A contract between sophisticated parties could abrogate the delayed discovery rule regarding a lawsuit over latent construction defects, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming judgment.
A homeowners association was not required to have express rulemaking authority in order to limit the types of watercraft that residents could use in an adjoining lake, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
A seller suing for a buyer’s breach of a contract to sell real property was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach, New York’s highest court has ruled.
An action for fraud was within the scope of an arbitration provision in a contract for the purchase of real property, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
In a reversal of course, a Pennsylvania court ruled last week that home sellers had no duty to disclose that their property was the scene of a grisly murder/suicide.
Arizona law relieved Jeff and Marissa Currier of an affirmative obligation to disclose to prospective home buyers that they had a convicted sex offender living next door.
But according to a state court of appeals, that didn’t mean that the Curriers couldn’t get themselves into legal trouble by allegedly lying when asked why they wanted to move.
The purchasers of a lot in an upscale real estate development had three years to exercise their rescission rights under federal law imposing disclosure requirements in interstate land sales, the 4th Circuit has ruled in affirming a $1.7 million judgment.
Condominium purchasers may have waited too long to exercise their right to rescind their contract pursuant to federal law requiring certain disclosures in land sales, the 6th Circuit has ruled.
A city was required to satisfy the traditional probable cause standard in order to obtain a court order for the inspection of a home for zoning violations, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
Developers could be sued for allegedly injuring homeowners by causing a drop in property values through sales to individuals with a high risk of foreclosure, the 9th Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.