Licari v. Blackwelder

539 A.2d 609 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are brothers and sisters who inherited from their parents the family home and property in question located in Westport. Ps were 'unsophisticated lay people with no extensive dealings in real estate,' decided to sell the property in 1978. Ps had no real knowledge as to the actual or potential value of their inherited real estate, which was located in a neighborhood of mixed residential and commercial properties at a time of changing property values. Ps contacted Robert Schwartz, a Norwalk real estate broker, for guidance and assistance in the sale of their property. Schwartz consulted with the real estate agency of the D. Schwartz obtained an exclusive twenty-four hour right to sell Ps' real estate at a price of $125,000, and the property was immediately shown to Ds' prospective buyer by a sales agent employed by Schwartz. Within the twenty-four hour listing period obtained by Schwartz, Ds made their own offer of $115,000. Ps accepted. Ds did not negotiate on behalf of or for Ps with the potential buyer secured by them and did not allow for a reasonable period of time to expire for such negotiations before they made their own personal offer. Ds did not disclose the potential value that Ps' property might have to other buyers. Ps believed that they had sold their property at its true market value. Ps were led to believe that Ds would occupy and use the property. Immediately upon signing the contract to buy D contracted to sell the home to another buyer for the price of $160,000. This potential buyer, a neighbor of Ps, was previously known by them to be interested in the property, but Ps had instructed Schwartz not to contact him. Title passed six days after its purchase from Ps, for $160,000. Ds made $45,000 on their cash investment of $11,500. Their purchase money mortgage held by the plaintiffs for six days was paid and released at the second title transfer. Ps sued Ds claiming a breach of their duty by withholding from them information of other negotiations with potential buyers for the purchase of Ps' property at a higher price, and that Ds intentionally misrepresented the identities of the serious prospective buyers in order to mislead Ps into selling the property to Ds at a lower price. The trial, found that Ds were obligated to act on behalf of the best interest of Ps. Ds were under a duty to find a buyer for the property at the best price to the Ps based upon the defendants' knowledge, advice, and information concerning all material facts affecting the property in question.' The court found that Ds breached this duty. The 'clear profit' of $45,000 'unconscionable.' Ds appealed.