Example: You have a house listed for sale. The owner has to move and asks if you will rent it for them. You agree upon a fee for services and start advertising! You find a renter who wants to “rent to own.” You call your seller and your seller says “Yes!” You take the buyer to an attorney who prepares the papers. You receive the rent money monthly, and disburse it to the seller. You are now a landlord. The buyer/tenant calls you to say the hot water tank is leaking. You call the Seller. The seller asks if you will hire a plumber to replace the hot water heater. You say “sure” Mr. Seller, if you will send me an email authorizing me to pay the plumber from your monthly proceeds. Mr. Seller sends the email; you hire the plumber who replaces the hot water tank and everyone is happy. Seven months later, the renter is ready to close on the property. Closing goes smoothly, Mr. Seller receives his money and you receive your money.

January 1 of next year comes and you being declaring your income. Your CPA discovers you received a fee because you were a landlord and asks if you hired any vendors. You say “Yes” and provide information to the CPA. The CPA asks, where is the plumbers W-9? You ask: What is a W-9? You finally get in touch with the plumber, get a W-9 signed, the CPA sends the 1099 to the plumber, files your taxes and sends you a bill. When you get the bill your eyes get as big a saucer because the CPA’s fee is larger than in previous years because of the one rental transaction. You put the W-9 into the sales file. Then the auditor from the NCREC knocks on your door and asks for your transaction files. She sees a W-9 in the file for the plumber and asks for a copy of your property management agreement. You don’t have one…..

Morale of the story: If you do not know property management, don’t get into the business! If you are a landlord now, get ready to comply with the new law.

• Recommendation from the Professional Standards Committee to the NAR Board of Directors
• NAR Board of Directors recommends adoption or rejection to the NAR Delegate Body (the Delegate Body are the voting representatives of the local associations of REALTORS®. Their votes are counted based upon the number of REALTOR® members in the Association as of July 31.)
• The Delegate Body approves or rejects the amendmentThis year, there were quite a few changes to the Code – so let’s review them!

Article 10

REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or sexual orientation. REALTORS® shall not be parties to any plan or agreement to discriminate against a person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or sexual orientation.

REALTORS®, in their real estate employment practices, shall not discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or sexual orientation.

Standard of Practice 10-3 

REALTORS® shall not print, display or circulate any statement or advertisement with respect to selling or renting of a property that indicates any preference, limitations or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or sexual orientation. 

Rationale: A number of states have added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes.  

Standard of Practice 12-5 was amended (CAUTION: I wrote NCREC about this change because of the possible conflict with NCREC “advertising rule.” I have reproduced the comment below. Remember that both the Code of Ethics and any MLS Rule promulgated by NAR is subject to state law):

REALTORS® shall not advertise nor permit any person employed by or affiliated with them to advertise real estate services or listed property in any medium (e.g., electronically, print, radio, television, etc.) without disclosing the name of that REALTOR®’s firm in a reasonable and readily apparent manner. This Standard of Practice acknowledges that disclosing the name of the firm may not be practical in electronic displays of limited information (e.g. “thumbnails”, text messages, “tweets”, etc.). Such displays are exempt from the disclosure requirement established in this Standard of Practice, but only when linked to a display that includes all required disclosures.

Rationale: This amendment to Standard of Practice 12-5 is based on REALTORS®’ increasing use of electronic communications to advertise their real estate services and listed property. In some instances, the limitations on the amount of text that can be included in such communications make compliance with the Standard of Practice’s disclosure requirement impossible within the context of a specific message. In such cases, the Standard would permit compliance with the duty to disclose the firm’s name through a link to a display that makes all required disclosures. 

NCREC Rule A.0105 Advertising:
(a) Blind Ads. A licensee shall not advertise the sale, purchase, exchange, rent or lease of real estate, for another or others, in a manner indicating the offer to sell, purchase, exchange, rent, or lease is being made by the licensee’s principal only. Every such advertisement shall conspicuously indicate that it is the advertisement of a broker or brokerage firm and shall not be confined to publication of only a post office box number, telephone number, street address, internet web address or e-mail address. 

The response to my question, the NCREC made the following response:

The first question would be whether the message or tweet is an “advertisement” of the sale… of real estate, under A.0105(a).  As to tweets, our understanding is that a recipient would need to subscribe to receive a particular person’s tweets.  We would look to see whether the sender has identified himself as a broker before sending out such advertising tweets to look for compliance with the rule.  I do not see legal making some blanket requirement that each piece of content would need to identify the broker’s status nor do I foresee a blanket exemption given that a new technology may very well come along to make the rule and such an exemption problematic.

