Settlements of lawsuits by the Gibson Commission are met with objections

According to the filing, Mullis believes that the disclosure in the settlement does not address “claims by class members to recover damages in separate transactions involving the purchase of a home.” Although Mullis notes that the settlement parties have acknowledged that “homebuyer damages claims do not arise out of or relate to the factual basis of the claims currently pending in this court and are therefore not subject to release,” the filing states that he objects “out of an abundance of caution because Hanna could later argue that the release language excludes the homebuyer claims.”

If the court makes it clear that the settlement does not affect the homebuyer committee’s claims, Mullis states that he has no objection to the settlement. However, if the release does cover homebuyers’ damages claims, he argues that the court should reject the settlement “because it is inequitable and does not provide adequate representation.”

Mullis had previously made these claims regarding settlements in the Sitzer/Burnett and Moehrl lawsuits, but his objections were overruled.

The second objection

The other objection was filed by a group of objectors, including the Spring Way Center LLC, Nancy Wehrheim, John Moratis, Nancy Moratis, Danielle Kay, Jessie Kay, Kaitlyn Slavic and Maria Iannome. Most of these parties have filed objections to previous settlements in this and other commission lawsuits.

These objectors object to the final approval of the settlements reached William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.; Hanna Companies; Exit Realty Corp. Int’l, Exit Realty Corp. USA; Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc.; William L. Lyon & Associates, Inc.; Charles Rutenberg Real Estate, Inc.; My Home Group Real Estate, LLC; Tierra Antiqua Realty, LLC; And Western USA Realty, Inc.

In the filing, they ask the court to deny final approval of these settlements, arguing that they “vastly exceed the scope for which the classes were certified and for which discovery was conducted,” that the settlement amount ($42 million) is “grossly disproportionate to the amount appropriate to adequately compensate the injured parties and that neither the court nor the class members have had the opportunity to review the data that would adequately enable them to determine capacity to pay,” and that the proposed practice changes are “illusory,” noting that data shows that for Other brokers and MLSs that have implemented these changes, commissions between buyers and brokers have actually increased.

Additionally, the filing alleges that the settlement notice, as well as the settlement itself, did not “provide sufficient detail as to how the settlement amounts will be distributed by providing class members with information necessary to determine what their payout will be.”

The final approval hearing for these settlements is scheduled for February 5.