16 Responses to “Woman loses second-hand smoke case –” »»

1. Emma
   Comment by Emma | 02/17/10 at 4:15 am

   I am. He said, she said scenario. And she shouldn’t be “outsourcing” the air quality issue to the broker.
   If she takes her predicament seriously, she should be digging for the answer to her question (source of a smoke) herself or, better, move on. She wasn’t “misled”, she made a wrong decision. Responsibility is all hers.

2. Boston Broker
   Comment by Boston Broker | 02/17/10 at 5:01 am

   Emma, I agree. I hope the guy below starts smoking cuban cigars while cooking food from India.

3. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 02/17/10 at 6:05 am

   Not sure, since they of course don’t link to the complete ruling. If she had no evidence that the broker misled her, I can’t find fault for the decision.

   Although, this really strikes me as peculiar as someone who supports this type of action if the broken did mislead her originally (and that the condo association in charge of the building won’t do anything to remedy the situation):

   “Burrage said in a statement yesterday that she was disappointed in the verdict but proud to have drawn attention to the hazards of secondhand smoke.

   “My goal was never to pass judgment on people’s life choices, but rather to give myself and others a voice to protect their own health in their own home,’’ she said.

   “Ultimately, if this case makes brokers more careful about how they view secondhand smoke issues and keeps them honest in the future about this important issue, then my efforts will not have been in vain.’’

   That seems more like a battle cry for awareness on a issue, rather than her suffering and particular case. Maybe she was just a crusader after all.

4. Edward
   Comment by Edward | 02/17/10 at 7:17 am

   Yes, I’m happy. As Emma said, she made a bad decision to buy there. She needs to take responsibility and move, preferrably far away!

5. confused
   Comment by confused | 02/17/10 at 7:34 am

   Can somebody define for me what a broker does and why they earn a commission? I’m serious. Why would a broker not check on air quality in a building?

6. megan
   Comment by megan | 02/17/10 at 8:14 am

   I agree with funny. Although I’m a non-smoker with asthma. A lot of people have speculated that she was underwater on her condo and was using this to try to recover her losses. I think the truth is that her neighbors were probably very heavy smokers and her place smelled terrible from their fumes wafting in. The broker probably knew that, which is why he had scented candles lit at the showing. Yet for some reason everyone thinks that the smokers are the only ones with rights. Yes, they should be able to do what they want in their own home. But why does that mean that she has no right to keep her space smoke free.

7. megan
   Comment by megan | 02/17/10 at 8:19 am

   Confused, I agree with you. What I don’t know is what was actually asked of the realtor. If it’s true that she asked him about the smoke issue, and was told that she couldn’t contact the buyer, and told that it was from the person who lived there before, etc. then I think he did mislead her. I don’t think it’s a broker’s responsibility to check the air quality, BUT is is his responsibility to ask those questions if he’s the only contact with the seller.

8. Emma
   Comment by Emma | 02/17/10 at 9:02 am

   Megan,
   the point in question is not about anybody’s right: non-smokers, smokers, pet-lovers, etc. The property’s defect
   (lingering smell of smoke) was obvious to her so much that she asked questions. If you are looking at the shoes you adore at the store window (no chance to try on – store policy) and you suspect they are too small for you, I bet you wouldn’t buy them despite your right to buy whatever you fancy. You would apply the principle of common sense. Mrs.Burrage took a risk with the biggest purchase in her life so far without application of this concept.

9. megan
   Comment by megan | 02/17/10 at 9:15 am

   “The property’s defect (lingering smell of smoke) was obvious to her so much that she asked questions.”

   Yes, she did ask questions. And she was told by the realtor that she could not contact the seller, and that the smoke was from a prior tenant/owner and would go away when the unit was remodeled. There wasn’t enough evidence, aside from “he said, she said” to prove that she was misled, which I believe she was. What other measures should she have taken to determine where the smoke was coming from? I guess you’re saying that if there are any concerns about a property we’re looking we should ignore the realtor and immediately walk away, because they have no responsibility to tell the truth.

10. Bobby
    Comment by Bobby | 02/17/10 at 11:43 am

    Was it ever mentioned if the broker who was sued was working for the seller or for Burrage? That would make a huge difference because if the broker was working for the seller, it is his job to look out for the seller’s best interest. If the broker was working for Burrage, I’m sure he would have dug to find a more satisfactory answer to the smoking issue.

    If she was a buyer working with out an agent, that is a big mistake right there because buyer’s agency is typically free and an agent will know a neighborhood, the right questions to ask that a buyer may not think of, and if something is standard practice or is something shady is going on.

11. Jeff Persons ABR
    Comment by Jeff Persons ABR | 02/18/10 at 4:05 am

    Hi John,

    I have been a Buyers Agent since 02 and I can’t for the life of me understand how Joe didn’t know about the smoke.
    I feel he is at fault here if he was her Buyers Agent. I couldn’t possibly sell a condo with a smoker downstairs. It just couldn’t happen. If we walked in and smelled smoke, I would explain about the current owner and his habits but I would also tell her to be cautious about having smokers downstairs. All these agents know that cigarette smoke rises up from the basement. If Joe really had his buyers best interests at heart he should have made sure there were no smokers downstairs. And even find out if its forbidden in the condo docs.
    I practice Buyers Advocacy first and Buyer’s Agency second. This is the very essence of Buyers Agency for me.

    Joe was interested in selling the unit, not advocating for his buyer. So here he was a Listing agent in a brilliant disguise as a Buyers agent. “Joe was required to work on her behalf. Whether he did is the central argument in this lawsuit.” Thats the bottom line. These guys wanted to sell this lady some real estate.
    She was never represented!

12. Boston Broker
    Comment by Boston Broker | 02/18/10 at 4:51 am

    Jeff, I was under the impression that Joe was the seller’s agent. If you are correct that Joe ws the buyers agent, where was the sellers agent in this lawsuit?

13. Bobby
    Comment by Bobby | 02/18/10 at 6:58 am

    I get that impression as well. I can’t imagine all this story without mentioning another agent.

14. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/18/10 at 7:25 am

    Here’s a quote from the first article:

    - – -
    “Burrage and her parents asked DeAngelo whether they could contact the seller of the condo or that woman’s broker, who also worked for Gibson Sotheby’s, to confirm that she was a smoker, Burrage said.

    “He said he wouldn’t let us,’’ Burrage said. “He said that was his job.’’
    - – -

15. Boston Broker
    Comment by Boston Broker | 02/18/10 at 9:09 am

    Thanks, Megan.

16. Bobby
    Comment by Bobby | 02/18/10 at 2:16 pm

    That does not spell anything out one way or the other though. I could see both a buyers and sellers agent responding like that. If DeAngelo were Burrage’s agent then he would in turn have to go through the sellers agent. Moreover, I seem to remember mention of scented candles. The way the article was written it made it sound as if DeAngelo was the one who took measures to cover up the lingering smoke smell. A buyer’s agent would not do that. I’m thinking DeAngelo was the sellers agent.

Leave a Reply »»