READY TO GET REAL ABOUT REAL ESTATE?

As part of the legendary Berkshire Hathaway family of companies, we have the depth, strength and brand power to help grow your real estate business. Our network extends globally in reputation and strength. Locally, our company is the largest brokerage in Utah, ensuring that your property reaches a broad audience of real estate professionals and buyers. We are committed to providing you with the resources and support that will create greater success and enjoyment in your real estate career. So, talk with us at Berkshire Hathaway Utah Properties and let’s get you settled without ever settling for less

Master the Art of Listings and Showings: Avoid These Common Mistakes

The following cases and sanctions were heard in the second quarter by the Professional Standards Committee.

By The Professional Standards Committee Salt Lake Board of Realtors®

Case No. 1 False and Misleading Statements

The Complainants were referred to the Respondent to potentially represent them on the purchase of a new home. The Complainants identified a home they were interested in after attending an open house. They decided to make an ato the Complainants as required in Article 9 of the Code of Ethics. Rather, the buyer agency agreement was mixed in with the purchase contract documents making it somewhat confusing for the Complainants. During the course of communication between the Complainants and Respondent, a text message was sent by the Respondent that stated,

“[builder’s name] peeps appear to be evasive . . . They can put you in a bad spot if we’re not careful.” The hearing panel determined that the statement made in this text message was in violation of Article 15 of the Code of Ethics which prohibits Realtors® from recklessly making false or misleading statements about other real estate professionals. The Respondent was found in violation of Articles 9 & 15 of the Code of Ethics. The Respondent was required to pay a $1,000 fine and required to take a live 2 hour CE course covering agency law for no CE credit.

Case No. 2 Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure

The Respondent acted as an owner/agent on a duplex that was sold to the Buyers. The Complainant is a licensed agent who represented the Buyers. After going under contract on the duplex, the Buyers encountered several problems with the transaction during and after closing. The problems primarily involved issues with tenants remaining on the property, difficulty receiving tenant security deposits, non-disclosure of damage occurring while under contract, and property damage resulting from a water leak. During the hearing, there was some discussion relating to whether the Respondent incorrectly informed the Buyer’s that the tenants were on a month-to-month lease. After taking possession of the property, one of the tenants argued that they did not want to vacate the premises which caused some concern for the Buyers. Concerning Article 1 of the Code of Ethics, the panel did not find clear and convincing evidence that showed the Respondent was dishonest during the transaction as it related to the tenant’s lease. The Panel determined that there was evidence to suggest the tenant was aware of some water leakage issues that were occurring on the property and that the Respondent/Seller was aware of this fact. It was determined that this was not disclosed to the Buyer and resulted in a violation of Article 2 of the Code of Ethics which requires disclosure of pertinent facts relating to the property. During and after the transaction, the Respondent avoided discussing and attempting to resolve the problems encountered by the Buyers and asked not to be contacted any further in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics which requires cooperation with the other broker. There was considerable discussion relating to whether the Respondent adequately disclosed he was an owner/agent in the transaction as required by Article 4 of the Code of Ethics. On page 1 of the REPC, the Respondent’s legal name was listed as the seller of the property. The Respondent’s legal name was also included in section 5 of the REPC which indicated he was also the listing agent. While it is preferable and recommended to include the Disclosure of Interest Addendum in the REPC, in light of the verbal disclosure to the buyers at the time of the first showing, and in consideration of the written disclosure on the REPC, the panel did not find a violation of Article 4 of the Code of Ethics. The Respondent testified at the hearing that he felt that as long as the Seller Disclosures were provided to the Buyer no later than the Due Diligence Deadline that this was satisfactory and acceptable. The Hearing Panel determined that the Respondent did not fully understand that Seller Disclosures, including relevant leases, are to be provided by the Seller Disclosure Deadline in the REPC. This resulted in a violation of Article 11 of the Code of Ethics which requires Realtors® to conform to the standards of practice and competence which are reasonably expected. On the MLS listing for the duplex, the agent remarks noted that a 30-day lease back at closing would be required by the tenants. This contradicted the 12-month leases that were provided to the Buyers and created a potential conflict. As a result, the Panel found that there was a violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics which requires that all advertising is truthful and that it presents a true picture of the transaction. The Respondent was fined $500 and required to take the Mandatory Residential Course for no CE credit.

