Conflicting Clients and a Seller's Secret Deadline
Priya, a licensee at Harbor & Main Realty, has a signed buyer-broker agreement with Marcus, who is buying a 12-unit apartment building. Harbor & Main also holds the listing on that building, signed by seller Gail. During a showing, Gail's accountant tells Priya that Gail faces a balloon payment on December 31 and will accept $150,000 below list to close by year-end. Priya also sees a city notice on the lobby wall citing a failed fire-alarm inspection, which the listing agent never disclosed. Marcus tells Priya he wants to offer $200,000 below list and asks what the seller's bottom line is. Priya's managing broker suggests 'just switch to dual agency so we can close it.' The brokerage's affiliated lender will pay Priya a $500 marketing fee if Marcus uses it. Marcus asks whether he must use that lender.
1. Identify Priya's fiduciary duties to Marcus and whether she may disclose Gail's balloon-payment deadline and bottom line. Explain.
Read the worked answer
Priya owes Marcus loyalty, obedience, disclosure of material facts, confidentiality of Marcus's information, reasonable care, and accounting. The seller's balloon-payment deadline and bottom line are Gail's confidential negotiating information. Priya learned them from Gail's accountant while the same brokerage held the listing; using or revealing them to Marcus would breach Gail's confidence and could be a license violation. Priya may not say 'the seller will take a certain amount' or 'the seller is desperate.' She can advise Marcus on market value, comparable sales, and his own negotiating strategy. Separately, the fire-alarm notice is a material property condition, not a negotiating secret. A known failed inspection affects safety and value, and the listing agent's silence may be misrepresentation. Priya should disclose to Marcus what she observed and urge the listing side to put it in writing. She should escalate the conflict to her managing broker. The firm must screen the listing and buyer files, or obtain informed consent to a lawful agency status. Priya should document what she saw and when.
2. May the firm convert to dual agency? What disclosures and written consent are required, and what are the alternatives?
Read the worked answer
The managing broker's suggestion is not enough. In a state that permits dual agency, the firm must disclose the conflict in writing to both Gail and Marcus, explain what will be lost (full loyalty, confidentiality, and advocacy), and obtain each party's informed written consent. Consent cannot be a condition of the showing or the deal. Some states prohibit dual agency or require a transaction-broker relationship with different duties; others permit designated agency, where one licensee represents the buyer and another represents the seller, with information barriers. The firm should also check its brokerage policy and the listing agreement. If either party refuses consent, the firm must withdraw from one side or refer the client to another brokerage. The managing broker should not pressure Marcus or use the seller's confidential information to close. Priya should give Marcus the agency disclosure and let him choose. If the state permits designated agency, Priya can continue with Marcus only if the seller is represented by a different designated agent and confidences are protected.
3. Evaluate the $500 lender marketing fee and Marcus's question about using the affiliated lender. What should Priya tell him?
Read the worked answer
The $500 per-loan payment from the affiliated lender is a red flag under RESPA Section 8. Paying a real estate brokerage for referring settlement-service business is generally an illegal kickback unless the payment is for goods or services actually performed, at fair market value, and not conditioned on referrals. A flat $500 for each loan Marcus closes looks like a referral fee. The affiliated business arrangement also requires a written AfBA disclosure at the time of referral, a statement that the buyer is not required to use the lender, and no steering. Priya must disclose the affiliation, tell Marcus he may shop, and not require or steer him to the lender. If the $500 is truly a marketing fee for independent services, the firm needs a written agreement, fair-market-value documentation, and a RESPA compliance review; otherwise it should refuse the payment. Marcus's question should get a clear answer that he is free to use any lender. Steering or tying could also violate consumer-protection law and the brokerage's fiduciary duty.