[Challenger]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

1. it's a tenet, not a tenant.
2. Their right to sell new homes is already protected. It's THEIR property until it's sold, they can use who ever they want - including their own contractors - to sell on their behalf.
3. It's about the principal, alright. It's about proving to EVERYONE that you should never upset them, or they will come after you and your bank account. Even after they win a suit, they'll keep coming for more.

This case would probably be decided the same way in any legal jurisdiction in the country. No Compete clauses have been deemed legal by many courts as long as they are reasonable to protect the business and are not overly restrictive as to duration or covered area. The losers are very lucky that they have not been charged with a larceny charge stealing company property (names, addresses, and other customer info)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Challenger

This case would probably be decided the same way in any legal jurisdiction in the country. No Compete clauses have been deemed legal by many courts as long as they are reasonable to protect the business and are not overly restrictive as to duration or covered area. The losers are very lucky that they have not been charged with a larceny charge stealing company property (names, addresses, and other customer info)

I agree they shouldn't have taken the files out.

However, those files exist because those agents put them there. They were customer files that THEY had acquired. It was THEIR customer lists. They were taking their own information. The developer didn't give them their leads. They worked to create those leads themselves.

That's one of the problems with non-compete rules. You are required to do all the work, but if you quit, you're not allowed to take the results of all that work with you. What they -should- have done, is call any hot and warm leads, and inform them that they were going to be leaving the company and forming their own. And give the potential client the option of being assigned to a different sales agent at the Villages, or follow the agent who's leaving, to their new agency.

THAT would be the right thing to do. It would also be the right thing for the Villages to do, instead of a flat out non-compete clause for 18 months. The Villages have the monopoly on all NEW construction. No one else is ALLOWED to sell those homes. The only thing in question is resales, which are fair game for ANY real estate agency, or independent agent. ANY agent except those few who left the Villages Sales. Many of whom live in the Villages, and know the Villages better than any other outside agent. Many of whom clients would WANT to sell on their behalf, or help them buy.

And now the judge is telling those clients - sorry, you're not allowed to have this licensed real estate agent represent you in the sale or purchase of your pre-owned villages resale home.

That's where it's a problem.

[Dan9871]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The developer didn't give them their leads. They worked to create those leads themselves.

.

Before we came to The Villages to find a home we called Villages Properties. The developer, i.e. Villages Properties, gave us as a lead to one of the sales people. No work at all on the sales persons part.

My guess is that a lot of the leads come to Villages Properties realtors this way.

[Villages Kahuna]

I feel sorry for the realtors being sued. I don’t know the strength of the contract they violated. But I do know that one of the two key partners is awfully good. He sold out house in Mallory in about four hours!

After agreeing verbally to list with him—he was still with Properties of The Villages—he “blasted” an e-mail to his list of potential buyers before we even signed the listing agreement or set the asking price! When he arrived the next day to get the document signed, I set the asking price just a little lower than the most expensive “comp” he provided. He then told us he had set four appointments for the next day! The first couple who visited took only a couple hours to offer our full asking price!

I know you may be thinking that we “left money on the table”. Not so IMHO. I set the price, he didn’t even make a pricing recommendation. And I was familiar with two of comps he provided.

I can see why POTV didn’t want to lose him. He told me that in the preceding year (2018) he sold 128 houses, all pre-owned! All I can say is that he’s good enough to be able to afford however much the lawsuit is going to cost him.

[Stu from NYC]

The developer apparently makes a lot of money by having his salesmen sell resales.

As a result he apparently decided to make a point when these two guys violated the non compete. Bet they wish they consulted a good lawyer before violating it.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I have never used that word before.

However I fiercely disagree with you on "they will come after you and your bank account." You know to me that just sounds like someone who thinks all financially successful people are greedy and without principle. The developers can hire the best lawyers. They won this case and I am not surprised. AND I am pleased. I believe that if you work hard and long hours and invest your own money, risk your own money and keep bettering your idea and plans and become enormously successful that is NO crime.

I think sometimes, a lot of times, the good guys are RICH. Rich is not a bad word.

Rich IS a bad word when the "rich" make laws to help themselves stay in power. When they stack the deck. Then they become a bad word. In Japan around 1980 (not sure about today) Japanese CEOs refused to take salaries that were more than 10 times their company's average worker's wages. They would be ashamed to have done so. Today in the US, CEOs make 100 to 200 times their average workers - they have no shame!

The US is today in GREAT danger of social instability because the wealth gap is the greatest in US history and the highest in the 1st world (or developed countries) !!!!!! Look that up and see why "RICH" really is a BAD word. Maybe it was NOT in OUR day, but times have changed for the MUCH worse. Sorry! Please be aware!

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Rich IS a bad word when the "rich" make laws to help themselves stay in power. When they stack the deck. Then they become a bad word. In Japan around 1980 (not sure about today) Japanese CEOs refused to take salaries that were more than 10 times their company's average worker's wages. They would be ashamed to have done so. Today in the US, CEOs make 100 to 200 times their average workers - they have no shame!

The US is today in GREAT danger of social instability because the wealth gap is the greatest in US history and the highest in the 1st world (or developed countries) !!!!!! Look that up and see why "RICH" really is a BAD word. Maybe it was NOT in OUR day, but times have changed for the MUCH worse. Sorry! Please be aware!

This political post is totally off topic.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don’t know the strength of the contract they violated.

Strong enough.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

According to the testimony, the agents were treated like salaried employees, even though they were officially sub-contractors. They were expected to work overtime, on their own dime. They were expected to attend mandatory meetings every week outside normal work hours. They were expected to pick up potential clients - sometimes from the airport - using their own personal vehicle. They were expected to be on call 24/7. But they weren't paid for all of that. These were things they were actually ordered to do. It wasn't merely an expectation that they "would" do it, they were "required" to do it.

Eventually they burned out.

If they were classified as Independent Contractors, then TV wouldn't be able to tell them where to be and when. I certainly hope that's not how they classify their agents.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

If they were classified as Independent Contractors, then TV wouldn't be able to tell them where to be and when.

WRONG.
Companies can direct IC's.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

& not worked in the market for 18 months........that's the "non-compete" in the non-compete.

Only fools sign no compete clauses, unless they truly want to meld with the company Borg. Obviously, they had other plans. Not for me. I prefer to be independent.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

WRONG.
Companies can direct IC's.

WRONG!
According to the IRS "an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work, not what will be done and how it will be done. " I was an IC for over 15 years.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

WRONG!
According to the IRS "an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work, not what will be done and how it will be done. " I was an IC for over 15 years.

thank you.................you used my word in the definition. Dah

[b0bd0herty]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

2. Their right to sell new homes is already protected. It's THEIR property until it's sold, they can use who ever they want - including their own contractors - to sell on their behalf.
3. It's about the principal, alright. It's about proving to EVERYONE that you should never upset them, or they will come after you and your bank account. Even after they win a suit, they'll keep coming for more.

I believe the lawsuit was over the Developer's belief that the realtors who left, took information from the Information system that lists all know facts about anyone who's ever looked at, bought or thought about buying in The Villages. This data is for realtors working for TV not any others.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I think anyone who sincerely wants to be a real estate agent, will think twice about being an agent/sales person for The Villages from now on. They're forewarned now. If you choose to leave, and try to succeed on your own, they'll make sure neither you, nor anyone associated with you, is permitted to even try. And you'll have to pay for the privilege.

The Morse Family essentially just blackballed an entire real estate company, including employees who never worked for the Villages in the first place.

You can all applaud it but I'm disgusted.

In my opinion, your summary of why and how is incorrect.