Similarly, as to text messaging, I do not believe an individual text message from broker to client regarding a property would be construed as advertising but if a broker did devise a blanket advertising text then we would look to see that he has identified himself as a broker.  A thumbnail, I believe is a very small image which would accompany content so we would look to the content to provide the required information. 

So, short answer:  No blanket exemption for electronic displays of limited information. We would look to the full factual situation to determine whether an individual could identify the sender as a broker to determine whether the broker is in compliance with A.0105. 

I believe that a firm may want to consult their legal counsel before allowing brokers affiliated with them to use new electronic advertising media until lawful disclosures to or lawful agency relationships with consumers are established. 

Standard of Practice 3-7 was amended: 

When seeking information from another REALTOR® concerning property under a management or listing agreement, REALTORS® shall disclose their REALTOR® status and whether their interest is personal or on behalf of a client and, if on behalf of a client, their representational status relationship with the client.

Rationale: This clarifying amendment acknowledges that in some instances a REALTOR® seeking information on behalf of a client may not be “representing” that client. For example, a REALTOR® performing an appraisal assignment for a client does not “represent” the client, but would still be obligated to disclose their relationship with the client to the REALTOR® from whom information is being requested. 

Article 15 was amended: 

REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about competitors other real estate professionals, their businesses, or their business practices. 

Standard of Practice 15-2 was amended: 

The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors other real estate professionals, competitors’ their businesses, and competitors’ their business practices includes the duty to not knowingly or recklessly publish, repeat, retransmit, or republish false or misleading statements made by others. This duty applies whether false or misleading statements are repeated in person, in writing, by technological means (e.g., the Internet), or by any other means.  

Standard of Practice 15-3 was amended: 

The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors other real estate professionals, competitors’ their businesses, and competitors’ their business practices includes the duty to publish a clarification about or to remove statements made by others on electronic media the REALTOR® controls once the REALTOR® knows the statement is false or misleading.  

Rationale: The amendments to Article 15, and to Standards of Practice 15-2 and 15-3, establish that even in cases where a real estate professional may not be a REALTOR®’s “competitor”, the duty to refrain from knowingly or recklessly making false or misleading statements still applies. For instance, a REALTOR® engaging in appraisal might not be the competitor of a REALTOR® engaging in property management, but one would still be barred from knowingly or recklessly making false or misleading statements about the other. 

Standard of Practice related to Article 3, based on the existing definition of “cooperation” as currently stated in the Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual, was changed: 

The duty to cooperate established in Article 3 relates to the obligation to share information on listed property, and to make property available to other brokers for showing to prospective purchasers/ tenants when it is in the best interests of the sellers/landlords.  

Rationale: The definition of cooperation was approved by the NAR Board of Directors previously. This change will provide a more visible explanation, assisting REALTORS® in understanding what Article 3′s duty of cooperation requires of them.  

There was also a significant change made to the MLS Internet Data Exchange (“IDX”) policy concerning Real Estate Franchise Organizations to clarify that indexing is permissible subject to these Rules. The expansion of the IDX policy authorizes real estate franchise organizations, with their franchisees’ consent, to index those franchisees’ IDX displays, with the results being displayed on franchisors’ websites, subject to appropriate qualifications and limitations. It also provides remedies for the MLS where the Rules are violated. 

Participants may provide IDX information to their real estate franchise organizations (“franchisors”) to be indexed for display on franchisors’ websites. For purposes of this policy, “real estate franchisor” is defined as a company granting real estate brokerage franchises under the franchisor’s trademarks pursuant to a franchise disclosure document meeting applicable Federal Trade Commission rules. Display of IDX information by franchisors is subject to the following requirements and limitations. Failure of a franchisor to comply with the following requirements and limitations can, at the discretion of the MLS, result in suspension or termination of the participant(s)’ authority to provide IDX information to the franchisor:

1. Initial search results that provide minimal information (e.g. “thumbnails”) are exempt from MLS-required disclosures (e.g. listing firm, listing agent, source of information, notice that information is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed accurate) provided that a direct link to a detailed (“full view”) display that includes all required disclosures is provided. 
2. Consumers can link directly to the detailed (“full view”) display that complies with MLS disclosure/display rules of the source MLS. 
3. IDX information is not used for any unauthorized purpose. 
4. Inaccurate or incomplete information related to any listing is promptly corrected by the franchisor at the request of the source MLS. 
5. No advertising may appear on pages displaying IDX information. 
6. IDX listing information will not be modified, manipulated or permanently retained. 

