Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 2REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction. REALTORS® shall not, however, be obligated to discover latent defects in the property, to advise on matters outside the scope of their real estate license, or to disclose facts which are confidential under the scope of agency or non-agency relationships as defined by state law.
Case #2-9: REALTOR®’s Responsibility for REALTOR-ASSOCIATE®’s Statement REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D, associated with the firm of REALTOR® A, obtained an offer to buy a property at less than the listed price. The offer was rejected. The property had been exclusively listed by REALTOR® B and had been published through the Multiple Listing Service of the local Board of REALTORS®. The owner received no further offers and at the expiration of the exclusive listing with REALTOR® B, he approached REALTOR® C and exclusively listed the property with him.
About this time, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D terminated his association with REALTOR® A and became affiliated with REALTOR® C’s organization.
The prospect who had made the unsuccessful offer on the property continued to seek the assistance of REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D and made another offer on the property, this time at the full listed price. REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D and REALTOR® C, the listing broker, submitted this offer to the owner, and it was accepted.
A few months following the sale, the purchaser complained to the Board of REALTORS® that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D had made a statement that “a visible gas pipeline easement extended to the property but did not go onto any part of the property.” The complainant presented evidence that the easement, in fact, crossed the property, and the complainant charged REALTOR® C and REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D with misrepresentation.
The complaint was reviewed by the Grievance Committee and then referred to the Board’s Professional Standards Committee which promptly scheduled a hearing and asked REALTOR® C and REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D to be present to answer charges of unethical conduct in violation of Article 2 of the Code of Ethics.
At the hearing, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D confirmed that he had made the statement attributed to him; that he thought it was correct because the information had been given to him by a neighboring property owner. Questioning revealed that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D had made no effort to verify the information from authoritative sources. REALTOR® C protested he knew nothing about the matter; that he had not been present when REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D made the statement; that he was not responsible for the oral statements made by a REALTOR-ASSOCIATE®; and that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D’s first contact with the buyer had occurred while REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D was associated with REALTOR® A.
It was concluded by the Hearing Panel that REALTOR® C and REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D were in violation of Article 2 of the Code of Ethics in a way that materially imposed upon the buyer, who actually received measurably less in his package of ownership rights when he purchased the property than he was led to believe he was buying. Since it had been demonstrated that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D made the statement containing misinformation on a pertinent fact while he was affiliated with REALTOR® C, and in view of the fact that REALTOR® C was the exclusive agent of the seller at the time, REALTOR® C was held to be responsible.
He was advised that a REALTOR® is definitely responsible for pertinent statements of his salespersons in real estate transactions.
REALTOR® C and REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® D were found in violation of Article 2.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 1 - Case Interpretation
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 1 - When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly.
Case #1-4: Fidelity to Client - Client A contacted REALTOR® B to list a vacant lot. Client A said he had heard that similar lots in the vicinity had sold for about $50,000 and thought he should be able to get a similar price. REALTOR® B stressed some minor disadvantages in location and grade of the lot, and said that the market for vacant lots was sluggish. He suggested listing at a price of $32,500 and the client agreed.
In two weeks, REALTOR® B came to Client A with an offer at the listed price of $32,500. The client raised some questions about it, pointing out that the offer had come in just two weeks after the property had been placed on the market which could be an indication that the lot was worth closer to $50,000 than $32,500. REALTOR® B strongly urged him to accept the offer, stating that because of the sluggish market, another offer might not develop for months and that the offer in hand simply vindicated REALTOR® B’s own judgment as to pricing the lot. Client A finally agreed and the sale was made to Buyer C.
Two months later, Client A discovered the lot was no longer owned by Buyer C, but had been purchased by Buyer D at $55,000. He investigated and found that Buyer C was a brother-in-law of REALTOR® B, and that Buyer C had acted on behalf of REALTOR® B in buying the property for $32,500.
Client A outlined the facts in a complaint to the Board of REALTORS®, charging REALTOR® B with collusion in betrayal of a client’s confidence and interests, and with failing to disclose that he was buying the property on his own behalf.
At a hearing before a panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, REALTOR® B’s defense was that in his observation of real estate transactions there can be two legitimate prices of property—the price that a seller is willing to take in order to liquidate his investment, and the price that a buyer is willing to pay to acquire a property in which he is particularly interested. His position was that he saw no harm in bringing about a transaction to his own advantage in which the seller received a price that he was willing to take and the buyer paid a price that he was willing to pay.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had deceitfully used the guise of rendering professional service to a client in acting as a speculator; that he had been unfaithful to the most basic principles of agency and allegiance to his client’s interest; and that he had violated Articles 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Article 1 - When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly.
Case #1-4: Fidelity to Client - Client A contacted REALTOR® B to list a vacant lot. Client A said he had heard that similar lots in the vicinity had sold for about $50,000 and thought he should be able to get a similar price. REALTOR® B stressed some minor disadvantages in location and grade of the lot, and said that the market for vacant lots was sluggish. He suggested listing at a price of $32,500 and the client agreed.
In two weeks, REALTOR® B came to Client A with an offer at the listed price of $32,500. The client raised some questions about it, pointing out that the offer had come in just two weeks after the property had been placed on the market which could be an indication that the lot was worth closer to $50,000 than $32,500. REALTOR® B strongly urged him to accept the offer, stating that because of the sluggish market, another offer might not develop for months and that the offer in hand simply vindicated REALTOR® B’s own judgment as to pricing the lot. Client A finally agreed and the sale was made to Buyer C.
Two months later, Client A discovered the lot was no longer owned by Buyer C, but had been purchased by Buyer D at $55,000. He investigated and found that Buyer C was a brother-in-law of REALTOR® B, and that Buyer C had acted on behalf of REALTOR® B in buying the property for $32,500.
Client A outlined the facts in a complaint to the Board of REALTORS®, charging REALTOR® B with collusion in betrayal of a client’s confidence and interests, and with failing to disclose that he was buying the property on his own behalf.
At a hearing before a panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, REALTOR® B’s defense was that in his observation of real estate transactions there can be two legitimate prices of property—the price that a seller is willing to take in order to liquidate his investment, and the price that a buyer is willing to pay to acquire a property in which he is particularly interested. His position was that he saw no harm in bringing about a transaction to his own advantage in which the seller received a price that he was willing to take and the buyer paid a price that he was willing to pay.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had deceitfully used the guise of rendering professional service to a client in acting as a speculator; that he had been unfaithful to the most basic principles of agency and allegiance to his client’s interest; and that he had violated Articles 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 17
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 17 – In the event of contractual disputes or specific non-contractual disputes as defined in Standard of Practice 17-4 between REALTORS® (principals) associated with different firms, arising out of their relationship as REALTORS®, the REALTOR® shall submit the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the regulations of their Board or Boards rather than litigate the matter.
In the event clients of REALTORS® wish to arbitrate contractual disputes arising out of real estate transactions, REALTORS® shall arbitrate those disputes in accordance with the regulations of their Board, provided the clients agree to be bound by the decision.
The obligation to participate in arbitration contemplated by this Article includes the obligation to REALTORS® (principals) to cause their firms to arbitrate and be bound by any award.
Case #17-1: Obligation to Submit to Arbitration
REALTOR® A and REALTOR® B had been engaged in a cooperative transaction that resulted in a dispute regarding entitlement to compensation. Rather than requesting arbitration before the Board of REALTORS®, REALTOR® A filed suit against REALTOR® B for payment of the compensation he felt REALTOR® B owed him. Upon receiving notification of the lawsuit, REALTOR® B filed a request for arbitration with the Board, which was reviewed by the Grievance Committee and found to be a mandatory arbitration situation. REALTOR® A was advised of the Grievance Committee’s decision, but refused to withdraw from the lawsuit. Thereupon, REALTOR® B filed a complaint with the Board charging a violation of Article 17 as supported by Standard of Practice 17-1.
REALTOR® A was directed to be present at a hearing on the complaint before the Board of Directors. Evidence that REALTOR® B had sought REALTOR® A’s agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration was presented at the hearing. REALTOR® A defended his action in filing the suit and refusing to submit to arbitration by asserting that under laws of the state, the Board of REALTORS® had no authority to bar his access to the courts or to require him to arbitrate his dispute with REALTOR® B.
The Board of Directors concluded that REALTOR® A was correct as to his legal right and as to the Board’s lack of any right to prevent him from filing a suit. It was pointed out to REALTOR® A, however, that the Board of REALTORS® is a voluntary organization, whose members accept certain specified obligations with respect to their relations with other REALTORS®, and that if he wished to continue as a member of the Board he would be obliged to adhere to the Board’s requirements as to arbitration.
Because REALTOR® A would not withdraw the litigation; the Board of Directors concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 17 for refusing to arbitrate in a mandatory arbitration situation. However, it was noted that if REALTOR® A had filed litigation against REALTOR® B, and had REALTOR® B then requested arbitration with the Grievance Committee determining that an arbitrable issue of a mandatory nature existed, REALTOR® B might have successfully petitioned the court to remand the matter to the Board for arbitration, and there would have been no finding of a violation of Article 17 since the Board’s arbitration process would have been ultimately complied with.
Article 17 – In the event of contractual disputes or specific non-contractual disputes as defined in Standard of Practice 17-4 between REALTORS® (principals) associated with different firms, arising out of their relationship as REALTORS®, the REALTOR® shall submit the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the regulations of their Board or Boards rather than litigate the matter.
In the event clients of REALTORS® wish to arbitrate contractual disputes arising out of real estate transactions, REALTORS® shall arbitrate those disputes in accordance with the regulations of their Board, provided the clients agree to be bound by the decision.
The obligation to participate in arbitration contemplated by this Article includes the obligation to REALTORS® (principals) to cause their firms to arbitrate and be bound by any award.
Case #17-1: Obligation to Submit to Arbitration
REALTOR® A and REALTOR® B had been engaged in a cooperative transaction that resulted in a dispute regarding entitlement to compensation. Rather than requesting arbitration before the Board of REALTORS®, REALTOR® A filed suit against REALTOR® B for payment of the compensation he felt REALTOR® B owed him. Upon receiving notification of the lawsuit, REALTOR® B filed a request for arbitration with the Board, which was reviewed by the Grievance Committee and found to be a mandatory arbitration situation. REALTOR® A was advised of the Grievance Committee’s decision, but refused to withdraw from the lawsuit. Thereupon, REALTOR® B filed a complaint with the Board charging a violation of Article 17 as supported by Standard of Practice 17-1.
REALTOR® A was directed to be present at a hearing on the complaint before the Board of Directors. Evidence that REALTOR® B had sought REALTOR® A’s agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration was presented at the hearing. REALTOR® A defended his action in filing the suit and refusing to submit to arbitration by asserting that under laws of the state, the Board of REALTORS® had no authority to bar his access to the courts or to require him to arbitrate his dispute with REALTOR® B.
The Board of Directors concluded that REALTOR® A was correct as to his legal right and as to the Board’s lack of any right to prevent him from filing a suit. It was pointed out to REALTOR® A, however, that the Board of REALTORS® is a voluntary organization, whose members accept certain specified obligations with respect to their relations with other REALTORS®, and that if he wished to continue as a member of the Board he would be obliged to adhere to the Board’s requirements as to arbitration.
Because REALTOR® A would not withdraw the litigation; the Board of Directors concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 17 for refusing to arbitrate in a mandatory arbitration situation. However, it was noted that if REALTOR® A had filed litigation against REALTOR® B, and had REALTOR® B then requested arbitration with the Grievance Committee determining that an arbitrable issue of a mandatory nature existed, REALTOR® B might have successfully petitioned the court to remand the matter to the Board for arbitration, and there would have been no finding of a violation of Article 17 since the Board’s arbitration process would have been ultimately complied with.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 16
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 16 – REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients.
