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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT