A Texas appellate court has decided in favor of a challenge by the insurance company and reduced a jury verdict that awarded over $32 million dollars to homeowners whose house had become uninhabitable because of mold. The court affirmed the trial court’s award of approximately $4 million in actual damages to the 7,400 square foot home, plus interest, but found that the evidence didn't support the additional awards.
Oregon’s highest court has decided that the state’s real estate commission couldn't declare a broker untrustworthy and revoke his license when he was found guilty of crimes that didn't directly relate to licensed real estate activity.
A New York court found neither the broker, home inspector, or sellers were guilty of fraud or negligent misrepresentation for failing to warn buyers of past water damage to a property. Several factors contributed to the decision.
A court ruled that a radon test comment didn’t constitute fraud because the statement was made after the purchase agreement was signed, and thus the seller couldn’t have relied on this information in deciding to accept the offer.
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York agreed with the landlord, ruling that the Act doesn’t require the “alleviation of economic disadvantages that may be correlated with having handicaps.”
The court also ruled that the sellers weren’t liable because the contract stated that the buyer hadn’t relied on any representations when deciding to buy the property and had had a chance to fully inspect the property.
In affirming a lower court’s decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Larry Lee, a broker with Kalispell Century 21 in Kalispell, Mont., willfully violated discovery orders by the state trial court.
A 1999 decision that allowed landlords to refuse to rent to unmarried couples if doing so would offend their religious beliefs was reversed recently, when the U.S. Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion in Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission.
The Court declared that the disclosure rules, which are intended to inform prospective tenants about the presence of lead-based paint, took effect in September 1996, the date set by HUD and the EPA in their rules implementing lead-hazard reduction laws.
A recent Minnesota verdict sends a chilling message about the disclosure duties of real estate brokers and their salespeople. In February the parents of two children who died from carbon monoxide poisoning won $1.9 million in a wrongful death lawsuit against their home’s former owners and the real estate brokerage.
In New York, as in most states, real estate practitioners and homeowners are required by law to tell prospective homebuyers about a home’s known physical defects. But real estate practitioners working for the seller don’t have to disclose anything voluntarily about the neighbors.
In 1994 the Metropolitan Kansas City (Mo.) Board of REALTORS® voted to suspend one of its members. At the end of the disciplinary proceedings, the board filed a declaratory judgment action—as required by its bylaws--that sought a court judicial declaration that the board hadn’t violated the member’s rights during its disciplinary proceedings.
A U.S. District Court in North Carolina recently dismissed a lawsuit brought against a residential landlord by a former tenant who alleged that the landlord had violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.
A federal court ruled that Florida-based Landmark Commercial Realty wasn’t entitled to a commission because it wasn’t licensed in Ohio, but the jury awarded Landmark $150,881 for the reasonable value of its services.
An Arizona court ruled recently that homebuyers could sue their salesperson and broker for failing to disclose the home’s defects, because the contract clause waiving broker liability was unenforceable.
The owners and operators of six federally subsidized apartment complexes in Reno, Nev., have agreed to pay $382,500 to settle a Fair Housing Act complaint that alleged they discriminated against minorities and families with children.