Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
California Court of Appeal
225 Cal. App. 4th 427 (2014)
- Written by Sheri Dennis, JD
Facts
Chris Cortazzo (defendant), a salesperson for Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (Coldwell) (defendant), was hired to sell a specific Malibu property. Another Coldwell salesperson showed the Malibu property to Hiroshi Horiike (plaintiff), a potential buyer. In the course of showing the property, Cortazzo gave Horiike a flier stating that the property was 15,000 square feet. However, Cortazzo had information stating the property was only 9,434 square feet. Moreover, Cortazzo did not advise Horiike to hire a specialist to verify the area of the property. Horiike and Cortazzo signed a confirmation of a real-estate agency relationship, which explained that Coldwell was the dual agent of both the buyer and the seller. Horiike and Cortazzo also signed a disclosure agreement, which explained that a dual agent had a fiduciary duty to both the buyer and the seller. Horiike later determined that the property was less than 15,000 square feet. Horiike sued Coldwell and Cortazzo, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. At trial, Coldwell moved for nonsuit on the ground that Cortazzo had no fiduciary duty to Horiike. The trial court granted Coldwell’s motion, and Horiike appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kriegler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.