"Deep in the towering stack of commission lawsuits sits one very dense, nerdy document that might matter more than all the headlines. Law professor Tanya Monestier has filed a NAR settlement legal brief in the Eighth Circuit, and its core message is straightforward. She is telling the court that the giant NAR settlement, the one everyone has been rearranging their businesses around, might not actually be legally valid."
"I do not bill by the hour, I do not speak Latin, and if I ever said res judicata out loud, I am pretty sure I would summon some kind of irritated courthouse spirit or some rejected Harry Potter spell about winning an argument with your significant other. When I start talking about Article III standing, it feels like asking your plumber to explain cryptocurrency. He might have opinions, but that does not mean he should set up your digital wallet."
A dense legal brief filed in the Eighth Circuit challenges the validity of the large NAR settlement, arguing procedural defects including Article III standing and potential deficiencies that could negate res judicata effects. The brief contends that the settlement may lack legal force, which would unsettle firms and agents that have reorganized around its terms. The technical arguments raise the prospect of prolonged litigation and continued industry uncertainty. The brief calls for careful judicial scrutiny because acceptance of its claims could disrupt commission rules and business practices across the real estate sector.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]