Summary judgment.

- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment on a homebuyer's breach of contract claim against the buyer's realtor as material fact issues remained as to whether the realtor violated the realtor's duties under the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transaction Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-1 et seq.; however, summary judgment was proper, based on the testimony presented on the motion as to the homebuyer's fraudulent concealment claim. Ikola v. Schoene, 264 Ga. App. 338, 590 S.E.2d 750 (2003).

Real estate broker owes no fiduciary duty to a client. Instead, the broker is only responsible for exercising reasonable care in the discharge of the broker's specified duties. Resnick v. Meybohm Realty, Inc., 269 Ga. App. 486, 604 S.E.2d 536 (2004).

Potential buyer did not have a viable common law cause of action for fraud and deceit against a real estate broker and a real estate agent because, as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-4(a), no confidential or fiduciary relationship was created between the buyer and the broker and the agent as a matter of law. Harrouk v. Fierman, 291 Ga. App. 818, 662 S.E.2d 892 (2008).

Trial court erred in denying motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-50, because a real estate broker and a real estate agent owed no duty to a potential buyer of property since the buyer did not engage the broker as defined in the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-1 et seq.; the buyer was, at most, a "customer" of the broker pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-3(8), and the broker exercised reasonable care in locating a property owner and checking on the status of desired property pursuant to § 10-6A-3. Harrouk v. Fierman, 291 Ga. App. 818, 662 S.E.2d 892 (2008).

Issue as to whether broker exercised reasonable care.

- Trial court erred in granting the brokerage firm's motion for summary judgment because the undisputed facts showed that the seller rejected the offer because the firm failed to timely submit an updated proof of funds and a material issue existed as to whether the failure to do so was due to the broker's failure to exercise reasonable care in timely disclosing to the buyer the final deadline for submission of the proof of funds. RZI Properties, LLC v. Southern REO Associates, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 336, 782 S.E.2d 731 (2016).

No breach of duties.

- Trial court did not err in dismissing buyers' action against a real estate company and a real estate agent because any broker-client relationship between them and the company and the agent that could have been created when the agent executed the first purchase and sale agreement as both the buyers' agent and the seller's agent ended when that agreement failed due to a low appraisal, and since the buyers engaged a buyer's agent, the relationship between the company, agent, and buyers was that of broker-customer; in the absence of a written agreement between them, the duties of the company and the agent were those set out in the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-5, and although a broker who was engaged only by a seller owed a buyer, who was a "customer" rather than a "client" under the Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-3(8), certain duties in terms of disclosure of information, the buyers' complaint did not aver that the company and agent breached any of those duties. Jones v. Bill Garlen Real Estate, 311 Ga. App. 372, 715 S.E.2d 777 (2011).

Business brokers.

- O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-4(a), regarding a broker's legal relationship to the customers or the clients, which is in derogation of common law and must therefore be limited in strict accordance with its language, applies only to real estate brokers, not to business brokers, under O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-3. Bienert v. Dickerson, 276 Ga. App. 621, 624 S.E.2d 245 (2005).

Cited in Wall v. Century 21 Winnerville Realty, Inc., 244 Ga. App. 762, 536 S.E.2d 798 (2000); Ctr. Pointe Invs. v. Frank M. Darby Co., 249 Ga. App. 782, 549 S.E.2d 435 (2001).

C.J.S.

- 12 C.J.S., Brokers, § 83.