Opinion
GILBERT, J.
The real estate agency disclosure statute, Civil Code section 2374,1 says nothing about a failure to comply. A statute without a remedy [679]*679might as well be written in invisible ink. We conclude the common law provides a remedy for failure to comply with section 2374.
[678]*6781All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified.
[679]*679A real estate agent representing both a buyer and seller in a transaction must provide a disclosure statement to both buyer and seller. (§ 2374.) Subdivision (a) of that section requires the real estate agent seeking to list residential property for sale to provide the seller with the agency relationship disclosure form prior to entering into a listing agreement.
Here, an agent who represents a buyer interested in seller’s property enters into a listing agreement with seller. The agent fails to provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement. We hold that under these circumstances the listing agreement is voidable at seller’s option.
We reverse. [[]]
Facts
Leendert Huijers owned a nursery business in Huntington Park. He wished to relocate the business to Santa Barbara County. He sold his nursery in April 1987. The contract gave him until July 31,1988, to find a replacement property to qualify for a tax-deferred real estate exchange. Until then he would continue to operate the Huntington Park nursery. The July closing date, however, would ultimately be extended to September.
After having looked at a number of properties, in July of 1988 Huijers retained Justine Larson, a real estate broker. Larson telephoned Gordon and George Ann DeMarrais, who owned a parcel of property in Lompoc. Part of the parcel contained a residence, and the remainder was used as a nursery. The DeMarraises told her they were willing to talk about selling their land, and they met with her on August 8.
At the August 8 meeting, Larson told the DeMarraises that she had a client who was interested in buying their property. The DeMarraises signed an exclusive right to sell listing agreement. The listing price was $325,000. The DeMarraises were willing to accept a note secured by a trust deed on the property as part of the purchase price. The price was determined solely by the DeMarraises.
Larson told them that under the agreement they would owe 6 percent commission if she found a buyer who would pay the listing price. Larson did [680]*680not provide the DeMarraises with an agency disclosure statement prior to or at the time the listing agreement was signed. (§ 2373 et seq.)
On August 13 Larson called the DeMarraises and told them her Huntington Park client would be making an offer within a week. On August 20, prior to having received any offer, the DeMarraises told Larson they wanted to increase the asking price to $375,000. Larson did not agree to do so, but replied that she would ask her father, who was also a real estate broker.
Huijers had been planning to offer $275,000. After he learned of the DeMarraises’ desire to raise the asking price, he instructed Larson to prepare an offer that met the $325,000 listing price and terms.
Huijers, Larson and the DeMarraises met at the DeMarrais home on August 22. Huijers and Larson brought the proposed contract with them. Huijers told the DeMarraises that if they did not want to hear his offer at $325,000, he would leave. The DeMarraises decided to listen to the offer.
At one point early in the negotiations, one of the DeMarraises asked why they could not raise the price. Huijers responded it was his understanding of California law that once a broker has found a ready, willing and able buyer, she has done her job, and the DeMarraises would have to pay her commission.
The negotiations lasted for about seven to eight hours. At the end, the DeMarraises agreed to sign a contract. Upon signing, Gordon DeMarrais said, “. . . I have to pay the commission anyway.”
[[]]*
It was only at the time of the signing of the purchase contract that the DeMarraises received the agency disclosure statement required to be given to them prior to signing the listing agreement. The purchase contract included a statement that Larson was acting as a dual agent for both buyer and seller.
The morning after the contract was signed, the DeMarraises’ attorney called Huijers and Larson and told them the DeMarraises had rescinded. [681]*681Huijers filed a complaint against the DeMarraises for specific performance and damages. The DeMarraises cross-complained against Huijers and Larson for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, rescission and declaratory relief.
After a nonjury trial, the court found Huijers’ statement concerning Larson’s right to a commission was a correct statement of law; at no time did Huijers or Larson make any misrepresentation in order to induce the DeMarraises to sign the purchase agreement; and the contract is valid and specific performance was the proper remedy. The trial court also awarded Huijers damages of $39,900 for tax liabilities incurred because of his inability to carry out a tax-deferred exchange, $36,400 for lost profits and $134,996.72 in attorney fees and costs.
