Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law

[bearishgurl]

Yes, UR, the opinion IS overly broad and lacking in critical detail. I think Summer’s lack of Agency designation is an important issue. I am putting in an order for a pdf copy of appellant’s op brief and should receive it in a day or two.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer. . .[/quote]

UR, this area is where I see a potential change in legislation to occur.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer. . .[/quote]

UR, this area is where I see a potential change in legislation to occur.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer. . .[/quote]

UR, this area is where I see a potential change in legislation to occur.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer. . .[/quote]

UR, this area is where I see a potential change in legislation to occur.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer. . .[/quote]

UR, this area is where I see a potential change in legislation to occur.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl]pablo, I’ve sat in and assisted on several trials in my day (yes, RE related). And I don’t “draft and make copies,” I “draft, finalize and they SIGN” (with little to no changes) for ALL levels of court in this state.

You have NO IDEA whether Summer was the “procuring agent” (read: buyer’s agent) in this purchase. The opinion is not crystal CLEAR on this. It states Summer showed the property to the Plaintiffs here. Why would she NOT write the offer? WHERE is the plaintiff’s agent in this case, pablo? Didn’t (s)he have any culpability here?

Summer likely did not have a Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement or any separate “Agency Agreement” with the Holmses because they called her to see her listing and she showed it to them and then wrote up the offer listing her brokerage as both the listing and selling broker in the transaction. Thus, the court (and plaintiff/appellant, in their brief) HAD to deal with “six-factor privity analysis” (and the corresponding case law) in order to reach their decision.

see: http://rogerbernhardt.com/November_2010.html

3. When It Is the Seller’s Broker Who Did Not Inform the Buyers

This would have been a considerably easier case had the defendant—who was apparently the only broker in the picture—designated herself as a dual agent rather than solely agent for the sellers. That way, she would have had fiduciary duties to the buyers and made it much easier to impose disclosure duties on her. Instead, her status made the court of appeal feel compelled to go through the classic six-factor privity analysis before imposing such duties on her.

I’m not the only one who believes that Summer was the “selling agent.”

See: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

…Selling agent Summer told the court the loans were a matter of record and could be seen on the preliminary title report; however, by the time the Holmeses received the title report, they had already sold their home. I assume “sold” means they went into escrow, unless it was the fastest sale in history…

pablo, did it ever occur to you that Summer may not have been aware of the over-encumbrances herself until after escrow was opened in this case? Stranger things have happened.

And since you’re so good at “changing light bulbs,” why don’t you put a new one in your flashlight ;=![/quote]

Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl]pablo, I’ve sat in and assisted on several trials in my day (yes, RE related). And I don’t “draft and make copies,” I “draft, finalize and they SIGN” (with little to no changes) for ALL levels of court in this state.

You have NO IDEA whether Summer was the “procuring agent” (read: buyer’s agent) in this purchase. The opinion is not crystal CLEAR on this. It states Summer showed the property to the Plaintiffs here. Why would she NOT write the offer? WHERE is the plaintiff’s agent in this case, pablo? Didn’t (s)he have any culpability here?

Summer likely did not have a Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement or any separate “Agency Agreement” with the Holmses because they called her to see her listing and she showed it to them and then wrote up the offer listing her brokerage as both the listing and selling broker in the transaction. Thus, the court (and plaintiff/appellant, in their brief) HAD to deal with “six-factor privity analysis” (and the corresponding case law) in order to reach their decision.

see: http://rogerbernhardt.com/November_2010.html

3. When It Is the Seller’s Broker Who Did Not Inform the Buyers

This would have been a considerably easier case had the defendant—who was apparently the only broker in the picture—designated herself as a dual agent rather than solely agent for the sellers. That way, she would have had fiduciary duties to the buyers and made it much easier to impose disclosure duties on her. Instead, her status made the court of appeal feel compelled to go through the classic six-factor privity analysis before imposing such duties on her.

I’m not the only one who believes that Summer was the “selling agent.”

See: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

…Selling agent Summer told the court the loans were a matter of record and could be seen on the preliminary title report; however, by the time the Holmeses received the title report, they had already sold their home. I assume “sold” means they went into escrow, unless it was the fastest sale in history…

pablo, did it ever occur to you that Summer may not have been aware of the over-encumbrances herself until after escrow was opened in this case? Stranger things have happened.

