I just got an email from Teri Figueroa, the North County Times reporter who has been covering the Ummel v. Little case.
This is all I have:
—–Original message—–
From: Teri Figueroa TFigueroa@nctimes.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:50:52 -0600
To: “‘jay@thompsonsrealty.com’” jay@thompsonsrealty.com
Subject: RE: Thanks! for the Ummel v. Little coverage
> they (the jury) are back. Sided with the agent. We will have a story posted inside of an hour, I believe.
UPDATE: Here are the details….
The jury handed down a unanimous decision after two hours of deliberation.
“We felt that in any kind of purchase, especially one that big – and most of us have had our own situations we’d been through – the bottom lline really stops with you,” jury forewoman Wendi Brick said. “Whose final responsibility is to sign a contract? It’s yours.”
“It’s just a very sad situation for everyone,” Brick said. “You could tell the strain on everyone.”
Agent Mike Little: “I feel incredibly relieved and vindicated,” Little said after the decision. “It has been more than two years of quite problematic times for me, and I’m happy to get it behind me. I’ve just had a very difficult time working, approaching clients. You just get leery.”
The Ummels were not available for comment. Their attorney Eric Prosser said, “We thought we raised some good points but ultimately we respect the jury’s decision,” he said. “If there’s a broader picture, it’s that real estate agents who also do loans for their clients have to be very diligent about the information they get and what is disseminated to their clients.”
Have to agree with him on that. I expressed my opinion on the combination agent / lender in, “The Combination Real Estate Agent / Lender: One-Stop Shopping, or Half-Assed Service?“. I think it’s just a really bad idea.
My thoughts on the case? Of course I heard none of the evidence, but from what I read, it didn’t seem the Ummels had much of a case. “Buyer Beware” holds true. That does not absolve the agent of all responsibility. One of our primary jobs in this business is to help people through the process and to provide the information they need to make decisions. But we can’t make the decisions for them. This case was of great interest (or should have been) to agents, brokers and real estate buyers and sellers.
Did Mike Little make some mistakes? Likely. Could they have been prevented? Absolutely in my opinion. I wrote about why I wasn’t overly concerned when the case first came to light, and I’ll stand by that post. I suspect Mr. Little has changed some of his practices, and I assume the Ummels have learned a valuable lesson.
Mainstream Media reports:
Jury vindicates North County real estate agent – San Diego Union Tribune
Homeowners Lose Suit Against Real Estate Agent – NBC San Diego
Jury clears real estate agent – North County Times
Jury Says Realtor Not to Blame for Purchase Price – Voice of San Diego (this is a really good article. More in-depth than those listed above)
.
Email This Post 
Print This Post
Previous post: [ Ummel v. Little Update: Going to the Jury ]
Next post: [ Real Estate Video of the Week #20: ActiveRain Winner ]
Thanks for reading! We value your thoughts and opinions, so please feel free to leave a comment. Please contact us if you have any questions or need help. You can also get automatic updates for this blog free via:
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
oooo hot shot blogger gets the scoop by sucking up to a reporter wonder how she feels about you publishing her email address for the world to see
i thought this was a real estate blog what does this have to do with real estate
*sigh*
Dear “Anonymous”, allow me to briefly address your points:
“Hot shot blogger” — hardly. I’m just a real estate broker.
“Scoop” — hardly.
“Sucking up to a reporter” — I sent an email to the reporter thanking her for covering a case well, and I asked if she had any thoughts on how long the jury would be out. If that’s sucking up to you, oh well.
As for publishing the reporter’s email address for the world to see, given that her email address is published at the bottom of every article she writes, I hardly see that as invading her space.
What does this have to do with real estate? Wow, I don’t even know how to answer that. A home buyer sues their real estate agent. Yeah, you’re right. It has nothing to do with real estate.
If you don’t like what is written here, the solution is simple.
PS: Punctuation counts.
Must say that if this case for some reason went another the other way it would have caused major issues for agents around the country. Glad to see that the jury had a brain.
Thanks for the update!
Thanks for the update. I thought this case was months away. Good info.
This is great news. If the agent had lost this could have opened a flood of lawsuits. I didnt realize the guy was both the lender and the real estate agent. Personally, I still dont think its a good idea for one person to do both the real estate and lending part of a deal. If we stopped people from doing both roles realtors might avoid some black eyes in the future.
“i thought this was a real estate blog what does this have to do with real estate” – Is this person serious?
I’ve been waiting for this verdict, even though it wouldn’t apply to most of us as most of us don’t wear the hat of a real estate agent plus a mortgage originator. Thanks for the update!
And the real estate industry breathes a sigh of relief…
Thanks for the update and I too am very relieved of the outcome.
I love it when people talk trash and don’t have the stones to post their name and contact info. How brave you are citizen! To quote Ron White, you can’t fix stupid. The suit was without merit. People buy market driven priced items all the time. Anyone recently buy a car? A piece of jewelry? A gallon of milk? Prices on all of these things are market driven. Does a diamond have an inherent value? Nope. The supply is closing monitored by those folks in Antwerp and are kept at an artificial premium by keeping the supply at a certain level. If you buy a car and then find a similar one cheaper elsewhere do you sue the car dealer? We have rights as consumers, but we also have to have common sense and take responsibility for our actions.
It was quite interesting to read the update on this case from the point of british law. good old ‘caveat emptor’! dont see what the problem was in the first place unless agents intentionally misled the customer and hope that both real estate guys and consumers learn from this judgement! Many thanks!
Well that mail conversation is interesting.
Well that mail conversation is interesting.