Attorney Christopher MacMillan's Legal Cases

Real estate

Beauregard v. Riley

Jun 24, 2019

OUTCOME: Dismissal of all claims on summary judgment; dismissal upheld on appeal.

Broker and Sellers executed Listing Agreement. During listing term, Broker received e-mail from another realtor inquiring whether the sellers would be interested in renting as opposed to selling the pr ... operty because he had a client interested. Court held that the real estate agent did not have a duty to communicate a rental inquiry to home owners. While the statute imposes a duty for real estate agents to convey “written offers, written notices and other written communications” once a broker is rendering “real estate brokerage services,” real estate services are defined as services offered or rendered for another for compensation. The listing agreement owners signed addressed the compensation the agent would receive only if she sold the property. The agreement included in its definition of “sell” a lease with an option to purchase, but not renting alone. Since the rental inquiry specifically asked if home owners would be interested in renting their home, as opposed to selling, the duty to communicate all written notices was not triggered.

Real estate

Bowfits 1308 LLC v. Falcon Properties LLC

Jan 30, 2019

OUTCOME: Prevailed at trial

This case involved multiple misrepresentations made by the Defendants to induce Plaintiff to purchase an investment property. In mid-2017, Plaintiff Bowfits 1308 LLC (“Bowfits”) and Defendant Falcon Pr ... operties LLC were parties to a commercial real estate purchase and sale agreement for Bowfits’ purchase of, and Falcon Properties LLC’s sale of, the a Property. The Property is a thirteen-unit apartment building on Seattle’s Beacon Hill. As part of that agreement, Falcon Properties LLC, through its managing member and real estate broker, Alexey Sokolov (collectively “Falcon”), provided Bowfits with information designed to highlight the investment potential of the Property, including several years of profit and loss statements, leases for the Property’s tenants, and a rent roll that summarized the terms of each tenant’s lease. As required by the parties’ agreement, Falcon “certifie[d] that the information contained in the rent roll [was] correct as of the date submitted.” In reliance on those representations, Bowfits closed on its purchase of the Property. After closing, Bowfits discovered a plethora of material misrepresentations in the information provided by Falcon. Bowfits also discovered that Falcon had fabricated leases to back up their misrepresentations. Bowfits filed suit against Falcon asserting claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), and disgorgement of the commission paid to Defendant Sokolov. After a bench trial, within which the Honorable Janet Helson noted that Mr. Sokolov had an “utter disregard for the truth”, the court correctly found for Bowfits on its breach of contract claim, its fraudulent misrepresentation claim, its negligent misrepresentation claim, its disgorgement claim, and correctly awarded Bowfits its attorneys’ fees against Falcon Properties LLC.

Christopher MacMillan's Legal Cases (2)

Beauregard v. Riley

Bowfits 1308 LLC v. Falcon Properties LLC