Case Study: Cortazzo V. Coldwell Banker
A California Supreme Court ruling on Monday states that in the instance of one brokerage firm handling a single transaction, the real estate agent is duty bound to act in the interest of both sellers and buyers.
According to the ruling, agents representing sellers and workers that work in different offices of the same brokerage company are still duty bound to take care of the interests of both parties.
In a case in which a buyer of Malibu mansion claimed that he was overcharged after relying on misrepresentation of the house’s size by the seller’s listing agent, the California High Court in a unanimous decision ordered the Los Angeles County case be tried anew.
Both sales agents for the seller and buyer were employees of the Coldwell Banker …show more content…
The huge discrepancy in what was advertised and the real square footage became known two years later, while Horiike was preparing for some rework on the property. He brought a civil case against Cortazzo and his brokerage company Coldwell Banker for failing in their duty to inform him of the house’s actual size.
Cortazzo’s defense successfully argued that Cortazzo did not owe Horiike any duty of trust given that he was exclusively representing the interests of the seller. The trial court agreed with Cortazzo’s defense and cleared him of any wrongdoing. A jury would later find Coldwell Banker not culpable for any wrongdoing thus dismissing the entire case.
Horiike had the court of appeal overturn the ruling, and the Supreme Court held that the appellate ruling was the correct decision. The verdict in the California state court asserted that Cartazzo had the same duty of trust to Horrike as a buyer just as much as his employer Coldwell Banker. It further argued that even if he did not have the fiduciary duty to the buyer, he would still be at fault for the false representation in the listing and sales
According to the ruling, agents representing sellers and workers that work in different offices of the same brokerage company are still duty bound to take care of the interests of both parties.
In a case in which a buyer of Malibu mansion claimed that he was overcharged after relying on misrepresentation of the house’s size by the seller’s listing agent, the California High Court in a unanimous decision ordered the Los Angeles County case be tried anew.
Both sales agents for the seller and buyer were employees of the Coldwell Banker …show more content…
The huge discrepancy in what was advertised and the real square footage became known two years later, while Horiike was preparing for some rework on the property. He brought a civil case against Cortazzo and his brokerage company Coldwell Banker for failing in their duty to inform him of the house’s actual size.
Cortazzo’s defense successfully argued that Cortazzo did not owe Horiike any duty of trust given that he was exclusively representing the interests of the seller. The trial court agreed with Cortazzo’s defense and cleared him of any wrongdoing. A jury would later find Coldwell Banker not culpable for any wrongdoing thus dismissing the entire case.
Horiike had the court of appeal overturn the ruling, and the Supreme Court held that the appellate ruling was the correct decision. The verdict in the California state court asserted that Cartazzo had the same duty of trust to Horrike as a buyer just as much as his employer Coldwell Banker. It further argued that even if he did not have the fiduciary duty to the buyer, he would still be at fault for the false representation in the listing and sales