Ed Illinois couple sued for deciding not to sell their home...

Grizzly Adams

Graduate Poster
Grizzly Adams
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
1,226
...to a black couple.

Couple charged with refusing to sell home to black buyers

HUD alleges that Daniel and Adrienne Sabbia and their real estate agent, Jeffrey Lowe of Prudential Rubloff Properties, violated the Fair Housing Act when they discriminated against Willborn, his wife, Peytyn and their family for not following through with the sale of an amenity-filled 8,000-square-foot home at 3300 S. Normal Ave. in the Bridgeport neighborhood.
...
According to the complaint, Lowe said in an interview while under oath that while he was representing the Sabbias, Daniel Sabbia told Lowe "he would prefer not to sell the home to an African-American, though he qualified the testimony, saying 'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.' "
Click to expand...
What confuses me about this, even beyond the racist ignorance, is how anyone can be subject to civil penalties for electing not to sell something they own, for any reason. Isn't it their property? They should be able to sell it, keep it, or tear it down if they want, for any reason they want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think racism should be a legal choice for not continuing a business transaction.
 
the only reason i can see for this would be if contracts and other paperwork had already been signed, then the owner backed out, or some other obligations regarding selling via a real estate agent

if its just an issue of the owner not accepting an offer because the buyer was blake i dont think that should be a legal issue
 
thaiboxerken said:
I don't think racism should be a legal choice for not continuing a business transaction.
Click to expand...
First of all, no contract was signed so no one was obligated to continue anything for any reason. The buyers were just as free to cease pursuit of the sale as the sellers. Interestingly, the buyers would not be subject to liability if they had stopped the process at the same point as it was stopped here if they decided they didn't want to live in a house infected with "cracker cooties."

Second, why do you get to choose what reasons are valid ones when deciding whether or not to sell one's personal belongings?
 
Last edited:
Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.
 
You can choose not to sell your house, but if you give a reason as per the OP, you deserve to be sued for stupidity at the very least.
 
This seems to be like Rand Paul's view on this type of thing. Would that be a fair characterisation?

There's an interview with him where he defends it against Rachel Maddow's criticisms.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's irrelevant to whether or not someone should be compelled to sell their home if they don't want to.

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're asserting your opinion should be the law. Ergo, you should have some justification for your opinion if you want it to be taken seriously.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Yes, but that's irrelevant to whether or not someone should be compelled to sell their home if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

Not really, they are both business transactions.

Yes, but you're asserting your opinion should be the law. Ergo, you should have some justification for your opinion if you want it to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

My opinion should be law, as it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on race.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not really, they are both business transactions.
Click to expand...
And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.

My opinion should be law, as it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on race.
Click to expand...
Do you get dizzy in that circle?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.
Click to expand...

So you are an anarchist?

Do you get dizzy in that circle?
Click to expand...

What circle? If you're implying I'm presenting a circular argument, you're absolutely wrong. It's a value judgement. I believe discrimination based on race should be illegal in all-but-personal choices.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.
Click to expand...

[Shrug.] Well, then you're wrong. Ask any lawyer if you want a more authoritative "you're wrong."

You surrender your rights to your property any time the government says that you surrender your rights to your property, as long as due process has been followed. In this case, the government has said you have no right to discriminate in business transactions on the basis of race and has said specifically that you have no right to discriminate on the basis of race when selling or buying a house.

If that bothers you, phone your Congressman.
 
What if a black man and a white man make the same offer?
Are you allowed to sell to whichever you choose, so long as you don't state your reasons?
 
drkitten said:
[Shrug.] Well, then you're wrong. Ask any lawyer if you want a more authoritative "you're wrong."

You surrender your rights to your property any time the government says that you surrender your rights to your property, as long as due process has been followed. In this case, the government has said you have no right to discriminate in business transactions on the basis of race and has said specifically that you have no right to discriminate on the basis of race when selling or buying a house.

If that bothers you, phone your Congressman.
Click to expand...
i had a look at the fair housing act, it seems like if they had put the house up for sale "by owner" they would have been able to discriminate, but because they used a real estate agent they were prohibited from discriminating
 
thaiboxerken said:
Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.
Click to expand...

The thing is that there is a difference between a private individual selling their house and a business. If they were developers selling units in development it would be a stronger case.
 
Soapy Sam said:
What if a black man and a white man make the same offer?
Are you allowed to sell to whichever you choose, so long as you don't state your reasons?
Click to expand...

Or even if you state your reasons, as long as they're not racially based.

I had a situation like that when I sold my house a couple of months ago. Several interested buyers, and I hate haggling. So I told my agent at lunchtime "here's my best-and-final offer, firm. First "yes" gets the house."

I had my first "yes" at 4pm. My second "yes" at 7pm. I neither know nor care what race the second buyer was; his bid was rejected not due to race, but due to (lack of) timelines.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
First of all, no contract was signed so no one was obligated to continue anything for any reason.
Click to expand...

Er, this is also wrong. From the article:

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.
Click to expand...

Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient.

The Sabbias are in breach of contract, assuming the facts as described in the article. The Willborns are entitled to the fulfillment of the contract and/or suitable recompense.
 
drkitten said:
Er, this is also wrong. From the article:



Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient. The Sabbias are in breach of contract, assuming the facts as described in the article. The Willborns are entitled to the fulfillment of the contract and/or suitable recompense.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. Tell that to the judge.

It was an offer, not a contract. If someone had come along and offered 2 million the have every right to take that offer instead of the 1.7
 
drkitten said:
Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.
 
Cuddles said:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.
Click to expand...

"Merely saying you're interested" also isn't "accepting."

Similarly, accepting "subject to [bla bla bla]" (which is the usual practice in England) isn't "accepting." That's how you get "gazumping"; no one in the UK actually makes binding offers until more or less closing date, because offers and acceptances are generally written "subject to contract," which means "this is an offer that that explicitly lets either party back out." But "offer and acceptance" is the basic standard under both English and Scottish law for the creation of a contract.

The difficulty, of course, is in proving than an offer was actually made and accepted,... but in this instance the buyer would have the agent as a witness, since the agent would have conveyed both the offer and the acceptance and could therefore prove the existence of both.
 
The Painter said:
Yeah sure. Tell that to the judge.
Click to expand...

I would. It would take the judge about thirty seconds to look up "offer and acceptance" in his old Contracts 101 textbook and issue a directed ruling accordingly.

It was an offer, not a contract.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't even an offer. It was an "acceptance"; the Willborns "offered" 1.7 million and the Sabbias "accepted" it -- thereby creating a contract.

If someone had come along and offered 2 million the have every right to take that offer instead of the 1.7
Click to expand...

Not at all.
 
The Painter said:
Yeah sure. Tell that to the judge.

It was an offer, not a contract. If someone had come along and offered 2 million the have every right to take that offer instead of the 1.7
Click to expand...

Cuddles said:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.
Click to expand...

drkitten said:
"Merely saying you're interested" also isn't "accepting."

Similarly, accepting "subject to [bla bla bla]" (which is the usual practice in England) isn't "accepting." That's how you get "gazumping"; no one in the UK actually makes binding offers until more or less closing date, because offers and acceptances are generally written "subject to contract," which means "this is an offer that that explicitly lets either party back out." But "offer and acceptance" is the basic standard under both English and Scottish law for the creation of a contract.

The difficulty, of course, is in proving than an offer was actually made and accepted,... but in this instance the buyer would have the agent as a witness, since the agent would have conveyed both the offer and the acceptance and could therefore prove the existence of both.
Click to expand...
all of this doesnt matter, because they were selling via a real estate agent they are bound by the fair housing act, which prohibits discrimination based on race

which is what the article in the OP says, they violated the fair housing act, not that they breached a contract
 
Grizzly Adams said:
...to a black couple.

Couple charged with refusing to sell home to black buyers


What confuses me about this, even beyond the racist ignorance, is how anyone can be subject to civil penalties for electing not to sell something they own, for any reason. Isn't it their property? They should be able to sell it, keep it, or tear it down if they want, for any reason they want.
Click to expand...

We willw ait and see...what kind of person would willingly give evidence of a racial bias? That is the question, I sense something is amiss in this story.

I don't think this case will go through, you can charge anything you want, but will it stick? Under discrimination you have a very high bar, you have to prove that discrimination occured, a very high bar. Not that discrimination is possible.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...th-refusing-to-sell-home-to-black-buyers.html

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.

However, the Sabbias never signed a sales contract and their real estate agent, Lowe, on Jan. 11 told the Willborn's agent, Dylcia Cornelious, that the Sabbias had changed their mind and were taking the home off the market.

....
According to the complaint, Lowe said in an interview while under oath that while he was representing the Sabbias, Daniel Sabbia told Lowe "he would prefer not to sell the home to an African-American, though he qualified the testimony, saying 'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.' "
Click to expand...
Ooops.
 
drkitten said:
Er, this is also wrong. From the article:



Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient.

The Sabbias are in breach of contract, assuming the facts as described in the article. The Willborns are entitled to the fulfillment of the contract and/or suitable recompense.
Click to expand...

Except I know that in real estate practice, even with a signed offer and a closing date, people can and do back out of the contract. You might loose earnest money, but I have heard of sellers backing out right before closing.

Then you can sue for damages.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
all of this doesnt matter, because they were selling via a real estate agent they are bound by the fair housing act, which prohibits discrimination based on race

which is what the article in the OP says, they violated the fair housing act, not that they breached a contract
Click to expand...

No. The article doesn't say that they didn't breach a contract, or even that they're not being sued (civilly) for breaching a contract. This is an article about a HUD complaint; the HUD is responsible for enforcing the FHA, not contract law. Even if the Sabbias win at the HUD hearing (which given their agent's testimony not a sure thing), they could still be facing civil charges.

If I were the Willborns' lawyer, I would have played it that way. File the HUD complaint, and let the government do the preliminary work "for free." If you win, you collect the money for less work. If you lose, then you file the (expensive) civil suit for breach of contract.
 
lionking said:
You can choose not to sell your house, but if you give a reason as per the OP, you deserve to be sued for stupidity at the very least.
Click to expand...

Exactly, people discrimnate in housing all the time, especially renters. But you can't be charged if you have plausible deniability, "I denied them because of their credit history, lack of references...etc."

The other kicker is first, last month and damage deposit, which is perfectly legal. Asking people making close to minimum wage for three months rent (or more) up front is a real barrier. A reasonable barrier but a barrier none the less.
 
Cuddles said:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.
Click to expand...

"I'll give you 150,000 dollars for it".
"Deal!"

Verbal agreements for transactions are contracts as well.
 
drkitten said:
No. The article doesn't say that they didn't breach a contract, or even that they're not being sued (civilly) for breaching a contract. This is an article about a HUD complaint; the HUD is responsible for enforcing the FHA, not contract law. Even if the Sabbias win at the HUD hearing (which given their agent's testimony not a sure thing), they could still be facing civil charges.

If I were the Willborns' lawyer, I would have played it that way. File the HUD complaint, and let the government do the preliminary work "for free." If you win, you collect the money for less work. If you lose, then you file the (expensive) civil suit for breach of contract.
Click to expand...
so because the article doesnt say they didnt do something, we should assume they did?
 
Cuddles said:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.
Click to expand...

That's true for England and Wales, but not for Scotland. In Scotland, things are binding a lot earlier on in the process. Once you make a written offer, and it is accepted, the contract is binding.

http://www.hastingslegal.co.uk/Legal Services/buying.html
 
defaultdotxbe said:
so because the article doesnt say they didnt do something, we should assume they did?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But the article doesn't say they didn't breach the contract. It explicitly says that they breached the contract --- an offer was made, accepted, and then rescinded. It just doesn't use those words.

The article might be wrong, of course. The offer might not have been accepted (legally), or "accepted subject to contract" (which means "not accepted.") The agent might be lying in his teeth. But if all the elements mentioned in the article are, in fact, true, then the Sabbias are in breach of contract, regardless of whether the reporter mentioned it.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not really, they are both business transactions.
Click to expand...
The homeowner is not in the real estate business.

