Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §10-6A-5, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 376, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 929, § 1.)
- Form disclosure statement provided by a real estate agent to the buyer plainly stating that the representations the statement contained were solely those of the seller was insufficient to form the basis for a claim of fraud because the statement was simply relaying information to the buyer without actual knowledge of the alleged falsity. ReMax North Atlanta v. Clark, 244 Ga. App. 890, 537 S.E.2d 138 (2000).
- Buyer's claim under Georgia Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-1 et seq., against the sellers' real estate agent and the employer failed because the buyer did not exercise diligence in determining the boundaries of the property; the buyer could have easily ascertained the actual property lines, and the buyer was unable to recover from the agents based upon any alleged failure to disclose information. Peacock v. Kiser, 272 Ga. App. 83, 611 S.E.2d 747 (2005).
- Trial court erred in denying a real estate agent's motion for summary judgment in an action against the agent by the home purchasers, alleging that the agent committed fraud by failing to disclose the defective nature of the home's septic system as there was no evidence that the broker had actual knowledge of any defect in the septic system, nor that the agent had breached the obligations under O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-5(b)(1); even if the septic system was defective, the agent could not be held liable. Dasher v. Davis, 274 Ga. App. 788, 618 S.E.2d 728 (2005).
Because a purchaser failed to act diligently, the purchaser was unable to recover from real estate agents or a broker based upon any alleged failure on the agents part to disclose information about property the purchaser bought from sellers under the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-1 et seq. Shaw v. Robertson, 307 Ga. App. 337, 705 S.E.2d 210 (2010).
- Trial court did not err in dismissing the 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).
- O.C.G.A. §§ 10-6A-5,10-6A-14,43-40-15(a), and43-40-25(b)(25) and related Code sections fail to impose any duties regarding pets other than the general duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in performing all duties; thus, a trial court's summary judgment dismissing claims against real estate agents and brokers for injuries arising from a dog bite while the injured person was viewing listed property for sale was affirmed. Gibson v. Rezvanpour, 268 Ga. App. 377, 601 S.E.2d 848 (2004).
- Because the home buyers failed to show that a realty company knew of the drainage and flooding issues associated with their property, but instead claimed that the company was liable for negligence or negligent misrepresentation for failure to oversee the sales transaction and failure to oversee the listing agent because the company did not comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 43-40-18 and Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 520-1-.10(4), the realty company was not liable for the acts of the listing agent as the listing agent was an independent contractor, and the homebuyers failed to present any evidence that the realty company assumed the right to control the time, manner, or method of the work. Walker v. Johnson, 278 Ga. App. 806, 630 S.E.2d 70 (2006), overruled on other grounds, Kleber v. City of Atlanta, 291 Ga. App. 146, 661 S.E.2d 195 (2008).
- In an action involving a defect in a home's septic system, the home buyers' agent was not entitled to summary judgment on a Brokerage Relationship in Real Estate Transactions Act (BRETA), O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-1 et seq., claim because while notice to the buyers' agent was notice to the buyers under O.C.G.A. § 10-6-58, a disputed issue existed as to whether the buyers' agent actually disclosed the information as required by O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-5(b)(1) regarding the second pumping of the septic tank to the buyers. Davis v. Silvers, 295 Ga. App. 103, 670 S.E.2d 805 (2008).
Cited in O'Dell v. Mahoney, 324 Ga. App. 360, 750 S.E.2d 689 (2013).