Glendale BOR v. Hounsell: California Appellate Court Holds Membership-Based Access to MLS Violates State Antitrust Statute
In Glendale Board of REALTORS® v. Hounsell, the California Court of Appeal addressed the practice of the Glendale Board of REALTORS® which denied non-members access to a multiple listing service (MLS). The court held that the Board's denial of access led to adverse consequences for non-members with respect to their ability to compete effectively, and was a violation of the Cartwright Act (California Antitrust Statute).
Brown v. Indianapolis BOR: Federal Court Rules Membership-Based Access to MLS Is Reasonable and Not in Violation of Antitrust Laws
In Brown v. Indianapolis Board of REALTORS®, the district court addressed the limitations on MLS access that required membership in a Board of REALTORS® (Board). The court held that the limitations the Board applied to MLS participation were reasonable and did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Marin Co. BOR v. Palsson: California Supreme Court Holds Board of REALTORS® Membership Guidelines Violate Antitrust Laws
In Marin County Board of Realtors v. Palsson, the Supreme Court of California held that a Marin County Board of REALTORS® (Board) bylaw which limited membership to persons "primarily engaged in the real estate business" violated the Cartwright Act (the state equivalent of the Sherman Antitrust Act). The court also ruled that a Board rule which denied non-member salespeople affiliated with a REALTOR® member access to its multiple listing service information violated the Cartwright Act.
Duffy v. Setchell: Contract Negotiated by Undisclosed Dual Agent Is Voidable; Specific Performance Will Not Be Awarded
In Duffy v. Setchell, the Appellate Court of Illinois addressed the issues of undisclosed dual agency and specific performance. The court held that a contract negotiated by a dual agent is voidable by a principal who did not have notice of the dual agency, and that the other principal will be denied specific performance.
Trylon Realty Corp. v. Di Martini: Commission Dispute Arising Out of Property Owner's Bad Faith Withdrawl of Lease Agreement
In Trylon Realty Corp. v. Di Martini, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, addressed a broker's claims against a property owner regarding a commission on leased property. The court affirmed that the property owner, who failed to go through with the lease after receiving an informal assurance from a local zoning board and an agreement with lessee as to many essential terms, acted in bad faith and owed the broker a commission.
Shaw v. Ithaca BOR: Ithaca Board's Experience Requirement for Participation in MLS Does Not Violate New York's 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 Shaw v. Ithaca Board of REALTORS®, the New York Supreme Court addressed the requirement of the Ithaca Board of REALTORS® (Board) that participation in the MLS be afforded only to those with a minimum of three years experience as a salesman or broker. The court held that the requirement was reasonable and justified, and that it did not constitute a violation of state antitrust law.
In Led-Mil of Nevada, Inc. v. Skyland Realty and Insurance, Inc., the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed a broker's claims for breach of an oral promise and quantum meruit regarding sales and potential sales of land the broker subdivided for an owner. The court affirmed that the oral contract was not enforceable, and reversed a finding that the broker should be compensated for the value of his services.
US v. Los Angeles Realty: Federal Court Opinions Outline Potential Trade Violations by Real Estate Professionals
U.S. v. Los Angeles Realty Board, 1973-1 Trade Cases (CCH) P 74,366, 1973 WL 767 (C.D. Cal. 1973) [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.] was a consent decree, which in pertinent parts, enjoined the defendants from the following activities regarding the sale, lease, or management of real estate: