Sometimes, trial courts make errors so simple and obvious that one wonders whether the judge had even a rudimentary knowledge of the law in a particular area.

A recent case [Horiike v Coldwell Banker, Cal. Ct. App., April 9, 2014] illustrates this quite well. It is a well-known principle that a broker owes fiduciary duties to his client. So when a real estate broker serves as a dual agent for the buyer and seller, as in this case – even when a different salesperson with the broker represents each party – that doesn’t diminish the duty. The broker owes the duty and each salesperson with the broker owes the duty.

How the trial court couldn’t figure that one out is beyond us, but at least the appellate court got it right.

Dual Agency: What’s That?
While we’re on the subject: if you’re about to get involved with leasing new space for business expansion, or buying or selling real estate, or just about any other real-estate transaction, you should take appropriate steps to understand what “dual agency” is and how it might affect you. Most real estate brokers and sales agents love it, but many of their clients (the actual parties to a real estate transaction) have a very dim view of “dual agency” and feel that creates a direct conflict of interest. Make sure to consult with your attorney if you have concerns with one agent representing both the buyer and seller in a transaction.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.