Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]I read yourfirst statement and did not read the rest because you were wrong.

The PR is available WHENEVER YOU WANT TO ORDER ONE.

When you want to step into the present we can discuss things. Until then I pity people who follow advice is given from someone who has not touched a transaction in a few decades.

Try maybe to say that this would not have happened to these people if they had a competent agent representing them.[/quote]

It hasn’t been “decades” for me and you can’t open up a title order unless you have a corresponding escrow opened. So the buyers are ALREADY engaged in a transaction when they learn of adverse item(s) on a title that was/were previously not disclosed to them. Thus, they are somewhat “damaged,” even it that damage may amount to just time and work putting together their offers and counters blindly, w/o full knowledge of the condition of seller’s title and what they were getting into.

Why would you think my post would be “advice,” SDR? Conduct your business at your own peril and “caveat emptor” to all those buyers out there. The law will eventually speak for itself. It always does.

[PCinSD]

It’s a somewhat useful ruling, but certainly not “Landmark”, nor will it have a major effect on RE transactions. If the first judge didn’t botch it, this probably never would have seen the light of day. The appellate court just pointed out the obvious based on existing law. And it only applies to this very limited fact pattern – one which I doubt has happened very often.

Time and work by the buyers are not actionable damages and not at issue in this case.

Not sure what BG is getting all worked up about, but then again, I never do. Very Marionesque. By the way, where did it mention that the Plaintiffs were also represented by the sellers agent? I missed it. And much of what BG claims will now be required in the future is not supported by this limited ruling.

And, for what it’s worth, this ruling only held that there were sufficient facts to state a cause of action – it is not subject to demurrer. Very different than a ruling on the merits of the actual case.

[PCinSD]

It’s a somewhat useful ruling, but certainly not “Landmark”, nor will it have a major effect on RE transactions. If the first judge didn’t botch it, this probably never would have seen the light of day. The appellate court just pointed out the obvious based on existing law. And it only applies to this very limited fact pattern – one which I doubt has happened very often.

Time and work by the buyers are not actionable damages and not at issue in this case.

Not sure what BG is getting all worked up about, but then again, I never do. Very Marionesque. By the way, where did it mention that the Plaintiffs were also represented by the sellers agent? I missed it. And much of what BG claims will now be required in the future is not supported by this limited ruling.

And, for what it’s worth, this ruling only held that there were sufficient facts to state a cause of action – it is not subject to demurrer. Very different than a ruling on the merits of the actual case.

[PCinSD]

It’s a somewhat useful ruling, but certainly not “Landmark”, nor will it have a major effect on RE transactions. If the first judge didn’t botch it, this probably never would have seen the light of day. The appellate court just pointed out the obvious based on existing law. And it only applies to this very limited fact pattern – one which I doubt has happened very often.

Time and work by the buyers are not actionable damages and not at issue in this case.

Not sure what BG is getting all worked up about, but then again, I never do. Very Marionesque. By the way, where did it mention that the Plaintiffs were also represented by the sellers agent? I missed it. And much of what BG claims will now be required in the future is not supported by this limited ruling.

And, for what it’s worth, this ruling only held that there were sufficient facts to state a cause of action – it is not subject to demurrer. Very different than a ruling on the merits of the actual case.

[PCinSD]

It’s a somewhat useful ruling, but certainly not “Landmark”, nor will it have a major effect on RE transactions. If the first judge didn’t botch it, this probably never would have seen the light of day. The appellate court just pointed out the obvious based on existing law. And it only applies to this very limited fact pattern – one which I doubt has happened very often.

Time and work by the buyers are not actionable damages and not at issue in this case.

Not sure what BG is getting all worked up about, but then again, I never do. Very Marionesque. By the way, where did it mention that the Plaintiffs were also represented by the sellers agent? I missed it. And much of what BG claims will now be required in the future is not supported by this limited ruling.

And, for what it’s worth, this ruling only held that there were sufficient facts to state a cause of action – it is not subject to demurrer. Very different than a ruling on the merits of the actual case.

[PCinSD]

It’s a somewhat useful ruling, but certainly not “Landmark”, nor will it have a major effect on RE transactions. If the first judge didn’t botch it, this probably never would have seen the light of day. The appellate court just pointed out the obvious based on existing law. And it only applies to this very limited fact pattern – one which I doubt has happened very often.

Time and work by the buyers are not actionable damages and not at issue in this case.

Not sure what BG is getting all worked up about, but then again, I never do. Very Marionesque. By the way, where did it mention that the Plaintiffs were also represented by the sellers agent? I missed it. And much of what BG claims will now be required in the future is not supported by this limited ruling.

And, for what it’s worth, this ruling only held that there were sufficient facts to state a cause of action – it is not subject to demurrer. Very different than a ruling on the merits of the actual case.

[bearishgurl]

Pablo, the case was remanded back to the trial court, for trial.

In essence, what this ruling does is take away the “historical” control of a listing agent to withhold material facts regarding the saleability of a listing and then piecemeal that info out as it becomes (glaringly) necessary (after a buyer is already committed to a transaction).

I think its a terrific ruling for buyers in that they deserve to know exactly what they will be purchasing UP FRONT and whether it CAN be purchased acc to the terms of their accepted purchase offer, before even wasting their time with the transaction.

Why don’t you read some of the legal opinion around the web on the ramifications of this case, Pablo?

[bearishgurl]

Pablo, the case was remanded back to the trial court, for trial.

In essence, what this ruling does is take away the “historical” control of a listing agent to withhold material facts regarding the saleability of a listing and then piecemeal that info out as it becomes (glaringly) necessary (after a buyer is already committed to a transaction).

I think its a terrific ruling for buyers in that they deserve to know exactly what they will be purchasing UP FRONT and whether it CAN be purchased acc to the terms of their accepted purchase offer, before even wasting their time with the transaction.

