Category: Residential Real Estate

Categories
Real Estate Residential Real Estate

Innocent Tenants Maintain Interest After Mortgage Default

Exterior of home representing residential real estate

What happens when two innocent parties are implicated in the default of a mortgage? This was the issue in a recent case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. When a mortgagee defaults, but has tenants living on the property, the mortgagor cannot simply repossess the property. The tenants’ interests must be taken into consideration as well. 

The borrower defaulted on the loan so the lender sought to possess the property

The case of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Pena concerned an application for the possession of property. The applicant was Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), which was the respondent’s lender in a Line of Credit and Mortgage Loan Agreement. The Agreement was dated February 15, 2017. In November 2021, the respondent defaulted on the repayment of the loans.

Under the terms of each of the loans, if the borrower was to fall in default, the entire balance of the loans would become payable. On March 30, 2022, the bank demanded full payment for a total of $331,341.05. The respondent had given the applicant a Charge/Mortgage of Land on the property in question as collateral security for the loans. Under the terms of the Charge, it was provided that:

“THE Chargee, on default of payment by the Chargor for at least fifteen (15) days, may, on at least thirty-five (35) days’ notice enter on and lease the land or on default of payment by the Chargor for at least fifteen (15) days, may, on at least thirty-five (35) days’ notice enter on and sell the land. The Chargee may lease or sell the land without entering into possession thereof.”

The respondent had brought tenants onto the property after enforcement proceedings had commenced

The respondent was served a Notice of Sale Under Mortgage and a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security on April 12, 2022. In response, the respondent threatened to call the police. He claimed, by email, that he was out of the country and that his family resided in the property. As it turned out, however, the respondent was renting the property out to individuals who were not his family.

The tenants had paid $30,000 in advance to secure the property as residence for the year. They had obtained their lease in July 2022. They were unaware of the circumstances that had arisen in relation to their home. 

In this case, there were two innocent parties who had been defrauded by the respondent, which sometimes calls for equitable relief.

The defence against an application for possession of property

Generally, courts will not take property from a purchaser who has made a purchase with considerable money upfront without notice. This is a defence to an application for possession of property. In i Trade Finance Inc v Bank of Montreal, the Supreme Court of Canada explained:

“The effect of the defence is to allow the defendant to hold its legal proprietary rights unencumbered by the pre-existing equitable proprietary rights. In other terms, where the defence operates, the pre-existing equitable proprietary rights are stripped away and lost in the transaction by which the defendant acquires its legal proprietary rights.”

To analyze a case under the doctrine, a court must compare each of the innocent parties’ equities. 

The applicant and the tenants’ interests both had to be weighed

In this case, the lease had been entered into after the enforcement proceeding had commenced. The tenants had done everything they reasonably could have done to obtain the property, as there was no record on the title that indicated the default on the mortgage or enforcement efforts. However, the applicant was slow to take action in its enforcement proceedings after the respondent defaulted. So, the Court decided that the tenants were the slightly more innocent parties between them and the applicant bank.

The bank relied on section 52(1) of the Mortgages Act, which allows a court to set aside a tenancy agreement on default of the mortgage. However, it ignored in its argument section 52(2) which reads: “In considering the application, the judge shall have regard to the interests of the tenant and the mortgagee.”

The Court held that, because of section 52(2), both the tenants and the lender’s interests must be taken into account. The tenants had approximately half of their lease term remaining and risked losing their home.

Court grants possession of property to applicant

In contrast, if the tenants were allowed to stay in the property until the end of their lease, the lender would be able to collect interest on the respondent’s default to recoup its loss. The applicant, having the property itself as security, has a remedy for the losses it faced. The tenants do not. 

The Court decided that the tenants were allowed to stay in the property until the term of the lease expired. The Court also allowed the applicant to add the $30,000 collected in rent by the respondent to the debt owed in addition to any other delinquent expenses on the property. 

The applicant was given possession of the property. It would become the effective landlord at the end of the lease agreement, and could obtain possession of the unit in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act.

Contact the Real Estate Lawyers at Bader Law for Help with Legal Disputes

Bader Law represents individual and corporate buyers in real estate transactions in Mississauga and throughout the Greater Toronto Area. Our experienced real estate lawyers take strategic action to reduce risk, secure clients’ interests, and protect their financial investments. Our team reviews Agreements of Purchase and Sale, handles title insurance matters, and assists with mortgages and refinancing.

