Estate of Eller v. Bartron, 31 A.3d 895

Eller listed her mother’s house with Bartron, granting exclusive listing for one year and a 7% commission with dual agency waiver.
Bartron, acting as Eller’s agent, later represented Pierce/O'Neill, an investor, in a second sale of the same house.
Pierce/O'Neill engaged Bartron as its listing agent for a resale; Bartron arranged a second sale on the same day as the first.
Eller accepted Pierce/O'Neill’s offer without information about Bartron’s conflict of interest or the second resale.
The two sales closed on March 30, 1999, in the same law firm; Eller's mother’s house transferred first to Pierce/O'Neill, then to Knierim.
Eller alleged Bartron breached fiduciary duties; trial court granted directed verdict for Bartron after one day of trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bartron breached fiduciary duties by dual agency	Eller contends Bartron failed to disclose adverse interests.	Bartron argues any disclosure occurred and doubts about breach.	Genuine issues of material fact precluded directed verdict.
Whether Eller validly consented to dual agency	Consent did not encompass Bartron’s second-sale conflict.	Consent to dual agency in contract encompassed potential dual representation.	Consent did not cure Bartron’s failure to disclose conflicts; trial warranted.
Whether Bartron should have disclosed Pierce/O'Neill’s resale plan	Failure to disclose planned resale affected Eller’s judgment.	Evidence of resale plan was contested and disclosure may be inferred.	Disclosure obligation existed; issues of fact remained for trial.

Sci. Accessories Corp. v. Summagraphics Corp., 425 A.2d 957 (Del. 1980) (fiduciary duties include duty to disclose relevant information)
Burkett-Wood v. Haines, 906 A.2d 756 (Del. 2006) (standard for reviewing directed verdicts and evidentiary sufficiency)