Connection lost
Server error
DAUBMAN v. CBS REAL ESTATE CO. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A real estate agent breached her fiduciary duty to the sellers by prioritizing her commission and the buyers’ interests. The court ordered the agent to return the entire commission, even though the sellers suffered no financial damages from the breach.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a real estate agent’s material breach of fiduciary duty results in the forfeiture of the commission as a matter of law, regardless of whether the principal suffered actual monetary damages.
DAUBMAN v. CBS REAL ESTATE CO. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Allen and Renee Daubman (the principals) entered into a “one-party listing agreement” with real estate agent Arlene Engelbert and her brokerage, CBS Real Estate Co. (the agents), to sell their home exclusively to Thomas and Brenda Pedersen. Engelbert represented to the Daubmans that the Pedersens were pre-approved for a loan and financially capable of purchasing the home. When the Pedersens’ initial loan application was denied, Engelbert, without the Daubmans’ authorization, facilitated a second loan application with a different lender and incorrectly advised the Daubmans that the purchase agreement remained valid. Engelbert’s actions created significant time pressure on the Daubmans, who needed to vacate their home. To further the sale, Engelbert contacted the Daubmans’ prospective apartment complex without their permission, which resulted in the Daubmans being pressured to sign a lease. The sale eventually closed, and the Daubmans paid the commission under protest, reserving their right to challenge its payment. The parties stipulated that the Daubmans suffered no monetary damages.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a real estate agent’s material breach of fiduciary duty to their principal require the agent to forfeit their commission, even if the principal did not suffer any monetary damages from the breach?
Yes. The agent and her brokerage materially breached their fiduciary duties by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequ
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a real estate agent’s material breach of fiduciary duty to their principal require the agent to forfeit their commission, even if the principal did not suffer any monetary damages from the breach?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the strict nature of an agent's fiduciary duty of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Legal Rule
A commission for services cannot be collected by an agent if the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Nebraska determined that the agent's conduct, when viewed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A real estate agent who materially breaches their fiduciary duty of