Case #16-16: Buyer Agent’s Demand that Listing Agent Reduce CommissionREALTOR® B contacted REALTOR® A, the listing broker, and notified her that he was a buyer’s agent and was interested in showing one of her listings to his client, a prospective purchaser. REALTOR® A made an appointment for REALTOR® B and his client to view the property. Shortly thereafter, REALTOR® B presented REALTOR® A with a signed offer to purchase from his client which was contingent on REALTOR® A’s willingness to reduce her commission by the amount she had offered through the MLS to subagents and on the seller’s willingness to compensate the buyer for the commission the buyer owed to REALTOR® B, his agent. REALTOR® A presented the offer to her client, the seller, explaining that she would not agree to reduce the previously agreed commission as specified in their listing contract.
REALTOR® A then filed a complaint with the local Board charging REALTOR® B with violating Article 16 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16. In her complaint, REALTOR® A stated that REALTOR® B had interfered in her agency relationship with the seller by encouraging the buyer to condition acceptance of his offer on the renegotiation of REALTOR® A’s commission arrangement with her client, the seller.
REALTOR® B defended his action arguing that REALTOR® A’s refusal to reduce her commission by an amount equal to what she had offered other brokers for subagency services would have placed the seller in the position of having to pay an excessive amount of commission if he had accepted the offer agreeing to contribute to the buyer broker’s compensation. In addition, REALTOR® B felt that it was his duty to his client to get the best price for the property by encouraging the buyer to reduce the costs of sale wherever practical. The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B’s actions to encourage his buyer-client to pressure the seller to try to modify the listing agreement with REALTOR® A was an unwarranted interference in their contractual relationship.
The Hearing Panel noted that Article 16, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16, required REALTOR® B to determine, prior to presenting an offer to REALTOR® A and her seller-client, whether REALTOR® A was willing to contribute to REALTOR® B’s commission, either directly or by reducing the commission as agreed to in the listing contract and, if so, the terms and amount of such contributions. It was the decision of the Hearing Panel that REALTOR® B had violated Article 16.
Article 16 – REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients.
Case #16-16: Buyer Agent’s Demand that Listing Agent Reduce CommissionREALTOR® B contacted REALTOR® A, the listing broker, and notified her that he was a buyer’s agent and was interested in showing one of her listings to his client, a prospective purchaser. REALTOR® A made an appointment for REALTOR® B and his client to view the property. Shortly thereafter, REALTOR® B presented REALTOR® A with a signed offer to purchase from his client which was contingent on REALTOR® A’s willingness to reduce her commission by the amount she had offered through the MLS to subagents and on the seller’s willingness to compensate the buyer for the commission the buyer owed to REALTOR® B, his agent. REALTOR® A presented the offer to her client, the seller, explaining that she would not agree to reduce the previously agreed commission as specified in their listing contract.
REALTOR® A then filed a complaint with the local Board charging REALTOR® B with violating Article 16 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16. In her complaint, REALTOR® A stated that REALTOR® B had interfered in her agency relationship with the seller by encouraging the buyer to condition acceptance of his offer on the renegotiation of REALTOR® A’s commission arrangement with her client, the seller.
REALTOR® B defended his action arguing that REALTOR® A’s refusal to reduce her commission by an amount equal to what she had offered other brokers for subagency services would have placed the seller in the position of having to pay an excessive amount of commission if he had accepted the offer agreeing to contribute to the buyer broker’s compensation. In addition, REALTOR® B felt that it was his duty to his client to get the best price for the property by encouraging the buyer to reduce the costs of sale wherever practical. The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B’s actions to encourage his buyer-client to pressure the seller to try to modify the listing agreement with REALTOR® A was an unwarranted interference in their contractual relationship.
The Hearing Panel noted that Article 16, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16, required REALTOR® B to determine, prior to presenting an offer to REALTOR® A and her seller-client, whether REALTOR® A was willing to contribute to REALTOR® B’s commission, either directly or by reducing the commission as agreed to in the listing contract and, if so, the terms and amount of such contributions. It was the decision of the Hearing Panel that REALTOR® B had violated Article 16.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 15
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 15 – REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about competitors, their business, or their business practices.
• Standard of Practice 15-1 – REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly file false or unfounded ethics complaints.
• Standard of Practice 15-2 – The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors, competitors’ businesses, and competitors’ business practices includes the duty to not knowingly or recklessly publish, repeat, retransmit, or republish false or misleading statements made by others. This duty applies whether false or misleading statements are repeated in person, in writing, by technological means (e.g., the Internet), or by any other means.
• Standard of Practice 15-3 – The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors, competitors’ businesses, and competitors’ business practices includes the duty to publish a clarification about or to remove statements made by others on electronic media the REALTOR® controls once the REALTOR® knows the statement is false or misleading.
Case #15-2: Intentional Misrepresentation of a Competitor’s Business Practices Following a round of golf early one morning, Homeowner A approached REALTOR® X. “We’ve outgrown our home and I want to list it with you,” said Homeowner A. “I’m sorry,” said REALTOR® X, “but I represent buyers exclusively.” “Then how about REALTOR® Z?,” asked Homeowner A, “I’ve heard good things about him.” “I don’t know if I would do that,” said REALTOR® X, “while he does represent sellers, he doesn’t cooperate with buyer brokers and, as a result, sellers don’t get adequate market exposure for their properties.”
Later that day, Homeowner A repeated REALTOR® X’s remarks to his wife who happened to be a close friend of REALTOR® Z’s wife. Within hours, REALTOR® Z had been made aware of REALTOR® X’s remarks to Homeowner A earlier in the day. REALTOR® Z filed a complaint against REALTOR® X charging him with making false and misleading statements. REALTOR® Z’s complaint was considered by the Grievance Committee which determined that an ethics hearing should be held.
At the hearing REALTOR® Z stated, “I have no idea what REALTOR® X was thinking about when he made his comments to Homeowner A. I always cooperated with other REALTORS®.” REALTOR® X replied, “That’s not so. Last year you had a listing in the Multiple Listing Service and when I called to make an appointment to show the property to the buyer, you refused to agree to pay me.” REALTOR® Z responded that he had made a formal offer of subagency through the MLS with respect to that property but had chosen not to offer compensation to buyer agents through the MLS. He noted, however, that the fact that he had not made a blanket offer of compensation to buyer agents should not be construed as a refusal to cooperate and that he had, in fact, cooperated with REALTOR® X in the sale of that very property.
In response to REALTOR® Z’s questions, REALTOR® X acknowledged that he had shown his buyer-client REALTOR® Z’s listing and that the buyer had purchased the property. Moreover, REALTOR® X said, upon questioning by the panel members, he had no personal knowledge of any instance in which REALTOR Z had refused to cooperate with any other broker but had simply assumed that REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay the compensation REALTOR® X had asked for was representative of a general practice on the part of REALTOR® Z.
The Hearing Panel, in its deliberations, noted that cooperation and compensation are not synonymous and though formal, blanket offers of cooperation and compensation can be communicated through Multiple Listing Services, even where they are not, cooperation remains the norm expected of REALTORS®. However, to characterize REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay requested compensation as a “refusal to cooperate” and to make the assumption and subsequent statement that REALTOR® Z “did not cooperate with buyer agents” was false, misleading, and not based on factual information. Consequently, REALTOR® X was found in violation of Article 15.
Article 15 – REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about competitors, their business, or their business practices.
• Standard of Practice 15-1 – REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly file false or unfounded ethics complaints.
• Standard of Practice 15-2 – The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors, competitors’ businesses, and competitors’ business practices includes the duty to not knowingly or recklessly publish, repeat, retransmit, or republish false or misleading statements made by others. This duty applies whether false or misleading statements are repeated in person, in writing, by technological means (e.g., the Internet), or by any other means.
• Standard of Practice 15-3 – The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors, competitors’ businesses, and competitors’ business practices includes the duty to publish a clarification about or to remove statements made by others on electronic media the REALTOR® controls once the REALTOR® knows the statement is false or misleading.
Case #15-2: Intentional Misrepresentation of a Competitor’s Business Practices Following a round of golf early one morning, Homeowner A approached REALTOR® X. “We’ve outgrown our home and I want to list it with you,” said Homeowner A. “I’m sorry,” said REALTOR® X, “but I represent buyers exclusively.” “Then how about REALTOR® Z?,” asked Homeowner A, “I’ve heard good things about him.” “I don’t know if I would do that,” said REALTOR® X, “while he does represent sellers, he doesn’t cooperate with buyer brokers and, as a result, sellers don’t get adequate market exposure for their properties.”
Later that day, Homeowner A repeated REALTOR® X’s remarks to his wife who happened to be a close friend of REALTOR® Z’s wife. Within hours, REALTOR® Z had been made aware of REALTOR® X’s remarks to Homeowner A earlier in the day. REALTOR® Z filed a complaint against REALTOR® X charging him with making false and misleading statements. REALTOR® Z’s complaint was considered by the Grievance Committee which determined that an ethics hearing should be held.
At the hearing REALTOR® Z stated, “I have no idea what REALTOR® X was thinking about when he made his comments to Homeowner A. I always cooperated with other REALTORS®.” REALTOR® X replied, “That’s not so. Last year you had a listing in the Multiple Listing Service and when I called to make an appointment to show the property to the buyer, you refused to agree to pay me.” REALTOR® Z responded that he had made a formal offer of subagency through the MLS with respect to that property but had chosen not to offer compensation to buyer agents through the MLS. He noted, however, that the fact that he had not made a blanket offer of compensation to buyer agents should not be construed as a refusal to cooperate and that he had, in fact, cooperated with REALTOR® X in the sale of that very property.
In response to REALTOR® Z’s questions, REALTOR® X acknowledged that he had shown his buyer-client REALTOR® Z’s listing and that the buyer had purchased the property. Moreover, REALTOR® X said, upon questioning by the panel members, he had no personal knowledge of any instance in which REALTOR Z had refused to cooperate with any other broker but had simply assumed that REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay the compensation REALTOR® X had asked for was representative of a general practice on the part of REALTOR® Z.
The Hearing Panel, in its deliberations, noted that cooperation and compensation are not synonymous and though formal, blanket offers of cooperation and compensation can be communicated through Multiple Listing Services, even where they are not, cooperation remains the norm expected of REALTORS®. However, to characterize REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay requested compensation as a “refusal to cooperate” and to make the assumption and subsequent statement that REALTOR® Z “did not cooperate with buyer agents” was false, misleading, and not based on factual information. Consequently, REALTOR® X was found in violation of Article 15.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 13
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 13 – REALTORS® shall not engage in activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law and shall recommend that legal counsel be obtained when the interest of any party to the transaction requires it.
Case #13-3: REALTOR®’s Obligation to Recommend Counsel When Needed
REALTOR® A was the listing broker for 25 acres of land owned by Client B. Shortly after REALTOR® A’s sign was placed upon the property, Customer C called REALTOR® A and expressed interest in purchasing the property. After inspecting the property, Customer C made a full price offer. Surprised, Client B prepared a counter-offer at a higher price. REALTOR® A realized that he might have a legal claim for commission from Client B, but not wishing to jeopardize their relationship, agreed that he would go back to Customer C and attempt to negotiate a higher price. Upon being informed of the property owner’s change of mind and his requested higher price for the property, Customer C became upset and indicated his intent to consult his attorney to determine if he could force the seller to go through with the sales transaction at the price for which it had been originally offered. At this point REALTOR® A advised Customer C that, in his opinion, litigation would be lengthy and expensive and that in the final analysis the sale could not be enforced. On the basis of REALTOR® A’s advice Customer C agreed to the higher price, and the transaction was consummated. Shortly after, Customer C complained to the Board of REALTORS® that REALTOR® A had provided bad advice to him. The Secretary referred the complaint to the Grievance Committee which determined that a hearing should be held and referred the matter back to the Secretary to arrange such a hearing.
