Sentences with phrase «fraud upon the party»

Not exact matches

Any dispute between us relating to our representation of you, including, without limitation, claims for breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, fraud and disputes regarding attorney fees and / or costs charged shall be submitted to binding arbitration through the Cincinnati Bar Association, upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party.

In family court there may be other ways to affirm a party's interest without a forced sale AND the family law court has full jurisdiction to set aside the transfer deed on any grounds that the civil court could rely upon (i.e., fraud, lack of consideration, duress, breach of fiduciary duty if applicable, constructive trust, resulting trust, etc.).

To prove fraud, a defendant must make a false statement that the defendant either knows is false or recklessly does not try to confirm as true; the statement must have been made with the intent to defraud; the statement must be relied upon; and the other party suffers damages.

In order to commit fraud, a party must make a false statement which the party knows to be untrue, is material to the transaction, is justifiably relied upon by the other party, and causes damage to the other party.

To plead fraud, a party must show that another intentionally made a misrepresentation of a material fact upon which it knew the other party would rely, and that the other party then justifiably relied upon this misrepresentation to their detriment.

Real Estate depends on accurate data upon which multiple parties must agree, yet many record keeping and transactional systems are open to fraud and error.

Casey v. Masullo Brothers Builders, Inc. (218 A.D. 2d 907)- Buyer sues seller for fraud, misrepresentation, mistake of fact and breach of contract where buyer purchased residence based upon representations by seller through newspaper advertisements and representations by seller's Realtor regarding the school district within which the property was located; Realtor's statement based upon own investigation, loan profile sheet from an abstract company prepared prior to the closing, and town tax rolls which confirmed placement of the property within the disclosed school district; unless the facts are matters peculiarly within one party's knowledge, the other party must make use of means available to him to ascertain, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth of such representations; question of fact exists whether a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the correct school district; order dismissing seller's motion for summary judgment affirmed.

107 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restitution

7 DOS 00 DOS v. Flagship Marketing Group - availing of license; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; jurisdiction; proper business practices; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS retains jurisdiction over party not licensed at the time of the hearing where, at that time the complaint was served, the party was (i) licensed, (ii) an applicant for a license or renewal, or (iii) was eligible to automatically renew; salesperson is prohibited both from owning, directly or indirectly, singly or jointly, any shares of voting stock in and from being an officer of any licensed real estate brokerage corporation with which the salesperson is associated; representative real estate broker availed the corporate broker license to an associated salesperson where the office was operated by the salesperson without the direct supervision of the representative broker and the salesperson conducted business as a broker for his own benefit; representative real estate broker engaged in fraud by availing the corporate real estate broker license to a salesperson; representative broker's availing of corporate broker's license for which the corporate broker is vicariously liable; failure to provide business records constitutes failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; DOS fails to establish fraud, ignorance or negligence is not sufficient to prove mistake; pressure, regardless of how severe, is not undue influence; restitution denied where funds sought were received by an entity not named or charged in the complaint; corporate broker fined $ 3,000.00, representative broker's license revoked and fined $ 3,000.00 and salesperson fined $ 5,000.00