Facts
Judi Katz was the listing agent on desired property.
I completed an offer for $5000 over asking price, $5000 in escrow monies, a 30-day closing and a 2-day period in which to do inspections.
At the same time, she was writing up an offer on her listing for another buyer. I assume he offered full price and know he offered closing in 10 days and waived the inspection period.
After both offers were presented, my agent requested feedback. Judi Katz said, You know, my Owner wants me to get the commission. My agent asked, Does that mean he wants you to get both sides of the transaction? Yes, she replied, you can understand that, can't you? I did a lot of work on that house.
Apparently Judi Katz also has a side-company and was contracted for the remodeling of the property before she listed it.
Judi Katz called my agent to inform us that the Owner was going with the other offer because her buyer could close in 10 days and the Owner would not have to pay another $2000 mortgage payment on the home while he waited for it to close.
Side Notes:
First, please know that I offered almost $6000 above asking price and the house closed for $500 below asking price. Judi Katz never showed my offer to her Owner. That is in direct violation of her own contract with her owner. Everyone is in this business to make money. There is NO WAY her Owner would have "given up" an additional $6500 just because he liked Judi better! Judi Katz had a single-minded fixation on receiving the full 6% commission (coupled with her unethical behavior and complete lack of professionalism) and she never gave my offer to her Owner.
Second, Judi Katz said that the Owner did not want to have a 30-day closing because he would have to make another mortgage payment on the property. However, my offer of an additional $5000 over asking price would have more than compensated him for the extra time. Even then, my offer was still financially better for the Owner. The fact remains that Judi Katz said the Owner took the other offer because she was both the listing and selling agent on the property.
Complaint
From the above stated facts, I am charging Judi Katz with multiple violations of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of REALTORS.
Violation of Article 1;
When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client.
Charge:
When Judi Katz accepted into the verbal agreement that her Owner wanted her to have the full commission, she traded the interests of her client for her own. She could no longer look objectively at all offers on the table as she was actively engaged to promote her own offer so that she could benefit the most. Judi Katz was too focused on her own commission to give objective advice in the best interest of her Owner.
Violation of Article 2;
REALTORS shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction.
Charge:
Judi Katz knew that the Owner was predisposed to accept offers if and only if she, the listing agent, was also the selling agent. Since this was a prerequisite for being able to buy the house and Judi Katz took this listing with this knowledge, she had an obligation to disclose this restriction (a pertinent fact) to potential buyers.
Just as any agent must not conceal that an Owner will only entertain cash offers, Judi Katz should have disclosed that her Owner would only accept offers if she was the selling agent as well.
Judi Katz misled every single potential buyer and buyer's agent the minute she listed the house without disclosing the fact that the Owner would decide on offers based solely on the fact that she was the selling agent. She was a willing participant in the effort to discriminate against all buyers who were engaged with any and all other agents by concealing this very important piece of information about the requirements for a successful property transaction.
Violation of Article 3;
REALTORS shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client's best interest.
Charge:
Judi Katz did not cooperate, nor did she ever intend to cooperate with any other brokers or agents, even when it was in her client's best interest. From the minute we presented our offer, it was clear that our offer would never be seriously considered given that the other offer was her own buyer. No matter what we offered, it would never be good enough to contend with the fact that the other offer was written by her. That fact and that fact alone would always determine the successful offer and it would always be hers. From the minute Judi Katz took the listing and entered it into MLS, no one who was working with another agent had an opportunity to purchase that home.
Violation of Article 5;
REALTORS shall not undertake to provide professional services concerning a property or its value where they have a present or contemplated interest unless such interest is specifically disclosed to all affected parties.
Charge:
Judi Katz recently provided contract work on the house. I do not know whether or not she was paid for that work. Regardless, she believes she was entitled to additional compensation and that compensation was directly tied to the sale of the property thus the agreement with the owner that she would get both sides of the transaction commission. Judi Katz clearly has a real and direct financial interest in the house (above and beyond her listing agreement commission) to recoup the time and money she invested in the property during remodeling. Thus, she feels entitled to both commissions because I did a lot of work on that house. Her interest in this house was not previously disclosed to me, my agent nor to anyone else interested in purchasing the property.
Violation of Article 9;
REALTORS, for the protection of all parties, shall assure whenever possible that all agreements related to real estate transactions including, but not limited to, listing and representation agreements, purchase contracts, and leases are in writing in clear and understandable language expressing the specific terms, conditions, obligations and commitments of the parties.
Charge:
Judi Katz clearly had an agreement with the Owner that she would receive both sides of the commission and that she felt entitled to both sides in order to compensate her for the work she did on the house. This discriminated against all other offers of equal or better value that were not written by her, the listing agent. The agreement with the Owner and her financial interest in the property were never disclosed in writing.
Kristin
houston, Texas
U.S.A.
0 comments