By: James L. Goldsmith, Esquire

My mentor and former PAR legal counsel, the late Tom Caldwell, used to caution brokers intent on suing clients for fees by asking that. The clear message is that when you sue for a fee, the client is going to bite by claiming that no fee was owed because of the malpractice committed by the broker or salesperson.

I represent brokers who sue for their fees and the defenses always include claims of malpractice.  It is true that my clients win most of these cases, though the only credit I lay claim to is that I am selective about the cases I take. The reasons for success, however, I attribute to my clients. In this article, I’ll present several tips for success. I could drag the list out to 15 or 20 tips beginning with don’t accept a jerk for a client, but I’d rather provide you with the core. While these tips work regardless of your representing a buyer, seller, landlord or tenant, I’ll provide a context from a case I most recently resolved.

In that case, the broker was the buyer’s agent for a married couple seeking a new home. The wife was an in-house lawyer for a retail chain and the husband an engineer. They signed a standard buyer agency agreement. During the course of his efforts, the broker wrote an offer that did not result in a signed agreement of sale. He continued to identify properties, but ultimately, the buyers went dark and ceased communicating with him. He doubled his effort to solicit a response. Eventually, he reached the wife by telephone. She reluctantly revealed that she and her husband had purchased a home, but that she would consider hiring the broker to list her former home for sale.

My client was far from delighted by her “generous” offer and told her that he expected her to pay his commission. While that call ended abruptly, the wife replied with an email several days later. She said she and her husband owed no fee because the broker was “not the procuring cause of the sale.”  At this point I was engaged, and suit was filed. The complaint was less than three full pages and consisted of about 15 enumerated paragraphs and an exhibit, the executed buyer agency contract. The amount sought was the percentage fee recited in the buyer agency contract multiplied by the purchase price of the home the buyers bought during the term of that buyer agency contract. In our case, the fee came to $19,500.

The answer to the complaint included the affirmative defense of malpractice: The buyers alleged that the broker failed to make a continuous and good faith effort to find a property for the buyers as required by the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act. To allay what little suspense there may be, my client prevailed. We moved quickly to get this matter on a trial list (believe it or not it happened within months) and on the eve of trial, the defendants agreed to pay $15,000 and it was accepted. Why did my client prevail? Consider the following.

First, my client had a nearly perfect file. He had a fully executed buyer agency agreement. If your client bails on you and you don’t have an executed agency agreement, forget it. Further, he had every email and text from his first meeting with the buyers to the last exchange. No impartial judge or jury could reasonably conclude from the string of email that the broker abandoned his clients. Every step taken by the broker was memorialized by email to his buyers reciting their most recent telephone conversation or what his recent research had revealed. It easily demonstrated that it was they who had abandoned him.

Take any risk reduction seminar and something will be said of the importance of maintaining a file and corroborating and confirming all actions and discussions by mail or email. Usually, it’s suggested that this will assist in the defense of any malpractice claim should it be asserted. A good, comprehensive file also will enable you to recover a fee when your client breaches his or her contract with you.

Second, pursue the claim and march steadily to trial. Engage counsel who know license law and the standards of practice of real estate brokers and salespersons. Don’t assume that every real estate lawyer knows anything about how brokers work, their duty or how they get paid.

These files don’t have to be over litigated. When the amount in controversy is less than $50,000, the case will first be heard by arbitrators in the court of common pleas of the county where suit is filed. I take limited discovery to assure I have every document that might be asserted as a defense, I don’t take depositions because I’ll get the testimony at the arbitration and can have it recorded there by a stenographer for use if the case is appealed to a trial before a judge and jury.  Discuss these matters with your counsel and keep in mind that your claim is for a liquidated amount (an amount certain). A realistic projection of costs and taking measures by which they are reasonably limited will assure that your net recovery is good. Unfortunately, no matter how efficient your attorney is, the other side can delay, obfuscate and over-litigate.

Third, the broker was first to demand payment, not me, his attorney. To be clear, I am not suggesting that you don’t engage counsel before demanding payment. I have found, however, that when the broker makes his or her demand directly to the client, the client will respond. If I write a letter of demand, the response will be from an attorney whose words I can’t use as evidence in court.

In our example, the buyers’ first response was that the broker was not the procuring cause of the sale. Of course not, the buyers had abandoned their broker and did not give him the chance to put them in a property. This defense was dropped and in the answer to the complaint it was replaced by the defense that the broker committed malpractice by abandoning his buyer clients thereby justifying their non-payment.

This change in the defense would make good fodder for cross-examination. Don’t most people who have a legitimate reason for non-payment know that reason? Here it was evident that the buyers were searching for a pretext and the original procuring cause defense was put together before they engaged counsel who realized it was a losing argument. Again, if I had been the first to demand payment, the matter would have gone straight to counsel and we wouldn’t have had this switch in defenses that made buyers look particularly weak. I don’t encourage self-representation but a simple request for payment might be reasonable coming from you, the broker. This too is a matter for discussion with your counsel.

My experience suggests that brokers are generally successful in recovering fees that have been earned. That judges and juries favor clients over their real estate brokers is not true in my experience, especially for those brokers who maintain good files and can establish that they provided the services that a reasonable prudent licensee is to provide.

