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.