Hearing threatens NAR settlement, raising industry uncertainty
Briefly

Hearing threatens NAR settlement, raising industry uncertainty
"In her appeal, Monestier argues that the monetary relief provided to settlement class members is inadequate. According to her calculations, the roughly 40 million class members are expected to share roughly $650 million in monetary relief, resulting in a payout of about $16 per person. In comparison, Monestier estimates that the average damages per seller to be a little over $11,000."
"Due to the amount of monetary relief, Monestier argues that much of the value to the settlement class relies on the injunctive relief granted, which came in the form of the business practice changes. However, she argues that the business practice changes are worthless because they do not eliminate cooperative compensation, allowing for steering to persist via agent work arounds, and that no actual enforcement for the business practice changes exists."
"While Mullis also objected to and ultimately appealed the final approval of the settlement like Monestier, the issues he has with the settlement are a bit different. In his appeal, Mullis argues that the settlement releases are too vague and could be interpreted by settling defendants that class members who are also homebuyers, including plaintiffs like those in Batton, have been released from or are barred from pursuing buyer-side claims, even though the buyer cases we"
Final approval of the settlement prompted appeals from several objectors, including Tanya Monestier and James Mullis. Monestier contends monetary relief is inadequate: roughly 40 million class members will share about $650 million, or approximately $16 per person, while average seller damages are estimated near $11,000. Monestier asserts that the settlement's principal value derives from injunctive relief, but she argues business-practice changes leave cooperative compensation and steering intact through agent workarounds and lack enforcement. Monestier also argues the changes benefit future sellers, not past sellers, creating constitutional concerns. Mullis argues the release language is overly vague and could be read to bar buyer-side claims by class members who also are buyers.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]