Dual Agency.. (buyer's agent, contract, listings, sellers)

[jenne03]

I saw after I posted , that someone else asked about this..so I am editing my question a bit. I think the other poster was asking about the same agent representing both buyer and seller. My agent is from x real estate company ...the buyer's agent is from the same x company but different offices. My agent when going over the contract with us last night, told us now we are in a duel agency situation because they are from the same company..


They are in different offices or branches....but the same company..Does that make a difference? Should I be concerned..or is it less of a concern since it isn't the same agent representing both sellers and buyers?

[shellytc]

It is less of a concern. The broker owns all the listings, so whenever his/her company has both the buyer agent and the seller agent they must disclose this relationship. good for you to know. If they are at different branches they may not even know each other. they are supposed to take an arms length relationship and not discuss your details with each other. Sounds like you are level headed and your agent is level headed.....

Shelly

[Gretchen B]

Jenne - it is technically still a dual agency situation, which means limited representation. It is true that the one agent in the other branch has a closer relationship with his buyer and your agent, of course, has a closer relationship with you as the seller. However, both agents will have to be careful to deal fairly with both parties and not give one party an unfair advantage over the other. Technically, the agents should be limiting how much advice they give to their client in such a situation.

In the real world, it's pretty hard for an agent not to offer advice that would help their client, but technically, they're really not supposed to. The reason for this is that it's the Broker (the owner of the company) that was hired by each of you, and the agents are representatives of the Broker, so essentially both you and the buyer hired the same Broker.

Complicated, I know.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Gretchen B

Jenne - it is technically still a dual agency situation, which means limited representation. It is true that the one agent in the other branch has a closer relationship with his buyer and your agent, of course, has a closer relationship with you as the seller. However, both agents will have to be careful to deal fairly with both parties and not give one party an unfair advantage over the other. Technically, the agents should be limiting how much advice they give to their client in such a situation.

In the real world, it's pretty hard for an agent not to offer advice that would help their client, but technically, they're really not supposed to. The reason for this is that it's the Broker (the owner of the company) that was hired by each of you, and the agents are representatives of the Broker, so essentially both you and the buyer hired the same Broker.

Complicated, I know.

Unfortunately it all depends on state law. In Nevada the Agents in such a situation are not conflicted...though the Broker is. So here it is not a problem and there is no change in the relationship between Agent and Client.

Differs of course is some states where it may be considered dual and therefore restrictive of conduct.

[Gretchen B]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Unfortunately it all depends on state law. In Nevada the Agents in such a situation are not conflicted...though the Broker is. So here it is not a problem and there is no change in the relationship between Agent and Client.

Differs of course is some states where it may be considered dual and therefore restrictive of conduct.

Oops! I forget there's other states besides Arizona. Yes, it could be considered designated agency in some states.

Either way, the agents should be disclosing the exact agency relationship to their clients so there's no confusion.

[shellytc]

It is designated agency here, but that is still a dual agency.. just a form of dual agency.

Shelly

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by shellytc

It is designated agency here, but that is still a dual agency.. just a form of dual agency.

Shelly

Well not exactly...


E. A principal or supervising broker may assign different licensees
affiliated with the broker as designated representatives to represent
different clients in the same transaction to the exclusion of all
other licensees in the firm. Use of such designated representatives
shall not constitute dual representation if a designated representative
is not representing more than one client in a particular real estate
transaction; however, the principal or broker who is supervising
the transaction shall be considered a dual representative as provided
in this article. Designated representatives may not disclose, except
to the affiliated licensee's broker, personal or financial information
received from the clients during the brokerage relationship and any
other information that the client requests during the brokerage
relationship be kept confidential, unless otherwise provided for by
law or the client consents in writing to the release of such information
(italics added)

Wonderfully complicated is it not? Nevada's is actually cleverer. It does not really ever explain what the relationship between the designated agent and the broker is...In some Canadian Provinces it is quite clear the desgnation is of the brokerage responsibility to the designated agent. May be that way in Nevada too...no one actually knows...

[shellytc]

Olecapt, thanks for that!! Interesting the way Nevada handles it. As stated above, it is considered dual agency, but designated agents, in VA. We are very clear in what we can and can't do and how we are to conduct ourselves. I always love to hear how other states handle things. Sometimes I think we have a good handle on things, and other times I like what other states do. Since I work with so many transferee's, who have purchased homes in other states, I like to know what they may have learned elsewhere and show them where we are different. It just adds to my body of knowledge.

Shelly

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by shellytc

Olecapt, thanks for that!! Interesting the way Nevada handles it. As stated above, it is considered dual agency, but designated agents, in VA. We are very clear in what we can and can't do and how we are to conduct ourselves. I always love to hear how other states handle things. Sometimes I think we have a good handle on things, and other times I like what other states do. Since I work with so many transferee's, who have purchased homes in other states, I like to know what they may have learned elsewhere and show them where we are different. It just adds to my body of knowledge.

Shelly

That is the Virginia regulation Shelly. And it says specifically the Agent is not dual...

[Brandon Hoffman]

In SC it's not dual agency if there are different Brokers In Charge (BIC) of the seperate office. If it's the same BIC then it is dual agency. You likely have nothing to worry about.

*This is not advice as I'm not involved in your transaction but a general statement. I am not liable for the outcome of your transaction.