In the Matter of Nantucket Ass’n of Real Estate Brokers (Assurance of Voluntary Discontinuance)
Massachusetts attorney general alleged that the membership requirements for the Nantucket Association of Real Estate Brokers, Inc. (“NAREB”) unfairly excluded competitors from the Nantucket real estate brokerage market. The AG’s Office alleged that some of the requirements for brokers, including having a physical office on the island, a community involvement requirement (which the attorney general characterized as potentially pretextual) and high initiation fees, excluded competitors from the Nantucket real estate brokerage market. The attorney general alleged that NAREB controlled a multiple listing service that lists the vast majority of real estate listings on Nantucket. Without
this listing service, to which full members of NAREB have access, a broker was effectively excluded from competing. The agreement with NAREBrequired NAREB to allow brokers without a physical office on Nantucket to join the association if certain requirements regarding showing properties are met. NAREB also reduced the initiation fee for new members from $5,000 to $500, and eliminated the community involvement requirement for membership. In addition, NAREB paid $5000 in costs of the investigation.
In re B.P. Properties, Inc. (formerly known as Synergy Properties) and Research
State alleged bid-rigging in auctions of foreclosed real estate in four North Carolina counties.
Connecticut v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.No. CV-83-0284039 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford 1983)
Owner of residential apartment complexes was enjoined from conditioning the rental of an apartment unit of the lessee?s agreement to purchase moving services or remodeling services from the lessor.
Connecticut v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc, No. CV-78-170142 (Conn. Super. Ct. Danbury 1981)
A Connecticut real estate brokerage and land development firm was barred by a final consent judgment from using restrictive covenants to condition the sale and lease of real estate in a residential development on the use of the firm as the exclusive broker. The firm also was required to release all exclusive brokerage covenants and send notice of the release to all home-owners in the development.
Connecticut v. Nilsson et al., No. CV-205507 HAS (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist.1978)
Defendants enjoined and restrained from enforcing or attempting to enforce a covenant contained in the real estate sales agreement wherein: “Buyers further agree that they will not deal with John Miller and Associates at any time regarding this subdivision.”
North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Byrd et al., Nos. 05CVS8038 through 3047 (Wake County Super. Ct. 2005)
State alleged parties conspired to fix prices and rig bids for public auctions of real estate
located in Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Angier, Apex, Hillsborough communities. The conspiracy involved properties that were up for routine auction through county Clerks of Superior Court due to foreclosure.
Utah v. Gemstone Properties, Inc., (Case No. 2004-001-0364 (Settlement Agreement)
State investigated developer of subdivision which attempted to retain the exclusive right to control the designation of any licensed real estate broker for re-sale for homes within the subdivision.
Washington v. Vashon Brokers Association, No. 95-2-06071-4 (Super Ct. King Cty. 1995)
The defendant operated a multiple listing service. The defendant established rules which fixed commission rates for both the listing and sales agent. Complaint and consent decree was filed in state court with injunctive provisions and costs.
Washington v. Okanogan Listing Exchange
The defendant operated a multiple listing service (?MLS?). The defendant established rules which fixed commissions rates for both listing and sales agents. Real Estate agents who failed to comply with the rules were prohibited from accessing the MLS service. Complaint and consent decree was filed in state court, enjoining future violations
District of Columbia v. Basiliko, DC, No. 91-2528 (Judge Joyce Hens Green), 9/16/94.
Settlement with and judgments against real estate speculators who rigged bids at public land auctions.