Well, that concludes the update for this year. I do pray that you have a wonderful celebration of the Holiday Season and may God bless us all.

The Answer: It depends!

Performing a Broker Price Opinion (BPO) is subject to both the law and the Code of Ethics. The NC Real Estate Commission states:

Commission has noted an increasing number of reports of brokers providing, for a fee, a “broker price opinion” (BPO) for a party who is not a client or potential client of the broker. 
The downturn in the real estate market has apparently resulted in more demand for informal estimates of the most probable sale/purchase prices for properties that are less expensive than a full appraisal. 

Brokers may be requested by lenders, loan servicers, potential investors or others to provide this service for a fee, or brokers may simply be seeking alternative sources of income in a slow market.

Brokers should remember that the North Carolina Appraiser Act requires any analysis, opinion or conclusion as to the value of real estate performed for compensation to be performed by a licensed or certified appraiser. 

However, the statute does provide a limited exception to this requirement that permits real estate brokers to perform a “comparative market analysis” for compensation ONLY for prospective or actual brokerage clients or for real property involved in an employee relocation program. 

A “comparative market analysis” (CMA) is defined as “the analysis of sales of similar recently sold properties in order to derive an indication of the probable sales price of a particular property by a licensed real estate broker.”

A “broker price opinion” (BPO) that is based on recent sales of comparable properties is, therefore, a CMA, and may be performed for a fee only as noted above.

The Real Estate Commission considers the performance by a broker of a BPO for compensation in violation of the Appraiser Act to also constitute a violation of the Real Estate License Law.

Practice Tip
When performing a comparative market analysis or broker price opinion for a client or potential client, be sure to:
     • Document your relationship with the client or prospective client.
     • Document the recent sales of comparable properties upon which you base your analysis.
     • Identify the results of your analysis as a “probable sales price” only and not as the
     “market value” or an “appraisal”.

If you decide to pursue a Competitive Market Analysis for a fee, please remember your ethical obligation under Article 1, as interpreted by, Standard of Practice 11-1:
When REALTORS® prepare opinions of real property value or price, other than in pursuit of a listing or to assist a potential purchaser in formulating a purchase offer, such opinions shall include the following unless the party requesting the opinion requires a specific type of report or different data set:
     1) identification of the subject property
     2) date prepared
     3) defined value or price
     4) limiting conditions, including statements of purpose(s) and intended user(s)
     5) any present or contemplated interest, including the possibility of representing the
     seller/landlord or buyers/ tenants
     6) basis for the opinion, including applicable market data
     7) if the opinion is not an appraisal, a statement to that effect (Amended 1/10)

Date: Friday, October 8th
Location: Holiday Inn Resort at Wrightsville Beach
Cost: $20 for Members / $60 for Non-Members
Instructor: George Bell

Register for Session #1 – 8AM to 12PM
Register for Session #2 – 1PM to 5PM

*Each session is limited to only 250 people per session, so grab your seat today!

If it is not your worst nightmare, it is probably near the top of the list: on your desk when you arrive in the office is a brown envelope from the North Carolina Real Estate Commission. You know it is not time to renew your license and when you open the envelope, your fears are confirmed; at the top, in bold black letters: “letter of inquiry.” What do you do?

The first thing you should do is take a deep breath and resist the impulse to panic. Just because the Commission has opened a file does not mean that disciplinary action is inevitable. It only means the Commission is doing its job; it is investigating the potential of wrongdoing. North Carolina law gives you the opportunity to present your side of the story before the Commission staff decides whether to proceed with a formal hearing.

If you are affiliated with a firm, you should immediately bring the matter to the attention of your broker-in-charge. Many agents and firms have errors and omissions coverage which pays for the defense of regulatory proceedings. While this coverage may be limited (perhaps to $2500), it is often not subject to any deductible. Such coverage would allow the immediate involvement of an attorney at no additional cost to you.

The Commission’s Letter of Inquiry will give you 14 calendar days to submit a response. Extensions of this deadline can be obtained. The letter will ask you to provide a written statement describing your involvement in the subject transaction. You may also be asked to provide copies of specified documents.

