The Monson lot was zoned for duplex construction, and at all times all the parties were aware that this fact was material to respondents' valuation of it. We thus do not believe that petitioners' duty under Investment Exchange is properly at issue in this case. At oral argument in this court, petitioners' counsel stated that both respondents and the Petersons were well aware of petitioners'dual employment, and respondents' counsel did not dispute this contention. Here respondents' complaint did not clearly allege any wrongful nondisclosure of the dual agency, and the issue was not explored by either side at trial. It Is true that the Investment Exchange case does put the burden on the broker to show that the fact of any dual agency relationship was disclosed to his or her clients, but that burden can be imposed only where nondisclosure of a dual agency is made a basis for an aggrieved client's suit for damages.
#Ralph monity trial#
«1» Respondents argue in their brief that, since there is nothing in the record indicating that petitioners disclosed the fact of this dual agency to them, the trial court's award to them of the broker's commission should be upheld under Investment Exch. The purchase price of the respondents' property was $55,000, $5,650 of which was paid by transferring the Monson lot to them.«1» After lengthy negotiations, they accepted it. Shurtleff informed the Petersons of the availability of the respondents' property and obtained from them an earnest money offer to purchase it which he presented to respondents. Shortly after he had been retained by respondents, petitioner Shurtleff was retained by another couple, Ward and Viola Peterson, who wished to sell a small parcel of property (called the "Monson lot") and invest in some more extensive real estate.
#Ralph monity series#
The series of transactions that gave rise to this lawsuit began when respondents retained petitioners as their agent in listing an apartment house they owned for sale. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that, where a broker acts in good faith but negligently fails to disclose to his client a fact material to the transaction and no question of divided loyalty is involved, the proper measure of damages is the actual harm caused to the client by the broker's negligent omission.
Review was granted by this court, however, to reach the issue of the proper amount of damages for negligent nondisclosure by a real estate broker. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of petitioners' argument due to the improper form of their brief.
#Ralph monity full#
It held that defendants' nondisclosure rendered them liable for the full amount of theĬommission they received, regardless of the actual damages respondents incurred. The trial court found for the Montys, who claimed that the defendants had negligently failed to inform them of restrictive covenants materially affecting the value of a parcel of land they received in a real estate transaction in which they employed the defendants. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a nonjury trial in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents), Ralph and Karin Monty, in a suit for the amount of a real estate broker's commission paid by them to defendants (petitioners) Lewis W. Franklin (of Lund, Franklin & DeLong), for respondents. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellants (defendants) petitioned the Supreme Court for review.Īction to recover a real estate broker's commission. The Court of Appeals affirmed, by unpublished opinion, a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, December 2, 1974, 12 Wn. WRIGHT and ROSELLINI, JJ., dissent by separate opinion HOROWITZ, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case. A broker's liability for his good faith, negligent nondisclosure of a material fact to a principal is limited to the actual harm caused, rather than to the full amount of the broker's commission, when the broker does not breach his duty of undivided loyalty. Brokers - Agent for Sale of Realty - Nondisclosure - Measure of Damages.
0 kommentar(er)
