The court may not admit the testimony. First of all, this statement is hearsay because it is an out of court statement that the original seller told the buyer's fiancée before the purchase took place. Second of all, the source of the testimony is also biased. She is on both sides of the deal, as the daughter of the broker and the fiancée of the buyer.
Since there is a clear conflict of interest, the court can use its discretion to find the evidence admissible or not.
Agent's Duties to Principal:
In the case of Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, L.L.C., 890 So.2d 583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004), the trial ruled in favor of the Daigles and awarded damages of more than $26,000. The appellate court affirmed.
The Court stated that many of the representations made by Diez and relied upon by the Daigles, were made by him prior to the termination of his relationship with Trinity. The Court further stated that the responsibility for third party notifications regarding agency relationships with terminated agents were the responsibility of the principal.
Since Trinity failed to notify the Daigles regarding Diez's termination, it was bound to perform the obligations that Diez had undertaken. Trinity was, therefore, responsible for Diez's actions under the facts of this case.
Here, HM was an agent for both the seller and the buyer, JW. As per their agreement, HM was to represent JW in his purchase of the property. As an agent, HM owes a fiduciary duty to JW, including a duty of care and a duty of loyalty. JW consented to HM's plan to put the title in her daughter's name and followed the payment plan.
However, HM did not act in JW's best interest. She defrauded him by misrepresenting the purpose for her daughter's name on the title. She also attempted to evict him.
HM was clearly not acting in the best interest of JW and JW did not have the ultimate control as a principal should. Thus, she violated her fiduciary duty as an agent.