Court Opinion

ID: 9606203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:06.542105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:33.864214
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While concurring with the ultimate holding that the appellants were agents of the seller of the realty, I do not agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion, because it misunderstands the legal consequences of a broker’s participation in a multiple listing service.
“The seller-broker relationship is a special agency created and defined by the listing agreement between the parties. . . . The listing agreement may authorize the broker to list the property with a multiple listing service. A multiple listing service is basically an arrangement for brokers in a given locality to pool their listings and split their commissions. . . . Brokers who are members of the multiple listing service submit their listings to a central bureau which then publishes and distributes a catalog of available properties. Under traditional agency principles, a listing contract which authorizes the listing broker to list the property with a multiple listing service permits the listing broker to create a subagency with other members of the multiple listing service.” Stortroen v. Beneficial Fin. Co. of Colo., 736 P2d 391, 396 (Colo. 1987). In Stortroen, the Colorado Supreme Court left no grey area in holding that absent a written agreement of agency between the selling broker and the purchaser, the selling broker will always be considered the agent of the listing broker and sub-agent of the seller.
As noted by Judge Powell, “[i]t is recorded of Him ‘who spake as never man spake,’ that, ‘seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, ... No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’ ” Gann v. Zettler, 3 Ga. App. 589 (60 SE 283) (1908). The law in this state heretofore, *851prohibiting dual agency unless disclosed to the principal, generally has followed that teaching. The Stortroen court’s analysis of the legal effect of a multiple listing service comports with that teaching. But the majority opinion finds it more enlightened to allow a silent dual agency.
Decided October 13, 1987
Rehearing denied November 16, 1987
Edward C. Stone, Quinton S. King, for appellants.
George Handelsman, for appellee.
Shaw v. Fillman, 184 Ga. App. 364 (361 SE2d 518) (1987), relied upon in part by the majority opinion, is inapposite here. That case involved business brokers, and no arrangement such as the multiple listing service in the instant case. As explained by the Stortroen court, and as understood and practiced by the real estate industry in this state until now, the legal consequence of a multiple listing arrangement is that the selling broker or agent is an agent of the listing broker and subagent of the seller. This is an unequivocal, hardfast, and workable rule, something definite and concrete that brokers, agents, sellers, and buyers can chew on. What the majority opinion serves instead is soggy toast.
Regardless of the menu, however, it is clear that the appellants were agents of the seller in this case. As agents of the seller, Crawford and Jim Royer certainly were not negligent in failing to advise Moreira to have private legal counsel or a title examination, so as to make absolutely sure that she understood the actual parameters of the property, since they had no duty to do so. Also, since no confidential relationship existed between Moreira and Crawford and Jim Royer, Moreira was bound to exercise ordinary diligence to verify any seller’s representations before an action based on any fraud could be maintained. See United Fed. Savings &c. Assn. v. Eubank, 180 Ga. App. 402 (349 SE2d 268) (1986). The right-of-way conveyance was not a hidden fact; it was there to be seen if only one looked. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate for Jim Royer, and Judie Crawford as well, had she been subject to the jurisdiction of the court.