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.
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.