Mortgage lender announces Adopt A School program to assist l

American Financial Group of Orange, a local m ortgage lending company, has named Woodsboro Elementary School in Anaheim as the first of their Adopt A School program target schools. Our business is providing homeowners with mort[gages for the purchase or ref" said Steven Sofka, one of the owners of the company. The intent of our Adopt A School program is to provide support to a local school by donations of financial and or materials assistance to the school through the school s PTA. The company will mark a portion of the profits we derive from our business generated in a given community, and donate it to the targeted school in this care, that would be Woodsboro. Sofka said that by being an active PTA parent and serving on a number of other school committees, he has a firsthand perspective and really appreciates the tremendous value that business affiliations like this can bring to a school. Frankly, I can t think of a better way to enrich a com m unity than by assisting the teachers and schools in their efforts to provide a quality education for our kids. Through the years, many local communities have been very supportive of our business and this is our way of thanking them and acknowledging thirst time Furla visited the property, he picked up both a flyer - which did not mention the square footage of the property and a copy of the listing profile as it appeared in the Multiple Listing System (MLS). The MLS showed that the property was approximately 5,500 square feet. The MLS printout included the common warning that the information, while deemed reliable, was not guaranteed. The figures entered into the MLS came from Krasinski's agent who, in turn, had obtained the 5500-square-foot number from Krasinski's daughter. The daughter had told the agent the number came from the architectural plans. (In fact, the plans showed 5,334 square feet.) Moreover, the seller's agent was subsequently provided an appraisal which showed that the house was 5,500 square feet. Furla's agent also provided him with a "property profile", a document obtained through a title company showing information compiled from tax assessor records. That document also showed the size of the improved property as 5,500 square feet. Similar to the MLS document, the property profile included a notation stating, 'The accuracy of the above information is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed. Furla's initial offer was written on June 16, 1993. The next day both he, the seller, and agents conducted verbal negotiations, during which Furla sa"Okay, 5,500 square feet, I'll pay $170 a foot." He then entered the numbers into a calculator and held up the resultinfigure of $935,000. The seller (Krasinski) accepted this figure, whereupon the counteroffer was modified and signed. During the course of the escrow Furla had reservations, commonly called "buyer's remorse," and wondered if he had paid too much. His agent provided him with MLS material showing other Mount Olympus properties at prices ranging from $180 to $235 per square foot. He subsequently closed escrow and took possession on July 30, 1993. When Furla made his offer he did so using a Fred Sands contract which, among other things, states that "...Broker makes no representations with respect to the...square footage of the lot or the improvement thereon...and [information materials] provided in the Multiple Listing Service...are approximations only." The contract goes on to say, (in all capital letters,) that the broker recommends that the buyer hire an appropriate professional to investigate the property, and it (the contract) reminds the buyer that he has a duty under the Civil Code ($2079) to make his own investigations. So, 18 months later, Furla decided to sell the property. In the course of interviewing potential listing agents he was told by one, "There is no way this house is 5,500 square feet." That agent then did an informal ""stepping off' of the property, and calculated it was about 4,130 square feet. Naturally, Furla then hired professional appraisers to measure the property. One came up with 4,615 square feet; the other with 4,437. Also, it came out in the trial, that Furla's purchase-lender appraisal (July 9, 1993) showed the property to be 4,311 square feet. Furla had not been informed of that result at the time. He was simply told that the property had appraised for the purchase price. Of course, Furla sued the seller and the seller's agent. He did not sue his own agent. He brought action for damages based on intentional misrepresentation and concealment, negligent misrepresentation and negligence, and for rescission. What would you say? The trial court granted sum m ary judgment for the defendants, but the court of appeals reversed on issues of negligence and negligent m isrepresentation. It also reversed on the m atter of rescission. Needless to say, this is an important case. It raises serious questions about the liability of a real estate agent, not to mention the responsibility of a buyer. Next week, we will consider som e of the im plications and questions to be raised in light of Furla v. Jon Douglas Co. Bob Hunt is a director of the California Association of Realtors and chairman of its Standard Forms Committee.