Discussion
I
The DeMarraises contend Larson’s failure to provide them with an agency relationship disclosure statement prior to entering into the listing agreement made the listing agreement voidable. 2
Thus, they argue, their signatures on the sales contract were obtained through the misrepresentation that they were liable for Larson’s commission even if they did not sign the contract.
For residential real estate sales, a real estate agent is required by statute to make certain disclosures about the agent’s duties to the parties and about which party or parties to the transaction the agent is representing. (§ 2373 et seq.3)
Section 2374, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he listing agent, if any, shall provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement.” The disclosure is required to be made in the form set forth in [682]*682section 2375.4 The form lists the duties of the seller’s agent, the buyer’s agent and advises that a real estate agent may represent both seller and buyer in a transaction. It also contains the warning that “[t]he above duties of the [683]*683agent in a real estate transaction do not relieve a Seller or Buyer from the responsibility to protect their own interests.”
The form set forth in section 2375 gives buyers and sellers of real estate general information about a real estate agent’s duties, and points out the fiduciary responsibility of the agent. Information about whether an agent represents both buyer and seller may not always be known prior to the seller signing the listing agreement. Section 2375.55 therefore requires the listing [684]*684agent to disclose “[a]s soon as practicable” whether the agent is representing the seller only or both the seller and buyer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
GILBERT, J.
The real estate agency disclosure statute, Civil Code section 2374,1 says nothing about a failure to comply. A statute without a remedy [679]*679might as well be written in invisible ink. We conclude the common law provides a remedy for failure to comply with section 2374.
[678]*6781All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified.
[679]*679A real estate agent representing both a buyer and seller in a transaction must provide a disclosure statement to both buyer and seller. (§ 2374.) Subdivision (a) of that section requires the real estate agent seeking to list residential property for sale to provide the seller with the agency relationship disclosure form prior to entering into a listing agreement.
Here, an agent who represents a buyer interested in seller’s property enters into a listing agreement with seller. The agent fails to provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement. We hold that under these circumstances the listing agreement is voidable at seller’s option.
We reverse. [[]]
Facts
Leendert Huijers owned a nursery business in Huntington Park. He wished to relocate the business to Santa Barbara County. He sold his nursery in April 1987. The contract gave him until July 31,1988, to find a replacement property to qualify for a tax-deferred real estate exchange. Until then he would continue to operate the Huntington Park nursery. The July closing date, however, would ultimately be extended to September.
After having looked at a number of properties, in July of 1988 Huijers retained Justine Larson, a real estate broker. Larson telephoned Gordon and George Ann DeMarrais, who owned a parcel of property in Lompoc. Part of the parcel contained a residence, and the remainder was used as a nursery. The DeMarraises told her they were willing to talk about selling their land, and they met with her on August 8.
At the August 8 meeting, Larson told the DeMarraises that she had a client who was interested in buying their property. The DeMarraises signed an exclusive right to sell listing agreement. The listing price was $325,000. The DeMarraises were willing to accept a note secured by a trust deed on the property as part of the purchase price. The price was determined solely by the DeMarraises.
Larson told them that under the agreement they would owe 6 percent commission if she found a buyer who would pay the listing price. Larson did [680]*680not provide the DeMarraises with an agency disclosure statement prior to or at the time the listing agreement was signed. (§ 2373 et seq.)
On August 13 Larson called the DeMarraises and told them her Huntington Park client would be making an offer within a week. On August 20, prior to having received any offer, the DeMarraises told Larson they wanted to increase the asking price to $375,000. Larson did not agree to do so, but replied that she would ask her father, who was also a real estate broker.
Huijers had been planning to offer $275,000. After he learned of the DeMarraises’ desire to raise the asking price, he instructed Larson to prepare an offer that met the $325,000 listing price and terms.
Huijers, Larson and the DeMarraises met at the DeMarrais home on August 22. Huijers and Larson brought the proposed contract with them. Huijers told the DeMarraises that if they did not want to hear his offer at $325,000, he would leave. The DeMarraises decided to listen to the offer.
