Huijers

Huijers v. DeMarrais

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 676·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 232·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1419·92 Daily Journal DAR 16526·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9881
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 1992B060090California9,626 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The real estate agency disclosure statute, Civil Code section 2374,1 says nothing about a failure to comply. A statute without a remedy *679 might as well be written in invisible ink. We conclude the common law provides a remedy for failure to comply with section 2374.

*679 A real estate agent representing both a buyer and seller in a transaction must provide a disclosure statement to both buyer and seller. (§ 2374.) Subdivision (a) of that section requires the real estate agent seeking to list residential property for sale to provide the seller with the agency relationship disclosure form prior to entering into a listing agreement.

Here, an agent who represents a buyer interested in seller’s property enters into a listing agreement with seller. The agent fails to provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement. We hold that under these circumstances the listing agreement is voidable at seller’s option.

We reverse. [[]] *

Facts

Leendert Huijers owned a nursery business in Huntington Park. He wished to relocate the business to Santa Barbara County. He sold his nursery in April 1987. The contract gave him until July 31,1988, to…

Dissenting Opinion

Yegan, J.

I respectfully dissent. Justine Larson, a real estate broker, was retained by Leendert P. Huijers to find a nursery which would qualify for a tax deferred exchange for his existing nursery in Huntington Park. Larson located a property, owned by Gordon and George Anne DeMarrais, which had both a nursery and a residence. Larson expressly told the DeMarraises that she had a “client” who was interested in buying their property. The DeMarraises alone set the listing price at $325,000. Larson told them that if she brought them a buyer at that price, she would earn a 6 percent commission. The DeMarraises did not object and signed a written contract listing the property on these terms. Larson, however, did not provide a written dual agency disclosure statement.

Thereafter, Larson advised the DeMarraises that her “client” would be making an offer. Thus, she had already begun to perform her contract with the DeMarraises. Thereafter, the DeMarraises indicated that they wanted to raise the listing price to $375,000. Larson did not agree to modify the written contract that she had with them. (Civ. Code, § 2381.) 2 When Larson told Huijers that the DeMarraises wanted to raise the price,…

Opinion

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

GILBERT, J.

The real estate agency disclosure statute, Civil Code section 2374, [1] says nothing about a failure to comply. A statute without a remedy might as well be written in invisible ink. We conclude the common law provides a remedy for failure to comply with section 2374.

A real estate agent representing both a buyer and seller in a transaction must provide a disclosure statement to both buyer and seller. (§ 2374.) Subdivision (a) of that section requires the real estate agent seeking to list residential property for sale to provide the seller with the agency relationship disclosure form prior to entering into a listing agreement.

Here, an agent who represents a buyer interested in seller's property enters into a listing agreement with seller. The agent fails to provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement. We hold that under these circumstances the listing agreement is voidable at seller's option.

We reverse. [[]] [*]

Leendert Huijers owned a nursery business in Huntington Park. He wished to relocate the business to Santa Barbara County. He sold his nursery in April…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.