Legal Action Fund Case Summary

Copyright© 2008 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.). Permission is granted to C.A.R. members only to reprint and use this material for non-commercial purposes provided credit is given to the C.A.R. Legal Department. Other reproduction or use is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of the C.A.R. Legal Department. All rights reserved.

C.A.R. proactively defends your real estate profession in the appellate courts. C.A.R.'s Legal Action Fund contributed to favorable decisions in many landmark cases in which C.A.R. had filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs. For questions about the Legal Action Fund, please contact, Neil Kalin, Assistant General Counsel.

CASE NAME

CASE SUMMARY

Schaffter v. Creative Capital Leasing Group, LLC

California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District

Issue: Whether a buyer owes a broker a commission pursuant to a buyer-broker agreement if the buyer and seller enter into a mutual cancellation after the buyer had failed to close escrow.

C.A.R. position: Buyer owes broker compensation

Case Status: Appellate court upheld broker right to be paid.

Lange v. Segerstrom Real Estate, et al.

California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District

Issue: Whether the prevailing Buyer in a suit against the Seller is entitled to recover attorney fees if Buyer filed suit before requesting mediation.

C.A.R. position: Attorneys fee request should be denied because Buyer did not follow requirements of contract.

Case Status: Appellate court ruled that successor plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney fees if plaintiff did not request mediation before filing suit.

Schweitzer v. Westminister Investments, et al.

California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division One

Issue: Whether bonding requirement for equity purchaser's representatives is constitutional?

C.A.R. position: Bonding requirement that cannot be met because of unavailability of bonds should be unenforceable.

Case Status: Appellate court ruled that bond requirement is unconstitutuionally vague and unenforceable. Remainder of statute is valid.

Brand et al. v. George Chung Realty, Inc. et al.

California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District

Issue: Whether listing agent has duty to Buyer to discover that Caltrans has proposed placing a freeway on-ramp on land immediately fronting the property being sold when generic disclosure was already made regarding freeway expansion.

C.A.R. position: Listing broker's duty is limited to conducting reasonably competent visual inspection and owes no duty to Buyer to discover information off-site, in public records or at public meetings.

Case Status: Buyer won at trial. Listing broker appealed. Brieling complete by end of September 2008.

|

|

|

Share: