The office party theme this year was the Academy Awards, so my wife Patty decided we would go as this year's big hit as 'The Bees'. That's Patty on the right ;-)

The staff did a fabulous job in sending out invitaitons, arranging for a live DJ, ordering a delicious buffet, making sure there was lots to do with the casino crew's setup for blackjack, roulette and craps. There was much fun had by all as you can probably tell from checking out some of these photos.

Here's some shots of the gala affair. The master of ceremonies and the lead comedian were at their best!

There was some pretty hot dancing in addition to the casino games and the caricature artist.

Elvis and Bride!

Oscars were awarded to the winners in a number of Categories. Here's a shot of Allie, Rich Hudson's daughter, winner of the Future Miss America Oscar. I don't think Mike Brown's darling daughter thought much about Mr and Mrs Bee, however. And, there's Saul and Janie Klein posing for their caricature.

Happy Easter!

From the Easter Bunny circa 1983 (with son Sean, a Justin look-alike)

The best practice for a buyer's agent is to work under a written exclusive representation agreement. In most cases a buyer's agent is compensated at closing out of the proceeds of the transaction, rather than by direct payment from the buyer. The following two Case Interpretations of the NAR Code of Ethics illustrate the importance of carefully structuring the method of payment.

Case #16-16: Buyer Agents Demand that Listing Agent Reduce Commission (Adopted as Case #21-17 April, 1990. Transferred to Article 16 November, 1994 as Case #16-11. Renumbered November, 2001.)

REALTORŪ B contacted REALTORŪ A, the listing broker, and notified her that he was a buyers agent and was interested in showing one of her listings to his client, a prospective purchaser. REALTORŪ A made an appointment for REALTORŪ B and his client to view the property. Shortly thereafter, REALTORŪ B presented REALTORŪ A with a signed offer to purchase from his client which was contingent on REALTORŪ As willingness to reduce her commission by the amount she had offered through the MLS to subagents and on the sellers willingness to compensate the buyer for the commission the buyer owed to REALTORŪ B, his agent. REALTORŪ 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.

REALTORŪ A then filed a complaint with the local Board charging REALTORŪ B with violating Article 16 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16. In her complaint, REALTORŪ A stated that REALTORŪ B had interfered in her agency relationship with the seller by encouraging the buyer to condition acceptance of his offer on the renegotiation of REALTORŪ As commission arrangement with her client, the seller.

REALTORŪ B defended his action arguing that REALTORŪ As 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 brokers compensation. In addition, REALTORŪ 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 REALTORŪ Bs actions to encourage his buyer-client to pressure the seller to try to modify the listing agreement with REALTORŪ 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 REALTORŪ B to determine, prior to presenting an offer to REALTORŪ A and her seller-client, whether REALTORŪ A was willing to contribute to REALTORŪ Bs 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 REALTORŪ B had violated Article 16.

Case #16-17: Buyer Conditions Purchase Offer on Sellers Agreement to Pay Buyer Agents Fee (Adopted as Case #21-18 April, 1990. Transferred to Article 16 November, 1994 as Case #16-12. Renumbered November, 2001.)

REALTORŪ A filed a listed property with his local MLS offering to pay a fee for subagency services. REALTORŪ B called REALTORŪ A, identified himself as a buyers agent, and asked if REALTORŪ A would arrange a showing of the property to his client and himself. REALTORŪ A agreed. The following day, REALTORŪ B presented REALTORŪ A with an offer to purchase that was contingent on the sellers agreement to pay REALTORŪ Bs commission. The seller accepted the offer and the sale closed shortly afterward.

REALTORŪ A then filed a complaint against REALTORŪ B citing Article 16 of the Code of Ethics as interpreted by Standard of Practice 16-16. He stated that REALTORŪ B had interfered in REALTORŪ As relationship with his seller-client by attempting to negotiate a separate commission agreement with the seller. REALTORŪ B responded that since the request that the seller pay his commission was made by REALTORŪ Bs client, the buyer, directly of the seller and not of the listing broker, no violation of the Code of Ethics had occurred.