At the hearing, Customer C outlined his complaint to the Hearing Panel of the Professional Standards Committee. He indicated that he had intended to consult his attorney, however, because of the persuasive personality of REALTOR® A and REALTOR® A’s assurance that legal action would be an exercise in futility, he had not done so.
REALTOR® A advised the panel that he had told Customer C that he could consult his attorney, but that, in his opinion, it would be a waste of time. He defended what he had told Customer C stating that it was only his opinion, not intended as a conclusive statement of law, and, in fact, was a correct statement under the law of the state. The panel concluded that REALTOR® A, in pointing out the fact that legal action was likely to be time consuming and expensive, was stating a practical circumstance which Customer C should consider and was proper. The panel further concluded that the expression of an opinion as to the probable outcome of the case was not an “unauthorized practice of law” within the meaning of Article 13.
However, the panel noted that a REALTOR® is obligated to “recommend that legal counsel be obtained when the interest of any party to the transaction requires it.”
In this case, REALTOR® A was aware that the interest of Customer C required a legal opinion as to whether Customer C could compel Client B to convey title to the property and did not intend his personal opinion to represent a “statement of law” upon which Customer C could rely. Accordingly, REALTOR® A was obligated to affirmatively recommend that Customer C consult his attorney to definitively establish the legal rights in question.
Having failed to make such a recommendation, REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 13.
Article 13 – REALTORS® shall not engage in activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law and shall recommend that legal counsel be obtained when the interest of any party to the transaction requires it.
Case #13-3: REALTOR®’s Obligation to Recommend Counsel When Needed
REALTOR® A was the listing broker for 25 acres of land owned by Client B. Shortly after REALTOR® A’s sign was placed upon the property, Customer C called REALTOR® A and expressed interest in purchasing the property. After inspecting the property, Customer C made a full price offer. Surprised, Client B prepared a counter-offer at a higher price. REALTOR® A realized that he might have a legal claim for commission from Client B, but not wishing to jeopardize their relationship, agreed that he would go back to Customer C and attempt to negotiate a higher price. Upon being informed of the property owner’s change of mind and his requested higher price for the property, Customer C became upset and indicated his intent to consult his attorney to determine if he could force the seller to go through with the sales transaction at the price for which it had been originally offered. At this point REALTOR® A advised Customer C that, in his opinion, litigation would be lengthy and expensive and that in the final analysis the sale could not be enforced. On the basis of REALTOR® A’s advice Customer C agreed to the higher price, and the transaction was consummated. Shortly after, Customer C complained to the Board of REALTORS® that REALTOR® A had provided bad advice to him. The Secretary referred the complaint to the Grievance Committee which determined that a hearing should be held and referred the matter back to the Secretary to arrange such a hearing.
At the hearing, Customer C outlined his complaint to the Hearing Panel of the Professional Standards Committee. He indicated that he had intended to consult his attorney, however, because of the persuasive personality of REALTOR® A and REALTOR® A’s assurance that legal action would be an exercise in futility, he had not done so.
REALTOR® A advised the panel that he had told Customer C that he could consult his attorney, but that, in his opinion, it would be a waste of time. He defended what he had told Customer C stating that it was only his opinion, not intended as a conclusive statement of law, and, in fact, was a correct statement under the law of the state. The panel concluded that REALTOR® A, in pointing out the fact that legal action was likely to be time consuming and expensive, was stating a practical circumstance which Customer C should consider and was proper. The panel further concluded that the expression of an opinion as to the probable outcome of the case was not an “unauthorized practice of law” within the meaning of Article 13.
However, the panel noted that a REALTOR® is obligated to “recommend that legal counsel be obtained when the interest of any party to the transaction requires it.”
In this case, REALTOR® A was aware that the interest of Customer C required a legal opinion as to whether Customer C could compel Client B to convey title to the property and did not intend his personal opinion to represent a “statement of law” upon which Customer C could rely. Accordingly, REALTOR® A was obligated to affirmatively recommend that Customer C consult his attorney to definitively establish the legal rights in question.
Having failed to make such a recommendation, REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 13.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 12
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 12 – REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communication and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations. REALTORS® shall ensure that their status as real estate professionals is readily apparent in their advertising, marketing, and other representations, and that the recipient of all real estate communications are, or have been, notified that those communications are from a real estate professional.
Case #12-19: Remove Information about Listings from Websites Once Authority to Advertise Ends
REALTOR® A, a residential specialist in a major metropolitan area, spent several weeks each year in a cabin in the north woods he had inherited from a distant relative. Always on the lookout for investment opportunities, he paid careful attention to “for sale” signs, newspaper ads, and local brokerage websites in the area.
Returning from the golf course one afternoon, REALTOR® A spotted a dilapidated “for sale” sign on an otherwise-attractive wooded lot. Getting out of his car, he was able to discern REALTOR® Z’s name. Returning to his cabin, he used the Internet to locate REALTOR® Z and REALTOR® Z’s company website. Visiting REALTOR® Z’s website, he found detailed information about the lot he’d seen that afternoon. Using REALTOR® Z’s e-mail address function, he asked for information about the lot, including its dimensions and asking price. Several days later REALTOR® Z responded, advising simply, “That listing expired.”
The following day REALTOR® A, hoping to learn whether the lot was still available, contacted REALTOR® X, another area real estate broker. “As it turns out, we have an exclusive listing on the property you’re interested in,” said REALTOR® X. In response to REALTOR® A’s questions, REALTOR® X advised that he had had an exclusive listing on the property for almost six months. “That’s funny,” responded REALTOR® A, “REALTOR® Z has a ‘for sale’ sign on the property and information about it on her website. Looking at her website, I got the clear impression that she still had that property listed.”
While the wooded lot proved to be out of REALTOR® A’s price range, REALTOR® Z’s “for sale” sign and website were still on his mind when he returned home. Ultimately, he contacted the local association of REALTORS® and filed an ethics complaint alleging that REALTOR® Z’s “for sale” sign, coupled with her offering information on her website made it appear as if the wooded parcel was still listed with her firm, when that had not been the case for over six months. REALTOR® A noted that this conduct, in his opinion, violated Article 12 since REALTOR® Z was not presenting a “true picture” in her public representations and was, in fact, advertising without authority, a practice prohibited by Article 12, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-4.
At the hearing, REALTOR® Z claimed that failure to remove the “for sale” sign was simply an oversight, and if anyone was to blame, it was her personal assistant who was responsible for removing signs and lockboxes from expired and sold listings. “If you want to blame anyone, blame my assistant since he’s supposed to bring back our “for sale” and “sold” signs. Turning to the stale listing information on her website, REALTOR® Z acknowledged that information about her former listing had continued to appear for more than six months after the listing had expired. REALTOR® Z analogized the continued presence of that information to an old newspaper advertisement. “It’s possible someone might come across a six month old newspaper with my listings in it. Those ads were true when I ran them but how could I ever control when and where someone will come across them, possibly months or even years later?” she asked. “Besides,” she added, “REALTORS® have better things to do than constantly inspect their websites to make sure everything is absolutely, positively up-to-the-minute.” “If we did that, none of us would have time to list or sell,” she concluded.
The hearing panel disagreed with REALTOR® Z’s reasoning. While reasonable consumers can expect newspaper advertisements to be current and accurate on the date of publication, they also understand that information in months or even years old newspapers will be obsolete. Information on REALTORS®’ websites is clearly different from newspaper ads since it can be updated on a regular basis, and corrected if mistakes occur. The panel concluded that the continued presence of information about REALTOR® Z’s former listing six months after expiration on her website, coupled with the continued presence of her “for sale” sign on the wooded lot, did not present the true picture required by Article 12, and was inconsistent with the obligation to have authority to advertise contemplated by Article 12 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-4. REALTOR® Z was found in violation of Article 12.
Article 12 – REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communication and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations. REALTORS® shall ensure that their status as real estate professionals is readily apparent in their advertising, marketing, and other representations, and that the recipient of all real estate communications are, or have been, notified that those communications are from a real estate professional.
Case #12-19: Remove Information about Listings from Websites Once Authority to Advertise Ends
REALTOR® A, a residential specialist in a major metropolitan area, spent several weeks each year in a cabin in the north woods he had inherited from a distant relative. Always on the lookout for investment opportunities, he paid careful attention to “for sale” signs, newspaper ads, and local brokerage websites in the area.
Returning from the golf course one afternoon, REALTOR® A spotted a dilapidated “for sale” sign on an otherwise-attractive wooded lot. Getting out of his car, he was able to discern REALTOR® Z’s name. Returning to his cabin, he used the Internet to locate REALTOR® Z and REALTOR® Z’s company website. Visiting REALTOR® Z’s website, he found detailed information about the lot he’d seen that afternoon. Using REALTOR® Z’s e-mail address function, he asked for information about the lot, including its dimensions and asking price. Several days later REALTOR® Z responded, advising simply, “That listing expired.”
The following day REALTOR® A, hoping to learn whether the lot was still available, contacted REALTOR® X, another area real estate broker. “As it turns out, we have an exclusive listing on the property you’re interested in,” said REALTOR® X. In response to REALTOR® A’s questions, REALTOR® X advised that he had had an exclusive listing on the property for almost six months. “That’s funny,” responded REALTOR® A, “REALTOR® Z has a ‘for sale’ sign on the property and information about it on her website. Looking at her website, I got the clear impression that she still had that property listed.”
While the wooded lot proved to be out of REALTOR® A’s price range, REALTOR® Z’s “for sale” sign and website were still on his mind when he returned home. Ultimately, he contacted the local association of REALTORS® and filed an ethics complaint alleging that REALTOR® Z’s “for sale” sign, coupled with her offering information on her website made it appear as if the wooded parcel was still listed with her firm, when that had not been the case for over six months. REALTOR® A noted that this conduct, in his opinion, violated Article 12 since REALTOR® Z was not presenting a “true picture” in her public representations and was, in fact, advertising without authority, a practice prohibited by Article 12, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-4.
At the hearing, REALTOR® Z claimed that failure to remove the “for sale” sign was simply an oversight, and if anyone was to blame, it was her personal assistant who was responsible for removing signs and lockboxes from expired and sold listings. “If you want to blame anyone, blame my assistant since he’s supposed to bring back our “for sale” and “sold” signs. Turning to the stale listing information on her website, REALTOR® Z acknowledged that information about her former listing had continued to appear for more than six months after the listing had expired. REALTOR® Z analogized the continued presence of that information to an old newspaper advertisement. “It’s possible someone might come across a six month old newspaper with my listings in it. Those ads were true when I ran them but how could I ever control when and where someone will come across them, possibly months or even years later?” she asked. “Besides,” she added, “REALTORS® have better things to do than constantly inspect their websites to make sure everything is absolutely, positively up-to-the-minute.” “If we did that, none of us would have time to list or sell,” she concluded.
The hearing panel disagreed with REALTOR® Z’s reasoning. While reasonable consumers can expect newspaper advertisements to be current and accurate on the date of publication, they also understand that information in months or even years old newspapers will be obsolete. Information on REALTORS®’ websites is clearly different from newspaper ads since it can be updated on a regular basis, and corrected if mistakes occur. The panel concluded that the continued presence of information about REALTOR® Z’s former listing six months after expiration on her website, coupled with the continued presence of her “for sale” sign on the wooded lot, did not present the true picture required by Article 12, and was inconsistent with the obligation to have authority to advertise contemplated by Article 12 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-4. REALTOR® Z was found in violation of Article 12.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 11
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 11 – The services which REALTORS® provide to their clients and customers shall conform to the standards of practice and competence which are reasonably expected in the specific real estate disciplines in which they engage; specifically, residential real estate brokerage, real property management, commercial and industrial real estate brokerage, land brokerage, real estate appraisal, real estate counseling, real estate syndication, real estate auction, and international real estate.
