ILNews

Judges affirm judgment for real estate agent on negligence claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that a real estate agent representing buyers did not breach the duty he had to the sellers when he communicated with them personally about accepting his clients’ offer.

Jack Stump represented Zachary and Holli Gredy, who wanted to buy Terry and Marti Likens’ home. The Likenses had their own real estate agent, who advised the couple to accept another offer instead of the Gredys’. Stump contacted the Likenses directly by phone and e-mail encouraging them to accept the Gredys’ offer.

They executed a purchase agreement, in which the Gredys were to close before Sept. 30, 2008, and have $10,000 held in escrow. Closing didn’t happen on time, and the bank letter guaranteeing the funds was fraudulent. The Likenses sued the Gredys, Stump and his employer, Prickett’s Properties. At issue in the instant case is the grant of summary judgment in favor of Stump and his employer on the Likenses’ negligence/breach of agency duty claim.

The Likenses argued Prickett’s Properties was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. They also claimed that Stump owed them a common law duty because he went beyond acting as an agent for the Gredys and undertook to advise and coerce the Likenses into a course of action.

But statutory law supersedes any common law to the contrary, the Court of Appeals concluded in Terry Likens, et al. v. Prickett's Properties, Inc., et al., No. 43A03-1008-PL-455. The judges cited Indiana Code Chapter 25-34.1-10, which governs real estate agency relationships, to define the duty Stump owed the Likenses. Section 11 of the chapter says a licensee representing a buyer owes no duties or obligations to the seller, except that a licensee shall treat all prospective sellers honestly and not knowingly give them false information, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The section also says that the licensee owes no duty to conduct an independent investigation of the buyer’s financial ability to purchase or verify the accuracy of any statement made by the buyer or a third party.

“Indeed, Stump had a duty to treat the Likenses honestly and not knowingly give them false information. But the negligence count against Stump does not allege any violation of this clearly-articulated statutory duty,” she wrote, noting the Likenses didn’t appeal the summary judgment ruling pertaining to their fraud claim against Stump. “Finally, while Stump’s actions in directly contacting the Likenses to encourage them to accept the Gredys’ offer may seem inappropriate, Stump, as the buyers’ agent, is allowed to provide the Likenses services in the ordinary course of a real estate transaction and any similar services that do not violate the terms of his agency relationship with the Gredys.”

Judge Vaidik also referenced section 15, which says the “duties and obligations of a licensee set forth in this chapter supersede any fiduciary duties of a license to a party based on common law principles of agency to the extent that those common law fiduciary duties are inconsistent with the duties and obligations set forth in this chapter.”

Also, there’s no evidence of a writing that the Gredys and the Likenses consented to Stump acting as a limited agent for both of them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT