当您在MLS中输入列表时, have you ever used a dropdown menu that automatically inserts the square footage from appraisal district records? A Dallas-area agent and her brokerage, Ebby Halliday, REALTORS®, faced a lawsuit for doing just that. 他们输了.
该经纪公司对该决定提出上诉. 他们不相信陪审团的结论是正确的. 德州2021十大正规彩票app经纪人®也没有, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the brokerage’s assertion that the agent and firm had done nothing wrong.
The Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas reviewed the case and reversed the jury’s findings.
这笔交易是如何在法庭上结束的
This case stems from a condo sale in 2015 in which the MLS listing included square footage information from Dallas Central Appraisal District data. The square footage was autopopulated with the appraisal district’s data when the listing agent selected “tax” from the dropdown menu in the MLS. The listing description displayed the square footage as “1,178/Tax.”
因为买家是用现金买的公寓, 没有贷款人要求的评估, 买家也没有选择进行评估. 买方假定公寓的可居住面积为1,178平方英尺, 根据估价区的信息. 然而, 交易完成后，买家测量了公寓, 他发现这里的宜居面积总计只有885平方英尺.
买方起诉了代理人和经纪公司, asserting claims for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), 法定欺诈, 过失失实陈述. The buyer also claimed that the brokerage was negligent in its supervision and training of the agent.
In a 2017 trial, the jury found in favor of the buyer, awarding him $32,335. That was the amount he claimed he overpaid based on the difference between the appraisal district’s reported square footage and the actual livable square footage of the condo. The judge added attorney’s fees and other costs on top of the jury’s award.
尽管陪审团同意了买家的大部分要求, 陪审团确实做出了有利于埃比·哈利戴的判决, REALTORS® in its DTPA-claim defense that the brokerage and its agent were unaware and could not have reasonably known that the appraisal district’s square footage was incorrect. 然而，法官不理会陪审团的那部分裁决.
上诉结果如何
Ebby Halliday, REALTORS® appealed the jury’s findings on several grounds. 在上诉法官对该案的书面意见中, it was established that “the term ‘/ Tax’ is understood within the real estate industry to mean the source of the square footage information, 在这个例子中是DCAD.” The opinion also recognized that “a home’s square footage is understood in the industry to mean its ‘livable’ square feet.”
The judges also noted that the listing contained a remark that the source of information about square footage was “Deemed Reliable But Not Guaranteed.”
该意见确认没有证据表明埃比·哈利戴, REALTORS®实际上知道公寓的测量值小于1,178平方英尺. The appellate judges noted that the trial court jury found “that Ebby did not know and could not reasonably have known that the records or sources on which it relied were false.”
法官们推翻了初审法院的判决, 结论是:“基于我们对证据的审查, we conclude that no reasonable or fair-minded juror could have found that Ebby made a misrepresentation or that it was aware at the time that DCAD’s records were incorrect.
Accordingly, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. 考虑到这一点，我们不需要考虑艾比的剩余问题. We reverse the court’s judgment and render judgment that [the buyer] take nothing.”
这是埃比·哈利迪的法律胜利, REALTORS® at the appellate level is also a big win for all our members and MLSs,德州2021十大正规彩票app经纪人®总法律顾问Lori Levy说. “The amicus brief we filed laid out a strong legal argument why agents and brokerages shouldn’t be held liable when appraisal-district information is incorrect. 那个艾比·哈利戴, REALTORS® fought this issue in court is huge … it provides legal precedent for future square-footage disputes based on appraisal-district data.”
德州2021十大正规彩票app经纪人®表格 其他来源信息通知 (TXR 2502) can be used by members when providing information from sources like appraisal districts.