REALTORS® shall not undertake to provide specialized professional services concerning a type of property or service that is outside their field of competence unless they engage the assistance of one who is competent on such types of property or service, or unless the facts are fully disclosed to the client. Any person engaged to provide such assistance shall be so identified to the client and their contribution to the assignment should be set forth.
Case #11-1: Appraiser’s Competence for Assignment
REALTOR® A sold a light industrial property to Buyer B, a laundry operator. Several months later, Buyer B engaged REALTOR® A’s services to appraise the property and to supply an appraisal report for use in possible merger with another laundry. REALTOR® A carried out this appraisal assignment and submitted his report. Buyer (now Client) B was dissatisfied with the report feeling that the valuation, in comparison with the market price that he had paid was excessively low. Client B then engaged an appraiser specializing in industrial property, and after receiving the second appraisal report, filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® A with incompetent and unprofessional service as an appraiser.
At the hearing, questioning established that REALTOR® A could cite no other industrial property appraisal he had made, and that his appraisal experience had been limited exclusively to residential property. The hearing also established that when the client proposed the appraisal, REALTOR® A had readily accepted the assignment and that he had at no time disclosed the extent and limitations of this appraisal experience with his client.
REALTOR® A was found by the Hearing Panel to be in violation of Article 11.
Article 11 – The services which REALTORS® provide to their clients and customers shall conform to the standards of practice and competence which are reasonably expected in the specific real estate disciplines in which they engage; specifically, residential real estate brokerage, real property management, commercial and industrial real estate brokerage, land brokerage, real estate appraisal, real estate counseling, real estate syndication, real estate auction, and international real estate.
REALTORS® shall not undertake to provide specialized professional services concerning a type of property or service that is outside their field of competence unless they engage the assistance of one who is competent on such types of property or service, or unless the facts are fully disclosed to the client. Any person engaged to provide such assistance shall be so identified to the client and their contribution to the assignment should be set forth.
Case #11-1: Appraiser’s Competence for Assignment
REALTOR® A sold a light industrial property to Buyer B, a laundry operator. Several months later, Buyer B engaged REALTOR® A’s services to appraise the property and to supply an appraisal report for use in possible merger with another laundry. REALTOR® A carried out this appraisal assignment and submitted his report. Buyer (now Client) B was dissatisfied with the report feeling that the valuation, in comparison with the market price that he had paid was excessively low. Client B then engaged an appraiser specializing in industrial property, and after receiving the second appraisal report, filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® A with incompetent and unprofessional service as an appraiser.
At the hearing, questioning established that REALTOR® A could cite no other industrial property appraisal he had made, and that his appraisal experience had been limited exclusively to residential property. The hearing also established that when the client proposed the appraisal, REALTOR® A had readily accepted the assignment and that he had at no time disclosed the extent and limitations of this appraisal experience with his client.
REALTOR® A was found by the Hearing Panel to be in violation of Article 11.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 10
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 10 – REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTORS® shall not be parties to any plan or agreement to discriminate against a person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
REALTORS® in their real estate employment practices, shall not discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Case #10-2: Denial of Equal Professional Service
On a Saturday morning, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B, a salesperson affiliated with REALTOR® A, answered a call from Prospect C, a recent college graduate who was moving into the city to take his first teaching job at Northwest High School. Prospect C was married, had two young children, and was a veteran.
After qualifying Prospect C for a three-bedroom home in the $80,000 range, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B described available properties near Northwest High School and set up appointments to show houses to Prospect C. That afternoon, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B showed Prospect C and his wife three houses in neighborhoods near the high school.
On Monday, at a faculty meeting, Prospect C met Prospect D, who was also moving into the city to take a teaching position at the same high school and who was also in the market for a home. Prospect D was married with two young children and was also a veteran.
Prospect C told Prospect D of REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B’s knowledge of the market and VA financing and how helpful he had been. Prospect D called REALTOR® A’s office that afternoon and asked for REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B.
REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B met Prospect D and determined Prospect D was also qualified for the $80,000 range. Prospect D told REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B that he was also a new teacher at Northwest High School and had been referred by Prospect C. Prospect D was black.
REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B showed Prospect D houses in several neighborhoods undergoing racial transition but did not show Prospect D homes in neighborhoods near the high school.
Prospect D asked about houses closer to Northwest High School. REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B replied that he had no knowledge of any homes in that area for which Prospect D could qualify. The next day, Prospect D, while visiting Prospect C, related his problems in finding a home near the high school and learned that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B had shown Prospect C several homes near the high school. Prospect D filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® claiming that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B had discriminated against him and his family by not offering equal professional services.
The complaint was reviewed by the Grievance Committee. REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B was charged with an alleged violation of Article 10, and the complaint was referred to a Hearing Panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee for hearing.
At the hearing, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B admitted that he did not use the same efforts to show Prospect D properties in neighborhoods near the high school as he did with Prospect C because he felt Prospect D and his family would feel more comfortable living in a racially integrated neighborhood.
The Hearing Panel found REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B in violation of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics.
Article 10 – REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTORS® shall not be parties to any plan or agreement to discriminate against a person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
REALTORS® in their real estate employment practices, shall not discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Case #10-2: Denial of Equal Professional Service
On a Saturday morning, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B, a salesperson affiliated with REALTOR® A, answered a call from Prospect C, a recent college graduate who was moving into the city to take his first teaching job at Northwest High School. Prospect C was married, had two young children, and was a veteran.
After qualifying Prospect C for a three-bedroom home in the $80,000 range, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B described available properties near Northwest High School and set up appointments to show houses to Prospect C. That afternoon, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B showed Prospect C and his wife three houses in neighborhoods near the high school.
On Monday, at a faculty meeting, Prospect C met Prospect D, who was also moving into the city to take a teaching position at the same high school and who was also in the market for a home. Prospect D was married with two young children and was also a veteran.
Prospect C told Prospect D of REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B’s knowledge of the market and VA financing and how helpful he had been. Prospect D called REALTOR® A’s office that afternoon and asked for REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B.
REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B met Prospect D and determined Prospect D was also qualified for the $80,000 range. Prospect D told REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B that he was also a new teacher at Northwest High School and had been referred by Prospect C. Prospect D was black.
REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B showed Prospect D houses in several neighborhoods undergoing racial transition but did not show Prospect D homes in neighborhoods near the high school.
Prospect D asked about houses closer to Northwest High School. REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B replied that he had no knowledge of any homes in that area for which Prospect D could qualify. The next day, Prospect D, while visiting Prospect C, related his problems in finding a home near the high school and learned that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B had shown Prospect C several homes near the high school. Prospect D filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® claiming that REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B had discriminated against him and his family by not offering equal professional services.
The complaint was reviewed by the Grievance Committee. REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B was charged with an alleged violation of Article 10, and the complaint was referred to a Hearing Panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee for hearing.
At the hearing, REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B admitted that he did not use the same efforts to show Prospect D properties in neighborhoods near the high school as he did with Prospect C because he felt Prospect D and his family would feel more comfortable living in a racially integrated neighborhood.
The Hearing Panel found REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® B in violation of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 8
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 8 – REALTORS® shall keep in a special account in an appropriate financial institution, separated from their own funds, monies coming into their possession in trust for other persons, such as escrows, trust funds, clients’ monies, and other like items.
Case #8-2: Request for Investigation Filed by Board with the State Real Estate Commission
REALTOR® A listed Client B’s residential property and sold it to Buyer C, who made a substantial deposit subject only to Buyer C’s obtaining a mortgage on terms and conditions not exceeding a specified rate of interest within 60 days.
REALTOR® A assisted Buyer C by introducing him to officials of a lending institution, and after processing of his application for a mortgage, a written mortgage commitment was made by the lending institution which met the terms and conditions of the sales agreement. However, shortly after the mortgage commitment was received by Buyer C, REALTOR® A received a certified, return receipt requested letter from Buyer C, advising that Buyer C had changed his mind and would not go through with the sale. REALTOR® A discussed the matter by phone, but Buyer C said he would rather forfeit his deposit and definitely would not complete the sale, even at the risk of the seller suing for specific performance.
REALTOR® A then advised Client B of Buyer C’s refusal to go through with the sale and Client B told REALTOR® A that he did not wish to sue Buyer C, but would just accept a portion of the forfeited deposit as specified in the listing agreement between Client B and REALTOR® A.
REALTOR® A then obtained a written release from the sale from Client B and Buyer C, and promised to send Client B a check for the portion of the forfeited deposit due to Client B as specified in the listing agreement. However, REALTOR® A failed to send Client B a check and Client B filed a complaint with the Executive Officer of the Board alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics.
At the hearing, Client B stated that he had no complaint about REALTOR® A’s services to him except REALTOR® A’s failure to provide Client B with the portion of the forfeited deposit due him, and that after several telephone calls and letters, REALTOR® A had told Client B that he would provide the forfeited monies due Client B “just as soon as he could.” Client B said REALTOR® A told him he had some unexpected expenses and therefore Client B would have to wait until REALTOR® A obtained other funds which he expected to receive shortly.
REALTOR® A admitted the facts as related and further admitted that he had not placed the deposit received from Buyer C into an escrow account, but had placed it in his general funds. He said that unexpected expenditures had caused a deficit balance in these funds, and he would pay Client B as soon as he could.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics and recommended that the decision, when final, be forwarded to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.
The Board of Directors affirmed the decision of the Hearing Panel; ordered implementation of the recommended sanction; and requested that the President forward, with advice of Board legal counsel, the final decision to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.
Article 8 – REALTORS® shall keep in a special account in an appropriate financial institution, separated from their own funds, monies coming into their possession in trust for other persons, such as escrows, trust funds, clients’ monies, and other like items.
Case #8-2: Request for Investigation Filed by Board with the State Real Estate Commission
REALTOR® A listed Client B’s residential property and sold it to Buyer C, who made a substantial deposit subject only to Buyer C’s obtaining a mortgage on terms and conditions not exceeding a specified rate of interest within 60 days.
REALTOR® A assisted Buyer C by introducing him to officials of a lending institution, and after processing of his application for a mortgage, a written mortgage commitment was made by the lending institution which met the terms and conditions of the sales agreement. However, shortly after the mortgage commitment was received by Buyer C, REALTOR® A received a certified, return receipt requested letter from Buyer C, advising that Buyer C had changed his mind and would not go through with the sale. REALTOR® A discussed the matter by phone, but Buyer C said he would rather forfeit his deposit and definitely would not complete the sale, even at the risk of the seller suing for specific performance.
REALTOR® A then advised Client B of Buyer C’s refusal to go through with the sale and Client B told REALTOR® A that he did not wish to sue Buyer C, but would just accept a portion of the forfeited deposit as specified in the listing agreement between Client B and REALTOR® A.
REALTOR® A then obtained a written release from the sale from Client B and Buyer C, and promised to send Client B a check for the portion of the forfeited deposit due to Client B as specified in the listing agreement. However, REALTOR® A failed to send Client B a check and Client B filed a complaint with the Executive Officer of the Board alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics.
At the hearing, Client B stated that he had no complaint about REALTOR® A’s services to him except REALTOR® A’s failure to provide Client B with the portion of the forfeited deposit due him, and that after several telephone calls and letters, REALTOR® A had told Client B that he would provide the forfeited monies due Client B “just as soon as he could.” Client B said REALTOR® A told him he had some unexpected expenses and therefore Client B would have to wait until REALTOR® A obtained other funds which he expected to receive shortly.