Bader Law ensures your real estate matters are tended to in a timely and professional manner. To schedule a consultation, contact us online or call 289-652-9092.

Categories
Commercial Real Estate Real Estate Residential Real Estate

Mortgage Pre-Approval a Good Idea Before Signing

Purchasing a home in Canada is no small feat. With the high cost of owning a home, some people may not qualify for a mortgage. It’s essential to determine this before signing an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to avoid any unintended consequences or real estate disputes that may stem from a failure to obtain a mortgage.

In a recent case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, a couple appealed a decision that lost them their down payment and saddled them with hefty legal costs.

The couple was unable to secure mortgage pre-approval

In Leaf Homes Limited v. Khan, a couple met with a homebuilding corporation, Leaf Homes Limited, after they learned of the corporation’s new development. The couple had moved to Canada in 2003 and 2004, and while Mr. Khan spoke English proficiently, Ms. Khan’s English was limited. Ahead of the meeting with Leaf Homes Limited, the corporation sent the Khans an email containing an Agreement of Purchase and Sale. The representative of Leaf Homes Limited instructed the Khans to bring the Agreement to the appointment with them, as well as a mortgage pre-approval, post-dated cheques, and identification.

As the Khans were under the impression the meeting was just to collect information about the development, they did not bring the postdated checks and did not seek mortgage pre-approval. They were shown the project and asked to choose a lot. They then met with a sales associate.

The Khans alleged that the sales associate pressured them into entering the agreement. She told them that if they could provide a 20 percent down payment, they would be able to secure financing. She also suggested that Leaf Homes Limited would help them secure mortgage pre-approval if they were unsuccessful on their own. When they left, they had signed the agreement and later arranged to provide the corporation with six cheques (five of them post-dated) for $30,000 each. However, when Mr. Khan sought to secure financing, he was unsuccessful and did not have the funds to pay the difference between the appraisal value and the home’s purchase price. He notified Leaf Homes Limited of this issue in August 2018.

A default judgment was awarded to the corporation

In response to the Khans’ anticipated breach of the agreement of purchase and sale, Leaf Homes Limited commenced an action seeking damages for the breach and costs in September 2018. When the Khans did not reply, the corporation noted them in default a month later. The property was sold in February 2019 for $500,000 less than the asking price. In April 2019, Leaf Homes Limited received a default judgment against the Khans for $407,903.92 in damages and $7,000 in costs.

The Khans learned of the proceedings in May 2019 when Mr. Khan’s bank account was garnished, and a writ of seizure and sale of their home had already been filed. Mr. Khan could not understand the copy of the default judgment and other court documents left in his mailbox. He immediately sought counsel, who arranged for a motion to set aside the default judgment and permission to file a statement of defence and counterclaim. The counterclaim sought to recover the Khans’ $180,000 down payment and the $7,016.15 they had provided for upgrades.

The motion judge set aside the default judgment in part

The motion judge considered the following factors in deciding the set aside the default judgment in part so that the Khans could litigate the amount of damages:

  • The Khans brought their motion promptly after learning of the default judgment.
  • Since the Statement of Claim was served on “a woman in her late thirties or forties [who] answered the door,” there was no explanation for the delay in replying to it beyond hoping the problem would disappear.
  • The motion judge did not accept the Khans’ defence that the sales associate had misrepresented the corporation’s willingness to help secure financing for the property. However, Leaf Homes Limited also failed to adequately mitigate its damages by selling the property years after the breach of the agreement of purchase and sale.
  • The Khans would be at a disadvantage if the motion were dismissed because their bank accounts were being garnished. This outweighed the disadvantage to Leaf Homes Limited.
  • The Khans had entered into an agreement without being sure they could fulfill it and sought “to delay and avoid” litigation by ignoring the Statement of Claim.

The motion judge also gave the Khans 15 days to provide submissions on costs and the corporation ten days to respond to those submissions. The Khans were not given the right of reply to Leaf Homes Limited’s submissions. In her written reasons, the motion judge ordered the Khans to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis. In other words, they had to pay 1.5 times the equivalent of their legal fees to the winning party.

