Menu
0

800-523-2319experts@tasanet.com

Articles

Real Estate Agent Standards of Care:

Agency Duties and Requirements

TASA ID: 2852

This article discusses the four major configurations of real estate agency relationships between residential real estate buyers and real estate agents in the United States. The goal of the article is twofold: First, the roles and duties of the agent can be (and are often) transitory and based on the properties considered for purchase, representation and disclosure requirements that can be changed to the detriment of the buyers. Second, each state has individual real estate agency structures that provide differing disclosure requirements and agent representation options.

Many of the cases that I have worked on as a real estate expert witness have hinged on the emergence of a dual agency relationship that has significantly changed the playing field for real estate buyers and investors. While the real estate buyer believed that the agent was working in their best interests, the reality in many of my cases was that “their agent” followed a distinctly different path. Similarly, the practices of both listing and buyer’s broker agents examined in my past cases have been found to be troubling with regard to state statutes and industry standards of practice.

Real estate agency relationships are governed by both common law and statutory agency law. The term “agency” can be defined as: the “fiduciary relationship” that arises when one person (a principal) hires an agent to act on the principal’s behalf. Agency has also been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as: A fiduciary relationship created by an express or implied contract or by law, in which one party (an agent) acts on behalf of another party, (the principal). The fiduciary duties of an agency relationship generally require that an agent act with good faith, trust, candor, and provide a high standard of care regarding the interests of the principal.

States differ in the kinds of statutory real estate agency relationships they recognize in real estate sales and leasing transactions. Each type of agency relationship carries with it specific duties owed by the agent to the principal. In real estate transactions, agency representation includes the detailed disclosure of the agency relationship in writing to principal(s) in the transaction, and often the scope and nature of the fiduciary duties owed to the principal(s).

In general, the fiduciary duties owed by an agent to a principal in a real estate transaction can include the following:

  • A duty of loyalty. This duty requires the agent to act only in the principal’s best interest and not in the agent’s own interest.

  • A duty of obedience. This duty requires the agent to carry out all of the principal’s lawful instructions.

  • A duty of confidentiality. This duty requires the agent to keep the principal’s confidences unless required by law to disclose specific information (such as disclosure of material facts to buyers).

  • A duty of reasonable care. This duty requires the agent to use reasonable care in performing the duties of an agent.

  • A duty of disclosure. This means that the agent will disclose to the principal all material facts of which the agent has or acquires knowledge that might reasonably affect the principal’s use and enjoyment of the property.

  • A duty to provide an accounting. An agent has the duty to account to the principal for all client money and property received by the agent during his or her representation.

Examples of disputes involving the alleged breach of a real estate agent’s fiduciary duties could involve multiple claims involving disclosure, known negative physical conditions of the property or leasehold, an agent’s failure to recommend the use of inspectors and the like. However, many disputes between principals and real estate agents involve the role of an agent in a dual agency context. In essence, a dual agency is created when the agent representing a buyer engages in the sale or lease of a property that he or she has listed on the market or that the prospective property is listed on the market by the agent’s broker.

With the creation of a dual agency, the role and duties of the agent are significantly modified. While the agent at first is working as a buyer’s exclusive agent when a buyer inspects a property listed by their agent or their agent’s broker, the relationship moves to that of a dual agency and the expectations of the buyer for representation is negated. What is often more troubling is when the agent fails to provide proper disclosure of the agency’s relationships (or loss of same) and continues to provide services at the behest of the seller with the buyer continuing to believe that the agent is working in their best interests.

While states differ on the statutory agency disclosure laws and the structure of real estate agency relationships, four primary structures exist:

  1. Quasi-Traditional Agency structure with the option for buyer representation and disclosed dual-agency representation: Quasi-traditional representation plus buyer representation and disclosed dual-agency representation. The quasi-traditional representations both represent the seller: the first is the seller’s listing agent. This person is a licensed broker or salesperson who lists the seller’s property and markets it for sale or lease. The second is a subagent of the seller’s agent. This person is usually a salesperson at the listing broker’s firm who markets the property to potential buyers. This structure also permits buyers to have their own exclusive agent to find a suitable property and represent their interests until the conclusion of the transaction. This regime also recognizes an alternative to buyer’s and seller’s agent. This person is called a dual agent. This type of agency arrangement can come about if a buyer finds a property that is listed by the same real estate brokerage firm as the buyer’s agent, and the buyer agrees to purchase the property under a dual agency relationship, the seller agrees to this as well. Consent is supposed to be informed and some states require it to be in writing. A dual agent owes the seller and buyer the same fiduciary duties and; therefore, this person cannot act exclusively for either one of them. Thus, a dual agent provides less representation to each party than do separate seller and buyer agents. Fifteen states, including California and New York, have adopted the quasi-traditional structure plus buyer’s agent and dual agent. The other states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont , and West Virginia.