At one point early in the negotiations, one of the DeMarraises asked why they could not raise the price. Huijers responded it was his understanding of California law that once a broker has found a ready, willing and able buyer, she has done her job, and the DeMarraises would have to pay her commission.
The negotiations lasted for about seven to eight hours. At the end, the DeMarraises agreed to sign a contract. Upon signing, Gordon DeMarrais said, “. . . I have to pay the commission anyway.”
[[]]*
It was only at the time of the signing of the purchase contract that the DeMarraises received the agency disclosure statement required to be given to them prior to signing the listing agreement. The purchase contract included a statement that Larson was acting as a dual agent for both buyer and seller.
The morning after the contract was signed, the DeMarraises’ attorney called Huijers and Larson and told them the DeMarraises had rescinded. [681]*681Huijers filed a complaint against the DeMarraises for specific performance and damages. The DeMarraises cross-complained against Huijers and Larson for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, rescission and declaratory relief.
After a nonjury trial, the court found Huijers’ statement concerning Larson’s right to a commission was a correct statement of law; at no time did Huijers or Larson make any misrepresentation in order to induce the DeMarraises to sign the purchase agreement; and the contract is valid and specific performance was the proper remedy. The trial court also awarded Huijers damages of $39,900 for tax liabilities incurred because of his inability to carry out a tax-deferred exchange, $36,400 for lost profits and $134,996.72 in attorney fees and costs.
Discussion
I
The DeMarraises contend Larson’s failure to provide them with an agency relationship disclosure statement prior to entering into the listing agreement made the listing agreement voidable. 2
Thus, they argue, their signatures on the sales contract were obtained through the misrepresentation that they were liable for Larson’s commission even if they did not sign the contract.
For residential real estate sales, a real estate agent is required by statute to make certain disclosures about the agent’s duties to the parties and about which party or parties to the transaction the agent is representing. (§ 2373 et seq.3)
Section 2374, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he listing agent, if any, shall provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement.” The disclosure is required to be made in the form set forth in [682]*682section 2375.4 The form lists the duties of the seller’s agent, the buyer’s agent and advises that a real estate agent may represent both seller and buyer in a transaction. It also contains the warning that “[t]he above duties of the [683]*683agent in a real estate transaction do not relieve a Seller or Buyer from the responsibility to protect their own interests.”
The form set forth in section 2375 gives buyers and sellers of real estate general information about a real estate agent’s duties, and points out the fiduciary responsibility of the agent. Information about whether an agent represents both buyer and seller may not always be known prior to the seller signing the listing agreement. Section 2375.55 therefore requires the listing [684]*684agent to disclose “[a]s soon as practicable” whether the agent is representing the seller only or both the seller and buyer.
There is no dispute that Larson failed to provide the DeMarraises with the disclosure form required by section 2375 prior to entering into the listing agreement. Huijers contends, however, that Larson was in substantial compliance with the law by providing the disclosure form at the time the purchase contract was signed.
Substantial compliance with a statute is sufficient unless the intent of the statute can only be served by demanding strict compliance. (ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 12 [286 Cal.Rptr. 518].) Substantial compliance means “ . . actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.’ [Citation.]” {Ibid.)
The objective of a statute requiring a disclosure prior to signing the listing agreement is to allow the seller to make a more intelligent decision about whether to sign. For example, the property owner who is asked to sign a listing agreement because the broker has a buyer for the property may not fully comprehend that the broker intends to act as a dual agent. Because the seller pays the broker’s commission, the seller may reasonably believe the broker has only the seller’s best interest at heart and is working exclusively for the seller.
[685]*685The disclosure form tells the property owner that a broker can act as a dual agent. Thus advised, the seller may wish to sell the property through his or her own agent or to seek independent advice on the price and terms of the listing.
The full measure of protection that the Legislature intended to provide to the seller cannot be achieved if the listing agent fails to provide the disclosure form prior to entering into the listing agreement. Because a reasonable objective of the statute is to give the seller information prior to signing the listing agreement, providing a disclosure form after the seller signs the agreement is not substantial compliance.
