Hocking v. Dubois
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
885 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir. 1989)
Facts
Gerald Hocking (plaintiff), a resident of Nevada, purchased a condominium in Hawaii as a rental investment with the help of Maylee Dubois (defendant), a real estate agent. The condominium was not purchased directly from the developer but was instead sold to Hocking by a third party, who had already bought the condominium from the developer. The condominium was part of a resort complex, and Dubois informed Hocking that a rental-pool agreement (RPA) would be available within the complex, which was operated like a hotel. Under the RPA, all condominium owners would receive a share of the total rental income generated from the condominiums, even if the owner’s individual condominium was not rented. Upon signing the rental-management agreement, Hocking entered into the RPA and appointed Hotel Corporation of the Pacific (HCP) as his agent for the management of the condominium. Three years after purchasing the condominium, Hocking failed to make a balloon payment that was due. Hocking sued Dubois, claiming violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dubois asked the district court to enter summary judgment against Hocking. The district court granted summary judgment for Dubois, and Hocking appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goodwin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
