Broken Promises, Part 2: Nathan v. Long & Foster

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Heidi Meinzer

Last month, we looked at Station #2, where the Virginia Supreme Court refused to turn a breach of contract allegations into a fraud claim. Contrast that with Nathan, et al. v. Long & Foster, Real Estate, Inc., et al., in which the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke has allowed a fraud in the inducement claim to go forward.

Geeta Nathan and Santam Singh were looking to buy a home in Roanoke, and worked with Barbara Michelsen, a Long & Foster real estate agent. They signed a Purchase Agreement to buy a home for $260,000, and the agreement listed Michelsen as the selling agent.

Under the Purchase Agreement, Long & Foster and Michelsen hired Donald Field to conduct radon testing of the home. Michelsen told Field to test for radon only on the first floor, and to ignore any readings in the basement. The testing revealed excessive levels of radon for the basement. Field mailed and faxed the results to Long & Foster and Michelsen.

In the meantime, the seller had signed a disclosure statement dated March 25, 2006, checking “yes” beside the question “Has the property been tested for radon gas?” However, Field did not conduct the testing until April 6, 2006. The seller and Michelsen had also signed a radon acknowledgment form that said they had “no knowledge concerning the testing of this property for radon or the presence or absence of radon in this property.”

Before closing, Nathan and Singh asked Michelsen about the radon test results, explaining concerns about radon and that a child would be living in the house. Michelsen assured them that everything was fine, and gave them a copy of the test results for the first floor only. Nathan and Singh closed on the house the same day.

Some time later, Nathan and Singh contacted Field when they were making repairs in the basement, and Field asked them whether the radon problem had been taken care of. Nathan and Singh had further radon testing done, and found elevated levels of radon. Not only did Nathan and Singh have to pay the costs of fixing the radon problem, but their house also diminished in value due to the fact that they would have to disclose the prior radon levels.

Nathan and Singh sued Long & Foster and Michelsen for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. Long and Foster and Michelsen agreed that the breach of contract claim was properly pled, and Nathan and Singh agreed that they could not state a fraud claim against Long & Foster. That left the issue of whether Nathan and Singh could go after Michelsen for fraud in the inducement.

Michelsen argued that any duty to disclose the radon levels was contractual, not tort-based. She also argued that she complied with her obligations to disclose and was therefore protected by Virginia Code Section 55-523 of the Virginia Residential Property Disclosure Act (“VRPDA”).

Judge Dorsey wasn’t buying either of these arguments. Judge Dorsey found that Michelsen, as a real estate agent first employed by Nathan and Singh to be their agent, had a fiduciary duty that included the duty to disclose a complete set of the radon test results. Unlike the facts in Station #2, this duty was more than a mere contractual duty and could support fraud in the inducement. Judge Dorsey also ruled that because Michelsen and the seller never properly advised Nathan and Singh of the radon issue, Michelsen was not entitled to the protection of the VRPDA.
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in Arlington Makes the NY Times

Posted on October 12, 2009 by Tad Lunger

In case you missed it, Arlington County's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor made the NY Times on Thursday.  The article, entitled "An Oasis of Stability Amid a Downturn", provides how well Arlington County is weathering the current real estate market as compared to other locations of the country.   The article cites Arlington's 8.6% office vacancy rate against the national average of 18.3% (and the second lowest retail vacancy rate out of the 23 major markets surveyed), and attributes these relatively low vacancy rates to the corridor's well-planned, transit-oriented mix of uses and proximity to the nation's capitol, public transit/Metro system, and the County's ability to attract and retain a number of federal agencies and universities in the County.

It is true that the major key to Arlington's success has been its proximity to the federal government, and that it is a natural location for expansion of density outside of the District of Columbia (Arlington actually being originally planned as part of DC), but it is great to read about the truly excellent foresight the County has exercised over the years to ensure this potential was not lost and directed to other localities in the region.  Arlington really is a unique market that deserves special attention, particularly during economic downturns.  In fact, Arlington experienced similar resilience during the Great Depression.

I am very happy to see Arlington get the recognition it deserves.  One quote hit the nail on the head: "'[t]here’s a lot of tremendous economic fundamentals in place' in the corridor..." 

And to top it all off, Virginia was just named the "Best State for Business" by Forbes.com. for the fourth year in a row.

 

Tags: , ,

Broker Not Entitled to Commission - No Extension, Not Procuring Cause

Posted on September 6, 2009 by Timothy R. Hughes

As the economy has languished, many property sellers and landlords have experienced extensions of property listings. In many cases, these extensions have actually exceeded the terms of the listing agreements with their brokers. This situation can raise some complex questions of exactly what listing terms remain in place and what commission, if any, the real estate broker can recover.

A recent case in the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, Grubb & Ellis v.  Potomac Medical Building, LLC, gives some guidance on these questions. The case ended in a bench trial and resulting forty page memorandum opinion, so the case is certainly long on facts and detail. There are a few important take-away points, especially when one takes into account the context of litigation in the "Rocket Docket":

  • The original listing agreement permitted only written extensions - while there were continued dealings between the parties, the court found there was no extension of the original listing in large part because there was no written extension
  • The broker’s continuing efforts to lease the property did not create a new listing agreement
  • While the initial broker brought the eventual tenant to the table, that tenant was not willing to close on the landlord's terms so the broker was not the "procuring cause"
Tags: , , ,