REALTOR® A admitted the facts as related and further admitted that he had not placed the deposit received from Buyer C into an escrow account, but had placed it in his general funds. He said that unexpected expenditures had caused a deficit balance in these funds, and he would pay Client B as soon as he could.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics and recommended that the decision, when final, be forwarded to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.
The Board of Directors affirmed the decision of the Hearing Panel; ordered implementation of the recommended sanction; and requested that the President forward, with advice of Board legal counsel, the final decision to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 7
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 7 – In a transaction, REALTORS® shall not accept compensation from more than one party, even if permitted by law, without disclosure to all parties and the informed consent of the REALTOR®’s client or clients.
Case #7-1: Acceptance of Compensation from Buyer and Seller
Buyer A engaged REALTOR® B to locate a small commercial property. Buyer A explained his exact specifications indicating that he did not wish to compromise. They agreed that if REALTOR® B could locate such a property within Buyer A’s price range, he—the buyer—would pay a finder’s fee to REALTOR® B.
Two weeks later, REALTOR® B called Buyer A to advise that Seller C had just listed a property with him that met all of Buyer A’s specifications except that the listed price was a bit higher than Buyer A wanted to pay. Buyer A inspected the property and liked it, but said he would adhere to his original price range. REALTOR® B called Buyer A three days later to say that Seller C had agreed to sell at Buyer A’s price. The sale was made and REALTOR® B collected a commission from Seller C and a finder’s fee from Buyer A which was not disclosed to Seller C, REALTOR® B’s client.
Several weeks later, Seller C learned about the finder’s fee that REALTOR® B had collected from Buyer A and filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® B with duplicity and unprofessional conduct. The complaint specified that when REALTOR® B had presented Buyer A’s offer at less than the listed price, he, the seller, was reluctant to accept it, but REALTOR® B had convinced him that the offer was a fair one and not likely to be improved upon in the current market; and that REALTOR® B had dwelt at length on certain disadvantageous features of the property in an attempt to promote acceptance of the offer. The complaint charged that REALTOR® B had actually been the agent of the buyer while holding himself out as the agent of the seller. Further, Seller C asserted that REALTOR® B had never mentioned that he was representing the buyer or intended to be compensated by the buyer.
At the hearing, REALTOR® B’s defense was that he had served both buyer and seller faithfully; that he had not accepted Seller C’s listing until after he had agreed to assist Buyer A in locating a property; and that in his judgment the listed price was excessive and the price actually paid was a fair price.
A Hearing Panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, which heard the complaint, concluded that REALTOR® B had acted in violation of Article 7 of the Code of Ethics. His efforts to represent the buyer and the seller at the same time, and the fact that he intended to be compensated by both parties, should have been fully disclosed to all parties in advance.
Article 7 – In a transaction, REALTORS® shall not accept compensation from more than one party, even if permitted by law, without disclosure to all parties and the informed consent of the REALTOR®’s client or clients.
Case #7-1: Acceptance of Compensation from Buyer and Seller
Buyer A engaged REALTOR® B to locate a small commercial property. Buyer A explained his exact specifications indicating that he did not wish to compromise. They agreed that if REALTOR® B could locate such a property within Buyer A’s price range, he—the buyer—would pay a finder’s fee to REALTOR® B.
Two weeks later, REALTOR® B called Buyer A to advise that Seller C had just listed a property with him that met all of Buyer A’s specifications except that the listed price was a bit higher than Buyer A wanted to pay. Buyer A inspected the property and liked it, but said he would adhere to his original price range. REALTOR® B called Buyer A three days later to say that Seller C had agreed to sell at Buyer A’s price. The sale was made and REALTOR® B collected a commission from Seller C and a finder’s fee from Buyer A which was not disclosed to Seller C, REALTOR® B’s client.
Several weeks later, Seller C learned about the finder’s fee that REALTOR® B had collected from Buyer A and filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® B with duplicity and unprofessional conduct. The complaint specified that when REALTOR® B had presented Buyer A’s offer at less than the listed price, he, the seller, was reluctant to accept it, but REALTOR® B had convinced him that the offer was a fair one and not likely to be improved upon in the current market; and that REALTOR® B had dwelt at length on certain disadvantageous features of the property in an attempt to promote acceptance of the offer. The complaint charged that REALTOR® B had actually been the agent of the buyer while holding himself out as the agent of the seller. Further, Seller C asserted that REALTOR® B had never mentioned that he was representing the buyer or intended to be compensated by the buyer.
At the hearing, REALTOR® B’s defense was that he had served both buyer and seller faithfully; that he had not accepted Seller C’s listing until after he had agreed to assist Buyer A in locating a property; and that in his judgment the listed price was excessive and the price actually paid was a fair price.
A Hearing Panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, which heard the complaint, concluded that REALTOR® B had acted in violation of Article 7 of the Code of Ethics. His efforts to represent the buyer and the seller at the same time, and the fact that he intended to be compensated by both parties, should have been fully disclosed to all parties in advance.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 6
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 6 - REALTORS® shall not accept any commission, rebate, or profit on expenditures made for their client, without the client’s knowledge and consent.
When recommending real estate products or services (e.g., homeowner’s insurance, warranty programs, mortgage financing, title insurance, etc.), REALTORS® shall disclose to the client or customer to whom the recommendation is made any financial benefits or fees, other than real estate referral fees, the REALTOR® or REALTOR®’s firm may receive as a direct result of such recommendation.
Case #6-4: Acceptance of Rebates from Contractors
REALTOR® A, who managed a 30-year-old apartment building for Client B, proposed a complete modernization plan for the building, obtained Client B’s approval, and carried out the work. Shortly after completion of the work, Client B filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® A with unethical conduct for receiving rebates or “kickbacks” from the contractors who did the work.
At the hearing, Client B presented written statements from the contractors to substantiate his charges.
REALTOR® A defended himself by stating that he had carried out all work involving the preparation of specifications, solicitation of bids, negotiations with the contractors, scheduling work, and supervising the improvement program; that he had presented all bids to the owner who had authorized acceptance of the most favorable bids; and that he and Client B had agreed on an appropriate fee for this service.
REALTOR® A also presented comparative data to show that Client B had received good value for his money.
After all of the contracts were signed and the work was under way, REALTOR® A found that his fee was inadequate for the time the work required; that he needed additional compensation but didn’t want to add to his client’s costs; and that when he explained his predicament to the contractors and asked for moderate rebates, they agreed.
Questioning by panel members revealed that the contractors felt that since they were being asked for rebates by the man who would supervise their work, they felt that they had no choice but to agree.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 6 of the Code of Ethics and that if he had miscalculated his fee with Client B, his only legitimate recourse would have been to renegotiate this fee with Client B.
Article 6 - REALTORS® shall not accept any commission, rebate, or profit on expenditures made for their client, without the client’s knowledge and consent.
When recommending real estate products or services (e.g., homeowner’s insurance, warranty programs, mortgage financing, title insurance, etc.), REALTORS® shall disclose to the client or customer to whom the recommendation is made any financial benefits or fees, other than real estate referral fees, the REALTOR® or REALTOR®’s firm may receive as a direct result of such recommendation.
Case #6-4: Acceptance of Rebates from Contractors
REALTOR® A, who managed a 30-year-old apartment building for Client B, proposed a complete modernization plan for the building, obtained Client B’s approval, and carried out the work. Shortly after completion of the work, Client B filed a complaint with the Board of REALTORS® charging REALTOR® A with unethical conduct for receiving rebates or “kickbacks” from the contractors who did the work.
At the hearing, Client B presented written statements from the contractors to substantiate his charges.
REALTOR® A defended himself by stating that he had carried out all work involving the preparation of specifications, solicitation of bids, negotiations with the contractors, scheduling work, and supervising the improvement program; that he had presented all bids to the owner who had authorized acceptance of the most favorable bids; and that he and Client B had agreed on an appropriate fee for this service.
REALTOR® A also presented comparative data to show that Client B had received good value for his money.
After all of the contracts were signed and the work was under way, REALTOR® A found that his fee was inadequate for the time the work required; that he needed additional compensation but didn’t want to add to his client’s costs; and that when he explained his predicament to the contractors and asked for moderate rebates, they agreed.
Questioning by panel members revealed that the contractors felt that since they were being asked for rebates by the man who would supervise their work, they felt that they had no choice but to agree.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 6 of the Code of Ethics and that if he had miscalculated his fee with Client B, his only legitimate recourse would have been to renegotiate this fee with Client B.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 5
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 5– REALTORS® shall not undertake to provide professional services concerning a property or its value where they have a present or contemplated interest unless such interest is specifically disclosed to all affected parties.
Case #5-1: Contemplated Interest in Property Appraised
Seller A and Buyer B were negotiating the sale of an apartment building, but couldn’t agree on the price. Finally, they agreed that each would engage an appraiser and they would accept the average of the two appraisals as a fair price. Seller A engaged REALTOR® C as his appraiser, and Buyer B engaged REALTOR® D. Both REALTORS® were informed of the agreement of the principals. The two appraisal reports were submitted. The principals averaged the two valuations and made the transaction at the price determined.
Six months later, it came to the attention of Seller A that REALTOR® C was managing the building that he had appraised. Upon making further inquiries he learned that REALTOR® C for several years had managed five other buildings owned by Buyer B, and that he had been Buyer B’s property manager at the time he accepted the appraisal assignment from Seller A.
At this point Seller A engaged REALTOR® E to make an appraisal of the building he had sold to Buyer B. REALTOR® E’s valuation was approximately 30% higher than that arrived at six months earlier by REALTOR® C.
These facts were set out in a complaint against REALTOR® C made by Seller A to the local Board of REALTORS®. The complaint charged that since REALTOR® C was an agent of Buyer B; since he managed all of Buyer B’s properties; since he had become manager of the property he had appraised for Seller A in connection with a sale to Buyer B; and since he had not disclosed his relationship to Buyer B, he had acted unethically, and in the interest of his major client had placed an excessively low valuation on the property he had appraised for Seller A.
At the hearing, Seller A also brought in a witness who stated that he had heard Buyer B say that he had made a good buy in purchasing Seller A’s building because Seller A’s appraiser was his (Buyer B’s) property manager.
Buyer B, appearing as a witness for REALTOR® C, disputed this and protested that he had paid a fair price. He substantiated REALTOR® C’s statement that management of the building formerly owned by Seller A was never discussed between them until after it had been purchased by Buyer B.
It was concluded by the Hearing Panel that whether or not management of the building was discussed between Buyer B and REALTOR® C prior to its purchase by Buyer B, REALTOR®
Article 5– REALTORS® shall not undertake to provide professional services concerning a property or its value where they have a present or contemplated interest unless such interest is specifically disclosed to all affected parties.
Case #5-1: Contemplated Interest in Property Appraised
Seller A and Buyer B were negotiating the sale of an apartment building, but couldn’t agree on the price. Finally, they agreed that each would engage an appraiser and they would accept the average of the two appraisals as a fair price. Seller A engaged REALTOR® C as his appraiser, and Buyer B engaged REALTOR® D. Both REALTORS® were informed of the agreement of the principals. The two appraisal reports were submitted. The principals averaged the two valuations and made the transaction at the price determined.
Six months later, it came to the attention of Seller A that REALTOR® C was managing the building that he had appraised. Upon making further inquiries he learned that REALTOR® C for several years had managed five other buildings owned by Buyer B, and that he had been Buyer B’s property manager at the time he accepted the appraisal assignment from Seller A.
At this point Seller A engaged REALTOR® E to make an appraisal of the building he had sold to Buyer B. REALTOR® E’s valuation was approximately 30% higher than that arrived at six months earlier by REALTOR® C.
These facts were set out in a complaint against REALTOR® C made by Seller A to the local Board of REALTORS®. The complaint charged that since REALTOR® C was an agent of Buyer B; since he managed all of Buyer B’s properties; since he had become manager of the property he had appraised for Seller A in connection with a sale to Buyer B; and since he had not disclosed his relationship to Buyer B, he had acted unethically, and in the interest of his major client had placed an excessively low valuation on the property he had appraised for Seller A.
