Garb-Ko v. Lansing-Lewis Services: Michigan Appellate Court Holds Recission Appropriate Remedy for Contract Dispute Arising Out of Undisclosed Presence of Underground Storage Tanks
The plaintiff was a buyer under a sales contract executed with the defendant with respect to property on which leaking underground storage tanks were discovered after execution of the sales contract. Plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract to require defendant to close the sale and convey the property to it. The Court of Appeals of Michigan held that the unknown was a natural mistake of fact allowing rescission of the contract in this case.
O'Riordan v. Long Island BOR: New York Federal Court Finds That Membership-Based MLS Access Is Not in Violation of Antitrust Laws
In O'Riordan v. Long Island Board of REALTORS®, the district court addressed tying arrangements and group boycotts in the context of requiring Board membership to participate in a MLS. The court held that under Rule of Reason analysis, the Board practices did not constitute a group boycott or tying agreement in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US v. Starrett City Associates: New York City Apartment Complex Found Liable for Violating Fair Housing Act by Discriminating Against Minorites
In U.S. v. Starrett City Associates, the United States Attorney General (hereinafter Government) filed suit against Starrett City, which owned and operated an apartment housing complex in New York City. At issue was whether Starrett City's rental policies violated Title VIII, Sections 3601-3631 of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Wells v. Greater Lowell BOR: First Circuit Holds Membership-Based Access to MLS Does Not Constitute per se Tying Arrangement
In Wells v. Greater Lowell Board of REALTORS®, the First Circuit addressed tying arrangements in the context of Board membership as a condition of MLS participation. The court held that limiting access to the MLS to members of the real estate board operating the MLS was not a per se illegal tying arrangement.
Real Estate Informatin Network v. NAR®: Real Estate Information Network Settles Unfair Trade Practices Claim Against National Association of REALTORS®
Real Estate Information Network v. NAR®, involved an unfair trade practice claim by the Real Estate Information Network, Inc. a/k/a REIN against the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR) as operator of the Real Estate Information Network a/k/a REINET. The parties settled the case for $2,500.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline: Pre ADA Case Holds Person With Contagious Disease Could Be Handicapped
In School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act). The Court held that a person suffering from a contagious disease, such as tuberculosis, could be handicapped within the meaning of the Act, and that the plaintiff was such a person. The Court remanded the case for a determination of whether the plaintiff was "otherwise qualified for her position."
Dupre v. Columbia BOR: South Carolina Board's Membership Requirements in Violation of Antitrust Laws
Note: This case is not published in an official reporter and may not be cited as authority. Consult with counsel before relying on this case.
In Dupre v. Columbia Board of REALTORS®, a South Carolina district court addressed a limitation on membership in a local Board of REALTORS® (and thereby the affiliated MLS) based on a requirement that members' offices comply with zoning laws. The court held that the limitation constituted a group boycott and per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Ballou v. Master Properties No. 6: Broker Awarded Compensatory and Punative Damages Against Vendor for Fraud
In Ballou v. Master Properties No. 6, the California Court of Appeal addressed a broker's allegations of fraud against a seller of real estate. The court reversed an order for new trial on damages, affirmed the finding of fraud, and affirmed the award of a $138,000 commission and $2 million in punitive damages.
Roberts v. Estate of Barbagallo: Pennsylvania Broker Found Liable for Damages Arising Out of Failure to Disclose UFFI
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a broker was liable when a purchaser bought a home with UFFI which adversely affected her health. Even though it was not clear whether the broker actually knew UFFI was present, the court held the broker should have advised the buyer about the possible effects of UFFI because of its knowledge of the Federal ban on UFFI, the potential for health risks associated with UFFI, and the Board of REALTORS® recommendation regarding UFFI disclosure.
Supermarket of Homes v. San Fernando Valley BOR: Federal Court Finds Copyright Violation by Member for Distribution of MLS Listings Without Permission From Board
In Supermarket of Homes v. San Fernando Valley Board of REALTORS®, the district court found for the Board on its counterclaim and cross-claim, and held that the plaintiff's actions constituted misuse of copyright.