Court Opinion

ID: 9521233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:00:57.33367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:33.920389
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: This case presents a narrow question of statutory interpretation: Does the $10,000 damage cap on claims paid out of the Real Estate Recovery Fund apply per claimant or per transaction? The majority holds that the $10,000 cap applies per transaction, so that the two plaintiffs — who were defrauded when their real estate broker absconded with $20,750 in earnest money — may recover only $10,000 for the two of them. The statute provides, however, that any person aggrieved by the fraudulent act of a real estate broker may recover from the Fund an amount of not more than $10,000 and that the Fund’s maximum liability arising out of the activities of any single broker is limited to $50,000. Thé word "transaction” in the Act is not a word of limitation upon a claimant’s right to recover. As Justice Holmes once observed, "we do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means.” O. Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 (1898). The statute’s plain language provides for a $10,000 cap which applies per claimant — not per transaction; the majority opinion creates the latter limitation out of thin air. Each plaintiff should be allowed $10,000 for a total claim on the Fund of $20,000 plus attorney fees. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.