The Court of Appeal set aside the default judgment

The Ontario Court of Appeal found more than a few errors in the motion judge’s decision to only set aside the default judgment in part. Firstly, the motion judge made an error in deciding that the Khans needed to prove the success of their defence of misrepresentation. Instead, she only should have determined whether there was an air of reality to their defence. The Court of Appeal felt that there was.

Concerning the service of the Statement of Claim, the Court of Appeal noted that the process server did not provide enough information to confirm that it had actually been served on Ms. Khan, as the motion judge had assumed. In fact, she need not have considered the delay in the Khans’ reply to the Statement of Claim because, in that proceeding, the only relevant delay was the delay in responding to the default judgment. From this view, there was no delay. 

The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the motion judge’s consideration of Mr. Khan’s non-attendance at one proceeding. The Court stated that it seemed like the Khans did not become aware of the claim against them until Leaf Homes Limited began enforcing the default judgment.

The motion judge’s assessment of prejudice or disadvantages the Khans would face also lacked a crucial consideration: 

“[B]y permitting the appellants to only litigate the quantum of damages, she prevented them from pursuing their counterclaim. That would result in further prejudice to the appellants as they would be barred from seeking to recover the approximately $190,000 they had paid the respondent […].”

Avoid costly disputes by working with an experienced real estate lawyer

As a result of the motion judge’s palpable and overriding errors, the Khans’ appeal was allowed. The default judgment and the noting in default against the Khans were set aside. The Khans were allowed to file and serve a statement of defence and counterclaim within 10 days after the judgment. Leaf Homes Limited was ordered to pay their costs, fixed at $25,000.

While the Khans were successful in their case, real estate disputes are costly and stressful for all parties involved. Engaging the services of a skilled real estate lawyer early in the sale process helps ensure parties understand the full implications of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. A lawyer can also help parties with mortgages and refinancing before any commitments expose either side to liability.

Contact Bader Law in Mississauga for Real Estate Advice

Bader Law represents individual and corporate buyers in real estate transactions in Mississauga and throughout the Greater Toronto Area. Our experienced real estate lawyers take strategic action to reduce risk, secure clients’ interests, and protect their financial investments. Our team reviews Agreements of Purchase and Sale, handles title insurance matters, and assists with mortgages and refinancing. 
Bader Law ensures your real estate matters are tended to in a timely and professional manner. To schedule a consultation, contact us online or call 289-652-9092

Categories
Residential Real Estate

Ontario’s Home Construction Regulatory Authority Files Second Set of Charges Against Unlicensed New Home Builder

In recent years, Ontario, and other provinces, have seen explosive, and nearly unprecedented, growth in the new construction sector. In Ontario, new homes must be covered by a warranty backed by the Tarion Warranty Corporation (“Tarion”), a not-for-profit consumer protection organization established by the Ontario government to administer warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (“ONHWPA”). For nearly forty years, Tarion has been the delegated administrative authority responsible for licensing home builders and vendors in Ontario.

Ontario Introduces New Home Construction Regulatory Authority

In 2016, the province ordered an independent review of Tarion and the ONHWPA. As a result of that review, the province introduced the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 (“NHCLA”). Under the NHCLA, the province committed to creating a new regulator for licensing home builders and vendors.

In February of 2021, the government of Ontario created the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (“HCRA”). Going forward, the regulation and licensing of new home builders and vendors in Ontario are the responsibility of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (“HCRA”). All matters related to homeowner warranty protection remain the responsibility of Tarion.

The HCRA regulates new home builders and vendors in the province and is intended to protect the public interest through a fair, safe and informed marketplace that supports the goal of a continuously improved home building industry in Ontario.

Who Needs to Register with HCRA?

All builders and vendors of new homes must register with and hold a valid licence with the HCRA. Below are the licensing categories:

  • A builder of new homes must be licensed as a builder
  • A vendor of new homes must be licensed as a vendor
  • A builder who builds and sells new homes must be licensed as a builder/vendor
  • A builder who builds contract or custom homes on land owned by the owner of the home must be licensed as a vendor and builder

Exception to HCRA Registration Requirements

As was the case under the previous Tarion licensing regime, people that wish to build their own home to live in do not generally need to be HCRA registered. These individuals are considered owner/builders provided that they satisfy several criteria:

  • owner/builders should not sell the home once they have completed construction
  • should not be hiring a builder to build their home and be in control of the project and will be ultimately responsible for the project

HCRA Licensing Fees and Requirements

HCRA has introduced licensing fees that are intended to cover HCRA’s costs in creating and overseeing a modern licensing regime for builders and the costs associated with ensuring the consumers are protected.

