Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law
- This topic has 265 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM #661308January 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM #660197
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).[/quote]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.
I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.
January 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM #660260Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).[/quote]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.
I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.
January 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM #660864Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).[/quote]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.
I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.
January 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM #661002Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).[/quote]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.
I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.
January 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM #661333Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).[/quote]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.
I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.
January 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM #660222PCinSD
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.[/quote]
This is not a case of “semantics”. There was no confusion over “dual-agency capacity” or “dual agent”. I specifically asked you how you concluded that the sellers agent also represented the buyer. That’s not open to interpretation.
What’s annoying is that you came to this flawed conclusion without any basis for it. And, you weren’t able to just read the appellate decision and understand that the sellers agent did not represent the buyer. I’m not sure why you needed to scour the internet.
Finally, you continue to claim that the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers but did not owe them a fiduciary duty. You are flat wrong. It is a legal impossibility for there to be an agency relationship between the sellers agent and the buyer – but not have any accompanying fiduciary duties. If the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers, agency law would have been applied. It wasn’t.
If this is the level of legal knowledge and reasoning you used in those “trials”, it wouldn’t surprise me if those attorneys were sued for malpractice.
I don’t usually engage in back and forths like this, but you have a habit of speaking in absolutes about stuff you have no knowledge of, and are wrong. This is just one of those examples.
January 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM #660285Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.[/quote]
This is not a case of “semantics”. There was no confusion over “dual-agency capacity” or “dual agent”. I specifically asked you how you concluded that the sellers agent also represented the buyer. That’s not open to interpretation.
What’s annoying is that you came to this flawed conclusion without any basis for it. And, you weren’t able to just read the appellate decision and understand that the sellers agent did not represent the buyer. I’m not sure why you needed to scour the internet.
Finally, you continue to claim that the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers but did not owe them a fiduciary duty. You are flat wrong. It is a legal impossibility for there to be an agency relationship between the sellers agent and the buyer – but not have any accompanying fiduciary duties. If the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers, agency law would have been applied. It wasn’t.
If this is the level of legal knowledge and reasoning you used in those “trials”, it wouldn’t surprise me if those attorneys were sued for malpractice.
I don’t usually engage in back and forths like this, but you have a habit of speaking in absolutes about stuff you have no knowledge of, and are wrong. This is just one of those examples.
January 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM #660889Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.[/quote]
This is not a case of “semantics”. There was no confusion over “dual-agency capacity” or “dual agent”. I specifically asked you how you concluded that the sellers agent also represented the buyer. That’s not open to interpretation.
What’s annoying is that you came to this flawed conclusion without any basis for it. And, you weren’t able to just read the appellate decision and understand that the sellers agent did not represent the buyer. I’m not sure why you needed to scour the internet.
Finally, you continue to claim that the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers but did not owe them a fiduciary duty. You are flat wrong. It is a legal impossibility for there to be an agency relationship between the sellers agent and the buyer – but not have any accompanying fiduciary duties. If the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers, agency law would have been applied. It wasn’t.
If this is the level of legal knowledge and reasoning you used in those “trials”, it wouldn’t surprise me if those attorneys were sued for malpractice.
I don’t usually engage in back and forths like this, but you have a habit of speaking in absolutes about stuff you have no knowledge of, and are wrong. This is just one of those examples.
January 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM #661027Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.[/quote]
This is not a case of “semantics”. There was no confusion over “dual-agency capacity” or “dual agent”. I specifically asked you how you concluded that the sellers agent also represented the buyer. That’s not open to interpretation.
What’s annoying is that you came to this flawed conclusion without any basis for it. And, you weren’t able to just read the appellate decision and understand that the sellers agent did not represent the buyer. I’m not sure why you needed to scour the internet.
Finally, you continue to claim that the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers but did not owe them a fiduciary duty. You are flat wrong. It is a legal impossibility for there to be an agency relationship between the sellers agent and the buyer – but not have any accompanying fiduciary duties. If the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers, agency law would have been applied. It wasn’t.
If this is the level of legal knowledge and reasoning you used in those “trials”, it wouldn’t surprise me if those attorneys were sued for malpractice.
I don’t usually engage in back and forths like this, but you have a habit of speaking in absolutes about stuff you have no knowledge of, and are wrong. This is just one of those examples.
January 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM #661358Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
pablo, I see now why you asked me where I got the impression that Summer was a “dual agent.” When I wrote this, it was 3 mos AFTER the thread was started and I had forgotten the exact facts of the case. Hence, my searching for new commentary online.I understood from the beginning that Summer was working in a “dual-agency capacity” but NOT legally a “dual agent.” She WAS the agent for the Holmeses but did not legally owe them a fiduciary duty. The Holmeses prevailed on the lower std of care, as they should have, because of the egregiousness of the non-disclosure.[/quote]
This is not a case of “semantics”. There was no confusion over “dual-agency capacity” or “dual agent”. I specifically asked you how you concluded that the sellers agent also represented the buyer. That’s not open to interpretation.
What’s annoying is that you came to this flawed conclusion without any basis for it. And, you weren’t able to just read the appellate decision and understand that the sellers agent did not represent the buyer. I’m not sure why you needed to scour the internet.
Finally, you continue to claim that the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers but did not owe them a fiduciary duty. You are flat wrong. It is a legal impossibility for there to be an agency relationship between the sellers agent and the buyer – but not have any accompanying fiduciary duties. If the sellers agent WAS the agent for the buyers, agency law would have been applied. It wasn’t.
If this is the level of legal knowledge and reasoning you used in those “trials”, it wouldn’t surprise me if those attorneys were sued for malpractice.
I don’t usually engage in back and forths like this, but you have a habit of speaking in absolutes about stuff you have no knowledge of, and are wrong. This is just one of those examples.
January 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM #660247ParticipantDoes any Pigg know what pablo is rambling on about here??
January 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM #660310ParticipantDoes any Pigg know what pablo is rambling on about here??
January 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM #660914ParticipantDoes any Pigg know what pablo is rambling on about here??
January 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM #661053ParticipantDoes any Pigg know what pablo is rambling on about here??
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.