At the hearing, Seller A also brought in a witness who stated that he had heard Buyer B say that he had made a good buy in purchasing Seller A’s building because Seller A’s appraiser was his (Buyer B’s) property manager.
Buyer B, appearing as a witness for REALTOR® C, disputed this and protested that he had paid a fair price. He substantiated REALTOR® C’s statement that management of the building formerly owned by Seller A was never discussed between them until after it had been purchased by Buyer B.
It was concluded by the Hearing Panel that whether or not management of the building was discussed between Buyer B and REALTOR® C prior to its purchase by Buyer B, REALTOR®
Friday, August 13, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 4
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 4– REALTORS® shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member thereof, or any entities in which they have any ownership interest, any real property without making their true position known to the owner or the owner’s agent or broker. In selling property they own, or in which they have any interest, REALTORS® shall reveal their ownership or interest in writing to the purchaser or the purchaser’s representative.
Case #4-5: Fidelity to Client
Client A contacted REALTOR® B to list a vacant lot. Client A said he had heard that similar lots in the vicinity had sold for about $50,000 and thought he should be able to get a similar price. REALTOR® B stressed some minor disadvantages in location and grade of the lot, and said that the market for vacant lots was sluggish. He suggested listing at a price of $32,500 and the client agreed.
In two weeks, REALTOR® B came to Client A with an offer at the listed price of $32,500. The client raised some questions about it, pointing out that the offer had come in just two weeks after the property had been placed on the market which could be an indication that the lot was worth closer to $50,000 than $32,500. REALTOR® B strongly urged him to accept the offer, stating that because of the sluggish market, another offer might not develop for months and that the offer in hand simply vindicated REALTOR® B’s own judgment as to pricing the lot. Client A finally agreed and the sale was made to Buyer C.
Two months later, Client A discovered the lot was no longer owned by Buyer C, but had been purchased by Buyer D at $55,000. He investigated and found that Buyer C was a brother-in-law of REALTOR® B, and that Buyer C had acted on behalf of REALTOR® B in buying the property for $32,500.
Client A outlined the facts in a complaint to the Board of REALTORS®, charging REALTOR® B with collusion in betrayal of a client’s confidence and interests, and with failing to disclose that he was buying the property on his own behalf.
At a hearing before a panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, REALTOR® B’s defense was that in his observation of real estate transactions there can be two legitimate prices of property—the price that a seller is willing to take in order to liquidate his investment, and the price that a buyer is willing to pay to acquire a property in which he is particularly interested. His position was that he saw no harm in bringing about a transaction to his own advantage in which the seller received a price that he was willing to take and the buyer paid a price that he was willing to pay.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had deceitfully used the guise of rendering professional service to a client in acting as a speculator; that he had been unfaithful to the most basic principles of agency and allegiance to his client’s interest; and that he had violated Articles 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Article 4– REALTORS® shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member thereof, or any entities in which they have any ownership interest, any real property without making their true position known to the owner or the owner’s agent or broker. In selling property they own, or in which they have any interest, REALTORS® shall reveal their ownership or interest in writing to the purchaser or the purchaser’s representative.
Case #4-5: Fidelity to Client
Client A contacted REALTOR® B to list a vacant lot. Client A said he had heard that similar lots in the vicinity had sold for about $50,000 and thought he should be able to get a similar price. REALTOR® B stressed some minor disadvantages in location and grade of the lot, and said that the market for vacant lots was sluggish. He suggested listing at a price of $32,500 and the client agreed.
In two weeks, REALTOR® B came to Client A with an offer at the listed price of $32,500. The client raised some questions about it, pointing out that the offer had come in just two weeks after the property had been placed on the market which could be an indication that the lot was worth closer to $50,000 than $32,500. REALTOR® B strongly urged him to accept the offer, stating that because of the sluggish market, another offer might not develop for months and that the offer in hand simply vindicated REALTOR® B’s own judgment as to pricing the lot. Client A finally agreed and the sale was made to Buyer C.
Two months later, Client A discovered the lot was no longer owned by Buyer C, but had been purchased by Buyer D at $55,000. He investigated and found that Buyer C was a brother-in-law of REALTOR® B, and that Buyer C had acted on behalf of REALTOR® B in buying the property for $32,500.
Client A outlined the facts in a complaint to the Board of REALTORS®, charging REALTOR® B with collusion in betrayal of a client’s confidence and interests, and with failing to disclose that he was buying the property on his own behalf.
At a hearing before a panel of the Board’s Professional Standards Committee, REALTOR® B’s defense was that in his observation of real estate transactions there can be two legitimate prices of property—the price that a seller is willing to take in order to liquidate his investment, and the price that a buyer is willing to pay to acquire a property in which he is particularly interested. His position was that he saw no harm in bringing about a transaction to his own advantage in which the seller received a price that he was willing to take and the buyer paid a price that he was willing to pay.
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had deceitfully used the guise of rendering professional service to a client in acting as a speculator; that he had been unfaithful to the most basic principles of agency and allegiance to his client’s interest; and that he had violated Articles 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 3
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 3
REALTORS® shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client’s best interest. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker. (Amended 1/95)
Case #3-10: Disclose Accepted Offers with Unresolved Contingencies
REALTOR® A listed Seller S’s house and placed the listing in the local association’s MLS. Within a matter of days, REALTOR® X procured a full price offer from Buyer B. The offer specified that Buyer B’s offer was contingent on the sale of Buyer B’s current home. Seller S, anxious to sell, accepted Buyer B’s offer but instructed REALTOR® A to continue marketing the property in hope that an offer that was not contingent on the sale of an existing home would be made.
A week later, REALTOR® Q, another cooperating broker working with an out-of-state transferee on a company-paid visit, contacted REALTOR® A to arrange a showing of Seller S’s house for Buyer T. REALTOR® A contacted Seller S to advise him of the showing and then called REALTOR® Q to confirm that he and Buyer T could visit the property that evening. REALTOR® A said nothing about the previously-accepted purchase offer.
REALTOR® Q showed the property to Buyer T that evening and Buyer T signed a purchase offer for the full listed price. REALTOR® Q left the purchase offer at REALTOR® A’s office.
REALTOR® A informed Seller S about this second offer. At Seller S’s instruction, Buyer B was informed of the second offer, and Buyer B waived the contingency in his purchase offer. REALTOR® A then informed REALTOR® Q that Seller S and Buyer B intended to close on their contract and the property was not available for purchase by Buyer T.
REALTOR® Q, believing that REALTOR® A’s failure to disclose the existence of the accepted offer between Seller S and Buyer B at the time REALTOR® Q contacted REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 3-6, filed an ethics complaint with the association of REALTORS®.
At the hearing called to consider the complaint, REALTOR® A defended his actions noting that while Buyer B’s offer had been accepted by Seller S, it had been contingent on the sale of Buyer B’s current home. It was possible that Buyer B, if faced with a second offer, could have elected to withdraw from the contract. REALTOR® A argued that continuing to market the property and not making other brokers aware that the property was under contract promoted his client’s best interests by continuing to attract potential buyers.
The Hearing Panel disagreed with REALTOR® A’s justification, pointing to the specific wording of Standard of Practice 3-6 which requires disclosure of accepted offers, including those with unresolved contingencies. REALTOR® A was found in violation of Article 3.
Article 3
REALTORS® shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client’s best interest. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker. (Amended 1/95)
Case #3-10: Disclose Accepted Offers with Unresolved Contingencies
REALTOR® A listed Seller S’s house and placed the listing in the local association’s MLS. Within a matter of days, REALTOR® X procured a full price offer from Buyer B. The offer specified that Buyer B’s offer was contingent on the sale of Buyer B’s current home. Seller S, anxious to sell, accepted Buyer B’s offer but instructed REALTOR® A to continue marketing the property in hope that an offer that was not contingent on the sale of an existing home would be made.
A week later, REALTOR® Q, another cooperating broker working with an out-of-state transferee on a company-paid visit, contacted REALTOR® A to arrange a showing of Seller S’s house for Buyer T. REALTOR® A contacted Seller S to advise him of the showing and then called REALTOR® Q to confirm that he and Buyer T could visit the property that evening. REALTOR® A said nothing about the previously-accepted purchase offer.
REALTOR® Q showed the property to Buyer T that evening and Buyer T signed a purchase offer for the full listed price. REALTOR® Q left the purchase offer at REALTOR® A’s office.
REALTOR® A informed Seller S about this second offer. At Seller S’s instruction, Buyer B was informed of the second offer, and Buyer B waived the contingency in his purchase offer. REALTOR® A then informed REALTOR® Q that Seller S and Buyer B intended to close on their contract and the property was not available for purchase by Buyer T.
REALTOR® Q, believing that REALTOR® A’s failure to disclose the existence of the accepted offer between Seller S and Buyer B at the time REALTOR® Q contacted REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 3-6, filed an ethics complaint with the association of REALTORS®.
At the hearing called to consider the complaint, REALTOR® A defended his actions noting that while Buyer B’s offer had been accepted by Seller S, it had been contingent on the sale of Buyer B’s current home. It was possible that Buyer B, if faced with a second offer, could have elected to withdraw from the contract. REALTOR® A argued that continuing to market the property and not making other brokers aware that the property was under contract promoted his client’s best interests by continuing to attract potential buyers.
The Hearing Panel disagreed with REALTOR® A’s justification, pointing to the specific wording of Standard of Practice 3-6 which requires disclosure of accepted offers, including those with unresolved contingencies. REALTOR® A was found in violation of Article 3.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 2
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 2
REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction. REALTORS® shall not, however, be obligated to discover latent defects in the property, to advise on matters outside the scope of their real estate license, or to disclose facts which are confidential under the scope of agency or non-agency relationships as defined by state law.
Case #2-7: Obligation to Determine Pertinent Facts
Realtor® A, a home builder, showed one of his newly constructed houses to Buyer B. In discussion, the buyer observed that some kind of construction was beginning nearby. He asked Realtor® A what it was. “I really don’t know,” said Realtor® A, “but I believe it’s the attractive new shopping center that has been planned for this area.” Following the purchase, Buyer B learned that the new construction was to be a bottling plant and that the adjacent area was zoned industrial.
Charging that the proximity of the bottling plant would have caused him to reject purchase of the home, Buyer B filed a complaint with the Board of Realtors® charging Realtor® A with unethical conduct for failing to disclose a pertinent fact. The Grievance Committee referred the complaint for a hearing before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Standards Committee.
During the hearing, Realtor® A’s defense was that he had given an honest answer to Buyer B’s question. At the time he had no positive knowledge about the new construction. He knew that other developers were planning an extensive shopping center in the general area, and had simply ventured a guess. He pointed out, as indicated in Buyer B’s testimony, that he had prefaced his response by saying he didn’t know the answer to this question.
The Hearing Panel concluded that Buyer B’s question had related to a pertinent fact; that Realtor® A’s competence required that Realtor® A know the answer or, if he didn’t know the answer, he should not have ventured a guess, but should have made a commitment to get the answer. The Hearing Panel also noted that although Realtor® A had prefaced his response with “I don’t know,” he had nonetheless proceeded to respond and Buyer B was justified in relying on his response. Realtor® A was found to have violated Article 2.
Article 2
REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction. REALTORS® shall not, however, be obligated to discover latent defects in the property, to advise on matters outside the scope of their real estate license, or to disclose facts which are confidential under the scope of agency or non-agency relationships as defined by state law.
