Court Opinion

ID: 9884484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:59:24.866458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.595177
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Underwood, dissenting: In resolving the very difficult questions presented in this case this court has compromised the differing positions of the parties in a result with which I cannot agree. Most of the reasons compelling my dissent are adequately treated in the well considered opinion of the appellate court (53 Ill. App. 2d 388), and it would add little for me to restate them here. There is, however, one undiscussed facet of the many serious questions requiring informed consideration by the parties to every real-estate transaction before a contract is signed. Increasingly apparent in recent years is the fact that every real-estate purchase and sale involves far-reaching tax consequences of a character partially or wholly unknown to the ordinary buyer and seller. As to such property the dollar amount of estate, inheritance and income tax liabilities of the parties will be determined largely by the manner in which the transaction is consummated. The year in which it occurs, the manner in which title is taken, whether it is a cash or installment sale or an exchange of properties will all substantially affect tax liability, not only of the parties but of their estates and heirs. As a result, such tax obligations may be increased, diminished or completely eliminated, depending on the decisions made by the parties as to the terms of their contract. The opinion of this court permits real-estate brokers to prepare contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate by “filling the blanks” in, and making “appropriate deletions” from form contracts customarily used in the community and to secure the signatures of the parties thereon. It prohibits explanation by the brokers of the provisions of the contract and bars them from preparing any other documents subsequent to the contract. Actually, the contract between the parties is the fundamental instrument in a real-estate transaction and determines their future rights and obligations. It seems to me somewhat anomalous to permit the broker to prepare the controlling agreement but not those which it controls. Be that as it may, the practical result of this decision will be a binding contract executed by the parties without informed consideration of the serious questions involved except in those instances where the buyer or seller is aware of the inherent hazards and consults his attorney before signing the contract. The desired objective here is neither the preservation of business for lawyers nor commissions for brokers — it is the protection of the public. In my opinion this is best accomplished by entrusting the preparation of real-estate contracts to those trained to recognize the substantial questions involved and competent to advise the parties regarding what, in many instances, is the most important investment they will ever make. For these reasons, as well as those set forth in the appellate court opinion, the judgment of that court should be affirmed.