Given positions taken by the California, New Hampshire, and, most recently, Missouri Real Estate Commissions as they relate to the operations of several innovative real estate websites, the issue of regulatory reach should be on everyone's radar.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Update on Marcus & Millichap litigation against the Kentucky Real Estate Commission
I noticed this article in this morning's Courier-Journal, which highlights yesterday's oral arguments on a pretrial motion in the Kentucky litigation I introduced in an earlier post. While the suit mainly involves commercial brokers and commercial real estate, the underlying issue presented - the reach of a state real estate commission and its regulations - is applicable to all real estate brokers. And, according to Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Stuart W. Cobb, you had better watch what you say if you are an out of state broker talking about Kentucky real estate, because “[r]eal estate brokerage is talking.”
Given positions taken by the California, New Hampshire, and, most recently, Missouri Real Estate Commissions as they relate to the operations of several innovative real estate websites, the issue of regulatory reach should be on everyone's radar.
Given positions taken by the California, New Hampshire, and, most recently, Missouri Real Estate Commissions as they relate to the operations of several innovative real estate websites, the issue of regulatory reach should be on everyone's radar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kentucky's position on this is absolutely stunning and should be of great concern to anyone condsidering investing there. By preventing cooperation between brokers in Kentucky and elswhere (even when they are members of the same firm), Kentucky is effectively denying investors access to the national capital markets for real estate investment. The most incredible thing is the Kentucky Real Estate Commission's postion that consumer harm caused by its "turf" state policy should not be considered when evaluating the purpose and effect of the challanged regulations--this from a commission who originally claimed to have adopted the now challanged policy in the name of consumer protection. By the way, this is the same commission that was sued by the Justice Department last year when it outlawed rebates to home buyers. The reason given; it was for their own protection (protection from their money, that is).
ReplyDelete