Saiz v. Horn, 2003 SD 94

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that a buyer's real estate agent owed the buyers a duty of ordinary care and a fiduciary duty, including informing them that the seller was legally required to provide a property condition disclosure statement. The court also held that the buyers' claims were not barred by the six-year statute of limitations because the agent's representation continued until closing. The summary judgment ruling for the agent was reversed and the case was remanded for trial.

Holdings

1. A real estate agent representing buyers owes a duty of ordinary care and a fiduciary duty to advise the buyers about the rules and procedures involved in the transaction, including the seller's statutory duty to provide a property-condition disclosure statement. Although SDCL 43-4-38 places the duty to furnish the statement on the seller, it does not eliminate the buyer's agent's duty to inform the buyers of that statutory requirement.
2. The six-year statute of limitations did not bar the Saizes' claim because the limitations period began when Horn's representation ended at closing on August 25, 1995, rather than when the buyers made their written offer on June 12, 1995.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a real estate agent representing buyers has a duty to inform them that the seller is legally required to provide a residential property-condition disclosure statement.
2. Whether the buyers' claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in SDCL 15-2-13(1).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded