Summit Realty on Both Sides: Two Agents, One Brokerage

Because both agents work for the same broker, Summit Realty is acting as a dual agent for the Nguyens and the sellers, even though Ann and Bob each work with only one side. Agency attaches to the brokerage, not the individual licensee. The parties must be told this before they sign anything and must give written consent; the standard disclosure and consent form should be signed by both sides and retained in the file.

What dual agency changes:

• Summit Realty owes both parties the same duties and cannot give undivided loyalty, full confidentiality, or exclusive advocacy to either one. The written disclosure must say so.
• The individual agents still owe their own clients the ordinary duties, but they cannot take action that harms the other party by, for example, pushing for terms their side is not authorized to accept.
• If the brokerage cannot act impartially - for instance, if one agent has learned something damaging to the other side - the brokerage may need to refer one party out.

If no written consent was obtained, Summit Realty is in trouble independent of how the transaction turns out, and the commission and the parties' obligations may be contested.

The Nguyens' ceiling. Their maximum authorized price is confidential client information. Bob may not reveal it to Ann, to the managing broker, or in any document, and the managing broker's suggestion to 'share what he knows' is improper and should be declined in writing. The duty of confidentiality outlives the transaction. Sharing the ceiling would let Ann extract the full $720,000, which is a direct breach and a license risk. Bob's proper move is to state his clients' authorized offer price and terms - here $700,000 - and nothing about what they could stretch to.

The divorce. Ann disclosed her sellers' motivation, which is the sellers' confidential information. Bob must not pass it to the Nguyens as leverage, and he should not treat it as an invitation to press a lowball. He should also not relay the Nguyens' urgency to Ann. The right handling is to keep each side's confidences on its own side of the wall, put only authorized terms in the offer, and document that he did.

A dual agent's job is to transmit offers and counteroffers accurately and to disclose material facts about the property - not to broker the parties' private motivations.

The timeline controls. The loan contingency deadline passed three days ago and the Nguyens apparently did not remove it in writing or extend it; if the contract treats the passing of the deadline as removal, the buyer bears the financing risk. A denial after removal is the buyer's problem, not the seller's.

That does not mean the broker hands the money to the sellers. The sequence is:

1. Hold the funds. A broker may not decide a disputed deposit. Disburse only on a written agreement signed by both parties, a court order, or an arbitrator's award.
2. Notify both parties in writing of the denial and the claim, and give the buyer a chance to respond; the buyer may argue the deadline was extended, that the lender's denial was caused by the seller, or that the contract language preserves the contingency.
3. Seller's remedy. If the buyer is in default, the seller may claim the deposit as liquidated damages. Check the cap: 3% of $715,000 is $21,450, so $15,000 (about 2.1%) is within it. The seller must give the required notice before treating the deposit as forfeited.
4. If the parties still disagree, interplead the funds or use the contract's arbitration clause, which requires the parties' agreement.

Advise both sides to get counsel. Do not release on the seller's demand alone.