MLS of Jackson v. Cent. 21 Cantrell Real Estate: Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Board of REALTORS® Power to Discipline Members
In Multiple Listing Service of Jackson v. Century 21 Cantrell Real Estate, the Supreme Court of Mississippi addressed whether a private organization may discipline its members for violations of its standards of professional conduct. The court held that a voluntary association may discipline members, but that before a fine can be levied, there must be a schedule of maximum fines to which each member agrees to be bound.
McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Alleged Real Estate Commission Price-fixing Could Effect Inter-State Commerce and Could Be Challenged Under the Sherman Antitrust Act
In McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether alleged real estate commission price-fixing was activity within the scope of interstate commerce sufficient to be challenged under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court held that a conspiracy regarding commissions can have the requisite effect upon interstate commerce to confer subject matter jurisdiction.
In McCarrick v. Polonia Federal S. & L. Ass'n, a federal District Court in Pennsylvania addressed alleged violations of 12 U.S.C. section 2607 (section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA)). The court held that the defendant was not liable for RESPA violations, as the actions taken by the plaintiff's real estate broker constituted services, not kickbacks, and there was no referral arrangement between the broker and the defendant.
In State v. Hossan-Maxwell, the Supreme Court of Connecticut addressed list back agreements under the Connecticut State Antitrust Act. The court held that list back agreements constitute tying arrangements, which when coupled with other prerequisites, become per se violations of the Act.
Hilgendorf v. Hague: Iowa Supreme Court Reviews Damages Awarded to Broker for Vendor's Breach of Listing Agreement
In Hilgendorf v. Hague, the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed a dispute between a broker and a vendor regarding the vendor’s breach of a listing agreement. The court held that the vendor had the power, but not the right, to terminate the agreement, and that the broker could recover damages rather than a commission.
In Foster v. West Alexandria Properties, the district court addressed tying arrangements concerning the sale of condominiums and the use of a particular management company. The court held that a condominium unit and management service were one integrated product, so no tying arrangement or antitrust violation occurred.
Wells v. Moblie Co. BOR: Alabama Supreme Court Concludes Arbitration Requirement Is Againt Public Policy
In Wells v. Mobile Co. Board of REALTORS®, the Alabama Supreme Court considered whether agreements to arbitrate future disputes violate public policy. The case involved a commission dispute between sales associates.
Washington v. Tacoma-Pierce: Washington State Attorney General May Challenge Membership-Based Access to MLS
In Washington v. Tacoma-Pierce, Tri-City, & Spokane Bd. of REALTORS®, the Supreme Court of Washington addressed the State's challenge to restrictions on MLS access based on membership in a local Board of REALTORS® (Board). The court held that the State Attorney General could bring an antitrust action challenging that restriction under the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Schroud v. Van C. Argiris & Co.: Illinois Appellate Court Confirms Arbitration Award Based Upon Statute's Procedure
Illinois Appellate Court Confirms Arbitration Award Based Upon Statute's Procedure
In Schroud v. Van C. Argiris & Co., the Appellate Court of Illinois addressed procedural issues relating to a Board arbitration award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision confirming the award.
In Penne v. Greater Minneapolis Area Board of REALTORS®, the Eighth Circuit addressed boycott law and its applicability to the real estate brokerage industry. The court held that the defendants had not contracted, combined, or conspired to fix and maintain brokerage fees in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.