Seller sues over point-of-sale law

Law of the Land

Inman News®

In the case Walker v. Calumet City, the homeowner (Ayanna Walker) wanted to sell her home and discovered that she would first have to comply with the city's point-of-sale (POS) ordinance, which required various inspections; fees; correcting property conditions that didn't comply with the building or zoning codes; and obtaining transfer stamps.

(The local association of Realtors had already challenged the ordinance in court, but the case was dismissed because the Realtors lacked standing. The homeowner was then brought in to the case.)

The homeowner's claim against the city alleged that the POS ordinance improperly restrained her from being able to sell her home and deprived her of due process.

While the case was pending, the city inspected the homeowner's property; she completed the required repairs; and the city granted her the right to sell the home with no further POS ordinance requirements. The trial court then dismissed the case against the city as moot.

The trial court then granted the homeowner $189,000 in attorneys' fees on grounds that she had achieved her goals for the case and, thus, was a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).

The appeals court, however, overruled the trial court's attorney fee award. The appellate court clarified that if the trial court had stated its intention to find in favor of the homeowner prior to the case becoming moot, the homeowner would have been entitled to attorneys' fees. Also, if the trial court's dismissal had contained language mandating the city to refrain from enforcing the POS ordinance against the homeowner and later owners of the property, and providing for judicial enforcement of that mandate, the homeowner's attorney fee award would have been upheld.

On appeal, however, the court found that the district court had made no decision on the merits of the matter but, rather, had simply "enshrined" the city's voluntary agreement with the homeowner in the language of the dismissal. Accordingly, the homeowner was not a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).

Tara-Nicholle Nelson is author of "The Savvy Woman's Homebuying Handbook" and "Trillion Dollar Women: Use Your Power to Make Buying and Remodeling Decisions." Ask her a real estate question online or visit her Web site, www.rethinkrealestate.com.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Share with REmessenger

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Judy Orr on June 17, 2009 - 1:11pm.

I had my first and last listing in Calumet City and had run-ins with the village that almost cost the sale. They continually try to enforce their own rules and the board (and some sellers) keep taking them to court. You'd think they would back down on their controlling ways but they keep it up and don't want to listen to anyone else.

Judy Orr
Classic Realty Group
Oak Lawn Homes

 
Submitted by Jerzy (George) Szkup on June 17, 2009 - 2:23pm.

George Szkup
www.DestinationTucson.biz

To me - a real estate broker trying to make a living this case says LAUD!!! - whatever you do - stay away from attorneys and courts or you are going to loose your shirt and buttons too.

George from Tucson
http://DestinationTucson.biz

 
Submitted by Pamela Krieter on June 19, 2009 - 1:10pm.

Mainstreet Organization of REALTORS® (MORe) decided to challenge the Calumet City ordinance because one of our roles is to advocate on behalf of the rights of property owners. Specifically, we believe that we must work to protect the right of property owners to buy and sell their property without undue burden.

Our hope is that our association – and REALTORS® generally – can work cooperatively with local municipal officials to ensure that local ordinances respect property owners’ rights as well as serve the public interest.

We are disappointed that the homeowner’s legal fees were not reimbursed, because we believe she acted in good faith at all stages of trying to sell her property. Because the courts did not rule on the actual legality of the ordinance, we are concerned that other sellers could face the same prospect of being deprived of their rights to sell their property. We will continue to monitor this type of situation in Calumet City and other communities to ensure that property owners’ rights are upheld.

We encourage property owners and REALTORS® to let us know when a regulation is enacted that may infringe on the rights of the property owner. And, we would like for elected leaders and municipal officials to know that MORe is a resource when they are considering ordinances and regulations that relate to property owners.

 
Submitted by Barbara Clark on June 19, 2009 - 2:25pm.

This sounds like a good Pacfic Legal Foundation issue.

Has this happened to others?