Opinion ID: 1192010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: this court disregarded, without explanation, the material facts involving the professionals, inc. and real estate broker lyle cobbs.

Text: Neither the trial court's Memorandum Decision and Order nor this Court's substituted opinion takes into consideration the following facts concerning the procurement by Defendant Lyle Cobbs of the leases to the Professionals, Inc.: a. Mark Bazeghi advised Hudson that Cobbs had procured a lease from The Professionals, Inc., which was a substantial firm of long standing with numerous clients. b. Cobbs and Kennevick, with Neil Langrill, had been instrumental in forming the corporation. c. It was Cobbs' and Kennevick's attorney who had formed the corporation, and some of the attorney's expenses therefor were billed to Cobbs' real estate firm. d. Cobbs and Kennevick knew, at the time the lease was obtained, that the corporation had no assets or capital, but they failed to disclose such facts to Hudson. e. Cobbs received a commission for procuring the lease. f. Mark Bazeghi paid The Professionals, Inc. the sum of $4,500.00 to induce the corporation to sign the lease  an amount equal to six months rent under the lease. Although Cobbs testified at trial that he did not participate in this payment, he later admitted at trial that the $4,500.00 check had been made payable jointly to his real estate firm and The Professionals, Inc., and that he had personally endorsed the check. g. Cobbs was a licensed real estate broker and knew that Hudson would be the owner of the building, once the preleasing requirements were met. Cobbs testified that as a real estate broker, he only procures the tenant  that it is the owner's responsibility to check on the credit of the tenant, not his. A detailed description of the material facts involving the lease to The Professionals, Inc., with citations to the transcript, is set forth at pp. 33-37 of Appellant's Brief, and pp. 23-24 of Appellant's Reply Brief. Again, it seems inconceivable that this Court can conclude as a matter of law, and do so without even the slightest reference or discussion, that Cobbs and Kennevick, and especially Cobbs, had no separate duty in tort to disclose these materials facts which were known by them and unknown to Hudson. There is no contract between Hudson and Cobbs/Kennevick in connection with The Professionals, Inc. lease. This Court cannot relieve Cobbs and Kennevick of responsibility for damage they caused to Hudson, when they induced him to rely on the lease to this sham corporation, by ruling that their only duty to Hudson was in contract. Instead, it is respectfully submitted, this Court must face the facts and deal with The Professionals, Inc. judicially. The Court must discuss the affirmative duty in tort to disclose known material facts in a business transaction, in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Court in Bethlahmy and Tusch.