Who was found negligent in Easton vs Strassburger?

What is the importance of the case Easton v Strassburger 1984?

The court found that the disputed jury instruction was correct because Valley Realty had a duty to disclose facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which through reasonable diligence should have been known.

Who was found negligent in Easton vs Strassburger?

3d 96] action, which was brought by respondent for fraud (including negligent misrepresentation) and negligence in the sale of residential property. In the case below, all defendants were found liable to respondent for negligence.

What year was Easton vs Strassburger?

In sum, in Easton v. Strassburger (1984) a homeowner sued a real estate broker when massive earth slides on her property destroyed part of her driveway and caused the foundation of the house to settle, causing cracks in the home’s walls and warped doorways.

What was the name of the famous court case that brought about the inception of the transfer disclosure statement?

The seller had a moral and ethical obligation to disclose material facts or defects to the buyer about the property. But the laws were weak. This situation totally changed in the 1984 California court case of Easton v.Strassburger

What is the opinion of the Easton case?

The trial court instructed the jury that a real estate broker had a duty to investigate and to disclose defects in property he lists for sale. The jury thereafter returned a verdict in favor of Easton

What is Easton disclosure?

3d 96] action, which was brought by respondent for fraud (including negligent misrepresentation) and negligence in the sale of residential property. In the case below, all defendants were found liable to respondent for negligence.

Why did Easton Sue Strassburger and Valley Realty in Easton vs Strassburger?

Strassburger. 2 7 In Easton, the court held that a real estate broker has a duty to diligently inspect a listed property and to disclose to prospective purchasers of that property all facts materially affecting the property that such an inspection would reveal.

Who Won Reed vs King?

The seller had a moral and ethical obligation to disclose material facts or defects to the buyer about the property. But the laws were weak. This situation totally changed in the 1984 California court case of Easton v.Strassburger

What is the Easton disclosure?

Conclusion: The court found that the failure of defendant real estate agents to disclose physical defects and legal impediments to the use of the real property were material to the contract. The court held that there was no basis for making the duty to disclose turn on the character of the information.

What was the Easton vs Strassburger case?

In a California Appeals Court case, Easton v. Strassburger (1984), Easton bought property from Strassburger who hired a real estate firm to handle the sale. A jury found both the defendant and the real estate agent failed to disclose and were thus negligent and awarded the plaintiff $197,000. Both defendants appealed.

What is the Easton case in real estate?

2 7 In Easton, the court held that a real estate broker has a duty to diligently inspect a listed property and to disclose to prospective purchasers of that property all facts materially affecting the property that such an inspection would reveal.

What year did the transfer disclosure statement law take effect?

1985

What is real estate transfer disclosure statement?

The Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) describes the condition of a property and, in the case of a sale, must be given to a prospective buyer as soon as practicable and before transfer of title.

Leave a Comment