Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp.
748 P.2d 1209, 1987 Ariz. App. LEXIS 562, 155 Ariz. 585 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate agent employed by a seller does not owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer to provide full and frank disclosure regarding the terms and implications of a purchase contract, as the agent's duties of loyalty and care are owed exclusively to their principal, the seller.
Facts:
- Meredith Haldiman entered into a contract to purchase a townhome to be constructed by Gosnell Development Corporation (Gosnell).
- Gael Boden, a licensed real estate salesman and an employee of Gosnell, prepared the purchase agreement on a Gosnell form.
- Haldiman was not represented by her own real estate agent or legal counsel during the transaction.
- The purchase agreement included a clause allowing Gosnell to terminate the contract and retain all deposits as liquidated damages if Haldiman failed to complete the purchase.
- Boden did not explain the forfeiture clause to Haldiman, nor did he suggest adding contingencies for financing or the sale of her existing home.
- Haldiman paid a total of $3,300 in earnest money and option deposits.
- Haldiman was ultimately unable to secure financing and close on the purchase because she could not sell her former home in time.
- After providing an extension, Gosnell terminated the agreement and retained Haldiman's $3,300 in deposits pursuant to the contract's terms.
Procedural Posture:
- Meredith Haldiman filed a complaint against Gosnell Development Corporation and its employee, Gael Boden, in an Arizona trial court.
- Count I against Gosnell, for wrongful retention of deposits, was resolved in Gosnell's favor through arbitration.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Boden and Gosnell on Count II, which alleged Boden breached a duty of disclosure to Haldiman.
- The trial court awarded attorneys' fees to the appellees, Gosnell and Boden.
- Haldiman (appellant) appealed the summary judgment and the award of attorneys' fees to the Court of Appeals of Arizona (the intermediate appellate court).
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 agent who is an employee of the seller owe a fiduciary duty of full and frank disclosure to an unrepresented buyer in a real estate transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Greer, Judge
No. A real estate agent for the seller does not owe a fiduciary duty of disclosure to the buyer. An agent's fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, and disclosure are owed exclusively to their principal. In this case, Boden was an employee of the seller, Gosnell, and therefore represented Gosnell only. An agency relationship cannot be created by the buyer's subjective belief that the seller's agent is representing them. To hold otherwise would create an impermissible conflict of interest, as an agent cannot act on behalf of an adverse party without the principal's consent. The court declined to extend the duty discussed in Morley v. J. Pagel Realty & Insurance, noting that its holding was narrow and that subsequent precedent, like Buffington v. Haas, affirmed that no such duty exists in the absence of a broker-principal relationship. Therefore, Boden had no obligation to explain the contract's implications or suggest protective contingencies to Haldiman.
Dissenting - Haire, Chief Judge
This opinion dissents only on the issue of attorneys' fees, concurring with the majority's substantive holding that Boden owed no duty to Haldiman. The dissent argues that the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Boden was proper because Haldiman's claim, though framed as a tort, was an 'action arising out of a contract' under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The alleged duty of disclosure would not exist 'but for' the alleged agency contract that Haldiman claimed. The dissent reasons that the statute should be interpreted broadly, as in Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., where a tort action was found to arise from a contract because the tort was intrinsically related to the underlying contractual relationship, even without a breach of the contract's express terms.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional principles of agency law within real estate transactions, firmly establishing that an agent's fiduciary duties are owed exclusively to their principal. By refusing to impose a duty of disclosure on the seller's agent toward the buyer, the court places the responsibility squarely on buyers to secure their own representation. This holding limits the expansion of professional negligence claims by third parties and protects the agent's undivided loyalty to their client, thereby preventing potential conflicts of interest. The case serves as a clear warning to unrepresented parties in real estate deals about the risks of relying on an adverse party's agent for advice or protection.
Unlock the full brief for Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp.