The Open House, the Ad, and the Envelope of Cash
Priya works as an unlicensed assistant at Saguaro Ridge Realty, where Dana is the designated broker and Marco is a licensee. On Saturday, Priya staffs an open house alone, tells a visitor the seller "would probably take $10,000 less," and hands out a flyer Marco designed that shows the team name "Marco Homes Group" and Marco's cell number but no brokerage name. Marco also agreed to pay $750 to an unlicensed marketing consultant who sent him a buyer lead that later closed. Marco's transaction files - buyer-broker agreement, BINSR, settlement statement - sit in a filing cabinet in his condo; he shredded his 2019 files when he moved. At the closing table, the settlement statement shows a $1,500 "transaction fee" payable to Marco personally, which the client happily signed off on. Marco asks Dana, "Any of this actually a problem?"
1. Sort the facts into (a) clearly permitted, (b) real regulatory exposure, and (c) depends on the details. Explain the test you used to place each item.
Read the worked answer
Two tests decide almost every item: does the act require a license, and did the broker authorize and supervise it?
- (b) Real exposure - the open-house statement. Relaying published, objective facts (list price, square footage, HOA dues) is clerical. Telling a consumer the seller "would take $10,000 less" is negotiating a term. That is a licensed act, and Priya is unlicensed. Marco and Dana are exposed for permitting an unlicensed person to perform brokerage.
- (b) Real exposure - the flyer. Advertising must be under the brokerage's name and with the broker's approval. A team-branded piece with no brokerage identification is the classic violation; the team name is not the licensed entity.
- (b) Real exposure - the $750. Paying an unlicensed person for producing a closed buyer is paying compensation for brokerage activity. Even if Marco calls it "marketing," the payment was contingent on a closing, which is the tell.
- (b) Real exposure - the $1,500 to Marco personally. Compensation for brokerage services must be paid to and through the employing broker. A client's willingness to pay Marco directly does not cure it; the funds belong in the brokerage's hands, and Dana decides how to split them.
- (c) Depends - the records. The brokerage, not the individual licensee, is the custodian, and transaction records must be retained for at least five years and produced on demand. Files in a condo are permissible only if Dana knows where they are, can get them, and controls them. Shredding a five-year-old file is fine; shredding one inside the retention window is not.
The through-line: every fact is tested against licensure and supervision, not against whether the client was happy.
2. Dana wants to remediate. Give her the steps in priority order and justify the ordering.
Read the worked answer
Order by severity x irreversibility x cure-ability.
- Stop the conduct today. Pull the flyer and the team ad (fast, cheap, fully curable - so it goes first despite being low severity). Remove Priya from any negotiating role; she may distribute pre-printed material and give published facts only, and only if a licensee is reachable.
- Fix the money. Have the $1,500 re-issued to the brokerage and re-split per the independent contractor agreement; document the correction with the client. Unwind or restructure the $750 arrangement and stop it. Money errors compound and look like intent if left alone.
- Take custody of records. Move or index Marco's files so Dana can produce them within the retention window. Missing records are the hardest item to cure after the fact because they cannot be recreated.
- Supervision and training. Written policy on unlicensed assistants, advertising approval, and compensation routing; a signed acknowledgement from every licensee. This is what converts a one-time problem into a defensible program.
Why this order: anything cheap and fully reversible gets done immediately; anything involving money or missing records gets done before the file is examined; systemic fixes go last because they take time but lower the odds of a repeat. Note that Dana's own exposure is supervisory and cannot be delegated back to Marco.
3. The open-house visitor now wants to write an offer based on what Priya told her. Is the seller bound by Priya's statement, and what should the agents do?
Read the worked answer
The seller is not bound. Priya had neither actual nor apparent authority to quote a price or modify the listing; only the seller (or a licensee acting with written authority) can accept or vary terms. A statement by an unlicensed assistant cannot create a contract term, and an offer at the visitor's number would still require the seller's signed acceptance.
But "not bound" is not "not a problem":
- The statement is a misrepresentation risk if the buyer relied on it and the seller refuses. The brokerage should correct it in writing, now, before any offer is drafted, and keep a copy.
- It is a rules problem independent of reliance - the licensed-activity and supervision issues exist whether or not anyone was harmed.
- Disclose to the seller what was said. The seller's agent should not let the seller learn it from the buyer's agent.
The practical move: the buyer's agent writes the offer based on the buyer's own analysis, the listing side documents the correction, and the offer proceeds on its own merits. Do not "honor" the number to make the problem disappear - that converts a correctable statement into a price concession the seller never authorized.