Sentences with phrase «judgment in favor of»

Therefore, the district court's decision was affirmed and the case was sent back to the lower courts for entry of judgment in favor of TAL and TCI.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, entered judgment in favor of the Brokerage.

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Exxon.

The trial entered judgment in favor of the Owner against the Family, but ruled for A.M. on the claims against it.

The court reversed summary judgment in favor of the licensee.

The Circuit Court of Cook County issued summary judgment in favor of the salesperson and the broker.

Therefore, there was no violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the licensee.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the appellate court, reversing the judgment in favor of the Broker and Brokerage and sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The court sent the case back to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Perl.

The State of Michigan, Court of Appeals, affirmed the judgment in favor of the Association.

Thus, the court ruled that the mold exclusion denied the Owner coverage for the mold incursion, and the court entered judgment in favor of the Insurance Company.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Managing Broker, holding that she had no knowledge of the substance or details of the transaction, and that «neither Tennessee statutes nor Tennessee case law suggests that managing brokers» duty to supervise their affiliates can create liability on the part of the managing broker where the managing broker has no direct involvement with or knowledge of the transaction.»

The trial court dismissed the allegations made against the Broker in his capacity as a corporate officer of the Brokerage and the court also entered judgment in favor of the Broker individually on the other alleged violations of the Act, ruling that Crank's actions could not be attributed to the Broker individually, only the Brokerage, because the Brokerage was a corporation.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the licensee on the basis of a contract provision stating that the purchasers would rely solely on the representations of the sellers and third parties other than the licensee.

Following the verdict, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Brokerage and Deshields, determining that the evidence did not support the award.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Buyer's Representative and Seller, and the Buyer appealed.

The Iowa District Court for Polk County entered judgment in favor of the Association and Iowa Realty.

Therefore, the court concluded that the state's property condition disclosure statute did not apply to real estate licensees, and so the court entered judgment in favor of both the Buyer's Representative and the Listing Broker.

The appeals court held that the summary judgment in favor of the Sullivans, as sellers, would stand.

A buyer should ask questions like has the court issued a judgment in favor of the bank, has their been a foreclosure auction, was the bank the winning bidder, has a certificate of title been issued and has the redemption period passed.

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).

Hampton Realty v. Conklin (220 A.D. 2d 385)- issues of justifiable reliance and reasonable inquiry; motion for a leave to appeal denied (87 N.Y. 2d 805); non-jury trial judgment in favor of broker for commission reversed; broker not the procuring cause where purchaser and seller discussed availability of property prior to listing and where broker did nothing of any significance to assist in the negotiations between buyer and seller aside from a single visit to the property; facts of the case do not support oral promise to «protect» the broker's commission; reasonable duration for term of brokerage agreement implied where agreement contained no term as to its duration and, under the circumstances of the case, it would not be reasonable to extend the duration of the agreement for a term of more than one year.

Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v. Citibank (205 A.D. 2d 336) alleged oral brokerage agreement not within Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5 - 701 [a][10]-RRB-; summary judgment in favor of Citibank reversed and broker's motion for certain discovery granted; issues of fact are raised as to whether binding oral brokerage agreement existed (notwithstanding that bank did not own property, its position was enhanced as mortgagee).

Mecox Realty Corp. v. Rose (202 A.D. 2d 404) judgment in favor of plaintiff to recover brokerage commission affirmed, where broker earned commission when they produced a buyer who was ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller.

SageGroup Associates v. Dominion Textile (USA)(244 A.D. 2d 281)-- the «able» prong of the ready, willing and able test refers to the prospective subtenant's financial ability; although broker established he procured a prospective subtenant ready, willing and able to sublet on terms set by the prospective sublessor, the parties» disagreement as to the terms of their oral agreement raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of either party; no cause of action exists in quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and account stated where there is an express contract governing the broker's right to a commission; broker lacks standing to claim tortious interference with contract against landlord for refusal to grant tenant permission to sublease because broker is neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the sublease rejected by the landlord.

Balog Realty Corp. v. East Coast Real Estate Developers (202 A.D. 2d 529) defendant's appeals from lower court orders are dismissed, judgment in favor of plaintiff to recover brokerage commission affirmed.

Manhattan Apartments, Inc. v. Matera (10 Misc.3 d 133A)-- small claims judgment in favor of broker affirmed; broker's responsibility was fully performed upon tenant's signing of lease agreement, at with point the earned commission became irrevocable; the fact that landlord ultimately agreed to relieve tenant of his leasehold obligations due to noise concerns had no bearing on broker's entitlement to recover the agreed upon brokerage fee; record contains no indications that broker / tenant agreement incorporated any condition that tenant was looking for a «quiet» apartment.

Peltonen v. Halstead Property Corp. (10 Misc.3 d 130A)-- small claims judgment in favor of broker dismissing seller's action against broker affirmed; evidence supports a finding that broker satisfactorily performed its contractual obligations and that seller suffered no damages as a result of broker's «defective» services; seller's condominium apartment was sold within one month of the parties» listing agreement and at a purchase price exceeding the asking price in a co-brokered transaction.

Once the Judge has issued a judgment in favor of the Landlord, the Judge will inform the tenant that they have 5 days to work something out with the Landlord or vacate the property.

The court also found that fairness and equity allowed the disregarding of the corporate shield, as the Brokerage had few assets to pay a judgment in favor of the Buyers and also did not have insurance coverage for such a judgment.

The court entered judgment in favor of the Owner, and the Broker appealed.

Thus, the court entered judgment in favor of the State on the ex post facto claims.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Brokerage and the Seller, and the Buyer appealed.

Based on this determination, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Prevailing Party as well as the award of its costs in bringing the action.

Thus, the court reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the trial court with an order to enter judgment in favor of the Salesperson for the unpaid commission amounts.

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, granted judgment in favor of the Law Firm.

The trial court overruled a jury verdict in favor of the Buyers and entered judgment in favor of the Seller and Broker, due to the Buyers» failure to present expert testimony on the property's diminution in value due to the defects.

Based on the affidavit, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Brokerage.

In two separate rulings, the trial court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

The court entered judgment in favor of the Law Firm.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Coldwell.

The Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Vendor on the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Louisiana court rules that real estate professional's failure to notify lender about reduced sales price did not affect the buyer's ability to qualify for a loan by the required date and so entered judgment in favor of the real estate professional.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Listing Brokerage and the Bank, and the Buyers appealed.

The appellate court affirmed judgment in favor of the broker.

Furthermore, the court granted judgment in favor of the development company on the licensee's additional claims against the development company.

In Thompson v. DeKalb Board of REALTORS ®, the 11th Circuit addressed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Board and MLS, dismissing plaintiffs» claim that the Federal antitrust laws are violated by the requirement that brokers be REALTORS ® to gain access to the Board's MLS.

The MLS filed a motion seeking judgment in its favor, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the MLS and awarded the MLS attorney's fees.

Therefore, the court entered judgment in favor of the Firm and dismissed the Buyer's lawsuit.

Therefore, the court entered judgment in favor of the couple.