public site  |  contact  |  join us  |  members only / forms |  mobile
TODAY IS:

Code of Ethics Case Studies

Case #1-31: Protecting Client's Interest in Auction Advertised as "Absolute"

Seller T, a widowed elementary school teacher in the Midwest inherited a choice parcel of waterfront property on one of the Hawaiian islands from a distant relative. Having limited financial resources, and her childrens' college educations to pay for, she concluded that she would likely never have the means to build on or otherwise enjoy the property. Consequently, she decided to sell it and use the proceeds to pay tuition and fund her retirement.

Seller T corresponded via the Internet with several real estate brokers, including REALTOR® Q whose Web site prominently featured his real estate auction services. An exchange of email followed. REALTOR® Q proposed an absolute auction as the best way of attracting qualified buyers and ensuring the highest possible price for Seller T. Seller T found the concept had certain appeal but she also had reservations. "How do I know the property will sell for a good price?" she e-mailed REALTOR® Q. REALTOR® Q responded "You have a choice piece of beachfront. They aren't making any more of that, you know. It will easily bring at least a million five hundred thousand dollars." Seller T acquiesced and REALTOR® Q sent her the necessary contracts which Seller T executed and returned.

Several days prior to the scheduled auction, Seller T decided to take her children to Hawaii on vacation. The trip would also afford her the chance to view the auction and see, firsthand, her future financial security being realized.

On the morning of the auction only a handful of people were present. Seller T chatted with them and, in casual conversation, learned that the only two potential bidders felt the property would likely sell for far less than the $1,500,000 REALTOR® Q had assured her it would bring. One potential buyer disclosed he planned to bid no more than $250,000. The other buyer wouldn't disclose an exact limit but said he was expecting a "fire sale."

Seller T panicked. She rushed to REALTOR® Q seeking reassurance that her property would sell for $1,500,000. REALTOR® Q responded, "This is an auction. The high bidder gets the property." Faced with this dire prospect, Seller T insisted that the auction be cancelled. REALTOR® Q reluctantly agreed and advised the sparse audience that the seller had cancelled the auction.

Within days, two ethics complaints were filed against REALTOR® Q. Seller T's complaint alleged that REALTOR® Q had misled her by repeatedly assuring her-essentially guaranteeing her-that her property would sell for at least $1,500,000. By convincing her she would realize that price- and by not clearly explaining that if the auction had proceeded the high bidder-at whatever price-would take the property, Seller T claimed her interests had not been adequately protected, and she had been lied to. This, Seller T concluded, violated Article 1.

The second complaint, from Buyer B, related to REALTOR® Q's pre-auction advertising. REALTOR® Q's ad specifically stated "Absolute Auction on July 1." Nowhere in the ad did it mention that the auction could be cancelled or the property sold beforehand. "I came to bid at an auction," wrote Buyer B, "and there was no auction nor any mention that it could be cancelled." This advertising, Buyer B's complaint concluded, violated Article 12's "true picture" requirement.

Both complaints were forwarded by the Grievance Committee for hearing. At the hearing, REALTOR® Q defended his actions by noting that comparable sales supported his conclusion that Seller T's property was worth $1,500,000. "That price was reasonable and realistic when we entered the auction contract, and it's still reasonable today. I never used the word 'guarantee;' rather I told her the chances of getting a bid of $1,500,000 or more were very good." "But everyone knows," he added, "that anything can happen at an auction." If Seller T was concerned about realizing a minimum net return from the sale, she could have asked that a reserve price be established.

Turning to Buyer B's claim of deceptive advertising, REALTOR® Q argued that his ad had been clear and accurate. There was, he stated, an auction scheduled for July 1 and it was intended to be an absolute auction. "The fact that it was advertised as 'absolute' doesn't mean the property can't be sold beforehand-or that the seller can choose not to sell and cancel the auction. Ads can't discuss every possibility. It might have rained that day. Should my ad have cautioned bidders to bring umbrellas?" he asked rhetorically.

What do you think the hearing panel concluded? Show Answer


 
 
 
 
 
 




THUR
3/23
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
SOLD OUT!
MD Code of Ethics
 
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM
Real Estate Tax Issues
SAT
3/25
1:00 PM - 3:30 PM
SOLD OUT!
PGCAR's Annual RPAC Bowling Fundraiser
WED
3/29
5:00 PM - 9:00 PM
SOLD OUT!
PGCAR Awards Celebration - This event is S...
THUR
3/30
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Dotloop Training
 
1:30 PM - 4:30 PM
Dotloop Training
WED
4/05
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Financing Issues / Update
view entire calendar >
Sign up for future calls to action
February Home Sales
Prince George's County
Association of REALTORS®
9200 Basil Court, Suite 400 | Largo, MD 20774
Phone 301-306-7900 | Fax 301-306-8273
info@pgcar.com
PGCAR Facebook Logo    PGCAR YPN Facebook Logo    PGCAR YPN Facebook Logo PGCAR YPN Facebook Logo  
 
 
The Voice for Real Estate in Prince George's County
© Copyright 2001-2017 by the Prince George's County Association of REALTORS® Inc.   All Rights Reserved.
Developed and Hosted by CyberVillage Networkers, Inc.