|
Urban Sunrise v. Vogt C103199 (Third Appellate District, September 4, 2026) The case involves a series of unsuccessful commercial real estate transactions in South Lake Tahoe, where the buyer, Urban Sunrise LLC, was represented by dual agents—David Vogt, a real estate broker, and Ryan Smith, a real estate agent. Urban Sunrise entered into purchase agreements for five properties, intending to complete a tax-deferred exchange under Internal Revenue Code section 1031. The transactions failed because Urban Sunrise could not obtain loans due to the high cost of fire insurance, resulting in the forfeiture of over $1.1 million to the sellers and loss of the anticipated tax benefit.
Urban Sunrise and its managing member, Susan Kerr, sued Vogt and Smith for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, constructive fraud, and rescission, alleging six breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that there were no triable issues of fact regarding their performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, finding no breach of fiduciary duty, and granting summary judgment in part on Vogt's cross-complaint for commission owed. The Court of Appeal applied de novo review and affirmed the trial court judgment, holding there were no triable issues of material fact regarding any alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, finding that the dual agents had adequately disclosed their prior relationship, had no duty to further investigate insurance issues beyond contractual obligations, did not act as attorneys in a way that created an unwaivable conflict, and did not improperly recommend the unfavorable terms. (Of interest to title companies, the opinion reports that Urban Sunrise had signed the title company’s supplemental escrow instructions authorizing the release of funds prior to the close of escrow.) Comments are closed.
|
Our Sponsors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
