Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law

[sdrealtor]

Agreed UCG and while its a step in the right direction I just dont know how common occurrences are where an upside down seller is not readily apparent to all parties form the outset. With that said, it definitely should be.

[bearishgurl]

Well Piggs, no Petitions for Rehearing or Review were filed in Holmes v. Summer so it should be “citable” as good law by next week.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1905379&doc_no=G041906

At the 11th hour (yesterday) Counsel Neil D. Kalin on behalf of (drumroll…) California Assn. of Realtors (CAR) requested the case be depublished. Good luck with that ;=]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

Is anyone surprised here??

[bearishgurl]

Well Piggs, no Petitions for Rehearing or Review were filed in Holmes v. Summer so it should be “citable” as good law by next week.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1905379&doc_no=G041906

At the 11th hour (yesterday) Counsel Neil D. Kalin on behalf of (drumroll…) California Assn. of Realtors (CAR) requested the case be depublished. Good luck with that ;=]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

Is anyone surprised here??

[bearishgurl]

Well Piggs, no Petitions for Rehearing or Review were filed in Holmes v. Summer so it should be “citable” as good law by next week.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1905379&doc_no=G041906

At the 11th hour (yesterday) Counsel Neil D. Kalin on behalf of (drumroll…) California Assn. of Realtors (CAR) requested the case be depublished. Good luck with that ;=]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

Is anyone surprised here??

[bearishgurl]

Well Piggs, no Petitions for Rehearing or Review were filed in Holmes v. Summer so it should be “citable” as good law by next week.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1905379&doc_no=G041906

At the 11th hour (yesterday) Counsel Neil D. Kalin on behalf of (drumroll…) California Assn. of Realtors (CAR) requested the case be depublished. Good luck with that ;=]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

Is anyone surprised here??

[bearishgurl]

Well Piggs, no Petitions for Rehearing or Review were filed in Holmes v. Summer so it should be “citable” as good law by next week.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1905379&doc_no=G041906

At the 11th hour (yesterday) Counsel Neil D. Kalin on behalf of (drumroll…) California Assn. of Realtors (CAR) requested the case be depublished. Good luck with that ;=]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

Is anyone surprised here??

[bearishgurl]

Well, Piggs, the CA Supreme Court has spoken. The CA Assn of Realtors’ “Request for Depublication” has been summarily denied . . . (strike of gavel).

Holmes v. Summer is now good law and will have far-reaching ramifications for the way today’s listing agents conduct themselves and their clients’ business. It is a “new day” in RE disclosure-speak.

The case can be cited as (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.

see: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

[bearishgurl]

Well, Piggs, the CA Supreme Court has spoken. The CA Assn of Realtors’ “Request for Depublication” has been summarily denied . . . (strike of gavel).

Holmes v. Summer is now good law and will have far-reaching ramifications for the way today’s listing agents conduct themselves and their clients’ business. It is a “new day” in RE disclosure-speak.

The case can be cited as (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.

see: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

[bearishgurl]

Well, Piggs, the CA Supreme Court has spoken. The CA Assn of Realtors’ “Request for Depublication” has been summarily denied . . . (strike of gavel).

Holmes v. Summer is now good law and will have far-reaching ramifications for the way today’s listing agents conduct themselves and their clients’ business. It is a “new day” in RE disclosure-speak.

The case can be cited as (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.

see: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

[bearishgurl]

Well, Piggs, the CA Supreme Court has spoken. The CA Assn of Realtors’ “Request for Depublication” has been summarily denied . . . (strike of gavel).

Holmes v. Summer is now good law and will have far-reaching ramifications for the way today’s listing agents conduct themselves and their clients’ business. It is a “new day” in RE disclosure-speak.

The case can be cited as (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.

see: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

[bearishgurl]

Well, Piggs, the CA Supreme Court has spoken. The CA Assn of Realtors’ “Request for Depublication” has been summarily denied . . . (strike of gavel).

Holmes v. Summer is now good law and will have far-reaching ramifications for the way today’s listing agents conduct themselves and their clients’ business. It is a “new day” in RE disclosure-speak.

The case can be cited as (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.

see: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1963283&doc_no=S188567

[urbanrealtor]

So I don’t understand how the sellers even tried to hold on to the earnest. Nor how that was ever upheld in court.

The bottom line is that if you can’t perform as a seller, you can’t hold the buyer in breach (and thus his deposit).

Is there some aspect I am not understanding?

Honestly, it looks like the seller and/or their broker are fuckin tools.

[urbanrealtor]

So I don’t understand how the sellers even tried to hold on to the earnest. Nor how that was ever upheld in court.

The bottom line is that if you can’t perform as a seller, you can’t hold the buyer in breach (and thus his deposit).

Is there some aspect I am not understanding?

Honestly, it looks like the seller and/or their broker are fuckin tools.

[urbanrealtor]

So I don’t understand how the sellers even tried to hold on to the earnest. Nor how that was ever upheld in court.

The bottom line is that if you can’t perform as a seller, you can’t hold the buyer in breach (and thus his deposit).

Is there some aspect I am not understanding?

Honestly, it looks like the seller and/or their broker are fuckin tools.

[urbanrealtor]

So I don’t understand how the sellers even tried to hold on to the earnest. Nor how that was ever upheld in court.

The bottom line is that if you can’t perform as a seller, you can’t hold the buyer in breach (and thus his deposit).

Is there some aspect I am not understanding?

Honestly, it looks like the seller and/or their broker are fuckin tools.

[Author]

Posts