Call me a little strange, but I am always interested to read about real estate contract disputes. An odd fact of my career is that my trial history is bookended by Magistrate Court-level trials involving real estate contract disputes. The first was a seriously thrilling fight (to a baby lawyer) over $1500 in earnest money on a flat fee that certainly did not reflect the legal hours expended. My final was in defense of a client’s failure to disclose “mold” around a leaky water heater. For the record, I am undefeated in Magistrate’s Court, despite it being the only Court a judge has ever demanded I produce my bar card. I was wearing a suit and had a briefcase and everything!   

The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that may be interesting to real estate attorneys and litigators concerning the liability of real estate agents. The Court’s opinion in Isaacs v Onions held that there is no right of private action against a seller’s real estate agent under the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act for the seller’s failure to disclose a property defect. The Court also made a finding that the buyer could not have reasonably relied upon general statements made by the seller’s agent concerning the findings of a prior CL-100. 

The facts of the case were as follows: The Onionses (“Sellers”) listed their home in Litchfield Plantation with the Selling Agent (“Agent”), and filled out a Residential Property Condition Disclosure denying any “present wood problems caused by termites, insects, wood destroying organisms, dry rot[,] or fungus.” The property was listed and promptly came under contract. During the course of the due diligence, the first contract buyers obtained an inspection report revealing the absence of a vapor barrier in the crawl space in some areas and noted damp soil conditions. That report recommended further inspection.

In response to the buyers’ inspection, the Oniones retained a pest control company to inspect the crawlspace.  The company issued a report finding elevated moisture readings, wood destroying fungi, and some moisture damage. They recommended installation of vapor barrier, a dehumidifier, and coverage of the outside vents, and treatment for mold, for an estimate of $4,595.00. Instead, the Sellers retained a handyman to address the vapor barrier, replace insulation, remove debris, and install a crawl space fan for $706.00. The first buyers had separately commissioned a CL-100 which showed lesser moisture readings, no active wood destroying fungi, but recommended a fan.

The first contract ultimately fell through, the property was re-listed, and the Isaacs became interest in the property ultimately entering into a contract to purchase it. Early in the transaction, Agent provided copies of the Property Condition Disclosure Form, the prior inspection reports, disclosed the scope of repairs.  Agent sent an email to the Isaacs sharing that the first buyers “CL-100 was done yesterday and from what I understood it was good, but I can obtain the report if/when necessary as the sellers paid for it.”  

The Isaacs declined to request a copy of the prior CL-100 as they intended to commission their own CL-100. The Isaac’s CL-100 revealed significantly diminished moisture levels and no evidence of any issues.  The Isaacs proceeded to closing.

Two days after closing, the crawl space flooded after heavy rains.  A week later inspection reports revealed standing water, very high moisture readings, and active fungi. The Isaacs filed suit against the Sellers, Agent, and their CL-100 inspector. They specifically alleged fraud and misrepresentation against Agent, as well as violations with regard to misinformation on the Property Condition Disclosure Form.

The Court found that while the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act creates a private right of action against the sellers for violations, it does not create a private right of action against real estate agents. The Court pointed out that there would be other causes of action available to the buyer in that situation.

The Court also noted that the Isaacs had been provided reports that provided ample evidence of a possible issue in the crawl space and that the real estate agent’s statement that she had heard that the CL-100 was “good” could not have been something that the Isaacs reasonably relied upon in their decision to purchase the home. In fact, the Isaacs testified that they did not request the prior CL-100 because they intended to obtain their own. 

The Court’s ruling seems to resolve (for now) that real estate agents are not subject to suit under the Act and that vaguely encouraging comments from selling agents are not to be relied upon by buyers, particularly when there is evidence of potential issues with the property. Perhaps the Isaacs faired better against the Sellers in this action on better facts.