Ed Illinois couple sued for deciding not to sell their home...

[pgwenthold]

They might not be able to adjust the price but they could do lots of other things if they were sufficiently motivated. Lots of accepted offers for houses fall through.

Never make time for the inspector to show up, maybe?

But even then, they would be open to a lawsuit (failure to operate in good faith or something)

Accepted offers fail because they fail to meet terms that were in stipulated in the offer, yes that is true. However, they really can't invent new conditions to apply once they had made that offer and it was accepted.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Verbal agreements for transactions are contracts as well.

Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[BenBurch]

Well you can say they reached an agreement on price, that of 1.7 million that the owner had made as a counter offer to the buyers original offer.

Ah, yes, I lost track of that detail.

In my defense I have a huge headache and am trying to make sense of a bunch of Imakefiles...

 

[MikeMangum]

Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Restaurants are "public accomodations" according to the law and cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. I think it should be pretty obvious why those things classified as public accommodations are the areas where discrimination would have the greatest impact.

The public accommodation designation doesn't apply in this case, so the analogy doesn't really fit.

How about this: do you believe a dog owner should have the "right" to refuse to sell their dog to a person they don't think will take care of it properly? Do you believe a private gun owner has the right to refuse to sell a gun to someone they feel doesn't follow proper gun safety practices?

What are the first principles you rely on to answer those questions?

I think there is a big difference between behavior that is repugnant and behavior that is liable for state punishment.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not to get too legally technical (having passed the Illinois Bar I almost feel that it's my duty to become condescending and obscenely detailed about this topic), but there are a few more legal issues at play.

First, a contract requires an offer, acceptance, and valid consideration (there are other factors, like the capacity of the parties to contract, but those three are the basics). Money-->house satisfies the consideration element.

Second, a verbal contract for the sale of a house wouldn't be upheld because of the Statute of Frauds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds

Real estate contracts almost always fall under the Statute of Frauds. It's possible some states have different rules, and it's also possible there's some kind of exception in Illinois (I've never dealt with real estate contracts), but the general rule is that they need to be in writing.

Partial performance takes an oral contract (or any non-signed contract) out of the Statute of Frauds and could make the contract enforceable, but no such performance exists in this case.

The more pressing legal issue, however, is whether someone can refuse to sell to a protected class. The Fourteenth Amendment, The Civil Rights Act, and other state, local, or administrative regulations, like the Fair Housing Act, have a long, well-litigated history of asnwering that as, NO!

 

[sthomson]

The thing I find silly is that if the sellers had decided that they didn't want to sell the house to the potential buyers because the buyers were of the wrong astrological sign, or because their psychic told them that these were the wrong buyers, or because the buyers were fans of a sports team that the sellers hated, or because the buyers made it clear they were going to remove the flower print wallpaper that the sellers made by hand and the sellers couldn't stand the idea, it would have been perfectly legal.

None of these characteristics have been systematically and perniciously discriminated against in the housing market.

In the future, if we ever find that the majority of the country have become Yankee's fans, who contractually refuse to sell their houses to Red Sox fans, and furthermore create neighborhood covenants which specifically forbid Red Sox fans from moving into any house in the neighborhood, then we should pass laws protecting Red Sox fans from housing discrimination.

 

[TraneWreck]

How about this: do you believe a dog owner should have the "right" to refuse to sell their dog to a person they don't think will take care of it properly? Do you believe a private gun owner has the right to refuse to sell a gun to someone they feel doesn't follow proper gun safety practices?

You realize, of course, that in making this analogy you are asking us to consider that black people are inadequate home owners. I wouldn't sell my dog to someone who couldn't care for it, therefore I shouldn't sell my house to a black person?

I'm going to hope that you made the analogy without careful consideration. The alternative is racism.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, if you're making assumptions, so will I. As pointed out, by pgwenthold, the seller's agent almost certainly has written instructions about the $1.7 million counteroffer. This is routine (largely as a CYA for the benefit of the agent) but would satisfy the requirement for the Statute of Frauds.

From Wikipedia: "The Statute is satisfied if the contract to convey is evidenced by a writing or writings containing the essential terms of a purchase and sale agreement and signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced."

I find it unlikely that the $1.7 million counteroffer is signed by the seller.
As you know, without the seller's signature, you're SoL on SoF.
Fortunately, this isn't a contract case anyway.

 

[WildCat]

I think the problem here is they were using a realtor, which then binds them to housing discrimination laws.

OK, just looked up the law and here are the exemptions to it:

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--

1. 
   (1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence

Bold ephasis mine.

So I was right that using a real estate agent is what put him in violation of the FHA. But he would also be covered if he had financed the home with government-guaranteed loans.

But I think in this case it was because he used a real estate agent, I hope the Feds aren't guaranteeing loans on houses costing over $1 million!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No, the problem is that they are/were racist ********s. Even if the Fair Housing Act didn't exist, they would still be acting immorally, inappropriately, and probably illegally (depending upon the exact terms of the offer-and-acceptance).

Not going through a realtor wouldn't have polished this particular turd....

yes even it was legal as far civil rights laws it would still be immoral, but thankfully being immoral doesnt mean being illegal

just look at the US's history with morality-based law, heck a lot of what the civil rights laws do is overturn older morality-based laws that said blacks and whites shouldnt live together or get married and such

then theres the bans on same-sex marriage that exist in many states, those are morality-based

early laws against teaching evolution in schools were too

anti-sodomy laws and bans on sex toys

prohibition


and countries that more fully embrace the concept have an even worse track record

just something to think about when you see something you consider immoral and say to yourself "there outta be a law"

 

[sthomson]

All morality-based laws are unethical because some morality-based laws are unethical?

