The California legislature enacted the following new laws for 2012 that are relevant to real estate.
Archive for the ‘Disclosure’ Category
NEW LAWS AFFECTING REAL ESTATE IN 2012
Thursday, January 12th, 2012DRE TAKES ACTION AGAINST BROKER FOUND LIABLE FOR FRAUD IN MISREPRESENTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A RESIDENCE
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011Where a civil judgment for fraud based on misrepresentation of the square footage of a residence was entered in favor of a buyer against his real estate broker the broker’s real estate license may not be suspended by the Department of Real Estate unless the judgment is based on “clear and convincing” proof of fraud. Grubb Company Inc. v. Department of Real Estate 194 CA 4th 1494 (2011).
MARS COMPLIANCE FOR REAL ESTATE AGENTS
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011Any real estate agent who negotiates short sales with lenders or promotes their services as a way to help consumers avoid foreclosure is covered by the new Federal Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (“MARS”) rules, and must comply with all requirements regarding mandatory disclosures, misrepresentations and the prohibition against collection of advance fees. [16 CFR 322 et. seq.]
BROKER HAS FIDUCIARY DUTY TO DISCLOSE TO THEIR CLIENT, MATERIAL INFORMATION KNOWN TO ANY OF THE BROKER’S AGENTS
Sunday, July 18th, 2010The California Court of Appeal for the Second District on November 1, 2007 ruled that a real estate broker has a fiduciary duty to disclose material information to its client, regardless of which salesperson in the broker’s office has the information. Michel v. Palo Verdes Network Group 67 Cal.Rptr. 3d 797 (2007). (more…)
SELLER’S FAILURE TO DELIVER TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO BUYER GIVES BUYER THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PURCHASE EVEN THOUGH BUYER INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING
Monday, July 14th, 2003The California Court of Appeal in the 4th District ruled on July 7, 2003 that a seller’s failure to deliver a TDS disclosure statement gave the buyer the legal right to cancel the purchase even though buyer was unconcerned with the condition of the residence because buyer was purchasing the property as-is, and intended to demolish the residence and replace it with a commercial building. Realmuto v. Gagnard 110 CA4th 193 (2003). (more…)