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
Friday, March 21, 2008
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)