  2. Designated Agency structure which also recognizes the preceding agency relationships in the Quasi-Traditional Agency structure, plus a new form of agency called a “designated agency.” Under designated agency, the buyer has the option of deciding that its agent, if affiliated with the same broker as the listing agent, can be the buyer’s “exclusive agent.” The designated buyer’s agent provides the buyer with better representation that a subagent of the seller or even a dual agent because the designated buyer’s agent’s loyalty is only to the buyer. Ten states recognized the designated agency relationship. They are Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

  3. Client-Customer Model distinguishes between “clients” (i.e., actual or potential buyers or
    sellers who are parties to an agency agreement) and “customer” (i.e.,actual or potential buyers or sellers who are not parties to an agency agreement. This structure applies in only six states—Idaho,
    Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and Wisconsin. This regime uses the terms “customer” and “client” to distinguish between sellers and buyers who are parties to a brokerage agency agreement and those who are not. States that follow this regime recognize a non-agent broker relationship with a customer.  Brokers in a non-agent relationship with a customer are not permitted to negotiate on behalf of the customer.  Both non-agent brokers and agent brokers have statutory duties to perform. The duties of a non-agent broker to customers are less extensive than the broker agent’s duties to clients.  Among the shared duties of non-agent and agent brokers are the duty of confidentiality, to provide fair and honest services, reasonable care and skill, and accurate information about market conditions in a reasonable time if such information is requested, among other things.

  4. Non-Agent Facilitator structure also recognizes the quasi-traditional agency representations, buyer representation, the disclosed dual agency representation and, in some states, the designated agency representation. It should be noted that even within states that employ the same regime, the definitions of the different agency relationships, and the duties that go along with them, differ. For example, some states expressly require a written agreement in order to have a dual agency relationship and some states do not.  The Non-Agent Facilitator structure is the most common statutory agency structure and is employed in 16 states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming. What distinguishes this structure from the other three is that it recognizes that a broker can serve as a facilitator of the transaction without representing either party and without being considered an agent. For example, Minnesota’s statute describes a facilitator as “[a] broker or salesperson who performs services for a Buyer, a Seller, or both but does not represent either in a fiduciary capacity as a Buyer’s Broker, Seller’s Broker, or Dual Agent. There need not be a contractual relationship between the facilitator and the buyer and/or seller. The duties of a facilitator vary from state to state. In Minnesota, a facilitator “owes the duty of confidentiality to the party but owes no other duty to the party except those duties required by law or contained in a written facilitator services agreement, if any.” In Missouri a “transaction broker” has these duties:

    (1) protect the confidences of both parties,
    (2) exercise reasonable care and skill,
    (3) present all written offers in a timely manner,
    (4) keep the parties fully informed,
    (5) account for all money and property received,
    (6) assist the parties in complying with the terms and conditions of the contract,
    (7) disclose to each party … any adverse material facts known by the licensee [i.e., (the licensed broker], and
    (8) suggest that the parties obtain expert advice.”

In New Hampshire, the facilitator’s duties include:

(1) treating prospective buyers and sellers honestly,
(2) disclosing to a prospective buyer before an offer is made “any material physical, regulatory, mechanical, or on-site environmental condition affecting the subject property of which the facilitator has actual knowledge,”
(3) With regard to confidentiality, the statute provides: “Unless otherwise agreed, the licensee acting as a facilitator shall have no duty to keep information received from the seller … or the buyer … confidential, 
(4) A facilitator provides less representation to buyers than a buyer’s agent or a dual agent, and 
(5) In situations where an agent works with a client and no agency agreement exists, some state statutes define the agency relationship. The state definitions for the lack of agent/principal agreements range from the imposition of non-agency to traditional agency relationships.

Other states; however, have not created a default position for consumers whom have not entered into an agency agreement. These states require the consumer to select a form of agency representation: dual agency, buyer’s broker or a form of non-agency.

In conclusion, we can see that the of mandatory agency requirements, along with the required agency disclosure provisions in each state, provide a host of both complicated and confusing real estate representation possibilities for the consumer of residential property. These complications and often resulting confusion, lies at the heart of many real estate disputes.

TASA Article Disclaimer

This article discusses issues of general interest and does not give any specific legal or business advice pertaining to any specific circumstances.  Before acting upon any of its information, you should obtain appropriate advice from a lawyer or other qualified professional.

This article may not be duplicated, altered, distributed, saved, incorporated into another document or website, or otherwise modified without the permission of TASA and the author (TASA ID#: 2852). Contact marketing@tasanet.com for any questions.


Previous Harmful Media Exposure:
Next Manufacturer’s Representation:
Print
Tasa ID2852

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x

Let Us Find Your Expert 

Note: This form is to be completed by legal and insurance professionals ONLY. If you are a party in a case that requires an expert witness, please have your attorney contact TASA at 800-523-2319.