Case No. 3 Accessing a Listing without Permission

A buyer’s agent (the “Respondent”) used the key box to enter a listed property with their client without an appointment and without permission from the owner or the listing broker. The access lasted 14 minutes. The Respondent had an appointment to show a similar property nearby. The Respondent thought he was accessing the property for which he had a scheduled appointment. He failed to verify that the property he accessed was the same property for which he had the appointment. The owners of the property were not home at the time of the access, but their children were home. Once the Respondent realized there were children in the property, he recognized his mistake, and left the property. Based on the evidence and testimony, the panel found the Respondent in violation of Article 1 of the Code of Ethics. The Respondent failed to act honestly with all parties and failed to act in the best interests of his client when the Respondent entered a listed property without proper authorization. The Respondent was found in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics. The Respondent failed to cooperate with the listing broker when the Respondent entered a listed property without proper authorization. The Respondent was required to pay a $250 fine and take the 3 hour Code of Ethics course for no CE credit.

Case No. 4 Showing the Wrong Home

The Complainants represented the sellers. The Respondent represented a buyer. The Respondent was showing homes to a buyer and entered the sellers’ home after 8 p.m. believing they had an appointment and that the home was vacant. The Respondent’s assistant had made an error in property addresses and mistakenly told the Respondent that he had an appointment to view this property when he did not. The sellers were home in bed at the time and were startled by people coming into their home unannounced. The Respondent talked to one of the sellers and told him that he had an appointment. The seller contacted the Complainant upset that she would make an appointment and not tell them. The Complainant explained that there was no appointment scheduled. The Respondent apologized for any mix up, did a quick tour of the home and left. Concerning Article 1 of the Code of Ethics, the panel finds the Respondent in violation of this article. Access to a seller’s property is a serious trust placed in the Realtors® involved. The panel did not believe that enough care was taken in this instance to preserve that trust. A Realtor® must ensure that they are entering the correct property when accessing a property through the key box system. The burden on following showing instructions falls on the Realtor® accessing the key box. Although the Respondent claimed that the seller gave him permission after he had entered the home and been discovered by the seller, the panel found that the violation occurred prior to this encounter with the seller when the

Respondent entered the property without permission. Concerning Article 3 of the Code of Ethics, the panel determined the Respondent was in violation of Article 3 for the reasons stated above. The Respondent is to pay a fine of $200 within 90 days.

Case No. 5 Misinterpretation

The Complainants were the sellers. The Respondent represented the buyer. The Respondent contacted the Complainants prior to their house being listed on UtahRealEstate.com. One of the Complainants spoke with the Respondent about the house and told him that he could bring a potential buyer by. On or around August 2, 2022, the Respondent did bring the buyer to the house late in the evening and was told to come back the next morning. The Respondent returned the next morning with the buyer and toured the home with one of the Complainants. On or around August 4th, the Respondent submitted an offer to purchase the

Complainants’ home. The Respondent was notified that the Complainants were not going to accept offers until the home was listed on the MLS. The property was listed on or around August 15th with the showing instructions of by appointment only. The Respondent took the same buyer through the property with a scheduled appointment on or around August 16th. The Respondent submitted an offer which was accepted on or around August 19th. On or around August 23rd, the Respondent made an appointment through the listing agent for August 24th, at 9 a.m., to have an inspection done. The Respondent asked the listing agent if he could access the property on the evening of August 23rd, and the listing agent via text responded with, “Yes, they won’t be back till Friday they are still moving things out just a heads up. But go ahead and view it.” The Respondent accessed the property on the evening of the 23rd, and on the 25th, the Complainants arrived at approximately 9 p.m. to find the Respondent in the home. The Complainants were not happy and immediately notified the listing agent of the unscheduled access. The listing agent notified the Respondent that the Complainants were not happy about the unscheduled visits. Further visits to the property by the Respondent and or any contractors for the buyer were handled through the listing agent. The transaction successfully closed. Concerning Article 1 of the Code of Ethics, the panel found the Respondent in violation of this article. Access to a seller’s property is a serious trust placed in the Realtors® involved. The panel did not believe that enough care was taken in this instance to preserve that trust. The Respondent erred in interpreting the listing agent’s comment that the Complainants would not be back until Friday as an open invitation to access the property until Friday without any further permission or notice given. Concerning Article 3 of the Code of Ethics, the panel found the Respondent in violation for the reasons stated above. Respondent was fined $250 and required to take the Code of Ethics