Huijers’s reliance on subdivision (b) of section 2374 is misplaced. In contrast to subdivision (a), which requires a “listing agent” to provide the seller with a disclosure prior to entering into the listing agreement, subdivision (b) requires a “selling agent” to provide the seller with a disclosure form “as soon as practicable prior to presenting the seller with an offer to purchase, unless the selling agent previously provided the seller with a copy of the disclosure form pursuant to subdivision (a).” The “selling agent” is defined as “a listing agent who acts alone, or an agent who acts in cooperation with a listing agent. . . (§ 2373, subd. (n).)
We find nothing in subdivision (b) of section 2374 that relieves a selling agent who is also a listing agent from complying with subdivision (a). Subdivision (b) is merely a recognition that not all agents are listing agents as Larson was. Some selling agents are cooperating brokers, and may not be involved in the transaction until after the listing agreement has been signed.
There is no doubt Larson failed to substantially comply with the disclosure statutes. The next question is what are the DeMarraises’ remedies?
Although there is no mention of any specific remedies in the disclosure act, section 2382 provides: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to either diminish the duty of disclosure owed buyers and sellers by agents and their associate licensees, subagents, and employees or to relieve agents and their associate licensees, subagents, and employees from liability for their conduct in connection with acts governed by this article or for any breach of a fiduciary duty or a duty of disclosure.”
Thus, the legislative scheme added statutory duties to the common law duties of disclosure, while leaving common law remedies for failure to disclose intact.
The remedy for a real estate agent’s breach of a duty to disclose a dual representation of both buyer and seller is that the principal is not liable to [686]*686pay the agent’s commission, and the principal may avoid the transaction. (McConnell v. Cowan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 805, 809 [285 P.2d 261].) “ . . It makes no difference that the principal was not in fact injured, or that the agetit intended no wrong or that the other party acted in good faith . . . (Id., at pp. 809-810.)
Contrary to the position taken by the dissent, it is not enough to disclose only the fact of dual representation. The agent must also disclose all facts which would reasonably affect the judgment of each party in permitting the dual representation. (2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Agency & Employment, § 56, p. 64.) We read section 2375 as a legislative determination that the information required to be disclosed alerts the parties to the potentially harmful consequences of dual representation, so they can make an informed judgment.
Nor do we believe our Legislature intended the remedy for violation of the statute to be confined to discipline by the Commissioner of Real Estate. Such a statute providing exclusively for discipline against a licensee would ordinarily be found in the Business and Professions Code and not the Civil Code. For example, Business and Professions Code section 10176, subdivision (d) provides that the commissioner may discipline a real estate licensee for “[a]cting for more than one party in a transaction without the knowledge and consent of all parties thereto.”
The failure to disclose prior to entering into the listing agreement, relieved the DeMarraises from the obligation to pay their agent’s commission. This failure to disclose, however, does not in itself relieve the DeMarraises from their obligation under the purchase contract. That is because the disclosure statement was ultimately given to them just before they signed the purchase contract. Nevertheless, they may be entitled to rescission of the purchase contract. Huijers’s statement that the DeMarraises would have to pay Larson’s commission was incorrect. Because the trial court erroneously found that Huijers’s statement was correct, we must reverse for further findings on whether under the circumstances the misstatement constituted grounds for rescission.
We do not mean to say that the failure to provide a disclosure form will always result in a voidable listing agreement. A seller, for example, who has sufficient knowledge concerning the information contained in the disclosure form may be held to the listing agreement even though he or she did not receive the disclosure form.
[687]*687There is no evidence here, however, that the DeMarraises had such knowledge. Larson’s statement that she represented a client who was interested in buying the DeMarraises’ property does not disclose all the information mandated by section 2375. Nor is the trial court’s finding that the DeMarraises had “considerable knowledge and experience with respect to real estate and other transactions” equivalent to a finding that the DeMarraises had sufficient knowledge to make the disclosure form superfluous.
The judgment is reversed. Costs on appeal are awarded to appellants.
Stone (S. J.), P. J., concurred.
See footnote, ante, page 676.