misrepresentation.
• Correctly disciplined Gussios
for failing to respond.
“We’ve discussed honesty as a
policy, but, so far, it hasn’t
• Had jurisdiction over Greg’s
gained any momentum.”
personal transaction.
– Page 42 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations LLC v.
United States HUD
Citation: 739 F.3d 424
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
“No person shall give and no
person shall accept any fee,
kickback, or thing of value
[for referring] business
incident to or a part of a real
estate settlement service
involving a federally related
mortgage loan.” – 12 U.S.C.
§ 2607(a) (RESPA).
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
“Prudential Locations Real Estate Salespersons
get monetary kickbacks ($$,$$$) for the amount
of business that is referred to Wells Fargo.”
– 2003 letter
HUD investigated
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Prudential agreed to stop violating
RESPA and paid a $48,000 penalty.
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Prudential was:
• “blatantly violating RESPA laws again.”
• “charging an extra fee for an in house transaction
coordinator EVERY TIME to agents that do not use
($75 extra fee) Wells Fargo (affiliated company of
Prudential Locations LLC). . . .”
– 2008 email
HUD investigated but did not substantiate
allegations.
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Prudential requested HUD’s records related to the two
investigations.
HUD provided 400 pages.
HUD redacted information identifying the authors of the
2003 letter and 2008 email.
• “Release of this information would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [outweighing
any] interest of the general public in reviewing these
portions of government documents.” – HUD
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
FOIA:
Government records available upon a properly
made request unless one of nine statutory
exemptions apply.
Agency can withhold:
“personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” – 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b)(6) (FOIA Exemption 6).”
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Exemption 6 has a two part test:
1. Personnel, medical, or similar file?
2. Clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy if produced?
Prudential did not contest the court’s finding
that the information satisfied part 1.
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy?
• Balance privacy interest against public interest
served by disclosure
• privacy interest in being free from retaliation,
harassment, embarrassment, or stigma
• privacy interest in avoiding unwanted contact
• agency’s assurance of confidentiality may be
considered
– Page 44 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Prudential Locations v. HUD
Public interest in disclosure?
• Extent disclosure sheds light on agencies
performance of statutory duties
• Lets citizens know what government is up to
Court: Revealing identities would not add to
available information concerning HUD’s
performance.
– Page 44 –
Thank You!
Don Harris
Montana Board of Realty Regulation
[email protected]
(406) 841-2316
CONTRACTS
Knutsen v. Dion
Citation: 2013 VT 106, 90 A.3d 866
Court:
Supreme Court of Vermont
– Page 22 –
CONTRACTS
Knutsen v. Dion
Vermont Association of Realtors Standard Form
Purchase Agreement:
• limited liability of the brokers involved in the
transaction
• required pre-suit mediation.
Form used by plaintiff buyer’s broker.
VAR not otherwise involved in transaction.
– Page 22 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Hall v. Rockcliff Realtors
Citation: 215 Cal. App. 4th 1134
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 739
Court:
Court of Appeal of California, 1st
Appellate District, Division Four
– Page 42 –
MISREPRESENTATION
Hall v. Rockcliff Realtors
– Page 42 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Texas State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine v.
Giggleman
Citation: 408 S.W.3d 696
Court:
Court of Appeals of Texas,
3rd District, Austin
– Page 45 –
PUBLIC RECORDS
Texas State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine v.
Giggleman
– Page 45 –
TRUST ACCOUNTS
Century 21, LLC v. All Prof’l Realty, Inc.
Citation: 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85637
2013 WL 3146805
Court:
U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California
– Page 47 –
RESPA
Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C.
Citation: 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11030
2014 WL 346635
Court:
U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, Northern Division
– Page 45 –

similar documents