Legal Case Summaries

A California appellate court considers the damages awarded to a purchaser who was told by real estate professional that a strange smell was “sea air” but later turned out to be coming from a septic tank and an oil tank buried on the property.

New York appellate court affirms dismissal of lawsuit alleging that listing broker had a duty to confirm that owner had obtained the proper permits needed to lease property.

Georgia federal court rules that fact issues remain as to whether real estate professionals, who were retained to preserve and market a foreclosed property, were operating under the control of the Fannie Mae because of the extensive rules imposed upon the real estate professionals through Fannie’s listing agreement.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld a property owner’s right to challenge in court an Army Corps of Engineers determination that a property contained wetlands in a case where NAR filed a brief in support of the property owner.

Supreme Court of the United States determines that a party alleging statutory violations must demonstrate an actual, concrete injury in order to have standing to bring a lawsuit in a case where NAR filed an amicus curiae brief.

Georgia court enters judgment for listing broker because he did not have a fiduciary relationship with the seller since there was no written agreement between the parties and there was also no evidence that broker concealed the erosion on the property.

Georgia court reverses lower court ruling in favor of transaction broker and sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether transaction broker provided buyer sufficient notice of seller’s deadlines.

Pennsylvania court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over a California brokerage because there was no evidence demonstrating that the firm’s salesperson was acting on behalf of the brokerage when he flipped a commercial property in Pennsylvania.

Connecticut appellate court affirms lower court commission award to a real estate professional when the client violated exclusive representation agreement by buying a property while working with another licensee during the term of both representation agreements.