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.
In Newell v. Krause, the Supreme Court of Kansas addressed a broker's claims of fraud against a buyer, a seller, and related corporations. The court affirmed the dismissal of all defendants except the buyer, against whom it affirmed the finding of fraud and award of $171,000 actual damages and $150,000 punitive damages.
Levy Wolf Real Estate Brokerage v. Lizza Industries: Broker Who Introduces Lessee to Property Not Procuring Cause
In Levy Wolf Real Estate Brokerage, Inc. v. Lizza Industries, Inc., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, addressed whether a broker’s actions constituted procuring cause for the lease of property. The court found no procuring cause as the broker merely introduced the subject property to the eventual lessee and failed in its attempts to arrange meetings between lessor and lessee.
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.
The Tennessee Chancery Court found the Board's arbitrators did not exceed their authority by considering legal questions in reaching their decision.
Joh v. Kingsport Board of REALTORS®, (Tenn. Ch. Ct. 1986). [Note: This opinion was not published in an official reporter and therefore should not be cited as authority. Please consult counsel before relying on this opinion.]
Ham v. Morris: Broker Entitled to quantum meruit in Commission Dispute Arising Out of Oral Agreement
In Ham v. Morris, the Supreme Court of Missouri addressed a broker's claims against a seller stemming from an oral agreement regarding a brokerage commission. The court held that the oral agreement was insufficient to support the commission, but that the broker could recover $3,500 (but not a full commission) on a quantum meruit basis.
De la Torres v. Bolger: Fifth Circuit Hold Left-Handed Employee Not Handicapped Within the Meaning of the Rehabilitation Act
In De la Torres v. Bolger, the Fifth Circuit addressed alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a case, as it found that being left-handed was not an "impairment" within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.
In Orval Sheppard v. Valinda Freed & Associates, the district court addressed the applicability of boycott law to the real estate brokerage industry. The court held that absent an express or implied agreement, defendants had not conspired to boycott the plaintiff when they independently decided not to co-broke with him after he went to a flat-fee commission.
Leo v. Neill: Alabama Supreme Court Holds That Purchasers Must Prove Reasonable Reliance to Recover Damages for MLS Errors and/or Fraud
In Leo v. Neill, the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed the issue of reliance in the context of MLS errors. The court concluded that where purchasers do not reasonably rely on MLS information, they may not recover damages, even though the information is actually in error.
Menzel v. Morse: Iowa High Court Uses National Association of REALTORS® Code of Ethics as Standard for Determining Broker Negligence
In Menzel v. Morse, the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed the issues of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The court found that the Code of Ethics of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR) was the standard for determining a broker's negligence. Further, the court held that conduct between the parties can constitute an implied agency relationship with attendant fiduciary duties.
Article 11 (excerpt): REALTORS® shall not undertake to provide specialized professional services concerning a type of property or service that is outside their field of competence unless they engage the assistance of one who is competent on such types of property or service, or unless the facts are fully disclosed to the client. Any persons engaged to provide such assistance shall be so identified to the client and their contribution to the assignment should be set forth.