Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
NAR said it will “suffer prejudice” without Umansky fraud documents
The National Association of Realtors® (NAR) is continuing to spar with PLS.com Founder Mauricio Umansky in the listing startup’s lawsuit against the organization. In a new filing, NAR provided more detailed arguments as to why UMRO Realty should produce documents relating to Umansky’s fraud litigation.
Umansky was sued multiple times over the 2017 sale of a mansion seized by the United States government, where Umansky represented the seller but then allegedly worked secretly with a buyer to flip it for a huge profit. These fraud-related lawsuits against Umansky and his brokerage business (UMRO Realty) were eventually dismissed or settled, and Umansky denied wrongdoing.
Umansky is also the co-founder of the American Real Estate Association (ARA), which is not a party to the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing—though NAR previously tried to pull ARA into this litigation.
In the filing, NAR claimed that it will “suffer prejudice” in the PLS lawsuit without the documents, as many of the requested documents are not publicly available, and without PLS producing them NAR “cannot fully develop its defenses to PLS’s claims.”
“Public filings in these litigations provide some details about the transaction, but they do not show how the property was marketed, how potential buyers contacted UMRO and Mr. Umansky, or what disclosures UMRO or Mr. Umansky made to the seller,” NAR explained. “Those details are in UMRO’s sole possession.”
NAR also argued that the documents directly relate to the PLS lawsuit, as they “address the very real danger that agents and brokerages may circumvent transparent marketing to commit fraud and harm competition—the harms the CCP (Clear Cooperation Policy) is designed to safeguard against.”
Brokers suing NAR home in on disputed “facts” in appeal
A federal judge in Michigan handed the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) a big legal win back in March, dismissing a lawsuit that argued Realtor® membership requirements violate antitrust laws.
But the agent and two brokers who filed those claims quickly appealed, and that appeal is now playing out in court with the plaintiffs—Doug Hardy, Glenn Champion and Dylan Trent, affiliated with Signature Sotheby’s—arguing the lower court judge made significant errors in characterizing both the facts and the law.
While most of the 25-page briefing is technical and focused on the application of precedent cases and legal standards, the plaintiffs claim that the district judge also accepted facts which they say are disputed—namely, that MLS data is available without Realtor® membership, a central argument of their case.
“If MLS data has no substitute, compulsory membership is the toll on the only road,” they wrote.
Defendants, including NAR and the Michigan Association of Realtors®, previously said the district judge correctly determined that association membership requirements cannot by itself constitute antitrust conduct, citing several other cases going back decades.
But Hardy noted that at this early stage in the case, the district judge was required to accept the initial arguments and facts “in the light most favorable” to them as required by law, arguing that the lawsuit should continue and those decisions should come after both sides have a chance to engage in the discovery process and unearth more facts.
“The order treated the availability of public real estate data as grounds to reject plaintiffs’ uniqueness allegations,” they wrote.
They are asking the appeals court to send the case back for further argument.
Transaction fee lawsuit against Compass dismissed
A lawsuit from homebuyers over an allegedly hidden and illegal transaction fee from Compass has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Jeff and Milissa Efron filed back in June over an allegedly hidden transaction fee they were charged by Compass when closing on their home purchase in 2024.
Compass has claimed the fees are standard practice and denied any wronging.
The couple alleged in the suit that despite their buyer’s agent indicating all fees would be paid by the sellers, they were still charged a $475 transaction fee. They also alleged that their purchase contract had been illegally edited, adding an “additional terms” page which included the transaction fee.
The couple themselves dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice (meaning it can be refiled) in a short filing with no additional details as to why.
Homie v. NAR appeal dismissed
Discount brokerage Homie Technology, Inc.’s appeal to revive its lawsuit against NAR—as well as Anywhere, REMAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America—has been denied.
The appeal—filed last August following the dismissal of the lawsuit due to lack of evidence being outside of the four-year antitrust window—was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in a filing that stated that “Homie has not plausibly alleged that the challenged rules (from NAR) were a conspiracy to exclude competitors from the Utah real estate market.”
“As a result, neither the boycott actions of individual NAR members nor the NAR’s reissuance and enforcement of the rules constituted a continuing conspiracy,” the ruling continued. “Homie’s claim is therefore untimely. We affirm the district court’s judgment.”
