Powered by Google

Search form

Adams v. Kerr: Missouri Court of Appeals Holds That Dual Agent Must Act With Knowledge and Consent of the Principal(s).

January 1, 1983: 

In Adams v. Kerr, the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed the duty of loyalty owed by an agent to its principal. The court held that where, at the time of execution of a sales contract, a seller is not informed that his broker also represents the purchaser, the broker has breached his duty of undivided loyalty.

Holter v. Moore & Co.: Tenth Circuit Upholds Broker/Principal's Right to Set Commissions Without Finding That Sales Agents Conspired to Fix Prices of Commission Rates

January 1, 1983: 

In Holter v. Moore & Co., the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's holdings in finding that sales agents could not conspire with their broker/principal and that there was no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Bay Realty v. Executive Investments: Rhode Island Supreme Court Upholds Board's Arbitration Award

December 27, 1982: 

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.

Young v. Whidbey Island BOR: Membership-based MLS Access Violates Washington State Statute

January 1, 1982: 

In Young v. Whidbey Island Board of REALTORS®, the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a superior court holding that limitations on MLS access based on membership in a local Board of REALTORS® violated the Unfair Business Practices-Consumer Protection Act (UBP-CPA). The supreme court also affirmed that the doctrine of avoidable consequences (i.e., mitigation of damages) was applicable to claims brought under the Act.

UMLS v. Bernstein: California Court of Appeal Addressed Disciplinary Actions for Failure to Arbitrate

January 1, 1982: 

In United Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (UMLS) v. Bernstein, the California Court of Appeal addressed disciplinary actions for failing to arbitrate.

Smith v. Sullivan: Parties' Conduct May Extend the Duration of an Agency Contract

January 1, 1982: 

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

January 1, 1982: 

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

January 1, 1982: 

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

January 1, 1982: 

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

January 1, 1982: 

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.