Lexplug logoLexplug

Easton v. Strassburger

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two
152 Cal. App. 3d 90, 199 Cal. Rptr. 383 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A seller's real estate broker in a residential transaction has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of the property and to disclose to prospective purchasers all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that such an investigation would reveal.


Facts:

  • The Strassburgers owned a residential property built on uncompacted fill, which had experienced a minor slide in 1973 and a major slide in 1975.
  • The Strassburgers listed the property for sale with Valley of California, Inc. (Valley Realty), but did not inform Valley Realty's agents, Simkin and Mourning, about the prior slides or soil instability.
  • During their inspections, Valley Realty's agents observed several "red flags" indicating potential soil problems, including netting on a slope from a prior slide repair and an uneven floor in a guesthouse.
  • Despite observing these red flags, the agents did not conduct any further investigation, did not order a soil stability test, and did not disclose the potential for soil problems to the buyer.
  • In May 1976, Leticia M. Easton purchased the property from the Strassburgers for $170,000, relying on Valley Realty as the listing broker.
  • Shortly after Easton moved in, a massive earth movement occurred, causing severe damage to the home's foundation, walls, and driveway, and drastically reducing the property's value.

Procedural Posture:

  • Leticia M. Easton filed a lawsuit in trial court against Valley Realty, the Strassburgers (sellers), and others, alleging negligence and misrepresentation.
  • Valley Realty filed a cross-complaint against the Strassburgers seeking indemnity.
  • Following a jury trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding all defendants negligent.
  • The jury apportioned 5% of the negligence to Valley Realty and assessed total damages of $197,000.
  • Based on the jury's finding that Valley Realty's negligence was 'active,' the trial court denied its claim for indemnity against the Strassburgers.
  • Valley Realty (appellant) appealed the judgment on the negligence and indemnity claims to the Court of Appeal of California.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a real estate broker representing the seller have an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of a residential property and to disclose to the buyer all facts materially affecting its value or desirability that such an investigation would reveal?


Opinions:

Majority - Kline, P. J.

Yes. A real estate broker representing a seller has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of residential property and to disclose to prospective buyers all material facts that such an investigation would reveal. The court reasoned that this duty is implicit in the established requirement for brokers to disclose known material facts. To limit the duty only to known defects would reward brokers for their ignorance and create a disincentive to conduct diligent inspections, undermining the protection of buyers who rely on the broker's professional expertise. The court concluded that a broker's duty of due care includes a duty to discover and disclose reasonably discoverable defects, as brokers hold themselves out to the public as having superior skill and knowledge in real estate matters.



Analysis:

This case significantly expanded the scope of a real estate broker's duty in California, establishing the landmark 'Easton duty.' Prior to this decision, a broker's primary duty was to disclose material defects of which they had actual knowledge. By imposing an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inspection to discover potential defects, the court shifted brokers from mere conduits of information to active investigators responsible for what they 'should have known.' This holding increased broker liability, changed professional standards of practice, and ultimately led to statutory codification of this duty, profoundly impacting residential real estate transactions.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Easton v. Strassburger (1984) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Easton v. Strassburger