Ask the Real Estate Atty..todays subject...

can't imagine this as tolerated, since the broker is supposed to be representing the seller, and is not, by not presenting the hightest and best offer to the seller. Seems pretty cut and dry fraud, is it not? I guess Mn. is a pretty intense state for disclosure..so maybe it has been drilled into my head. We have an FBI taught class being offerred Dec. 16th by the Association of Realtors on just that subject, wish I could go!

You need to be a member of REO Pro Network to add comments!

Join REO Pro Network

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Not sure how license law works in your area Victoria (or where you are located) but in Georgia an agent has to specify if they are working for the seller or the buyer. If they do both, it's dual agency and must be disclosed to all parties. The agent in this story could have been working for the buyer if a Buyer's Brokerage Agreement had been signed.

    But regardless to any agreements, this smells to me like plain old mortgage fraud. The agent knowing full well that he/she had an investor buyer waiting to close quickly should another buyer come along, when he/she started working with the second buyer. This would not be tolerated here and could very well mean jail time for that agent, the very least the loss of their license and a very hefty fine.

    It's agents like this that give us a bad name and a black eye.

    And I just thought of something, how did this agent change the MLS price? Not possible with our MLS's. Not to mention it's illegal to do so! That alone should could cause the broker to loose their membership in the MLS service, or it should!
    FINE.IT
This reply was deleted.