Copyright © James L. Goldsmith, Esquire, 2019
All Rights Reserved

By: James L. Goldsmith, Esquire

The magisterial district courts are the small claims courts of Pennsylvania. The magisterial district justices (MDJs) are the small claims judges. It is within their jurisdiction to conduct preliminary hearings in criminal matters where the only issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to send the matter to the common pleas court for trial. Hopefully your interest in this article has nothing to do with the criminal functions of the court!

Among the other responsibilities of the magisterial district courts is the resolution of cases involving evictions and civil cases where the amount in controversy is $12,000 or less. MDJs may hear cases involving larger sums, but can only award the maximum amount of $12,000. The attractiveness of the magisterial district courts is the low cost and that the proceedings can be navigated without legal counsel. Legal counsel is not required in the court of common pleas or the appellate courts, but try navigating your way without one!

For obvious reasons, many cases rooted in real estate find their way to the MDJs. Though more and more MDJs are lawyers, it is not a requirement of the job. Before being sworn into the position, all MDJs must pass a test that includes civil law including real estate and landlord/tenant law. One would hope that the MDJ before whom you appear would be expert in the law, and most fit the bill. A Hotline caller, however, recently relayed how the MDJ refused to enforce his lease because it was a lease in writing for more than one year, and, according to the MDJ such leases were not enforceable!! Most MDJs are willing to be persuaded that the law is other than what they had thought, but a gentle and non-condescending approach is suggested. Providing a legal opinion or treatise on the matter is also suggested.

A limitation on taking a matter before an MDJ is the ease in which it is appealed. This can also be a benefit, but it certainly means that complete resolution before the MDJ is not a certainty. Appeals can be taken for any reason, or no reason. An appeal from the court of common pleas is a different matter; the appeal must be based on an error of law and not merely because the appellant is unhappy with the decision.

Despite the ease with which an appeal is taken from an MDJ decision, there are benefits. First, many cases are resolved without appeal. Second, a hearing before an MDJ gives one a relatively inexpensive rehearsal. On appeal, the shortcomings in one’s presentation can be rectified. Third, a hearing before an MDJ is inexpensive discovery. Practice in the court of common pleas enables one to take depositions and serve written discovery seeking information well in advance of trial. You can get much of the same by trying a case before the district justice. In fact, you can request that the testimony of a witness or the entire hearing for that matter, be transcribed for later use. The person seeking the transcription is the person who pays for the cost.

Landlord and tenant practice is primarily relegated to the magisterial district courts. If you manage property you should get to know the MDJ(s) that will entertain your cases. Judges are nuanced and some have requirements that others may not observe. Most would welcome an introductory visit. State that your objective is to simply become aware of the procedures to be applied by the MDJ. Don’t expect all MDJs to be open to this kind of introduction and don’t ask for favors. Do your homework and be conversant with Pennsylvania’s Landlord and Tenant Law. Don’t expect the MDJ to teach you the law; rather, you are there to determine if there are any special procedures or practices that the MDJ prefers so that you can comply. Hopefully the introduction will enure to the benefit of you and your client.

Copyright © James L. Goldsmith, Esquire, 2019
All Rights Reserved

PART TWO

By: James L. Goldsmith, Esq.

 

Who, if anyone, should attend home inspections has been a topic of debate for as long as home inspections have been a standard element in a residential transaction.  Year ago when the topic came up at an NAR meeting of attorneys who represented state associations of Realtors, the room was divided, with roughly 50% saying that buyers should attend, but not their agents.  I remember one outspoken attorney claiming that if an agent was not present to hear the spoken word of the inspector, he/she could not be charged with failing to pass the inspection comments on.  As for me, I am not a supporter of “see no evil” or “head in the sand” approach.

Most of the lawyers at that NAR meeting, however, agreed that buyers should attend inspections.  The reason should be obvious, but consider a recent transaction where the buyer sought an inspection of the sewer lateral from the home to the municipal system located in the street.  The inspection primarily consisted of snaking a video camera through the lateral and visually assessing its condition.

The seller agreed to be present for the inspection so he could open the door to the inspector and direct him to the location of the line in the basement.  Neither the buyer nor the salespersons involved in the transaction chose to attend.  The seller, who was curious, watched the process and conversed with the inspector during the inspection.  As they watched the monitor, the inspector pointed out dips in the lateral and explained they were probably caused by substandard work when the house was constructed.  The inspector felt that the stone bed in which the lateral was placed was not sufficiently compacted and offered other criticisms that were either an educated opinion or complete conjecture.  He also expressed that the dips would get worse over time.  When the seller read the report he was surprised to see that, while the dips were mentioned, there was no reference to the hypotheses that were verbally expressed by the inspector.  The seller was so concerned that he contacted his lawyer questioning whether he had a disclosure obligation that went beyond the written report.

It happens all the time.  The inspector is generally all too happy to discuss his findings and the possible implications of those findings as he pokes about shining a flashlight in dark corners, behind water heaters and above drop ceilings.  Yet, it’s very likely that what will appear in the written inspection report will be an abbreviation of those comments, if they are mentioned at all.  Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the buyer to have the opportunity to ask the sewer inspector what causes dips, whether they remain stable and what is likely to happen over how many years?  More information is better.  When buyers are told to focus not only on written conclusions, but also the inspector’s musings and mutterings they will get more out of the inspection.