In Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., (2016) 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 383 P.3d 1094, the California Supreme Court ruled that all salespeople working under a single broker in a “dual agent” transaction owe the same fiduciary duties to both buyers and sellers that the broker does, even if different agents within the brokerage represent the buyer and seller separately.
CASE UPDATE: Court Rejects Strict Interpretation Of “Merger Doctrine” In Sonoma Winery Nondisclosure Case.
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Roche, (2015) 2015 WL 1570193, the court of appeal reversed the trial court’s summary adjudication judgment and held that there were disputed issues of fact involved in a real estate non-disclosure case. Plaintiffs purchased property in Sonoma County upon which they intended to build a new winery. After the close of escrow, the buyers first discovered an active fault trace on the property that substantially increased their cost of development, and they sued the sellers for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract for failing to disclose the fault.
CASE UPDATES: Broker Disclosures; Reconciling Nonconforming Structures and Variance Rules; New Santa Cruz County Medical Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance
SELLERS’ BROKERS DO NOT OWE DUTIES OF CARE AND DISCLOSURE TO BUYERS’ MINOR CHILDREN
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2014) 117 Cal.App.4th 158, was a real estate non-disclosure case. After a house buyer and her minor child moved into their newly purchased house, they both developed asthma caused by toxic mold that was allegedly not disclosed by the seller’s broker, and they both sued the seller’s broker for personal injuries and property damages under multiple causes of action including fraud (nondisclosure/concealment), emotional distress and nuisance.