And since you’re so good at “changing light bulbs,” why don’t you put a new one in your flashlight ;=![/quote]

Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl]pablo, I’ve sat in and assisted on several trials in my day (yes, RE related). And I don’t “draft and make copies,” I “draft, finalize and they SIGN” (with little to no changes) for ALL levels of court in this state.

You have NO IDEA whether Summer was the “procuring agent” (read: buyer’s agent) in this purchase. The opinion is not crystal CLEAR on this. It states Summer showed the property to the Plaintiffs here. Why would she NOT write the offer? WHERE is the plaintiff’s agent in this case, pablo? Didn’t (s)he have any culpability here?

Summer likely did not have a Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement or any separate “Agency Agreement” with the Holmses because they called her to see her listing and she showed it to them and then wrote up the offer listing her brokerage as both the listing and selling broker in the transaction. Thus, the court (and plaintiff/appellant, in their brief) HAD to deal with “six-factor privity analysis” (and the corresponding case law) in order to reach their decision.

see: http://rogerbernhardt.com/November_2010.html

3. When It Is the Seller’s Broker Who Did Not Inform the Buyers

This would have been a considerably easier case had the defendant—who was apparently the only broker in the picture—designated herself as a dual agent rather than solely agent for the sellers. That way, she would have had fiduciary duties to the buyers and made it much easier to impose disclosure duties on her. Instead, her status made the court of appeal feel compelled to go through the classic six-factor privity analysis before imposing such duties on her.

I’m not the only one who believes that Summer was the “selling agent.”

See: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

…Selling agent Summer told the court the loans were a matter of record and could be seen on the preliminary title report; however, by the time the Holmeses received the title report, they had already sold their home. I assume “sold” means they went into escrow, unless it was the fastest sale in history…

pablo, did it ever occur to you that Summer may not have been aware of the over-encumbrances herself until after escrow was opened in this case? Stranger things have happened.

And since you’re so good at “changing light bulbs,” why don’t you put a new one in your flashlight ;=![/quote]

Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl]pablo, I’ve sat in and assisted on several trials in my day (yes, RE related). And I don’t “draft and make copies,” I “draft, finalize and they SIGN” (with little to no changes) for ALL levels of court in this state.

You have NO IDEA whether Summer was the “procuring agent” (read: buyer’s agent) in this purchase. The opinion is not crystal CLEAR on this. It states Summer showed the property to the Plaintiffs here. Why would she NOT write the offer? WHERE is the plaintiff’s agent in this case, pablo? Didn’t (s)he have any culpability here?

Summer likely did not have a Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement or any separate “Agency Agreement” with the Holmses because they called her to see her listing and she showed it to them and then wrote up the offer listing her brokerage as both the listing and selling broker in the transaction. Thus, the court (and plaintiff/appellant, in their brief) HAD to deal with “six-factor privity analysis” (and the corresponding case law) in order to reach their decision.

see: http://rogerbernhardt.com/November_2010.html

3. When It Is the Seller’s Broker Who Did Not Inform the Buyers

This would have been a considerably easier case had the defendant—who was apparently the only broker in the picture—designated herself as a dual agent rather than solely agent for the sellers. That way, she would have had fiduciary duties to the buyers and made it much easier to impose disclosure duties on her. Instead, her status made the court of appeal feel compelled to go through the classic six-factor privity analysis before imposing such duties on her.

I’m not the only one who believes that Summer was the “selling agent.”

See: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

…Selling agent Summer told the court the loans were a matter of record and could be seen on the preliminary title report; however, by the time the Holmeses received the title report, they had already sold their home. I assume “sold” means they went into escrow, unless it was the fastest sale in history…

pablo, did it ever occur to you that Summer may not have been aware of the over-encumbrances herself until after escrow was opened in this case? Stranger things have happened.

And since you’re so good at “changing light bulbs,” why don’t you put a new one in your flashlight ;=![/quote]

Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl]pablo, I’ve sat in and assisted on several trials in my day (yes, RE related). And I don’t “draft and make copies,” I “draft, finalize and they SIGN” (with little to no changes) for ALL levels of court in this state.

You have NO IDEA whether Summer was the “procuring agent” (read: buyer’s agent) in this purchase. The opinion is not crystal CLEAR on this. It states Summer showed the property to the Plaintiffs here. Why would she NOT write the offer? WHERE is the plaintiff’s agent in this case, pablo? Didn’t (s)he have any culpability here?

