Court Opinion

ID: 9721955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:13:16.876775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:29.565681
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J., Concurring.
Although in many instances where an attorney represents a seller of real estate the services performed and the fee governed are indistinguishable from what a licensed broker does and gets, I agree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that a comparable duty of disclosure does not exist. I write separately to explain that I place my conclusion on the ground that this is an area solely for the Legislature. Nor has the Legislature been reticent. Any lawyers who believe that today’s decision creates a new field of employment representing sellers who have something to hide should read with care Civil Code sections 1102-1102.13 which become operative January 1, 1987. That also leaves plenty of time for them and their clients to review the law of agency.
In all other respects I join in the reasoning and result of the lead opinion.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 13, 1986.