Real Estate Management and Development
Company Overview of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company operates as a residential real estate brokerage company. The company is based in Florissant, Missouri. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company operates as a subsidiary of NRT LLC.
917 N Highway 67
Florissant, MO 63031-2939
Key Executives for Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Chief Executive Officer of Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation and President of Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation
President of Arizona and Chief Operating Officer of Arizona
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2013.
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company Key Developments
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Announces Board Changes
Mar 16 14
Frank Obringer, most recently the managing broker of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Bradenton, Fla., has been named president of the company’s Dallas/Fort Worth brokerage. He is replacing Sue Meyer, who has been the local president since 2007. Meyer is retiring, but she will assist in a transition over the next several months.
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Appoints Deborah Venedam as Branch Vice President
Dec 22 13
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage announced that Deborah "Debbie" Venedam has been appointed branch vice president of the Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage office in Wall. Venedam will be responsible for the oversight of approximately 40 affiliated sales agents serving communities throughout Sussex County and surrounding areas.
A Trial Court Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company Unlawfully Sold Insurance to Real Estate Agents
Jul 11 13
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a real estate broker on claims that it improperly sold insurance to agents without being licensed, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the legal assistance program for which agents had to pay a fee was not insurance. In addition, the plaintiff failed to show the materiality of and reliance on alleged misrepresentations regarding the legal assistance program. Marshall S. Griffith, a real estate agent, worked as an independent contractor for Coldwell Banker Residential Mortgage Brokerage Co. The independent contractor agreement Griffith signed required him to pay a fee for a legal assistance program that included defense and indemnity provisions. During Griffith's 20-month tenure with Coldwell Banker, he closed no sales and no legal claim was asserted against him. Griffith brought a class action against Coldwell Banker. He alleged that the company represented that the legal assistance program was errors and omission insurance and that it in fact was insurance which Coldwell Banker was not licensed to sell. The trial court granted Coldwell Banker's motion for summary judgment, holding that the legal assistance program was not insurance and Griffith could not recover on his fraud-based claims. The court of appeals agreed. The relationship between Coldwell Banker and Griffith was one of real estate broker and agent. The legal assistance program was merely incidental to the relationship. The court of appeal noted that Coldwell Banker did not require an application or approval for the legal assistance program. The program was part of the agreement. The principle purpose of the agreement was regulation of the listing and sale of real estate. Griffith's claims alleging that Coldwell Banker unlawfully sold insurance without being licensed failed. Griffith's fraud-based claims were premised on the allegation that Coldwell Banker represented that the legal assistance program was insurance for the purpose of inducing him to enter into the agreement and the program. The trial court properly found that there were no triable issues of fact that any of Coldwell Banker's alleged misrepresentations were material or that Griffith relied on them. The court of appeal pointed to Griffith's deposition testimony that he did not believe Coldwell Banker was an insurance company. Griffith also testified that he did not believe that the legal assistance program violated insurance regulations until after he left Coldwell Banker. The court of appeal determined that Griffith's lack of standing under California's Unfair Competition Law also supported summary judgment. There was no evidence that Griffith suffered a loss of property or money as a result of Coldwell Banker's alleged misrepresentations. The court of appeal held that the trial court properly concluded that Griffith's claims failed as a matter of law. Coldwell did not sell insurance or make actionable misrepresentations.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|
Most Searched Private Companies
Sponsored Financial Commentaries