Plaintiff asked his real estate agent, defendant, to write to the owners of desirable properties and relay unsolicited purchase offers. One property responded, and plaintiff received a firm offer from the seller's agent informing him that they would sell him the property for $5.25 million. Plaintiff disclosed this information to defendant, along with other terms of the deal. Defendant agreed to keep the information confidential so there would be no other competing bids for the property. Defendant then used the information about plaintiff's offer and found another purchaser who was willing to pay a higher amount, allegedly in order to receive a higher commission. Plaintiff claimed that defendant confirmed that he had divulged plaintiff's confidential offer to the new bidder, whom he was also representing. The sellers accepted the competing offer and that sale completed. Plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, constructive fraud, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and professional negligence.
Action to quiet title to strip of land over which adjoining landowner claimed easement for ingress and egress. Final execution of settlement more than five years after commencement of action did not justify dismissal under statute requiring action be brought to trial within five years. Enforcement of agreement affirmed.
Homebuyer brought action against husband and wife, as sellers of home, alleging negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and other claims. Buyer raised additional claims against other defendants. Court confirmation of jury verdicts affirmed.
Parties who had been defrauded by real estate brokers into issuing note secured by fully encumbered property sought to recover from real estate recovery account.
Property owner filed action against city and its redevelopment agency to challenge validity of redevelopment plan for blighted areas under California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) and for injunctive and declaratory relief. Trial court determination in favor of city was affirmed on appeal.