Jim - agreed. I mentioned in On Buyers Suing Agents that calling Ms. Ummel a "nut job" wasn't quite prudent. Particularly saying that to a NYT reporter....

Jim,

Yes, "nut job" was probably not the way to go.

I've met Mike Little before and he's a pretty good agent, but he was quoted in the local paper of calling the plantiff a "nut job". That should send the E&O insurance company scrambling for a settlement.

Norm you are correct, the legal analyst trashed the case. She didn't even know the whole story. Very sad.

Jay,

As you say, it's hard to know what might happen, but I'll hazard a guess.

She loses and it costs her far more than she thinks she lost in the home purchase. She'll end up eating the defendant's legal fees, and possibly be sued. This guy's E&O provider is going to fight it like their future depends on it, and it probably does. The guest lawyer tore her case apart, probably without much preparation.

I guess we'll know in March. :)

Does anyone know the agent involved and what kind of a reputation he has in his area?

Rumor has it Mr. Little showed the Ummels appx. 60 homes, LOL. Also, they dismissed another agent before Little & canceled 2 other deals before they bought the house in question! They may be 'trailblazers' . . . but only out for themselves

Looking at the video, we don't really see the facts or the response from the Realtor. From my experience, buyers these days know more about whats going on than I do. The information is online and some sites even provide historical information for free.

I mean, how hard could it have been for the buyer to ask what the active, pending, and sold homes were in the area. If the house was overprised by $150K, how would the appraiser appraise the home without nearby comps.

These people definately don't seem stupid and I'm sure they know how to use the internet, I think they are upset at their agent because they think they overpaid.

Was this the only home that the buyer's looked at in the area? There are so many questions to ask both parties. Nonetheless, I think to protect oneself from future liabilities, maybe it would be best to at least show comps of the nearby area including active, sold, pending within the last year and have the buyer sign-off on it.

Richard Johnston, RE/MAX OTB Estates
http://www.estates.la

Maybe Lani. But on the other hand, I don't think we (we as in the real estate industry) can just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Personally, it makes me ill when I hear about people (allegedly in this case) that were fed a line of BS by their agent and/or lender.

Don't get me wrong, people need to be responsible for their own actions. But we as agents do have a duty and obligation to help our clients.

I think it will be interesting to watch this case develop. I don't think the Ummel's will prevail. But then again, I didn't think OJ would prevail either. ANYTHING can happen in front of a jury.

But even if the Ummel's don't win the suit, there is little chance that that Realtors will "win". I suspect that we as a group will come out looking like a bunch of sleazy dorks, regardless of what the court says....

It seems to me that if we give this potential case airtime, we are just perpetuating the possibility of our industry being drug through the mud, no matter what the legal outcome ends up being. What do you think?

I am a little worried about this. On one hand I dont think they have a case. But if you get a bunch of jurors that lost money on there homes and are looking for someone to blame who knows what the result could be. This is just another piece of extra liability we dont need.

thanks for this information. you can find more information at : http://home-refinance-mortgage--loan.blogspot.com...

Jim - agreed. I mentioned in On Buyers Suing Agents that calling Ms. Ummel a "nut job" wasn't quite prudent. Particularly saying that to a NYT reporter....

Jim,

Yes, "nut job" was probably not the way to go.

I've met Mike Little before and he's a pretty good agent, but he was quoted in the local paper of calling the plantiff a "nut job". That should send the E&O insurance company scrambling for a settlement.

Norm you are correct, the legal analyst trashed the case. She didn't even know the whole story. Very sad.

Jay,

As you say, it's hard to know what might happen, but I'll hazard a guess.

She loses and it costs her far more than she thinks she lost in the home purchase. She'll end up eating the defendant's legal fees, and possibly be sued. This guy's E&O provider is going to fight it like their future depends on it, and it probably does. The guest lawyer tore her case apart, probably without much preparation.

I guess we'll know in March. :)

Does anyone know the agent involved and what kind of a reputation he has in his area?

Rumor has it Mr. Little showed the Ummels appx. 60 homes, LOL. Also, they dismissed another agent before Little & canceled 2 other deals before they bought the house in question! They may be 'trailblazers' . . . but only out for themselves

Looking at the video, we don't really see the facts or the response from the Realtor. From my experience, buyers these days know more about whats going on than I do. The information is online and some sites even provide historical information for free.

I mean, how hard could it have been for the buyer to ask what the active, pending, and sold homes were in the area. If the house was overprised by $150K, how would the appraiser appraise the home without nearby comps.

These people definately don't seem stupid and I'm sure they know how to use the internet, I think they are upset at their agent because they think they overpaid.

Was this the only home that the buyer's looked at in the area? There are so many questions to ask both parties. Nonetheless, I think to protect oneself from future liabilities, maybe it would be best to at least show comps of the nearby area including active, sold, pending within the last year and have the buyer sign-off on it.

Richard Johnston, RE/MAX OTB Estates
http://www.estates.la

I think the burden of proof would have to be very high, but juries can be unpredictable. If anything comes of this, a new highly specialized form of insurance coverage will be born, umbrella coverage for agents.

Maybe Lani. But on the other hand, I don't think we (we as in the real estate industry) can just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Personally, it makes me ill when I hear about people (allegedly in this case) that were fed a line of BS by their agent and/or lender.

Don't get me wrong, people need to be responsible for their own actions. But we as agents do have a duty and obligation to help our clients.

I think it will be interesting to watch this case develop. I don't think the Ummel's will prevail. But then again, I didn't think OJ would prevail either. ANYTHING can happen in front of a jury.

But even if the Ummel's don't win the suit, there is little chance that that Realtors will "win". I suspect that we as a group will come out looking like a bunch of sleazy dorks, regardless of what the court says....

It seems to me that if we give this potential case airtime, we are just perpetuating the possibility of our industry being drug through the mud, no matter what the legal outcome ends up being. What do you think?

I am a little worried about this. On one hand I dont think they have a case. But if you get a bunch of jurors that lost money on there homes and are looking for someone to blame who knows what the result could be. This is just another piece of extra liability we dont need.