Case #2-7: Obligation to Determine Pertinent Facts
Realtor® A, a home builder, showed one of his newly constructed houses to Buyer B. In discussion, the buyer observed that some kind of construction was beginning nearby. He asked Realtor® A what it was. “I really don’t know,” said Realtor® A, “but I believe it’s the attractive new shopping center that has been planned for this area.” Following the purchase, Buyer B learned that the new construction was to be a bottling plant and that the adjacent area was zoned industrial.
Charging that the proximity of the bottling plant would have caused him to reject purchase of the home, Buyer B filed a complaint with the Board of Realtors® charging Realtor® A with unethical conduct for failing to disclose a pertinent fact. The Grievance Committee referred the complaint for a hearing before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Standards Committee.
During the hearing, Realtor® A’s defense was that he had given an honest answer to Buyer B’s question. At the time he had no positive knowledge about the new construction. He knew that other developers were planning an extensive shopping center in the general area, and had simply ventured a guess. He pointed out, as indicated in Buyer B’s testimony, that he had prefaced his response by saying he didn’t know the answer to this question.
The Hearing Panel concluded that Buyer B’s question had related to a pertinent fact; that Realtor® A’s competence required that Realtor® A know the answer or, if he didn’t know the answer, he should not have ventured a guess, but should have made a commitment to get the answer. The Hearing Panel also noted that although Realtor® A had prefaced his response with “I don’t know,” he had nonetheless proceeded to respond and Buyer B was justified in relying on his response. Realtor® A was found to have violated Article 2.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Code of Ethics - Article 1
Professional Standards - As a REALTOR® member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®, you have agreed to abide by the NAR Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics is comprised of a Preamble and 17 Articles. Most Articles have corresponding Standards of Practice that support and interpret the Article. In addition, Case Interpretations provided by NAR demonstrate the application of the Articles to particular situations.
Article 1 - When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly.
Case #1-26: Subordination of Client’s Interests to REALTOR®’s Personal Gain
REALTOR® B was a sales associate with XYZ, REALTORS®. To promote XYZ’s in-house listings, the firm’s principals offered $1,000 bonuses to the company’s sales associates at time of closing on each of XYZ’s listings they sold.
Dr. Z, a recent transferee to the town, entered into a buyer representation agreement with XYZ through REALTOR® B.
Dr. Z explained he had specific needs, foremost of which was any home he purchased be convenient for and readily accessible by Dr. Z’s spouse who was physically challenged. “Part of my wife’s physical conditioning program is swimming,” said Dr. Z, “so in addition to everything else, I am looking for a home with a pool or room to build a pool.”
REALTOR® B knew there were a number of homes for sale meeting most of Dr. Z’s general specifications, several of which were listed with XYZ.
Over the next few days, REALTOR® B showed Dr. Z several properties in the Blackacre subdivision, all of which were listed with XYZ, including one with an outdoor swimming pool. Not included among the properties shown to Dr. Z were several similar properties in Blackacre listed with other firms, including one with an indoor pool.
After considering the properties shown to him by REALTOR® B, Dr. Z made an offer on the home with the outdoor pool. His offer was accepted and the transaction closed shortly thereafter.
Several months later, REALTOR® B received notice of an ethics complaint filed against him by Dr. Z. Dr. Z had learned about the home with the indoor pool from a colleague at the hospital who lived on the same block. The complaint alleged that REALTOR® B had put his interests, and those of his firm, ahead of Dr. Z’s by promoting XYZ’s listings exclusively and by not telling Dr. Z about a similarly-priced property with an indoor pool, which suited his family’s needs better than the property he had purchased. The complaint went on to indicate that REALTOR® B had received a bonus for selling one of XYZ’s listings and that Dr. Z suspected that REALTOR® B’s failure to tell him about the home with the indoor pool was motivated by the opportunity to receive a bonus.
At the hearing, REALTOR® B defended his actions stating that properties rarely meet all of potential purchasers desires; that he had made Dr. Z aware of several properties that met most of his requirements, including one with an outdoor pool; and that Dr. Z must have been satisfied with REALTOR® B’s service since he had purchased a home.
Upon questioning by Dr. Z’s attorney, REALTOR® B acknowledged that he knew about but had not shown the house with the indoor pool to Dr. Z. He conceded that a pool that could be used year round was better suited to the family’s needs than one that could be used only four months each year. He also admitted his failure to tell Dr. Z about the house with the indoor pool had at least in part been motivated by the bonus offered by his firm. “But,” he argued, “aside from the indoor pool, that house was no different than the one Dr. Z bought.”
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had been fully aware that one of Dr. Z’s prime concerns was his wife’s ongoing physical conditioning needs and REALTOR® B’s decision to show Dr. Z only properties listed with XYZ and to not tell him about the home with the indoor pool had been motivated by the possibility of earning an in-house bonus. The Hearing Panel determined that REALTOR® B had placed his interests ahead of those of his client and had violated Article 1.
Article 1 - When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly.
Case #1-26: Subordination of Client’s Interests to REALTOR®’s Personal Gain
REALTOR® B was a sales associate with XYZ, REALTORS®. To promote XYZ’s in-house listings, the firm’s principals offered $1,000 bonuses to the company’s sales associates at time of closing on each of XYZ’s listings they sold.
Dr. Z, a recent transferee to the town, entered into a buyer representation agreement with XYZ through REALTOR® B.
Dr. Z explained he had specific needs, foremost of which was any home he purchased be convenient for and readily accessible by Dr. Z’s spouse who was physically challenged. “Part of my wife’s physical conditioning program is swimming,” said Dr. Z, “so in addition to everything else, I am looking for a home with a pool or room to build a pool.”
REALTOR® B knew there were a number of homes for sale meeting most of Dr. Z’s general specifications, several of which were listed with XYZ.
Over the next few days, REALTOR® B showed Dr. Z several properties in the Blackacre subdivision, all of which were listed with XYZ, including one with an outdoor swimming pool. Not included among the properties shown to Dr. Z were several similar properties in Blackacre listed with other firms, including one with an indoor pool.
After considering the properties shown to him by REALTOR® B, Dr. Z made an offer on the home with the outdoor pool. His offer was accepted and the transaction closed shortly thereafter.
Several months later, REALTOR® B received notice of an ethics complaint filed against him by Dr. Z. Dr. Z had learned about the home with the indoor pool from a colleague at the hospital who lived on the same block. The complaint alleged that REALTOR® B had put his interests, and those of his firm, ahead of Dr. Z’s by promoting XYZ’s listings exclusively and by not telling Dr. Z about a similarly-priced property with an indoor pool, which suited his family’s needs better than the property he had purchased. The complaint went on to indicate that REALTOR® B had received a bonus for selling one of XYZ’s listings and that Dr. Z suspected that REALTOR® B’s failure to tell him about the home with the indoor pool was motivated by the opportunity to receive a bonus.
At the hearing, REALTOR® B defended his actions stating that properties rarely meet all of potential purchasers desires; that he had made Dr. Z aware of several properties that met most of his requirements, including one with an outdoor pool; and that Dr. Z must have been satisfied with REALTOR® B’s service since he had purchased a home.
Upon questioning by Dr. Z’s attorney, REALTOR® B acknowledged that he knew about but had not shown the house with the indoor pool to Dr. Z. He conceded that a pool that could be used year round was better suited to the family’s needs than one that could be used only four months each year. He also admitted his failure to tell Dr. Z about the house with the indoor pool had at least in part been motivated by the bonus offered by his firm. “But,” he argued, “aside from the indoor pool, that house was no different than the one Dr. Z bought.”
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® B had been fully aware that one of Dr. Z’s prime concerns was his wife’s ongoing physical conditioning needs and REALTOR® B’s decision to show Dr. Z only properties listed with XYZ and to not tell him about the home with the indoor pool had been motivated by the possibility of earning an in-house bonus. The Hearing Panel determined that REALTOR® B had placed his interests ahead of those of his client and had violated Article 1.
Friday, March 21, 2008
What You Need to Know: Article 16
By Jack Wilkinson
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.
It is an excepted law of ethics that punishment in the Court of Conscience, unlike Courts of Law, lessens with each repeated and unrebuked offense.
Joseph S. Auerbach
Article 16
“Respect the exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with their clients.”
Oh, how tempting it is to want that listing that hasn’t sold. It is a bit overpriced. The yard could use some clean up. And, of course, the interior should be “de-cluttered” and, if not totally staged, at least rearranged.
Lisa answered her cell phone with her usual chirpy greeting, “Hi, this is Lisa, how can I help you?”
“Hello Lisa, this is Mrs. Jones. You showed my home the other day and I wanted to talk to you. Did your buyer like it? Are they going to write an offer?”
Lisa had to think for a moment. Oh yes, I remember, she said to herself, “Messy yard. OK, it needed a bit of trimming and clean up, but it was salvageable. Too much clutter in the rooms, made them look small and uninviting. The kitchen was clean but again, too much stuff on the counters. I mean, it looked like people actually lived there.”
“Yes, Mrs. Jones, I remember now. I was just previewing the property and didn’t have a buyer with me.”
Mrs. Jones responded with a disappointed, “Oh, too bad. I was so hoping you had a buyer. Do you think you might have one, a buyer that is, in the future? We have been having no luck at all. It’s been on the market for three weeks and not one offer, or any interest for that matter. We are getting so discouraged.”
So, reader, what do you think could happen next, should happen next? What would you
do?
Lisa knew this listing was an exclusive with Charley B. In fact, she knew that Charley had sold Mr. and Mrs. Jones this house about 5 years ago. She had a buyer for it then and there was a bidding war that Lisa lost. Her buyers were disappointed, but Lisa found them another house that they liked even more. So, it all worked out in the end.
Here was Mrs. Jones, expressing obvious frustration at not getting her home sold. And Lisa knew, just knew, she could do a much better job of marketing the property than Charley could ever do. Most certainly, a lot better than he had done so far.
Was Mrs. Jones asking her for her opinion on what to do? What did Mrs. Jones really want?
Lisa simply answered with a few suggestions about the yard and general clean up of the clutter. She then went on to tell Mrs. Jones that she would be happy to talk to Charley because she felt rather uncomfortable having this conversation, since Charley was her exclusive agent.
At this point Mrs. Jones said, “I really want another opinion. Charley has been very good to us and for us, but sometimes I just know he is afraid of hurting our feelings. What do you think, Lisa?”
At that point, Lisa’s belief in good karma, good sense, and most of all her commitment to positive ethics, based on the REALTOR® Code of Ethics, came to her rescue.
She simply gave Mrs. Jones her thoughts on what she felt might improve the chances of a sale. Lisa closed the conversation with, “I know Charley and he always does a very good job, putting his clients first. I agree, he probably didn’t want to hurt your feelings. Why not try those little changes and discuss it with Charley. I do wish you the very best, Mrs. Jones. Goodbye, now.”
And with that she hung up the phone and went about her day.
Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare. John Dryden
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.
It is an excepted law of ethics that punishment in the Court of Conscience, unlike Courts of Law, lessens with each repeated and unrebuked offense.
Joseph S. Auerbach
Article 16
“Respect the exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with their clients.”
Oh, how tempting it is to want that listing that hasn’t sold. It is a bit overpriced. The yard could use some clean up. And, of course, the interior should be “de-cluttered” and, if not totally staged, at least rearranged.
Lisa answered her cell phone with her usual chirpy greeting, “Hi, this is Lisa, how can I help you?”
“Hello Lisa, this is Mrs. Jones. You showed my home the other day and I wanted to talk to you. Did your buyer like it? Are they going to write an offer?”
Lisa had to think for a moment. Oh yes, I remember, she said to herself, “Messy yard. OK, it needed a bit of trimming and clean up, but it was salvageable. Too much clutter in the rooms, made them look small and uninviting. The kitchen was clean but again, too much stuff on the counters. I mean, it looked like people actually lived there.”
“Yes, Mrs. Jones, I remember now. I was just previewing the property and didn’t have a buyer with me.”
