Berkshire Hathaway Affiliate Seeks Supreme Court Intervention in Real Estate Arbitration Dispute
HomeServices, a real estate brokerage entity, asserted in its filing that it should have been shielded from trial proceedings, contending that the involved sellers had previously agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, circumventing the courtroom. This lawsuit, which originated from the contentious NAR regulations mandating home sellers to compensate the buyer’s broker, has triggered a wave of legal challenges across the nation.
“Our appeal is rooted in the principles of the Federal Arbitration Act, which clearly mandates that arbitration agreements be honored as they are written,” a spokesperson for HomeServices emphasized in a statement.
The crux of the lawsuit revolved around the real estate industry’s practice necessitating sellers to pay commissions to buyer’s agents, allegedly fostering an environment where agents steer clients towards properties with higher commissions, oftentimes ranging between 5% to 6%. Commissions, traditionally, are divided between agents representing sellers and buyers.
HomeServices contended that sellers had indeed consented to arbitrate claims arising from the listing of residential properties for sale. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September, prior to the trial, that the judge presiding over the Missouri case, rather than an arbitrator, should determine the applicability of arbitration to the contractual dispute.
The brokerage firm lamented the appeals court’s decision, characterizing it as an “erroneous” move that exposed HomeServices to an unwarranted class trial. Furthermore, the company asserted that federal courts are grappling with inconsistencies regarding the allocation of authority to decide which claims fall under the purview of arbitration.
In light of these developments, HomeServices urged the Supreme Court to expedite its intervention, advocating for resolution of the arbitration dispute before any appeals are made concerning the staggering $1.8 billion verdict. Throughout the legal proceedings, HomeServices and other defendants have vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh