after purchasing we found out that the home has actually build in 2008
a) This could easily have been found out before the purchase (your pre-purchase inspection and/or preliminary title report should have included this information). b) What difference does this make?
and sat unoccupied for several years
So what?
I have no idea what "a bad room" might mean, but I have to assume this was easily discoverable by pre-closing inspection.
Is there any legal consequences for the agent or broker listing the property with the wrong build date on the MLS?
Probably not. The legal issue raised is that of fraud/intentional or negligent misrepresentation. The elements of fraud are as follows: (1) the defendant made a statement of fact to the plaintiff; (2) the statement was false; (3) the statement was material; (4) the defendant either new or should have known the statement was false (contrary to what one of the prior responses said, the false representation does not have to be a "knowing" misrepresentation); (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the statement; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of relying on the defendant's statement.
In your case you would seem to have no problem proving elements 1, 2 and 4. However, I can't see how you could prove the other elements. What difference does it make that the house was built in 2008 rather than 2012? Would knowing that information have impacted either your decision to buy or the amount you paid? If so, why? Why couldn't you have discovered that the statement about the year of building was false based on your home inspection or your preliminary title report? What are your damages? I have a hard time believing there is any substantial difference in value between a house built in 2008, as opposed to one built in 2012. Note, by the way, that all the stuff about "a bad room" and the house sitting unoccupied for a number of years has nothing to do with the misstatement about the date the house was built.
it seems like there is a precedence for realtor to be honest, especially if they know the information is incorrect. Realtors can not out right lye.
It is certainly correct that, under the right circumstances, a realtor can be held liable for a false statement made in connection with a sale of property. However, a couple of points need to be understood. First,
the case discussed in the article to which you linked was decided in Massachusetts. Second, the case at issue involved a motion for summary judgment made by the defendant. Without getting into a lengthy discussion of procedural minutiae, that's an important point because the denial of the motion (which was the result of the appellate court's decision) was not that the plaintiff won. Rather, the result was that the case proceeded to trial on the merits.
The defendant's argument in support of its motion was that "a real estate broker has no duty to confirm the zoning status of a property that the broker lists and brokers for sale" and that a disclaimer in the purchase/sale agreement relieved the broker of liability. The court did not address any of the other elements of fraud and, in particular, did not address whether the buyer's reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable given that zoning classifications are matters of public record. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if, after remand by the appellate court, the case proceeded to trial that came out in the broker's favor or settled. The case is also dissimilar from yours in that the materiality of the zoning classification and damages resulting from reliance would not have been in serious dispute.