The Fair Housing Act does not legislate morality, it legislates the recipients of government benefits. If someone wants to act in a racist manner while selling their house, they are seemingly free to do so as long as they do not receive federal housing benefits such as loans, and as long as they do not require a corporation, such as a realtor, to act unethically.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

All morality-based laws are unethical because some morality-based laws are unethical?

The Fair Housing Act does not legislate morality, it legislates the recipients of government benefits. If someone wants to act in a racist manner while selling their house, they are seemingly free to do so as long as they do not receive federal housing benefits such as loans, and as long as they do not require a corporation, such as a realtor, to act unethically.

i didnt call the FHA a morality law, since it only applies when government fundng or government-regulated businesses are not involved it allows people the option to discriminate as they wish

and yes, i think all morality laws lead to nothing but trouble, because morality is subjective, its an opinion people have and peoples opinions shouldnt be subject to law (and yes, thats just an opinion too)

 

[cwalner]

I find it unlikely that the $1.7 million counteroffer is signed by the seller.
As you know, without the seller's signature, you're SoL on SoF.
Fortunately, this isn't a contract case anyway.

One small problem with that logic from the article (bolding mine)

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.

The 1.7 M counter-offer was made by the sellers. And as others have pointed out, this says nothing about this being done verbally. From my experience in buying and selling homes through a realtor, all offers and counter-offers are typically made in writing.

 

[pgwenthold]

One small problem with that logic from the article (bolding mine)



The 1.7 M counter-offer was made by the sellers. And as others have pointed out, this says nothing about this being done verbally. From my experience in buying and selling homes through a realtor, all offers and counter-offers are typically made in writing.

As I mentioned above, it could be the case that the sellers instructed the agent to make the counter-offer, which _technically_ requires that they sign it (or initial it more likely), but they could have just told the agent to do it, with the understanding that they would sign at a convenient time. However, learning of the buyer's race, they refused to sign it.

That complicates things a bit, although as I also contend, "I gave my agent verbal instructions but didn't sign the form because I learned the buyer was black" is probably not going to be a good defense in a discrimination case.

 

[drkitten]

As I mentioned above, it could be the case that the sellers instructed the agent to make the counter-offer, which _technically_ requires that they sign it (or initial it more likely), but they could have just told the agent to do it, with the understanding that they would sign at a convenient time.

They could have done that, yes. (As in, it violates no physical law.)

But in my experience, it's a rare agent who works that way, precisely because the agent wants/needs something in writing to protect HER. (While it doesn't violate physical law, it does cut a lot of corners in established standards of practice....)

Of course, this could also explain why the seller's agent is hanging the sellers out to dry -- precisely because the sellers refused to play fair and left the agent holding the bag in a patently illegal deal.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

The only evidence we have is what Lowe said?

Looks that way.

Here's the complaint.

 

[Alt+F4]

Looks that way.

Here's the complaint.

Indeed. HUD only has the realtor saying that the seller didn't want to sell to a black family. The sellers says they backed out because they decided they wanted to hold out for the full asking price. Who's to say who's telling the truth?

Also what I don't get, is why didn't the realtor refuse to work with them if the seller said he didn't want to sell to blacks? If it was a wink and nod deal between them then why did he show the house to a black family?

 

[pgwenthold]

They could have done that, yes. (As in, it violates no physical law.)

But in my experience, it's a rare agent who works that way, precisely because the agent wants/needs something in writing to protect HER. (While it doesn't violate physical law, it does cut a lot of corners in established standards of practice....)

I'm just going by my experience. When we sold, the agent called us to tell us about the offer. We told her over the phone that we will propose $X instead. She says, OK, I will be over this afternoon to get you to initial the spot in the paperwork. I say, OK, I'll be here.

After that, I don't know exactly when she relayed the information about out counter-offer. Did she wait until the form was signed? Or did she just go ahead and call them?

To me, it wouldn't matter. I had as good as signed the contract, and the only thing that prevented me was logistics. If she had made the offer at my behest, I can't claim that I didn't agree to it because she didn't come over and make me sign the paper first.

 

[drkitten]

Indeed. HUD only has the realtor saying that the seller didn't want to sell to a black family. The sellers says they backed out because they decided they wanted to hold out for the full asking price. Who's to say who's telling the truth?

And that is why realtors tend to get the signatures (or at least initials) down before they do anything....

Also what I don't get, is why didn't the realtor refuse to work with them if the seller said he didn't want to sell to blacks? If it was a wink and nod deal between them then why did he show the house to a black family?

I suspect he didn't know that "black" was a problem; at that income level, I suspect he doesn't get a lot of black clients (just from the demographics). The sellers probably didn't consider it to be an issue worth warning him about.

If it had been a wink-and-a-nod deal,... well, that opens up a lot of cans of worms all around. If the agent had refused to show to a black family, then he would have been the one on the hook (and could easily have lost his license). But what a competent-but-unethical realtor would have done is find another, ostensibly legal, reason for backing out of the deal; put in some condition into the counter-offer that could be used as a fig leaf.

That's why I'm inclined to believe the realtor over the seller. I can't find a situation in my head where the seller would have offered a counter-offer and then backed away [for a valid reason], and the agent would then have lied about the reason to the buyers. I can't find a situation in my head where a competent realtor would conspire illegally to discriminate and then allow it to fall apart like this. The situation that makes sense to me is the one where it played out exactly like the agent described....

 

[Belz...]

Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Depends on where you live. Up here, verbal contracts are almost as rock-solid as written ones, so long as you can verify their existence through witnesses.