Licensed in Arizona and Idaho, Mr. Browder specializes in the areas of architect and design professional malpractice, real estate broker errors and omissions, claims against insurance agents and brokers and commercial litigation.
Mr. Browder has significant experience representing a variety of professionals before state licensing boards and departments.
In the employment context, Mr. Browder has defended wrongful termination and discrimination claims brought in state and federal courts against the State of Idaho or its political subdivisions.
A former planning and zoning commissioner for Ada County, Idaho, he also has handled zoning and real property issues for clients.
2020 Case Summary: Arizona Department of Real Estate Sides with Lipson Neilson’s Client
In a case handled by John Browder, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Enforcement & Compliance Division found insufficient evidence to support any rule violations by our client:
“The Arizona Department of Real Estate ‘Department’ has reached an investigative conclusion regarding allegation that your client failed to disclose a civil judgment. After careful review, the documentary evidence is insufficient to support a finding of any real estate statute or rule violations within our jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is closed.” – Enforcement & Compliance Division, ADRE
2020 Case Summary: Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment and Attorney’s Fees in Favor of Lipson Neilson’s Client
In a case handled by John Browder over an $89,700.00 real estate commission, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the real estate brokerage and agent. Click here for published opinion.
The appellant had alleged that the broker for the real estate company had violated Arizona Revised Statute 32-2151.01(G) by failing to initial the listing agreement within ten business days of the parties signing it and, as such, the brokerage was not legally entitled to the commission.
In upholding the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals drew a legal distinction between a failure to comply with a substantive statutory requirement, which could preclude an agent from suing to collect a real estate commission, and a failure to comply with a “regulatory” statutory requirement, which would not bar the agent from suing to recover a real estate commission.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order as a matter of law, reasoning that even if the brokerage had violated Arizona Revised Statute 32-2151.01(G), the violation was of a “regulatory” statutory requirement and could not serve as a bar to the agent’s entitlement to the commission. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the real estate brokerage and agent.