It is well established that brokers may be held liable under theAct for misleading sales material. Home improvement contractorswill be penalized for mere technical violations, and even financiallenders are now deemed subject to the Act's requirements. A recenttrial court opinion, Matera v. M.G.C.C. Group, Inc., hasfurther expanded the scope of the Act and should be a cautionarytale for anyone who participates, however indirectly, in sellingreal estate.

In Matera, a lender acquired Phase III of a residentialdevelopment by deed in lieu of foreclosure after the originaldeveloper defaulted. The lender appeared before the planning boardin 1996 to obtain a compliance letter to allow Phase III to beconstructed. Allegedly, the lender failed to disclose drainageproblems affecting homes already constructed in Phase II by theoriginal developer, and also misrepresented drainage information inthe plans presented to the board. After the board granted thecompliance letter in 2002, the lender sold Phase III to a builder.During construction of Phase III, water flooded the homes in PhaseII.

Homeowners in Phase II sued the lender, the builder and others.The lender moved to dismiss the consumer fraud claims, arguing thatit did nothing unlawful in selling Phase III and that it was notresponsible for the water damage to the homes in Phase II.