Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSD+
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Start your free 14-day trial today. Read as much content as you want during your trial, and you can cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.
Nebraska Supreme Court - 254 Neb. 904, 580 N.W.2d 552
Contributed by 🤖LSDBot🤖
A couple sued their real estate agents for breach of fiduciary duties and sought the return of the commission they paid, claiming the agents prioritized the interests of the buyers over theirs.
Issue
The issue is whether real estate agents violated their duties to act in good faith and with reasonable care and skill, and whether they made full and fair disclosures to their clients.
Conclusion
The legal conclusion of the court is that CBS and Engelbert breached their fiduciary duty to the Daubmans by prioritizing their interests and the interests of the Pedersens over the Daubmans' interests.
LSD+ exclusive
Rule
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Analysis
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Facts
- The Daubmans sued CBS Real Estate Co. and Arlene Engelbert for breach of fiduciary duty and sought the return of the real estate sales commission they paid.
- They claimed that Engelbert prioritized the interests of the Pedersens and herself over those of the Daubmans, which was a breach of her fiduciary duty.
- The case involved a real estate transaction where the Daubmans contacted Engelbert for a competitive market analysis on their property.
- Engelbert showed the property to the Pedersens and prepared an offer for $132,000 and rent back to the Daubmans for a period of time.
- The Daubmans sent a counteroffer, which was contingent upon the Pedersens obtaining financing of 95% of the purchase price at 8.5% for 30 years.
- The Pedersens requested CBS to prepare another offer, which was accepted by the Daubmans with the condition that the possession date be subject to the availability of a mover acceptable to them.
- The offer stated that the Pedersens were to apply for financing within 5 business days of acceptance and that if financing was not approved within 30 days of acceptance, the offer would be null and void.
- Engelbert, who was present during the Pedersens' loan application meeting, did not learn of any information that would jeopardize their loan application.
- On July 9, Residential Mortgage Services notified Engelbert that it probably would not be able to make a loan to the Pedersens and recommended that the loan application be moved to another lender.
- Engelbert then contacted Capital Financial Services to determine whether it could approve a loan to the Pedersens on the terms contained in their purchase agreement.
- Engelbert assisted the Pedersens in making a separate second loan application with a different lender on July 9, without their authorization.
- The district court ruled in favor of the Daubmans, but CBS and Engelbert appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which vacated the judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss.
- The Daubmans appealed the decision.
LSD+ exclusive
Holding
- Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
- jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
- proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
- jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
- jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
- Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
- Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
- Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
LSD+ exclusive
. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Join LSD+
Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:
- Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
- LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
- Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
- Social learning with LSD community case high points
- Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
- 14-day free trial