In their decision, the Hearing Panel noted that if REALTORŪ B, or if his client at REALTORŪ Bs urging, had demanded that a portion of REALTORŪ As commission be paid to REALTORŪ B, there would have been a valid basis for REALTORŪ As position. Since the request for payment of REALTORŪ Bs fee was made directly to the seller, REALTORŪ B was not in violation of Article 16.

Can you include other broker's listings on your website?

Well, it depends....

Here are two relevant Case Interpretations of Article 12 of NAR's Code of Ethics:

Case #12-16, Copying and Publishing other Brokers Advertisements (Adopted April, 1998.)

Wanting to take advantage of the virtual explosion of the World Wide Web, REALTORŪ A, who had a respectable level of expertise in computer technology, decided to purchase a Web site design software package and set out to design his own Web site.

Understanding that his site would be greatly enhanced by providing as much information as possible, he decided he would offer two pages of listings; his own and some choice listings of his competitors. Being careful not to present a misleading picture in his advertising, he was very careful to list the company name and phone number of the listing company with each ad of his competitors listings.

When REALTORŪ B found one of her listings on REALTORŪ As new website, she filed an ethics complaint with the local Association of REALTORSŪ complaining that REALTORŪ A had blatantly and without authorization of any kind whatsoever advertised my listing on his Internet Web site and in so doing was clearly in violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-4.

The matter was placed on the agenda of the Grievance Committee. At their next meeting, the Grievance Committee decided that the alleged conduct, if taken at face value, could possibly violate Article 12 and directed the Associations Executive Officer to schedule an ethics hearing before a Hearing Panel of the Associations Professional Standards Committee.

At the hearing, REALTORŪ B produced a printed copy of the advertisement of her listing which had been placed on REALTORŪ As Web site. She produced a copy of her listing agreement and a photograph of the property, which matched the information in the ad. She testified that she had never been contacted by REALTORŪ A for permission to advertise her listing.

When REALTORŪ A presented his case, he showed the hearing panel several examples of REALTORSŪ providing links to sites with ads for other REALTORSŪ listings. He said he saw no fundamental difference between providing such links and actually advertising other listings on his Web site, especially when he was very careful to also give the listing companys name and phone number. He went on to argue that REALTORŪ Bs clients would be hard pressed to understand REALTORŪ Bs objection to giving their properties the additional exposure they received on REALTORŪ As Web site.

Upon the conclusion of all testimony and closing statements, the Hearing Panel met in executive session and decided that while providing a link to listings of other REALTORSŪ did not violate Article 12, by actually publishing REALTORŪ Bs listing on his Web site REALTORŪ A was not linking, but instead was advertising (by copying, as opposed to simply providing a link) without authority. In their findings of fact, the Hearing Panel also noted that even if REALTORŪ Bs clients might not object to such advertising, the lack of objection could not be assumed and would not relieve REALTORŪ A of the obligation to obtain REALTORŪ Bs specific authority and consent to advertise her listings.

The Hearing Panel found REALTORŪ A in violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics.

Case #12-17: Use of Deceptive Domain Name/URL (Uniform Resource Locator) (Adopted May, 2001.)

REALTORŪ X, a principal broker in the firm XYZ, was technologically savvy and constantly looking for ways to use the Internet to promote his firm and drive additional traffic to his Web site.

Being an early adapter to the Internet, he had registered, but not used, domain names that incorporated or played on the names of many of his competitors and their firms, including ABC, REALTORSŪ.

REALTORŪ X and his information technology staff concluded that one way to drive traffic to the firms website would be to take advantage of the search engines commonly used by potential buyers and sellers. They realized that when potential buyers or sellers searched on key words like real estate or REALTORSŪ or on similar words, lists of domain names would appear, and that when consumers searched the Internet for ABC, REALTORSŪ, one of the domain names that might appear would be REALTORŪ Xs domain name, abcREALTORS.com.

REALTORŪ X decided to take advantage of the domain names that he had previously registered, and pointed several that used, in various ways, the names of his competitors, including abcREALTORs.com, to his site.

