UMLS v. Bernstein: California Court of Appeal Addressed Disciplinary Actions for Failure to Arbitrate
In United Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (UMLS) v. Bernstein, the California Court of Appeal addressed disciplinary actions for failing to arbitrate.
In Smith v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court of Mississippi addressed the issues of implied agency and undisclosed dual agency. The court found that an expired agency contract may be extended by a broker's actions and the principal's acquiescense, and that where implied agency exists, the agent owes all requisite fiduciary duties.
Pomanowski v. Maonmouth Co. BOR: New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Board of REALTORS® MLS Membership Policy
In Pomanowski v. Monmouth County BOR®, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed a practice of the Monmouth County Board of REALTORS® which denying non-members access to a multiple listing service (MLS). The court held that the Board's denial of access was reasonable and did not violate the New Jersey Antitrust Act.
Mikkelson v. Quail Valley Realty: Utah Supreme Court Finds for Broker in Purchaser's Claims for Misrepresentation Based Upon MLS Error
In 1982, the Supreme Court of Utah addressed an alleged misrepresentation due to a MLS error. The court held that a purchaser could not recover where he: (1) inspected a house before buying it; and (2) before closing, signed and acknowledged receipt of documents which indicated the actual square footage of the house.
Coldwell Banker v. Karlock: In Examining a "Best Efforts" Claim in a Commission Dispute, the Seventh Circuit Finds That Producing a Purchaser Is at the Heart of a Listing Agreement
In Coldwell Banker v. Karlock, the Seventh Circuit addressed whether a broker was entitled to a commission where he had allegedly not used his "best efforts" in finding a potential purchaser. The court held that the broker satisfied his requirement of producing a "ready, willing, and able" purchaser. Further, the court refused to enforce an Indiana "closed door" policy which would have denied the broker his commission.
Havens Realty v. Coleman: U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Parties' Standing to Sue Under Fair Housing Act
In Havens Realty v. Coleman, the Supreme Court addressed standing under the Fair Housing Act (Act), and the proper construction of section 812(a) of the Act, which imposes a 180-day statute of limitations. The Court held that individuals and housing organizations have standing to sue, and that where fair housing violations are continuous, the 180-day statute of limitations runs from the date of the last occurrence of discrimination.
State-Miller v. Cedar Rapids BOR: Iowa Supreme Court Determines That Membership-Based MLS Access Does Not Violate Antitrust Laws
In State ex rel. Miller v. Cedar Rapids Board of REALTORS®, the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed the reasonableness of board membership as it related to MLS access. The court held that if all membership criteria were reasonable and if membership was available to all applicants on the same terms, that MLS access could be limited to board members.
Pope County Bar Association v. Suggs: Arkansas Supreme Court Determines Brokers' Efforts in Completing Pre-Printed, Standardized Forms Do Not Constitute Unauthorized Practice of Law
In 1981 the Supreme Court of Arkansas addressed whether activities by a real estate broker constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The court held that it was in the public interest to permit brokers to fill in the blanks of certain standardized, printed forms in connection with simple real estate transactions, provided the forms had been approved by an attorney.
Note: This case is not published in a reporter or Westlaw and may not constitute current law. Consult with counsel before relying on this case.
Levinson v. Maison Grande: Federal Court Rules That Plaintiff Must Show "Market Power" for Tying Claims
In Levinson v. Maison Grande, the district court addressed unlawful tying arrangements with regard to sales of real estate. The court held that in determining market power with respect to land, the inherent uniqueness of real estate is not controlling, and the facts and circumstances of each case are to be considered. The court further held that because the plaintiff could not establish market power, there was no tying arrangement, and no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.