Submit

Search Experts

TASA provides a variety of quality, independent experts who meet your case criteria. Search our extensive list of experts now.

Search Experts

Testimonials

  • I think it's always good to have access to experts when [TASA] make[s] the process so easy."

    Scott McIntosh, Lewis McIntosh & Teare, Royersford, PA

  • As a busy practitioner, managing a sizeable caseload, I can use all of the help available to me. If I can outsource a task, particularly one as important as securing a qualified expert, I will jump at the opportunity. I use TASA in nearly every case where I need to find an expert witness, be it an engineer, an architect, an economist, etc. They have thousands of qualified experts to refer in virtually any field. Best of all the process is extremely simple. When I need an expert I simply contact TASA, whose knowledgeable representatives ask you targeted questions about your case, your legal theories, and your goals, in order to find the right expert for your case. I usually receive CVs and calls from the potential expert within hours. If you find the originally selected person is not a good fit – for whatever reason – TASA will work with you to find the right person. I would happily recommend this service to any attorney."

    Patrick K. Gibson, Gibson & Perkins PC, Media, PA

  • Ms. Darlie I. McDonald RN was awesome on the witness stand, and we prevailed in our case to the tune of  [a] (highly unusual [amount] for a medical malpractice [case] in our area).  I'd highly recommend her."

    Shane Reed, Shane A. Reed Law Office, Jacksonville, OR

  • I appreciate your inquiries and offers of assistance as well as the consistently high-quality, well-organized, and erudite TASA webinars, which invariably have excellent presenters."

    Maurice S. Kane, Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates PC, Riverside, CA

  • Steven Kursh was an outstanding technical expert on our ecommerce IP lawsuit. He completed a massive amount of work on extremely complicated material, in a very short period of time. His work product was first rate and I think he would have done a terrific job if the case proceeded to trial. He is very articulate and helped us. I only wish we had gotten him involved sooner in the litigation."

    Daniel J. Brown, Reiss Sheppe LLP, New York, NY

  • I thank you all for the response to my request for an expert witness...Both Mr. Scott and Mr. Bianchi appear to be well-qualified for this case, but we have hired another expert. As always, I was impressed by TASA's ability to produce exceptionally well-qualified candidates with great speed."

    John Thomas Dzialo, The Law Offices of John Thomas Dzialo, Santa Ana, CA

  • Thank you for your quick response and the names of the two proposed experts. The situation that gave rise to our search for these experts has resolved and we will not need to retain them. However, we will continue to keep TASA in mind as these needs arise from time to time as your breadth of coverage for experts of all types is unparalleled, in my experience."

    Bart W. Brizzee, County of San Bernadino, San Bernadino, CA

  • I have used TASA for the last five years for locating an expert for many personal injury cases. On each and every occasion, TASA was able to find me more than one qualified expert. With such a variety of experts, I was able to select one who met my client's needs in prosecuting these claims. I found the experts TASA referred not only qualified, but available on a moment's notice. Your fees are reasonable and fair, and I will continue to use TASA for the remainder of my career."

    Robert Oushalem, Esq., The Law Office of Robert Oushalem, San Jose, CA

  • I recently used TASA for the first time to locate an expert to testify in a case requiring rather unusual expertise and where there were no applicable regulations or standards for guidance. TASA referred an expert in California who was everything a lawyer looks for in a forensic expert. He was promptly available for consultation, efficiently prepared for deposition and trial and very persuasive and credible with the jury. TASA's administrative services and assistance in locating this expert were excellent, and we would certainly use both the expert and TASA in the future."

    Theodore Phillips, Miller Hauser Law Group, LLP, Placerville, CA

  • TASA has always given me first-class service, but in a recent matter, TASA found the 'needle-in-the-haystack' expert witness we feared didn't exist. We needed an expert for a very narrow and limited issue in a very narrow and limited industry. Because TASA has an extensive expert witness database, it was able to give us a referral almost on the spot. It's why I always turn to TASA first."

    Kathleen A. Herdell, Law Offices of Kathleen A. Herdell, St. Helena, CA

  • There are numerous companies that provide litigation experts. However, I always choose the TASA Group because of their quick response in finding a qualified expert for my particular case. I have extreme confidence in the TASA Group and will continue to use their services in the future."

    Katie A. Killion, Esq., Chiurazzi & Mengine, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA

  • I spent hours trying to locate an expert in a very technical case involving a defect in a medical device. I could have saved a lot of time by calling TASA first. Within hours, I was supplied with the name of an engineer who had more than 30 years of job training, education and expertise in the precise area involving the device. Bravo TASA!"

    Timothy W. Peach, Partner, Peach & Weathers, San Bernardino, CA

  • We were involved in a case pending for more than five years with seven parties from three states. Three mediations failed before we looked to TASA for an expert. TASA referred an expert who clearly understood the complexity of the project and could effectively support his opinion. If it weren't for his expert advice and deposition testimony, the case would not have settled. Interestingly, the case settled within 90 days from the date this expert began."

    Renee Colbert, Esq., Corporate Counsel, W.G. Tomko, Inc., Finleyville, PA

  • Using TASA to find experts for defending our client in a negligent homicide case ended up being one of the most important decisions we made in trial preparation. The experts they suggested were exactly what we needed for the case. I truly did not expect to find experts that would be such a perfect fit for the nature of case. TASA provided us with highly qualified experts in somewhat narrow fields of expertise. A large percentage of our victory is due to the experts recommended by TASA."

    Marta Farmer, Esq., Carl S. White Law Office, Haver, MT

  • I have used TASA's services since the 1980's and have never been disappointed. TASA is indispensable for locating that hard-to-find expert. TASA representatives have always been courteous and pleasant, with the attitude that they cannot do enough to help. I expect to continue using TASA throughout my career."

    Brad W. Greenberg, Esq., Smyth Law Offices, P.C., Brockton, MA

  • I needed to retain a multitude of scientists from a variety of disciplines for a complex litigation. Initially, I went through a series of interviews with an extremely knowledgeable and professional team of TASA advisors. They were able to find highly qualified experts in the specific fields, all of whom turned out to be superior in qualification and area of expertise to my adversary’s experts. I am a TASA believer!"

    Nooshin Namazi, Partner, Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York, NY

  • TASA always comes through in the difficult IP cases. Their representatives work with you to refine the search criteria and quickly send you a list of very qualified experts."

    Timothy L. Boller, Principal, Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA

  • Special thanks to our TASA referral advisor for her quick response to our initial request—we were extremely happy with how fast TASA was able to assist us! Your group does excellent work, and it is always my first stop when looking for an expert."

    Susanne K. Sullivan, Senior Attorney, Southwest Airlines Corporation, Dallas, TX

  • When we needed an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit, we turned to TASA. We were looking for a witness qualified in two unrelated technical areas, and TASA worked with us to identify and refine our requirements. TASA performed well, promptly providing us with several excellent candidates to consider, one of whom we retained."

    Joseph T. Miotke, Partner, IP Practice Group, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI

  • Our team had a very positive experience with TASA. The Expert was professional, efficient, and certainly an expert in his field. His work and testimony contributed to a winning decision for our client! We will recommend the Expert and TASA whenever appropriate."

    Stephanie Sprague, Esq., CT

  • (The Expert) WAS A PERFECT FIT for my case: qualified, competent, easy to work with, attentive to detail, knowledgeable, smart, communicative, enthusiastic, resourceful—have I left anything out? I highly recommend TASA and would be happy to share my experience with anyone else. Thank you!"

    Michael Porrazzo, Esq., The Porrazzo Law Firm, Mission Viejo, CA

  • The expert was very thorough. TASA was quick to respond with an answer to my request. I have used TASA in the past under various other law firms and have been pleased. TASA continues to live up to expectations and then some."

    Anne Desormier-Cartwright, Esq., Jupiter, FL

  • Your organization found us an appropriate expert witness in less than one day. This was excellent service. The expert you found was excellent and a pleasure to work with."

    William A. Ehrlich, Esq., Allentown, PA

  • (The Expert)…accomplished exactly what we wanted. TASA was very prompt and efficient in locating him. All fees were reasonable."

    J. Michael Lehman, Esq., Bruce, Bruce, & Lehman, Wichita, KS

  • We needed an Internet expert right away to meet a deadline. One phone call to TASA, and in less than a day, TASA called back with a list of 8-10 experts who were exactly what I needed. The TASA expert I chose knew the business and mechanics of the Internet so well—he was a PhD and professor who had written a book on the subject—that he put the fear of truth in the defendant that caused him to settle. When I get the kind of service that I did from TASA, I stick with it and use it again and again."

    Philip Green, Attorney at Law, Green and Green, San Rafael and San Francisco, CA

  • Excellent—in a word. I just do not have the time to hunt for experts. (The Expert) was fantastic. Thank you for providing such a quality service."

    Francesca Carinci, Esq., Steubenville, OH

  • TASA stands for Tops At Serving Attorneys. It’s always rewarding working with TASA."

    Marshall A. Bernstein, Esq., Philadelphia, PA.

  • That was, however, one of the best and most interesting webinars I've seen in the last few years.  Thank you for hosting it and introducing me to such a knowledgeable and caring person." - Referencing the Medicolegal Consequences of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Civilian and Military Populations webinar. 

    Lori Bauer Apodaca, The Law Office of Lori Bauer Apodaca, Los Lunas, NM