Mrs. Jones responded with a disappointed, “Oh, too bad. I was so hoping you had a buyer. Do you think you might have one, a buyer that is, in the future? We have been having no luck at all. It’s been on the market for three weeks and not one offer, or any interest for that matter. We are getting so discouraged.”
So, reader, what do you think could happen next, should happen next? What would you
do?
Lisa knew this listing was an exclusive with Charley B. In fact, she knew that Charley had sold Mr. and Mrs. Jones this house about 5 years ago. She had a buyer for it then and there was a bidding war that Lisa lost. Her buyers were disappointed, but Lisa found them another house that they liked even more. So, it all worked out in the end.
Here was Mrs. Jones, expressing obvious frustration at not getting her home sold. And Lisa knew, just knew, she could do a much better job of marketing the property than Charley could ever do. Most certainly, a lot better than he had done so far.
Was Mrs. Jones asking her for her opinion on what to do? What did Mrs. Jones really want?
Lisa simply answered with a few suggestions about the yard and general clean up of the clutter. She then went on to tell Mrs. Jones that she would be happy to talk to Charley because she felt rather uncomfortable having this conversation, since Charley was her exclusive agent.
At this point Mrs. Jones said, “I really want another opinion. Charley has been very good to us and for us, but sometimes I just know he is afraid of hurting our feelings. What do you think, Lisa?”
At that point, Lisa’s belief in good karma, good sense, and most of all her commitment to positive ethics, based on the REALTOR® Code of Ethics, came to her rescue.
She simply gave Mrs. Jones her thoughts on what she felt might improve the chances of a sale. Lisa closed the conversation with, “I know Charley and he always does a very good job, putting his clients first. I agree, he probably didn’t want to hurt your feelings. Why not try those little changes and discuss it with Charley. I do wish you the very best, Mrs. Jones. Goodbye, now.”
And with that she hung up the phone and went about her day.
Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare. John Dryden
Friday, March 14, 2008
What You Need to Know: Article 1
By Jack Wilkinson
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.
It is an excepted law of ethics that punishment in the Court of Conscience, unlike Courts of Law, lessens with each repeated and unrebuked offense.
Joseph S. Auerbach
Article 1: REALTORS® protect and promote their clients interests while treating all parties honestly.
A friend of my just listed his house for sale and he gave me a little tour, asked what I thought of the price and this market.
I asked where the price came from and he mentioned that it was his brokers recommendation.
“Of course, the higher it sells for the more the broker makes”, he commented.
I asked what the commission was and he replied five and a half (5.5%) percent.
Well, I could not comment on the price as I have no real idea of the values in his neighborhood. It seemed reasonable to me. But what bothered me was his comment that the price was driven by the commission dollars to the agent and not the best interests of the seller. I know the agent that listed the property, and while I have never done a deal with that agent, my personal knowledge leads me to believe that the agent will only work for the best interest of her the client. The price is determined by the market not the commission.
I asked what the split was being offered and he said 50/50, as I had expected.
What caught my attention was his underlying belief that the REALTOR® would put the commission before his best interests. He assured me that he didn’t really think that, but it was a consideration.
Standard of Practice 1-3 REALTORS®, in attempting to secure a listing, shall not deliberately mislead the owner as to the market value.
I talked about how having a property on the market a long time, particularly in this market, is a sure sign that its over priced and not in anyone’s best interest. Further, if it were overpriced by $25,000 dollars the agents take would be about $600.00. Now, I don’t mean to dismiss that as nothing, but the price issue means far more to him than to the agent.
My reason for bringing this to your attention is two fold:
A. The code of Ethics Article 1 says, in part, we”…protect and promote the interests of the client…”
B. I have always told my real estate students that if you always work only for the best interests of the client you will have a long and fruitful career and avoid lawyers.
It may not be in our best interests as far as money is concerned. If it comes to your best interest vs. the clients’ best interests it may be best to remove yourself from the situation. However, you can only do this if doing such will not do harm to the client.
Remember, we really do operate in the court of conscience. The REALTOR® Code of Ethics is our road map.
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.
It is an excepted law of ethics that punishment in the Court of Conscience, unlike Courts of Law, lessens with each repeated and unrebuked offense.
Joseph S. Auerbach
Article 1: REALTORS® protect and promote their clients interests while treating all parties honestly.
A friend of my just listed his house for sale and he gave me a little tour, asked what I thought of the price and this market.
I asked where the price came from and he mentioned that it was his brokers recommendation.
“Of course, the higher it sells for the more the broker makes”, he commented.
I asked what the commission was and he replied five and a half (5.5%) percent.
Well, I could not comment on the price as I have no real idea of the values in his neighborhood. It seemed reasonable to me. But what bothered me was his comment that the price was driven by the commission dollars to the agent and not the best interests of the seller. I know the agent that listed the property, and while I have never done a deal with that agent, my personal knowledge leads me to believe that the agent will only work for the best interest of her the client. The price is determined by the market not the commission.
I asked what the split was being offered and he said 50/50, as I had expected.
What caught my attention was his underlying belief that the REALTOR® would put the commission before his best interests. He assured me that he didn’t really think that, but it was a consideration.
Standard of Practice 1-3 REALTORS®, in attempting to secure a listing, shall not deliberately mislead the owner as to the market value.
I talked about how having a property on the market a long time, particularly in this market, is a sure sign that its over priced and not in anyone’s best interest. Further, if it were overpriced by $25,000 dollars the agents take would be about $600.00. Now, I don’t mean to dismiss that as nothing, but the price issue means far more to him than to the agent.
My reason for bringing this to your attention is two fold:
A. The code of Ethics Article 1 says, in part, we”…protect and promote the interests of the client…”
B. I have always told my real estate students that if you always work only for the best interests of the client you will have a long and fruitful career and avoid lawyers.
It may not be in our best interests as far as money is concerned. If it comes to your best interest vs. the clients’ best interests it may be best to remove yourself from the situation. However, you can only do this if doing such will not do harm to the client.
Remember, we really do operate in the court of conscience. The REALTOR® Code of Ethics is our road map.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
What You Need to Know: Article 16
By Jack Wilkinson
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.Code of Ethics
A fellow REALTOR® (A) asked me a question the other day. It seems she has a listing that is a bit over-priced. She knows it and the owner knows it too. It is one of those things that we, as listing agents hate, but sometimes do, in the interest of keeping a good client happy. The property is not so over-priced that it makes no sense, but it is enough that an offer may be unlikely, especially in today’s market.
Her question was about an incident in which another REALTOR® (B) called the owner and began the conversation by asking the expiration date of the listing agreement.
Article 16“REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients.” (Amended1/04)
Standard of Practice 16-4
“REALTORS® shall not solicit a listing which is currently listed exclusively with another broker. However, if the listing broker, when asked by the REALTOR®, refuses to disclose the expiration date and nature of such listing; i.e., an exclusive right to sell, an exclusive agency, open listing, or other form of contractual agreement between the listing broker and the client, the REALTOR® may contact the owner to secure such information and may discuss the terms upon which the REALTOR® might take a future listing or, alternatively, may take a listing to become effective upon expiration of any exclusive listing.” (Amended 1/94)
On the face of it there appears to be no problem. However, the calling REALTOR®, after being told the expiration date, which was 34 days in the future, proceeded to tell the owner how much better off the owner would be by canceling the listing and re-listing with her, REALTOR® B. She went on to say that the price was much too high and the marketing no where near adequate enough to get the house sold.
The reality is that the current real estate market can cause people to do things that they might not otherwise do. But, is it ethical? NO!!
The first violation is the fact that B did not communicate with A. This is a clear breach of Article 16, Standard of Practice 16-4. B’s claim that a call was made and a message left is weak, indeed, as there is no record of any call. Secondly, more than one call should be made and a refusal obtained in order to be anywhere near compliance with 16-4. This didn’t happen.
While no expiration dates are given in the MLS data, it seems to be common practice that most (I have no actual figures, but I’ll use 99%) residential listings are for a 90 day period. At least, this has been true for the 29 years I have been in business. The listing information does show the listing date and number of days on the market. Simple arithmetic should give an idea of the expiration date. If it was on for 56 days, 90 – 56 = 34 days left. Prudence and ethical practice on B’s part would be to have at least waited for that time to pass. While still in violation, a very weak case could be made that “I thought it had expired.” Unfortunately, this is right up there with the third grade excuse of “the dog ate my homework.”
So it appears there is a clear violation. When A contacted B and asked why she called her client, B simply said “Oh, I thought it had expired, so very sorry.”
No evidence of remorse. Instead, a clear indication of no sense of wrong doing.
The important question here is not, “was it wrong?” It is more important to ask, “what should be done about it?”
While this question boils on A’s back burner, I’d like to hear from anyone as to what you think should be done.
What would you do? Let me know.
2002 President of the Marin Association of REALTORS®
Jack Wilkinson, GRI, is a 29-year member of the Marin Association of REALTORS®. He is a certified instructor of all phases of real estate education, a trainer of the required ethics introduction for MAR and contributing editor of the newly required real estate course, “Blueprint for Success” published by Kaplan Professional Schools.Code of Ethics
A fellow REALTOR® (A) asked me a question the other day. It seems she has a listing that is a bit over-priced. She knows it and the owner knows it too. It is one of those things that we, as listing agents hate, but sometimes do, in the interest of keeping a good client happy. The property is not so over-priced that it makes no sense, but it is enough that an offer may be unlikely, especially in today’s market.
Her question was about an incident in which another REALTOR® (B) called the owner and began the conversation by asking the expiration date of the listing agreement.
Article 16“REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients.” (Amended1/04)
Standard of Practice 16-4
“REALTORS® shall not solicit a listing which is currently listed exclusively with another broker. However, if the listing broker, when asked by the REALTOR®, refuses to disclose the expiration date and nature of such listing; i.e., an exclusive right to sell, an exclusive agency, open listing, or other form of contractual agreement between the listing broker and the client, the REALTOR® may contact the owner to secure such information and may discuss the terms upon which the REALTOR® might take a future listing or, alternatively, may take a listing to become effective upon expiration of any exclusive listing.” (Amended 1/94)
On the face of it there appears to be no problem. However, the calling REALTOR®, after being told the expiration date, which was 34 days in the future, proceeded to tell the owner how much better off the owner would be by canceling the listing and re-listing with her, REALTOR® B. She went on to say that the price was much too high and the marketing no where near adequate enough to get the house sold.
The reality is that the current real estate market can cause people to do things that they might not otherwise do. But, is it ethical? NO!!
The first violation is the fact that B did not communicate with A. This is a clear breach of Article 16, Standard of Practice 16-4. B’s claim that a call was made and a message left is weak, indeed, as there is no record of any call. Secondly, more than one call should be made and a refusal obtained in order to be anywhere near compliance with 16-4. This didn’t happen.
While no expiration dates are given in the MLS data, it seems to be common practice that most (I have no actual figures, but I’ll use 99%) residential listings are for a 90 day period. At least, this has been true for the 29 years I have been in business. The listing information does show the listing date and number of days on the market. Simple arithmetic should give an idea of the expiration date. If it was on for 56 days, 90 – 56 = 34 days left. Prudence and ethical practice on B’s part would be to have at least waited for that time to pass. While still in violation, a very weak case could be made that “I thought it had expired.” Unfortunately, this is right up there with the third grade excuse of “the dog ate my homework.”
So it appears there is a clear violation. When A contacted B and asked why she called her client, B simply said “Oh, I thought it had expired, so very sorry.”
No evidence of remorse. Instead, a clear indication of no sense of wrong doing.
The important question here is not, “was it wrong?” It is more important to ask, “what should be done about it?”
While this question boils on A’s back burner, I’d like to hear from anyone as to what you think should be done.
What would you do? Let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)