Responding to the Letter of Inquiry is a critical stage, and extreme care should be given to provide accurate information to the Commission. If mistakes were made in your transaction, this is the time to admit them. The Real Estate License Law demands honesty; it does not demand perfection. If the complainant has misrepresented something in the complaint, be sure to bring that to the Commission’s attention. The Commission may be reluctant to proceed to a contested hearing if the credibility of its witness is in doubt. Keep in mind that your response will be shared with the complainant. You should be prepared to back up, with testimony or documents, all of the statements in your response.

After reviewing your response, the Commission’s legal staff has several options. One is to close the file because of insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The staff can also “Close and Warn”. This means that the file will be closed without disciplinary action but you will receive a letter advising you to exercise greater caution in the future. A third option is for the matter to be referred to the full Commission for a “probable cause” determination.

Should legal staff elect the third option, it will present a brief summary of the facts to the Commission. The Commission must decide, based solely on the presentation of its legal staff, whether probable cause exists to believe that you have violated either the Real Estate License Law or the Commission’s Rules. If the Commission finds probable cause, the case will be assigned to a Commission attorney for prosecution.

The next step in the process is the settlement phase. The Commission attorney will submit a settlement proposal to you, generally within 30 days of the probable cause determination. You will have an opportunity to accept or reject that proposal, or submit your own proposal. At this point, the assistance of an attorney is advisable. We often suggest that our clients meet face-to-face with the Commission’s lawyer to discuss possible settlement, and we have had good success in negotiating acceptable outcomes.

There are several levels of discipline that can be agreed upon, including a so-called “conditional dismissal” of the case, a reprimand, and a license suspension with all or some part of the suspension “stayed” (not active). If the settlement involves any disciplinary action, the Commission will publish a summary of that action in its Real Estate Bulletin. If the discipline involves a license suspension or revocation, the Commission will also issue a press release to newspapers in the county where the agent does business.

If the parties are unable to negotiate a resolution of the case, a contested hearing will be scheduled. The hearing will be conducted much like a trial. You or your attorney will be given the opportunity to make an opening statement, to present evidence, and then to make a closing argument. Typically, a disciplinary hearing lasts no more than one day, and decisions are issued that same day. If you are not satisfied with the decision, you will have the right to appeal to the Superior Court in your home County.

The bottom line is that a consumer complaint is just the beginning of a multi-staged process. Each stage of this process provides an opportunity for you to present your side of the story. In a significant percentage of cases, if the true facts are presented to the Commission in a clear and organized fashion, the end result of the process is no discipline whatsoever.

■ Will Martin and Bill Gifford are managers in the law firm of Martin & Gifford, PLLC, which practices primarily in the area of real estate brokerage law. For more information about the firm, go to www.martingiffordlaw.com. Copyright © 2010, Martin & Gifford, PLLC.

A broker-in-charge recently called with concerns about whether his firm had handled a multiple offer situation properly. An offer had come in on one of the firm’s listings from a buyer represented by an agent with another firm (we’ll call the buyer agent “Frank”). The property was priced to sell. The buyer’s initial offer was for full price but was contingent on the sale and closing of the buyer’s existing home. Following oral negotiations, Frank submitted a second offer from his client for full price but without the contingency. The listing agent (who we’ll refer to as “Jane”) contacted Frank and told him that his buyer’s second offer was acceptable and that she had set up an appointment for the sellers to come in and sign it the next afternoon.

Shortly after her conversation with Frank, a buyer client of Jane’s (who we’ll call “John”) called to ask about the property. Jane had been working with John, but hadn’t bothered contacting him about this particular property because it was well outside the parameters he and Jane had established regarding the type of property he was looking for. John had seen Jane’s sign in the yard when he had driven by the property and had instantly taken a liking to it. Jane told John the sellers had verbally agreed to sell the property to another buyer. John asked whether the sellers could consider another offer if they hadn’t signed a contract and Jane told him that they could if they wanted to. She contacted the sellers and they indicated they would consider another offer. Jane showed John the property later that day. She did not disclose any terms of the first buyer’s offer to John. John loved the property and, without advice from Jane, asked Jane to prepare an offer on the property for five thousand dollars above the list price.

Jane called Frank to tell him another buyer had just made an offer on the property, and asked Frank whether his client would like to make another offer. After speaking with his client, Frank called Jane back to say that his client was not interested in making another offer. Frank did not ask whether or by whom the other buyer was represented and Jane did not volunteer that information.