Summer likely did not have a Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement or any separate “Agency Agreement” with the Holmses because they called her to see her listing and she showed it to them and then wrote up the offer listing her brokerage as both the listing and selling broker in the transaction. Thus, the court (and plaintiff/appellant, in their brief) HAD to deal with “six-factor privity analysis” (and the corresponding case law) in order to reach their decision.

see: http://rogerbernhardt.com/November_2010.html

3. When It Is the Seller’s Broker Who Did Not Inform the Buyers

This would have been a considerably easier case had the defendant—who was apparently the only broker in the picture—designated herself as a dual agent rather than solely agent for the sellers. That way, she would have had fiduciary duties to the buyers and made it much easier to impose disclosure duties on her. Instead, her status made the court of appeal feel compelled to go through the classic six-factor privity analysis before imposing such duties on her.

I’m not the only one who believes that Summer was the “selling agent.”

See: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

…Selling agent Summer told the court the loans were a matter of record and could be seen on the preliminary title report; however, by the time the Holmeses received the title report, they had already sold their home. I assume “sold” means they went into escrow, unless it was the fastest sale in history…

pablo, did it ever occur to you that Summer may not have been aware of the over-encumbrances herself until after escrow was opened in this case? Stranger things have happened.

And since you’re so good at “changing light bulbs,” why don’t you put a new one in your flashlight ;=![/quote]

Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.[/quote]

pablo, have you actually READ anything I posted here? It has become obvious that you are not familiar with various CAR forms, their language and how that language is interpreted by a court. Here’s an except from an article written by the same attorney as above for the Sierra Sun:

TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. — Real estate agents be advised of a new case — Holmes v. Summer. You have yet another disclosure obligation.

House listing

Phil and Jenille Holmes made an offer to buy a home in Huntington Beach through the seller’s listing agent Sieglinde Summer, a RE/MAX office. The Holmeses did not have an agent.

An offer was submitted, a counter made and escrow opened with a sales price of $749,000 with a 30-day escrow…

see: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

If you would just take off your narcissistic hat for a minute and cool your jets, we can get some answers here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.[/quote]

pablo, have you actually READ anything I posted here? It has become obvious that you are not familiar with various CAR forms, their language and how that language is interpreted by a court. Here’s an except from an article written by the same attorney as above for the Sierra Sun:

TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. — Real estate agents be advised of a new case — Holmes v. Summer. You have yet another disclosure obligation.

House listing

Phil and Jenille Holmes made an offer to buy a home in Huntington Beach through the seller’s listing agent Sieglinde Summer, a RE/MAX office. The Holmeses did not have an agent.

An offer was submitted, a counter made and escrow opened with a sales price of $749,000 with a 30-day escrow…

see: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

If you would just take off your narcissistic hat for a minute and cool your jets, we can get some answers here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.[/quote]

pablo, have you actually READ anything I posted here? It has become obvious that you are not familiar with various CAR forms, their language and how that language is interpreted by a court. Here’s an except from an article written by the same attorney as above for the Sierra Sun:

TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. — Real estate agents be advised of a new case — Holmes v. Summer. You have yet another disclosure obligation.

House listing

Phil and Jenille Holmes made an offer to buy a home in Huntington Beach through the seller’s listing agent Sieglinde Summer, a RE/MAX office. The Holmeses did not have an agent.

An offer was submitted, a counter made and escrow opened with a sales price of $749,000 with a 30-day escrow…

see: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

If you would just take off your narcissistic hat for a minute and cool your jets, we can get some answers here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Another irrelevant diatribe that makes no sense. I know for a fact that this was not a case of dual agency. The court explicitly states it, and the defendant argues they have no liability BECAUSE THEY NEVER REPRESENTED THE BUYERS. All of the cases and arguments by the Defendants are based on the premise that they have no fiduciary duties to the Buyer/Plaintiffs.

Your continued insistence to the contrary is pathological.[/quote]

pablo, have you actually READ anything I posted here? It has become obvious that you are not familiar with various CAR forms, their language and how that language is interpreted by a court. Here’s an except from an article written by the same attorney as above for the Sierra Sun:

TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. — Real estate agents be advised of a new case — Holmes v. Summer. You have yet another disclosure obligation.

House listing

Phil and Jenille Holmes made an offer to buy a home in Huntington Beach through the seller’s listing agent Sieglinde Summer, a RE/MAX office. The Holmeses did not have an agent.

An offer was submitted, a counter made and escrow opened with a sales price of $749,000 with a 30-day escrow…

see: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101014/NEWS/101019949

If you would just take off your narcissistic hat for a minute and cool your jets, we can get some answers here.

[Author]

Posts