In a matter of days, REALTORŪ X learned that he had been charged with a violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics by REALTORŪ A, the owner of ABC, REALTORSŪ , alleging that his (REALTORŪ Xs) use of the domain name abcREALTORS.com presented a false picture to potential buyers and sellers and others on the Internet.

At the hearing, REALTORŪ X defended himself indicating that, in his opinion, use of a domain name was not advertising or a representation to the public but simply a convenient way for Internet users to find relevant websites. Moreover, When websurfers reach my home page, there is no question that it is my site since I clearly show XYZs name and our status as REALTORSŪ, he continued. These complaints are just a lot of sour grapes from dinosaurs who arent keeping up and who dont realize that on the Internet its every man for himself.

The Hearing Panel disagreed with REALTORŪ Xs justification, indicating that while his use of a domain name that employed another firms name might not be precluded by law or regulation, it did not comply with the Codes higher duty to present a true picture.

REALTORŪ X was found in violation of Article 12, presenting an untrue picture in his representation to the public.

Source: http://realtor.org

"After significant floor debate, the board referred a proposed Standard of Practice back to the Professional Standards Committee. The standard would have required REALTORS to disclose to buyers the possibility that the existence, terms, and conditions of any offer they make could be disclosed to other purchasers by sellers or by sellers' representatives, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law."

The Language of Real Estate Contracts

by John Reilly

Real estate brokers, attorneys, lenders, and title officers seem to use a unique language that often confuses Buyers and Sellers who often give up trying to understand these uncommon terms and concepts.  Dont you give up.  Your understanding of these terms will strengthen your negotiating powers -- conversely, you weaken your position by relying on standard form provisions that may favor the other side without you being aware of that fact.

We have assembled a number of key contract terms and concepts that are explained in greater detail in The Language of Real Estate, Sixth Edition, Dearborn Publishing, by John Reilly.  Study these terms and study how they relate to the real estate contract you enter into as either Buyer or Seller.

For a summary of key contract terms

Do's and Don'ts for Complying with RESPA

Recent articles in the press indicate that some of those involved in real

estate settlements may not fully understand their obligation under the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Moreover, HUD has stepped up its RESPA enforcement in the past 18 months. In response, NAR is launching a REALTORŪ Awareness Campaign to help educate REALTORSŪ about RESPA requirements.

A new summary of RESPA Do's and Don'ts has been

distributed to state and local associations and has been posted on

REALTOR.org for real estate brokers and agents. To access, go to

http://www.realtor.org/GAPublic.nsf/pages/respadosdonts

Petco just found out that if you have security and privacy policies stated on your website that you better follow them or else the Federal Trade Commission can fine you. By all means have security measures, just don't overstate them.

NAR members can find the details in:

http://www.realtor.org/LetterLW.nsf/pages/1204didknow

For an update on happenings with the Limited Service issue, check out

 http://www.realtor.org/letterlw.nsf/pages/1204forummaterials

as well as http://www.news.wra.org/2005/March/Legal/Legal_0305Story2.asp

For a collection of material on the  
Do-Not-Call, Do-Not-Fax, and Do-Not-E-Mail Laws,

check out the Field Guides available on realtor.org

http://www.realtor.org/libweb.nsf/pages/fg707#websites

Often, web designers are not knowledgeable with NAR's rules and will create for the client whatever the client asks for.

In the case of domain registration, it is up to the REALTOR to know the rules. For more information on the use of the word REALTOR on the web go to: http://UseOfREALTORinaDomain.RealTown.com

Just received this note from Gary Hall:

It appears Google is pulling another fast one. Following is a link to an article about what Google is calling "Autolinking", which is slated to become part of the Google Toolbar. It can transform plain text on any Web page into a link that sends the visitor to a related site for more information. AutoLink, though still in beta, is angering many people because it gives Google--not visitors or Web site designers of sites in which links are embedded--the power to decide which sites it sends you to.

Imagine that you have an address of a listing on your site, and unbeknownst to you, Google plugs a link into it, and it takes your site visitor to that listing on Realtor.com. That's what Autolinking could do to you! It looks for text that can be identified, and if Google has an affiliate that fits, plugs a link into that phrase! Read the article at http://tinyurl.com/4ekqb