I think the problem here is they were using a realtor, which then binds them to housing discrimination laws.
 
WildCat said:
The homeowner is not in the real estate business.

I think the problem here is they were using a realtor, which then binds them to housing discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that they are/were racist ********s. Even if the Fair Housing Act didn't exist, they would still be acting immorally, inappropriately, and probably illegally (depending upon the exact terms of the offer-and-acceptance).

Not going through a realtor wouldn't have polished this particular turd....
 
drkitten said:
No, the problem is that they are/were racist ********s. Even if the Fair Housing Act didn't exist, they would still be acting immorally, inappropriately, and probably illegally (depending upon the exact terms of the offer-and-acceptance).

Not going through a realtor wouldn't have polished this particular turd....
Click to expand...
I don't have time to verify at the moment, but IIRC Illinois has a "cooling off period" in which a contract for certain large transactions can be rescinded. 3 days I think.

eta: the FHA has exemptions. I can discriminate any way I choose when renting my apartment upstairs, because my building has less than 6 (maybe 4, I forget where the cutoff is) units and I live in it. I couldn't do that,however, if I hired a professional to lease my apartment for me.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
...to a black couple.

Couple charged with refusing to sell home to black buyers


What confuses me about this, even beyond the racist ignorance, is how anyone can be subject to civil penalties for electing not to sell something they own, for any reason. Isn't it their property? They should be able to sell it, keep it, or tear it down if they want, for any reason they want.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, we've decided otherwise.

Seriously, there is a long history with this in Illinois. I'm glad we aren't red-lining racial districts even if the poor, poor racists can't discriminate.

*Cues violins playing Adagio for Strings*
 
There is a whole lot of misinformation in this thread about the law - both regarding civil rights and contracts.

To understand the civil rights law, we need to look at the situation that the law was created to correct. White people were voluntarily segregating themselves from blacks, creating white-only and black-only areas. Deeds frequently contained covenants that the property could not be sold to anyone who wasn't white. Realtors regularly steered buyers towards their corresponding racial neighborhoods. Black buyers weren't even shown houses in white areas, or were lied to about price or availability.

I should not be required to defend the idea that segregation is bad. Courts and legislatures were presented with evidence that predominently black areas received worse municipal services, police coverage, and other government benefits. Ghetoizing blacks caused a host of social and economic disadvantages to them.

So, the government rectified the situation by making it illegal for realtors to steer buyers based on race. Racial covenants were declared illegal and void. And individuals were sometimes subject to the same rules.

You may argue that this is someone's private property and he can do what he likes with it. Remember, though, that this person has received a benefit from the state. He owns the property only because the state allows him to. He is safe from invasion because the state protects him. And he received the protections of real estate and contract law when he purchased the property to begin with. When the individual volunteers to benefit from the community's laws, the individual should also be required to obey rules that let others get those same benefits.

As for contract law, it is not in question in this case. In general, a contract to sell real estate must be in writing to be enforceable. Verbal offer and acceptance will not create a contract to sell realty in most jurisdictions. However, in this case, contract law is not implicated. Only civil rights law is.
 
BenBurch said:
In Illinois saying "yes" to an offer binds you as a seller.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I had business law, but I remember Real Estate transactions had to be in writting to be enforceable. Verbal agreemements were not enforceable when it came to real property, but were okay for personal property. This was a while ago, but I thought there was always a distinction when it came to Real Estate.

Chris
 
CJW said:
It's been a while since I had business law, but I remember Real Estate transactions had to be in writting to be enforceable. Verbal agreemements were not enforceable when it came to real property, but were okay for personal property. This was a while ago, but I thought there was always a distinction when it came to Real Estate.

Chris
Click to expand...

Well if this were going through an agent, there would be a preliminary written offer, which then gets addended or modified as needed. So that is there, and I think the verbal acceptance of that is going to be binding.

It's not a really a "verbal agreement" because there is a written offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom