Fremont Real Estate and Beyond

I mentioned earlier in September  about how 2 Coldwell Banker agents represented a buyer and seller in a transaction and there was a discrepancy in the square footage.  The buyer sued Coldwell Banker and the agents.  The heart of the question was, does the listing agent owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer and since Coldwell Banker is the brokerage to both the buyer and seller? The answer is YES.  There are a lot of ramifications to this decision and we will have to see how things pan out. Case Summary and decision-- http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S218734.PDF

http://www.car.org/newsstand/newsreleases/2016releases/horiikecase Dual agency in real estate transactions case to be heard by California Supreme Court today The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Sept. 7 in a case, Horiike v. Coldwell Banker , that is being closely followed by the real estate industry, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) said. “At its core, the Horiike case is an issue of a buyer not reading all of the information that was presented to him, but Horiike is trying to turn a normal disclosure case into an agency case,” said C.A.R. President Pat “Ziggy” Zicarelli. “Some groups may believe that dual agency should be outlawed and want to use this case for that premise or as a stepping stone to that end.” In the case, a homebuyer, Hiroshi Horiike purchased a mansion in Malibu, Calif., and worked with a Beverly Hills, Coldwell Banker real estate licensee. The property was listed by a Coldwell Banker licensee in another off...

Last year, I mentioned a case about San Jose's new law requiring cities to build affordable housing. http://cheunghomes.blogspot.com/2015/06/court-california-cities-can-require.html The US Supreme court upheld the CA Supreme Court's decision that the law was lawful. San Jose's law would require developers to offer 15% of units in new projects of 20 or more units at below-market rates. Developers could opt out of building affordable units by paying a fee, which the housing industry estimates could run about $122,000 per house. More info here-- http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29576352/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-san-jose-housing

From time to time the CAR lawyers receive questions about the possibility of voiding or "stripping" a lien in a bankruptcy proceeding when the value of the property has fallen below the amount of the lien. Usually this would only apply to a second lien when the value of the property has fallen below the value of the first mortgage; the second lien is now "unsecured" and can be stripped or voided. This process is allowed in a Chapter 13 reorganization but the lien is stripped only if the debtor completes the bankruptcy plan.   However, in most of the country, a debtor could not use the lien stripping process in a Chapter 7 liquidation.  Only the 11th Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) allowed this if the lien was totally unsecured, holding they were bound by 11th Circuit precedent. The 11th Circuit had found a distinction in a 1992 Supreme Court case, Dewsnup v. Timm , 502 U.S. 410 (1992), where the Supreme Court held that a Cha...

A divided U.S. Supreme Court (5 to 4) found that the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) prohibits what might otherwise be viewed as a neutral practice but which has a disparate impact on minorities even though there might be no intentional discrimination.  Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371. Using a long-standing legal argument, but one which had never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court, Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., claimed that, notwithstanding that there was no direct intent to discriminate against minorities, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs allocation of tax credits to developers had a disparate impact on minorities and was thus prohibited under the FHA. In this case the plaintiffs were allowed to use statistics to show that the Department's policy had a negative impact on black residents. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that congress ...

A really interesting case just came out from California’s state Supreme Court which ruled that cities have broad authority to require builders to include a percentage of affordable housing in new projects. The court case stemmed from a 2010 San Jose law that requires some new residential developments to set aside 15 percent of their units for sale at below-market rates. Due to the ruling, affordable housing requirements will be kept intact in cities across the state. Builders in the case argued that the cost of affordable units was being transferred from the public to homebuilders by these requirements. More info can be found here-- http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/06/15/court-california-cities-can-require-developers-to-build-affordable-housing/#.VX8tIyqlSX8.twitter

It's been a pretty slow news week in real estate.  One of the highlights that came to light this Tuesday was the Supreme Court case Bank of America v. Caulkett , which is a technical case about the bankruptcy code.  If  the bank succeeds, it would make it more difficult for people to start over when debt burdens become unmanageable. You can find the article here-- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121356/bank-america-v-caulkett-oral-arguments-begin-mortgage-case

Federal law states that lenders must disclose all costs and details relating to the mortgage a home buyer is obtaining.  If the lender does not disclose it's costs, a homeowner has up to 3 years to rescind the mortgage for failure to disclose and can do so by writing a letter instead of suing the mortgage company. More info--