Also known as: real estate transaction · property transactions · real property transactions
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A broad category of legal dealings by which interests in land are transferred between parties.
Regina Robinson sold her home to Ruby Rivera under a contract that promised clear title. After closing and delivery of the deed, Ruby discovered a title defect from an old lien. The contract claim against Regina is extinguished because the sale agreement merged into the deed.
Rowan Russell, domiciled in State A, bought coastal land in State B from Roland Rhodes under a contract selecting State A law. A third party later claimed a prescriptive easement based on long use entirely in State B. The court applies the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the land and the parties.
Rebecca Ross sought a lawyer for a residential closing but found every firm charging the local bar's minimum fee. She sued the bar association, alleging the schedule restrained competition in real estate transaction services.
In 1971 petitioners, husband and wife, contracted to buy a home in Fairfax County, Virginia. The financing agency required them to secure title insurance, which in turn required a title examination that only a member of the Virginia State Bar could legally perform. Petitioners contacted a lawyer who quoted them the precise fee suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by respondent Fairfax County Bar Association, amounting to one percent of the value of the property. They then sent letters to thirty-six other Fairfax County lawyers requesting their fees for the title examination. Nineteen replied, and none indicated that he would charge less than the rate fixed by the schedule. The fee schedule is a list of recommended minimum prices for common legal services. The County Bar is a purely voluntary association of attorneys with no formal power to enforce the schedule. Respondent Virginia State Bar is the administrative agency through which the Virginia Supreme Court regulates the practice of law, and membership is required to practice in the state. The State Bar published reports condoning fee schedules. It issued ethical opinions indicating that evidence an attorney habitually charges less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by his local bar association raises a presumption that such lawyer is guilty of misconduct. Because petitioners could not find a lawyer willing to charge a fee lower than the schedule dictated, they had their title examined by the lawyer they had first contacted. They then brought this class action against the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the operation of the minimum-fee schedule as applied to fees for legal services relating to residential real estate transactions constitutes price fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a trial solely on the issue of liability the district court held that the minimum-fee schedule violated the Sherman Act as to the County Bar but exempted the State Bar. The court of appeals reversed as to liability. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseRosa Ruiz, a Black buyer, offered to purchase a home from a private seller who refused solely because of race. She sued under federal law prohibiting racial discrimination in property transactions.
In September 1965 Joseph Lee Jones and his wife, who are Negroes, sought to purchase a home in the Paddock Woods subdivision of St. Louis County, Missouri, from the Alfred H. Mayer Company and one of its officers. The company refused to sell them a house solely because the Joneses are Negroes. Subsequently, on September 2, 1965, the Joneses filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The complaint alleged the refusal to sell and sought injunctive relief together with damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the questions presented. While the case was pending, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1968 containing a Fair Housing Title, but that statute did not cover the respondents' development until January 1, 1969, and had no effect on the pending litigation. The provision invoked by the petitioners originated as section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and was re-enacted in 1870.
View caseRoland Rhodes operated a municipal pool used in real estate marketing for surrounding neighborhoods. The city closed the pool after desegregation orders, prompting claims that the action perpetuated racial barriers in housing access.
In 1962 Negro citizens of Jackson, Mississippi, brought a class action in the United States District Court against the city and its officials, including Mayor Allen C. Thompson and Parks Director George Kurts, challenging the city's maintenance of racially segregated public recreational facilities. At that time the city operated five swimming pools on a segregated basis, with four reserved for white use and one for Negro use, along with segregated parks, golf courses, auditoriums, and a zoo. The district court entered a declaratory judgment that enforced segregation denied equal protection of the laws but declined to issue an injunction; the Court of Appeals affirmed and this Court denied certiorari. Following the district court's judgment the city desegregated its public parks, auditoriums, golf courses, and zoo. The city council, however, surrendered its lease on one pool and closed the four pools it owned outright rather than operate any of them on an integrated basis, and no municipal swimming facilities have operated since that time. In 1965 Negro citizens filed the present class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the city to reopen and operate the pools on a desegregated basis. The district court, relying on affidavits from Mayor Thompson and Parks Director Kurts stating that the pools could not be operated safely, peacefully, or economically on an integrated basis, found the closings justified to preserve peace and order and dismissed the complaint. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the dismissal by a vote of seven to six. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the equal protection claim arising from the pool closings.
View caseRuby Rivera bought a home from Regina Robinson without learning that a notorious crime had occurred there years earlier. After discovering the fact, Ruby sued for failure to disclose the stigma affecting market value.
Dorris Reed purchased a house from Robert King. Neither King nor his real estate agents told Reed that a woman and her four children were murdered there 10 years earlier. However, King and his real estate agent knew about the murders and knew the event materially affected the market value of the house when they listed it for sale. They represented to Reed the premises were in good condition and fit for an “elderly lady” living alone but did not disclose the fact of the murders. At some point King asked a neighbor not to inform Reed of that event. Nonetheless, after Reed moved in neighbors informed her no one was interested in purchasing the house because of the stigma. Reed paid $76,000, but the house is only worth $65,000 because of its past. Reed sues seeking rescission and damages. King and the real estate agent defendants successfully demurred to her first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Reed appeals the ensuing judgment of dismissal.
View caseNo. Promises concerning title merge into the deed and are extinguished, but covenants about the physical condition of the property remain enforceable unless the parties clearly intend otherwise.
The law of the state with the most significant relationship to the land and the parties applies, with special weight given to protecting justified expectations in property transactions and to the situs of the land for immovables.
Yes. Congress may prohibit private racial discrimination in the sale or rental of property as a badge or incident of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Yes. Payment of consideration for a promise to keep an offer open creates an enforceable option contract that renders the underlying offer irrevocable during the stated period.
…analysis, a lease was the conveyance of an interest in land, courts have usually utilized the special rules governing real property transactions to resolve controversies involving leases. However, as the Supreme Court has noted in another context, “the body of private property law , more than almost any other branch of law, has…