The licensing fees are collected annually and are not based on the license category. A new licence costs $3,000. Renewal fees are $500 annually.

HCRA has also introduced a new Regulatory Oversight Fee – a flat fee of $145 paid on a per-home basis. This fee will be collected by Tarion as part of the new home enrolment process and will then be forwarded to HCRA.

Ontario Builder Directory

The HCRA has created the Ontario Builder Directory. The directory is meant to act as the official source of background information about Ontario’s more than 5,000 home builders and vendors. The directory is searchable by both the construction location and the builder’s or vendor’s information.

In a move towards enhanced transparency, the new directory will provide consumers with significantly more information than the previous versions of the directory administered by Tarion. For instance, the new directory will disclose any charges laid by the HCRA. Previous versions only displayed convictions.

Failure to Comply with HCRA Requirements Results in Charges

HCRA has the power to monitor licensed builders and vendors, identify and take action against illegal and unethical builders, and. manage the complaints process for consumers.

After a finding of misconduct, the HCRA can revoke a licence, refuse to renew a licence, or suspend a licence. In addition, the HCRA has broad power to deal with improper and illegal conduct by those that violate the NHCLA.

The HCRA can lay charges under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 (NHCLA), the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA) or the Provincial Offences Act (POA).

A conviction for an offence under the NHCLA, ONHWPA, and POA may come with fines; imprisonment; an order to pay compensation and/or make restitution. These cases are heard in provincial court.

HCRA Enforcement Actions

First set of HCRA Charges – August 2021

In August of 2021, the HCRA charged Ideal (BC) Developments Inc. with ten counts under the ONHWPA and one count under the NHCLA. The charges relate to freehold properties on Bostwick Crescent in Richmond Hill.

The HCRA alleges that Ideal (BC) Developments Inc. engaged in illegal vending, ie entering into an agreement of purchase and sale without a licence and without being registered with Tarion Warranty Corporation. The count under NHCLA is for allegedly failing to produce evidence during a search warrant.

Second set of HCRA Charges – January 5, 2022

In its second enforcement action since inception, the HCRA has charged property developer Christopher Lamb and his company at the time, 1970175 Ontario Inc., with 52 charges in violation of the ONHWPA.

1970175 Ontario Inc., also known as the Novel Condominiums project in the Niagara Falls area, is charged with twenty-six counts of illegally acting as a vendor of a new home. Mr. Lamb, as an Officer of the numbered corporation, is charged with twenty-six counts in his personal capacity.

In connection with the above charges, the HCRA has also filed a Notice of Proposal where it outlines its intent to refuse renewal licences for other businesses run by Mr. Lamb, including Growth Social Houses Inc. due to not only the above allegations but also criminal charges pending against Mr. Lamb in other proceedings.

Is Your Builder Properly Licensed and Registered?

The HCRA is actively engaged in ensuring compliance with the new consumer protection provisions of the NHCLA. If you are looking at buying a new home, you would be well advised to ensure that the builders you are considering are properly licensed and registered. Regardless of the outcome of the hearings against Ideal (BC) Developments and Mr. Lamb and his companies, the prospective buyers of those projects likely experienced quite a few sleepless nights worrying about what will happen with their deposits, their investments, and their future homes.

Mississauga Real Estate Lawyers Advising on New Build Construction and Home Builders

The Mississauga real estate lawyers at Bader Law represent individual and corporate buyers and sellers in both residential and commercial real estate transactions. We will advise you on your options, help secure your interests, and protect your financial investments. Contact us online or at (289) 652-9092 to learn how we can help.

Categories
Residential Real Estate

Real Estate Agent Denied Commission Following Misrepresentations

In a recent Ontario case, the court denied a real estate agent’s application to be paid a commission after it found that he had made misrepresentations to the buyer about the document she was signing.