Why don’t you read some of the legal opinion around the web on the ramifications of this case, Pablo?

[bearishgurl]

Pablo, the case was remanded back to the trial court, for trial.

In essence, what this ruling does is take away the “historical” control of a listing agent to withhold material facts regarding the saleability of a listing and then piecemeal that info out as it becomes (glaringly) necessary (after a buyer is already committed to a transaction).

I think its a terrific ruling for buyers in that they deserve to know exactly what they will be purchasing UP FRONT and whether it CAN be purchased acc to the terms of their accepted purchase offer, before even wasting their time with the transaction.

Why don’t you read some of the legal opinion around the web on the ramifications of this case, Pablo?

[bearishgurl]

Pablo, the case was remanded back to the trial court, for trial.

In essence, what this ruling does is take away the “historical” control of a listing agent to withhold material facts regarding the saleability of a listing and then piecemeal that info out as it becomes (glaringly) necessary (after a buyer is already committed to a transaction).

I think its a terrific ruling for buyers in that they deserve to know exactly what they will be purchasing UP FRONT and whether it CAN be purchased acc to the terms of their accepted purchase offer, before even wasting their time with the transaction.

Why don’t you read some of the legal opinion around the web on the ramifications of this case, Pablo?

[bearishgurl]

Pablo, the case was remanded back to the trial court, for trial.

In essence, what this ruling does is take away the “historical” control of a listing agent to withhold material facts regarding the saleability of a listing and then piecemeal that info out as it becomes (glaringly) necessary (after a buyer is already committed to a transaction).

I think its a terrific ruling for buyers in that they deserve to know exactly what they will be purchasing UP FRONT and whether it CAN be purchased acc to the terms of their accepted purchase offer, before even wasting their time with the transaction.

Why don’t you read some of the legal opinion around the web on the ramifications of this case, Pablo?

[PCinSD]

Way to ignore most of my post. Even the appeals court would disagree with your characterization of a listing agent being allowed to withhold material facts. Existing law already takes care of that. The appeals court relied on existing case law when reaching their decision.

I agree it’s a good ruling for buyers. But again, like everyone has repeatedly pointed out, this is not a scenario that is rampant in the industry, and therefore will have little effect – no matter how much you scream it from the rooftops or bore us with it.

I don’t need to scour the internet to read random legal opinions. You do. Come talk to me after you pass law school, pass the bar exam, and actively represent buyers, sellers, agents and brokers in court in failure to disclose cases as I have.

Conning people out of $600 a pop to help them avoid foreclosure does not make you an expert. By the way, do you ever feel bad about that? You did it for several years and never once prevented a foreclosure, correct?

Why don’t you answer my question re the dual agency? Upon what do you base your assertion that the buyers were represented by the sellers agent? You’re very detail oriented, so I’m sure you can find it for us.

[PCinSD]

Way to ignore most of my post. Even the appeals court would disagree with your characterization of a listing agent being allowed to withhold material facts. Existing law already takes care of that. The appeals court relied on existing case law when reaching their decision.

I agree it’s a good ruling for buyers. But again, like everyone has repeatedly pointed out, this is not a scenario that is rampant in the industry, and therefore will have little effect – no matter how much you scream it from the rooftops or bore us with it.

I don’t need to scour the internet to read random legal opinions. You do. Come talk to me after you pass law school, pass the bar exam, and actively represent buyers, sellers, agents and brokers in court in failure to disclose cases as I have.

Conning people out of $600 a pop to help them avoid foreclosure does not make you an expert. By the way, do you ever feel bad about that? You did it for several years and never once prevented a foreclosure, correct?

Why don’t you answer my question re the dual agency? Upon what do you base your assertion that the buyers were represented by the sellers agent? You’re very detail oriented, so I’m sure you can find it for us.

[PCinSD]

Way to ignore most of my post. Even the appeals court would disagree with your characterization of a listing agent being allowed to withhold material facts. Existing law already takes care of that. The appeals court relied on existing case law when reaching their decision.

I agree it’s a good ruling for buyers. But again, like everyone has repeatedly pointed out, this is not a scenario that is rampant in the industry, and therefore will have little effect – no matter how much you scream it from the rooftops or bore us with it.

I don’t need to scour the internet to read random legal opinions. You do. Come talk to me after you pass law school, pass the bar exam, and actively represent buyers, sellers, agents and brokers in court in failure to disclose cases as I have.

Conning people out of $600 a pop to help them avoid foreclosure does not make you an expert. By the way, do you ever feel bad about that? You did it for several years and never once prevented a foreclosure, correct?

Why don’t you answer my question re the dual agency? Upon what do you base your assertion that the buyers were represented by the sellers agent? You’re very detail oriented, so I’m sure you can find it for us.

[PCinSD]

Way to ignore most of my post. Even the appeals court would disagree with your characterization of a listing agent being allowed to withhold material facts. Existing law already takes care of that. The appeals court relied on existing case law when reaching their decision.

I agree it’s a good ruling for buyers. But again, like everyone has repeatedly pointed out, this is not a scenario that is rampant in the industry, and therefore will have little effect – no matter how much you scream it from the rooftops or bore us with it.

I don’t need to scour the internet to read random legal opinions. You do. Come talk to me after you pass law school, pass the bar exam, and actively represent buyers, sellers, agents and brokers in court in failure to disclose cases as I have.

Conning people out of $600 a pop to help them avoid foreclosure does not make you an expert. By the way, do you ever feel bad about that? You did it for several years and never once prevented a foreclosure, correct?

Why don’t you answer my question re the dual agency? Upon what do you base your assertion that the buyers were represented by the sellers agent? You’re very detail oriented, so I’m sure you can find it for us.

[Author]

Posts