Jane presented both offers to the sellers when they came in the next afternoon at the appointed time. The sellers decided to accept the offer from Jane’s client, John. Jane promptly communicated the sellers’ acceptance of John’s offer to Frank. In response to Frank’s question, Jane confirmed that she represented John. Frank became very angry and hung up on Jane. He called her back later to say that his buyer was extremely upset and was going to see a lawyer. Frank said that Jane should have told John the property had already been sold, and that she should have told Frank up front that she represented John.

The broker-in-charge asked us what Jane should have told Bill under these circumstances. Should she have said that the property was not yet under contract? Or should she have said that it was already sold, as Frank had suggested?

The answer is that Jane did the correct thing when she said that there was merely a verbal agreement to sell the property. A statement that the property had been sold would have been a false statement that may have violated duties Jane owed to her seller clients and to Bill. Furthermore, because Frank had not asked, Jane had not been under any ethical duty to disclose that the other offer had been submitted by her client, according to Standard of Practice 1-15 of the Code of Ethics.

While Jane handled the situation correctly, there are a few additional things that agents facing a multiple offer situation should consider doing to best manage the situation. Agents should consider going over the Real Estate Commission’s Q & A on Offer and Acceptance (available on the Commission’s website at www.ncrec.gov) with their clients before offers are submitted or considered to educate them about the contract-formation process. When Jane called Frank to tell him that the sellers would be coming to her office the next day to sign the offer, it would have been helpful for her to remind him that the oral agreement would not become a binding contract until it had been signed by her clients and their acceptance communicated to Frank. Until those things had occurred, Frank’s client could have revoked the offer or Jane’s clients could have accepted an offer from someone else or even decided not to sell. Also, unless the sellers objected, it would have been helpful for Jane to have suggested that Frank present his client’s offer to the sellers directly, with Jane in attendance, as permitted under mls rules, and for a different agent in Jane’s firm to have presented the offer from Jane’s client to the sellers. While such measures may well not eliminate suspicions of unfair treatment by a buyer who loses out to an “in-house” offer, they should help establish that the firm handled the situation fairly.

■ Will Martin and Bill Gifford are managers in the law firm of Martin & Gifford, PLLC, which practices primarily in the area of real estate brokerage law. For more information about the firm, go to www.martingiffordlaw.com. Copyright © 2010, Martin & Gifford, PLLC.

Article by Will Martin & Bill Gifford

The recent case of Drake v. Hance, 673 S.E.2d 411 (nc Ct. App. 2009) underscores the critical importance of taking care to properly describe the property
in a real estate sales contract.

On June 16, 2005, Eric and Debra Hance entered into an Offer to Purchase and Contract to purchase a home owned by Garry and Wanda Drake. The contract was prepared by a real estate agent who was acting as a dual agent in the transaction. The property was described in the contract as “#15 Legacy Lake (ALL of the property in Deed Reference: Book 1137, Page 244 Union County).” Although the contract only specifically mentioned the purchase of lot 15, the deed referred to in the contract described both lot 15 Legacy Lake and lot 11 Legacy Lake. Lot 15 was the property on which the house was located. Lot 11 was a vacant lot across the street from lot 15.

The closing attorney prepared the deed among other closing documents. The new deed also described the property as “Lot 11 and 15, Legacy on the Lake.” The deed was recorded after closing on September 9, 2005. Eight months later, when the Drakes contracted to sell lot 11 to a third party, they discovered that lot 11 had been included in the transaction with the Hances.

After attempts to correct the mistake were unsuccessful, the Drakes filed a lawsuit in August 2006, alleging that both lots were mistakenly conveyed to the Hances. They alleged that the conveyance resulted from a mutual mistake of fact and requested the court to reform the deed to reflect the intended transaction. The Hances denied any mistake of fact regarding the deed.

Over the Hances’ objection, the trial court allowed outside evidence to determine the intentions of the parties. The court ordered reformation of the deed by deleting lot 11. The Hances appealed. On appeal, the Hances argued that the trial court erred by allowing the Drakes to present evidence which contradicted and modified the sales contract where all of the documents executed prior to the sale clearly described the property to be conveyed.

The appeal court acknowledged that the parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of evidence to contradict or add to the terms of a clear and unambiguous contract. On the other hand, if the contract leaves it doubtful or uncertain as to what the agreement was, parol (oral) evidence is admissible to determine what the real agreement between the parties was. In the case at hand, the contract included the street address and described the property as “#15 Legacy Lake” but also included a deed reference describing both lot 15 and lot 11. The appeal court concluded that this was an ambiguity, and the trial court therefore did not err in considering parol evidence to explain or construe the legal description. The trial court had found “exceptionally persuasive” the closing attorney’s testimony that the deed had been improperly prepared due to an error in his office.

