Franchisors are not required to implement the changes to their agreed business practices until the appeals process is concluded.
exist Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-August. On January 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be cut away, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. join us.
A homebuyer who unsuccessfully tried to block final approval of a nationwide settlement to resolve antitrust claims against major real estate franchisees Anywhere, Keller Williams and RE/MAX is now going up the ladder The court appealed.
The appeal could delay implementation of the settlement, in which Anywhere, RE/MAX and Keller Williams agreed to pay $83.5 million, $55 million and $70 million respectively. No one in the settlement class who filed a claim will receive a payment until any appeals are resolved.
Franchisors are also not required to implement changes to their agreed business practices until the appeals process is concluded and a settlement becomes effective. The changes include no longer requiring franchisees and their affiliated agents to join or be members of the National Association of Realtors or to comply with the REALTORS Code of Ethics or NAR’s Multiple Listing Service Policy Manual.
“This appeal is neither unusual nor unexpected,” a spokesperson for Anywhere told Inman in a statement. “We have every confidence that our settlement was fair, reasonable and enforceable and that the order ultimately approved by the trial court was absolutely correct.” of.”
Anywhere did not respond when asked whether the appeal would delay the changes in business practices Anywhere agreed to in the settlement until after the appeal is resolved.
The three franchisees’ settlement covers claims in the case known as Sitzer | Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek and other similar home seller packages across the country. The lawsuit alleges that some provisions of the NAR violate the Sherman Antitrust Act by driving up costs for sellers. The lawsuits primarily target the NAR’s Rule of Engagement (also known as the Cooperative Compensation Rule), which requires listing brokers to provide commissions to buyer’s brokers for listing properties on real estate broker-affiliated multiple listing services.
Michael Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight, Sitzer’s lead plaintiffs’ attorney | Burnett case tells Inman the appeal will not have any impact on the implementation of policy changes that NAR agreed to in a separate settlement that has not yet received final approval, but its policy changes It will take effect on August 17.
“We will have to assess on a case-by-case basis whether other defendants can wait until appeal to implement changes in practice, but if they don’t, they could face additional liability,” Ketchmark said. “Any company with common sense should do so now ”
Michael Kagemak
“All parties in this case are confident that the appeals court will side with the trial court and uphold the settlement,” Ketchmark added. “We all know the appeal is coming and we are ready.”
On June 4, homebuyer and seller James Mullis filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seeking to overturn the decision approved by Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on May 9. Mullis informed the court that he An appeal will be filed on May 31.
Mullis’s legal filings on the appeal so far contain no arguments. He has until July 24 to file his appeal brief, according to the appeals court’s schedule.
But Mullis is the named plaintiff in the Batton 1 (formerly Leeder) case, which seeks class-action status and names NAR, Anywhere, RE/MAX and Keller Williams as defendants and alleges the same disputed NAR rules among home sellers. Causing homebuyers to pay higher prices violates state and federal antitrust laws.
On April 13, Mullis, who sold a home in addition to purchasing one, filed an objection to the franchisee settlement in Sitzer | Burnett Courthouse, Missouri.
“A court should only approve a settlement if the settling parties expressly exclude the claims made in the settlement agreement. button Mullis’ attorneys wrote, “Acting under the definition of a ‘discharged claim’ or otherwise clarifying that the settlement agreement will not discharge damage claims related to transactions in which class members purchased homes.”
“If not, the court should reject the settlement agreement because it is unfair, unreasonable and does not provide adequate representation to the class members purchasing the homes.”
On May 8, the Batton 1 plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in an attempt to block final approval of the settlement, arguing that the transactions should not prevent homebuyers from bringing claims, but were denied because opponents, including Mullis, , had the opportunity to express their objections at a fairness hearing on May 9, and the transaction was ultimately approved.
Boff’s approval of these transactions doesn’t end lawsuits filed by homebuyers, but it does narrow the size of the potential class of homebuyer cases because it doesn’t allow people who buy and sell properties at the same time to bring claims for buyer’s damages.
On June 3, the Knie and Shealy law firm, which represents South Carolina home sellers in a separate commission lawsuit, said it intends to appeal the final approval of the Keller Williams, Anywhere and RE/MAX settlement, but has not yet done so.
Inman has reached out to Keller Williams and RE/MAX for comment and will update this story when we hear back.
Send an email to Andrea V. Brambila.
Like on Facebook | Follow me on twitter