Real Estate Agent Claims Commission After Failed Deal

A real estate agent worked with a couple for more than a year to find a home in the Greater Toronto Area for their daughter. 

On November 12, 2018, the couple decided to make an offer on a property in Mississauga. Because the couple lived in a country outside of Canada, the offer was made in their daughter’s name to avoid certain taxes. As such, the daughter signed the agreement of purchase and sale as well as a buyer’s representation agreement (“BRA”).

The BRA entitled the real estate agent to a 2.5 percent commission on the Mississauga property and any single-family home the daughter bought in the Greater Toronto Area between November 12, 2018 and March 11, 2019. 

However, the daughter’s offer on the Mississauga property was rejected. 

Subsequently, on November 22, 2018, the daughter put an offer on a home in Toronto through a different real estate agent. The offer was accepted and the deal closed on January 4, 2019.

The real estate then brought an application to court seeking an order that the daughter pay him a 2.5 percent commission on the Toronto property. 

In response, the daughter brought an application seeking a declaration that the BRA was void and unenforceable. Specifically, the daughter relied on the defence of non est factum whereby a person may escape their legal obligation under a contract by proving that they were mistaken about the contents of what they were signing.

Court Rules That Daughter Does Not Have to Pay Commission 

At the outset, the court explained that in order to succeed in a defence of non est factum, the daughter had to establish the following three elements:

  1. That she was mistaken about the nature of the BRA; 
  2. That her mistake as to the nature of the BRA was the result of a misrepresentation by the real estate agent; and 
  3. That she was not careless in signing the BRA.

On the first element, the court found that the daughter had been mistaken about the nature of the BRA. While the parties presented conflicting evidence, ultimately the court found that the daughter had not been adequately involved in the discussions between the real estate agent and the parents prior to signing the BRA. Additionally, there were issues relating to the parents’ understanding of the BRA themselves, as the document was not translated and the parents relied on the real estate agent’s translation of the content. As such, the evidence showed that the real estate agent had misled the parents into believing that the BRA only applied to the Mississauga property as opposed to all subsequent deals that might be made. As such, the parents and daughter were mistaken about the contents of the BRA.

Further, the court found that the daughter had proven the second element, holding that the real estate agent had misled the parents directly and the daughter indirectly about the content of the BRA. The court found that the real estate agent had misrepresented the BRA to the daughter’s father by stating that it related to the Mississauga property only. The father then relayed the information to the daughter before she signed the documents. The court therefore stated:

“[The daughter] misunderstood the fundamental nature of the BRA and her misunderstanding was the result of [the real estate agent]’s misrepresentation to [the father].”

Finally, the court found that the daughter had proven the third element. Because the court had already held that the real estate agent had been misleading about the contents of the BRA, it held that the daughter had not been reckless in signing the agreement, stating:

“[The daughter] received an explanation about the BRA from [the real estate agent] through her father. In my view, it was reasonable for [the daughter] to rely on the information she received from [the real estate agent] through her father as the basis of her understanding of the documents. I find that [the daughter] was not careless in signing the documents even though she did not read them.”

As a result, the court held that the daughter had established non est factum. It therefore ruled that the BRA was void and the daughter did not have to pay a commission to the real estate agent.

Get Help

Real estate transactions represent some of the largest financial transactions in the life of any individual or company. Whether you are a first-time homebuyer or a large corporation acquiring a new space to grow your business, it is important to retain a law firm with the experience and skill necessary to ensure your interests are protected and the transaction closes without issue.

At Bader Law, we have an extensively experienced business law team and regularly represent our corporate clients in various real estate matters. We work with business clients ranging from small family-run operations to large enterprises, helping our clients manage their real property interests with an eye toward growth. Our business and real estate teams work closely together to provide thorough and strategic representation on all commercial real estate transactions, including commercial leasing issues affecting landlords and tenants.

The Mississauga real estate lawyers at Bader Law represent individual and corporate buyers and sellers in both residential and commercial real estate transactions in Mississauga and throughout Greater Toronto Area. We will advise you on your options, help secure your interests, and protect your financial investments. Contact us online or at (289) 652-9092to learn how we can help.