The court of appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties, and did not err in reforming the deed when presented evidence of the attorney’s mistake, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s decision.

For unknown reasons, the real estate agent and the agent’s firm were not included in the lawsuit. However, several years of litigation and a lot of legal fees would likely have been avoided had the agent either have taken the time to review the actual deed prior to inserting a reference to it in the contract or not referred to the deed at all. (Note: A year prior to the filing of the Drake v. Hance decision, the “All” and “A portion of ” check boxes were removed from the Offer to Purchase and Contract as a result of several other reported situations with similar facts.)

Agents must be diligent and careful in completing the property description in a contract. Sufficient information must be included to adequately identify the property and, as the Drake v. Hance case demonstrates, that information must not be contradictory.

■ Will Martin and Bill Gifford are managers in the law firm of Martin & Gifford, PLLC, which practices primarily in the area of real estate brokerage law. For more information about the firm, go to www.martingiffordlaw.com. Copyright © 2009, Martin & Gifford, PLLC.

The NC Real Estate Commission has a long history of opining about material facts. For example, just a few are:

• Polybutylene pipes—if they are leaking or have leaked; the fact that because of the fittings the pipes were subject to a class action lawsuit; making an inquiry about other properties when the subject property a unit in a condo or townhome by asking the HOA or other owners.
• Asbestos
• Bankruptcy (noticed)
• Pending Foreclosure (noticed)
• Mobile/Modular construction
• Lead-Based Paint
• Square footage where the prevailing practice is to disclose it

The NCREC also has a long history of disciplining licensees (brokers and licensed entities [firms]) for violating Section 93A-6 which states:

Making any willful or negligent misrepresentation or any willful or negligent omission of a material fact.

This duty was also expressed as early as the 1918 version of the REALTORS® Code of Ethics. The 2010 version for disclosing material facts is found under Article 2.

Some material facts must be discovered.

Key Concepts about Article 2 and its Standards of Practices

• REALTORS® have a duty to disclose depending on the facts
• REALTORS® may not have a duty to discover and disclose adverse factors unless reasonably apparent
• The principles in Article 2 include the obligation not to exaggerate, misrepresent or conceal pertinent facts about the property or the transaction.
• The discovery obligation extends only to those factors which would be within the expertise required by the real estate licensing authority and does not impose an obligation of expertise in other professional or technical disciplines.

For both the Code and the NCREC, a standard most often used is “what should a reasonably knowledgeable and prudent real estate licensee know or should know” about a certain matter (material fact, like selling coastal real estate, selling condominiums/townhouses, etc.).

OK – back to the Proposed Cape Fear Skyway Project. What might you want to do about it?

As the listing agent, you might consider…..

• Check to see if the property is sufficiently close as to warrant a disclosure. For example, is the listed property along the road leading to the proposed bridge? If yes, that is a definite disclosure issue!
• If not, is the road upon which the listing property is located going to be affected by traffic from the road leading to the bridge?
• Is it possible that road and/or bridge noise might be a factor to the property?

If the Seller will place information in the Residential Property Disclosure (RPD) that may be sufficient—if the property is subject to the RPD. You will want to insure that the buyer indicates that they have received a RPD at the time of offer!

If the seller will not place disclosure in the RPD, explain to the seller your license law and ethical standards require disclosure of a material fact. As a MLS Subscriber, you should considering using the MLS Remarks to make the disclosure to consumers and brokers. The MLS Remarks is on most MLS reports and often appears on websites.

As a buyer’s agent, you might consider…..

• Investigating the Cape Fear Skyway Project so you will have a general idea about where it is.
• Check the MLS information and the RPD to see if there is a disclosure issue
• Make an affirmative oral disclosure about it
• If an offer is written, consider making a written disclosure to the buyer and document the buyer’s acceptance (email reply would be OK)

As a BIC, you might consider…..

• A sales meeting focusing on the project annually
• Checking to see if any of the Firm’s listings might warrant disclosure
• Creating an office policy about “how” to make a disclosure, including a form for the disclosure. This should help new licensees become aware of and how to disclose the proposed project.

Finally, remember change is inevitable—and this project has morphed over the years! To stay up-to-date, you may want to retain this link:

http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Cape_Fear/

After clicking on the link, double click the map to open it further. By using the zoom tool, you will see more clearly the path and surrounding road.