section 2079 statutory duty in California

2012(See Field, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 24 [recognizing that § 2079 imposes a statutory duty of care of brokers’ sellers to buyers of residential real property].) Lyon & Associates point out that they served as dual listing agents in the underlying residential sale and are therefore the sort of “cooperating brokers” that owed a duty under section 2079.

2007It states in pertinent part, “It is the duty of a real estate broker or salesperson ... to a prospective purchaser of residential real property ... to [inspect and disclose as more fully described by the statute] if that broker has a written contract with the seller to find or obtain a buyer or is a broker who acts in cooperation with that broker to find and obtain a buyer.” (§ 2079, subd. (a), italics added; see also Field v. Century 21 Klowden-Forness Realty (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 18, 21 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 784 ] (Field) [§ 2079 obligates seller’s broker to conduct reasonable visual inspection f

2014(See Wilson, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at p. 308 .) Peake and Shaw do not challenge this conclusion under existing authority, but suggest it was objectively reasonable to seek an expansion of the statutes to require real estate brokers to “fully disclose facts which the broker knows, whether or not those facts could be revealed by a simple visual inspection” and thus “to affirmatively disclose everything they knew about a specific property which may materially affect the value or desirability of that prop erty.” Appellants characterize this argument as a “functional interpretation” of the statute,

1997The court found the visual inspection required under section 2079 was not intended to encompass discovering structural defects through an intrusive inspection of areas normally inaccessible to such an inspection. ( 15 Cal.App.4th at p. 308 .) Nor were there any “red flags” on the sold property indicating actual problems on the property.

1997The Loken court also analyzed the legislative intent underlying section 2079, and noted that there was a concern for facilitating the issuance of liability insurance for real estate licensees. ( 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 272 .) The court referenced Insurance Code section 11589.5, which prohibits insurers from excluding coverage for liability arising from breach of the statutory duty under section 2079, but allows exclusion of coverage for liability premised on dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or malicious acts. 8 Because the Insurance Code provisions were part of the same legislation, the court imp

1997The Loken court also analyzed the legislative intent underlying section 2079, and noted that there was a concern for facilitating the issuance of liability insurance for real estate licensees. ( 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 272 .) The court referenced Insurance Code section 11589.5, which prohibits insurers from excluding coverage for liability arising from breach of the statutory duty under section 2079, but allows exclusion of coverage for liability premised on dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or malicious acts. 8 Because the Insurance Code provisions were part of the same legislation, the court imp

2026Section 2079 provides that a real estate broker who has “a written contract with the seller to find or obtain a buyer[,] or is a broker who acts in cooperation with that broker to find and obtain a buyer,” has a duty to “conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale and to disclose to that prospective buyer all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that an investigation would reveal . . . .” (§ 2079, subd. (a).) The statute was intended to “codify and make precise the holding of” Easton v. Strassburger (1984) 152 C

2014(Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [stating negligence elements].) Defendant’s reliance on Robinson v. Grossman (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 634 , a case examining the scope of a real estate salesperson’s duty under Civil Code section 2079, also is misplaced.

2012Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 858 ] (Leko) [holding that in addition to the statutory duty of § 2079, a real estate broker serving as dual agent for buyer and seller “also owes the purchaser a higher fiduciary duty to act with the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty”]; see also Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 414-415 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 176 ] (Assilzadeh) [dual agent has fiduciary duty to both the buyer and seller].) The Henleys’ tort causes of action are not based on the buyer-broker agreement, but are based on Lyon

2012Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 858 ] (Leko) [holding that in addition to the statutory duty of § 2079, a real estate broker serving as dual agent for buyer and seller “also owes the purchaser a higher fiduciary duty to act with the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty”]; see also Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 414-415 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 176 ] (Assilzadeh) [dual agent has fiduciary duty to both the buyer and seller].) The Henleys’ tort causes of action are not based on the buyer-broker agreement, but are based on Lyon

2012Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 858 ] (Leko) [holding that in addition to the statutory duty of § 2079, a real estate broker serving as dual agent for buyer and seller “also owes the purchaser a higher fiduciary duty to act with the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty”]; see also Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 414-415 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 176 ] (Assilzadeh) [dual agent has fiduciary duty to both the buyer and seller].) The Henleys’ tort causes of action are not based on the buyer-broker agreement, but are based on Lyon

2012Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 858 ] (Leko) [holding that in addition to the statutory duty of § 2079, a real estate broker serving as dual agent for buyer and seller “also owes the purchaser a higher fiduciary duty to act with the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty”]; see also Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 414-415 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 176 ] (Assilzadeh) [dual agent has fiduciary duty to both the buyer and seller].) The Henleys’ tort causes of action are not based on the buyer-broker agreement, but are based on Lyon

1998There, it is noted that under section 2079, “[a]bsent ‘red flags’ visible from a reasonably diligent visual inspection indicating the property was not the size represented, that duty would not encompass a duty to survey the property to make sure it was the size represented.” (Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 562, fn. 3 .) 11 In contrast, a broker has a “fiduciary duty to his own client to refrain from making representations of facts material to the client’s decision to buy the property without advising the client that he is merely passing on information rec

1998There, it is noted that under section 2079, “[a]bsent ‘red flags’ visible from a reasonably diligent visual inspection indicating the property was not the size represented, that duty would not encompass a duty to survey the property to make sure it was the size represented.” (Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 562, fn. 3 .) 11 In contrast, a broker has a “fiduciary duty to his own client to refrain from making representations of facts material to the client’s decision to buy the property without advising the client that he is merely passing on information rec

1998(See Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 915, 921 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 117 ]; Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176 , 186-190 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ]; see generally, 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, § 463, p. 583; § 619, pp. 795-796.) As we will explain, an examination of the law existing before Easton and the enactment of section 2079 shows the fiduciary duty owed by brokers to their own clients is substantially more extensive than the nonfiduciary duty codified in section 2079.

1998(See Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 915, 921 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 117 ]; Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176 , 186-190 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ]; see generally, 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, § 463, p. 583; § 619, pp. 795-796.) As we will explain, an examination of the law existing before Easton and the enactment of section 2079 shows the fiduciary duty owed by brokers to their own clients is substantially more extensive than the nonfiduciary duty codified in section 2079.

1998There, it is noted that under section 2079, “[a]bsent ‘red flags’ visible from a reasonably diligent visual inspection indicating the property was not the size represented, that duty would not encompass a duty to survey the property to make sure it was the size represented.” (Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 562, fn. 3 .) 11 In contrast, a broker has a “fiduciary duty to his own client to refrain from making representations of facts material to the client’s decision to buy the property without advising the client that he is merely passing on information rec

1998There, it is noted that under section 2079, “[a]bsent ‘red flags’ visible from a reasonably diligent visual inspection indicating the property was not the size represented, that duty would not encompass a duty to survey the property to make sure it was the size represented.” (Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 562, fn. 3 .) 11 In contrast, a broker has a “fiduciary duty to his own client to refrain from making representations of facts material to the client’s decision to buy the property without advising the client that he is merely passing on information rec

1997(Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1697 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) The trial court correctly granted summary judgment on these theories. *1283 II Nonstatutory Causes of Action At oral argument, the trial court and counsel discussed the scope of the duty under section 2079 to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property and to disclose to the buyer all facts materially affecting the value of the property, as revealed by the inspection.

1997(Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1697 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) The trial court correctly granted summary judgment on these theories. *1283 II Nonstatutory Causes of Action At oral argument, the trial court and counsel discussed the scope of the duty under section 2079 to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property and to disclose to the buyer all facts materially affecting the value of the property, as revealed by the inspection.