Categories
Real Estate Residential Real Estate

Court Orders Return of Deposit Due to Misrepresentation of Size of Home

In every real estate listing, there is generally a reference to the size of the home. In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the court highlighted the importance of accuracy in this detail when it granted a home buyer’s request for rescission of a sale agreement and return of a $50,000 deposit because the real estate agent had misrepresented the square footage of the home.

Real Estate Agent Misrepresents Size of Home

In January/February of 2017, the then 26-year-old home buyer contacted a real estate agent about buying a house in Ontario. It was the home buyer’s first time buying a home. The real estate agent had worked in real estate for 11 years.

The real estate agent proceeded to show the home buyer approximately 10-15 different properties. The home buyer made offers on several properties, some of which were between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet, but none of the offers were accepted.

Then, on March 15, 2017, the real estate agent showed the buyer a property in Stouffville. During the visit, the homeowner was also present. The home buyer asked the real estate agent about the size of the home; the real estate agent told him that the house was approximately 2,100 square feet. Additionally, during the visit, there were copies of the real estate listing in the kitchen which indicated that the approximate square footage of the property was 2,000‑2,500 square feet.

Following a second visit of the home, the home buyer put in an offer for $730,000 which was accepted by the homeowner. The following day, on March 16, 2017, the buyer provided the real estate agent with a deposit cheque in the amount of $50,000.

In late May/early June, the buyer received an appraisal on the property that was carried out in connection with his mortgage application. The appraisal indicated that the square footage of the property was in fact 1,450 square feet. This appraisal report also appraised the value of the property at $730,000.

In an email dated June 5, 2017, the home buyer wrote to the real estate agent and asked for clarification as to why the appraisal report showed the square footage of the property at 1,450 when the property was advertised as being between 2,000-2,500 square feet. The real estate agent did not provide an explanation.

The buyer then informed the real estate agent that he was not prepared to close the transaction given the true size of the house.

Subsequently, the home buyer sued for a declaration that the agreement of purchase and sale dated March 15, 2017, was null and void and sought rescission of the agreement. He also sued for the return of the $50,000 deposit plus accrued interest. 

At trial, the judge granted rescission of the agreement of purchase and sale and ordered that the home buyer be provided with the return of the $50,000 deposit plus any accrued interest. The judge concluded:

“In this case I do not find that [the home buyer]’s inspection of the subject property determined his expectations. He was given representations from both [the real estate agent and the home owner] that the property was 2000 or greater than 2000 square feet and as well relied upon the […] agreement which set out 2000 to 2500 square feet. His inspections did not override his expectation that this was the size of the property. (I take his young age, inexperience with square footage,  and being a first time home buyer into account when considering the reasonableness of his belief.)”

The real estate agent appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred by not accepting the proposition that where a purchaser inspects a property, their reliance on a misrepresentation as to the size of the property is displaced.

Court of Appeal Dismisses Real Estate Agent’s Appeal

The Court of Appeal rejected the real estate agent’s argument, explaining that the remedy of rescission of a contract can be obtained on the basis of misrepresentation where the defendant made a false statement that was material and induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. It found that the trial judge had not erred by concluding that the real estate agent’s misrepresentation concerning the size of the home was material to the home buyer’s decision to purchase.

The court found that the real estate agent had made misrepresentative statements to the home buyer regarding the square footage of the home. It further found that the discrepancy between the negligently communicated size of the home and the actual size was substantial. It also found that the home buyer had relied on the real estate agent and the homeowner’s representations about the size of the home. Finally, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in taking into account the home buyer’s age and inexperience in home buying, as they were relevant contextual factors.

As a result, the court dismissed the real estate agent’s appeal.

While several factors, including the age and sophistication of the buyer and the significance of the discrepancy, were considered in the final decision, the case highlights the need for accuracy in describing a property’s size. If, for example, a listing claimed the floors were carpeted when they were not, this would be easy for the buyer to see upon inspection. However, the square footage of a home is not something most people could determine for certain just by viewing the property. For this reason, a buyer would be much more likely to rely on the representations of the agent and the seller.

Get Advice

The real estate law team at Bader Law has decades of experience in real estate matters. We are thorough, efficient, and focused on delivering the best possible outcome for every single client. Contact us online or at (289) 652-9092 to discuss your matter with a member of our team.