A Revocation and a Suspension . . . OUCH!

Hi Charita. . . the principal broker was in cohoots.  They testified that they allowed the brokerto sign/intital for them!  They were COVERING for the broker, in other words.  That's why they got 45-suspension . . . you can't "allow" someone else to sign for you UNLESS they have a valid, legal power of attorney.  AMAZING HOW STUPID the managing broker was!!

Hey Jeff-- Not sure what the first paragraph was all about.  We are BROKERS -- becasue we "broker" the deal.  What difference does it matter what an agent is called?  It confuses no one here.  "Sales Associates" are employed at Sears, and Macy's . . . they make a sale, and don't BROKER a transaction.  Comments are greatly appreciated -- especially when they are relevant and topic specific.

Hi Lisa . . . It was the client that filed the complaint I believe.  They became aware and didn't hesitate to call their agent out on this.  Sometimes people don't know when the wool is being pulled.  When they discover that, they file their complaints.

Hey Victoria -- That's a good idea to get your Principal Brokers license.  If the brokerage has agents working under their shingle, I do understand that someone has to be managing, in charge.  There's office policy, records, etc. that need to be kept kosher.  Lazy managing brokers tend to make for . . . well, things like the above! 

Hi William . . . I could have provided more details -- I could have linked to the PDF stipulated ruling.  I choose to keep my post as written, and not link to the actual pleading.  The "details" of the investigation were not disclosed by the Real Estate Agency.  Their bottom line findings -- which resulted in the stipulated ruling and administrative action -- were.  The guilty don't need to be protected, IMHO.  I didn't want this to become a "National Inquirer" type of scandal post.  EXTREE, EXTREE read all about it . . . just ain't my style.  

Hey Karen. . . oh yeah, the whatever it takes . . . "Oh, it's only a signature . . ."  GEEZ. 

Hi Empire -- Not sure how the findings of fact played out.  The ruling was all I read, and it wasn't the investigation report.  The proof, as they saying goes, is in the pudding revocation. 

Hey Robert. . . Hmmmm . . . now that's interesting.  Our administrative actions are published, but I've never read any about agents' non-real estate violations.  Although, being a felon (selling drugs, assault, etc.) should be cause for suspension, or revocation.  They ding a lot of agents for record keeping, misapporpriation of funds, non-disclosure type stuff.  Escrow officers are also licensed under the Real Estate Agency, so there's quite a few EO who get dinged for not accounting properly. 

Hi Adam-- Apparently, the Principal Broker "allowed" the broker to sign/initial for them.  I think they were just trying to cover for their agent.  "Yeah, I said they could sign/intial for me."  And that's JUST as stupid.  These are legal documents, not a golf score card.  Without the proper Power of Attorney, how can something be legally signed?!? 

Hey Brain . . . I don't think they could be. 

Hi Jeanne -- Quite a few people think real estate is location, location, location.  It's legal, legal, legal.  Contracts are legal documents.   Shame on them is right!

Hey Jennifer. . . The naive clients aren't at fault for being naive, IMHO.  They are engaging a licensed fiduciary, and they go by what they are told, in a lot of cases.  Which gives the NINCOMPOOPS "license" to screw things up big time.  One of the facts is that Principal said they "authorized" the agent to sign/intial for them.  That's why they were suspended for 45 days.  They should have been suspened longer IMHO.  They were trying to cover their agent's butt. I call that "in cohoot nincompoops!"  :-)

Hi Valerie -- you're right . . . it was time! 

Hey Deborah . . . you know, I never think of it as "protecting myself"  I have the duty to protect my clients.  When I do my job, they ARE protected, and therefore no worries.  I'm the type of agent that follows the rules, but I also know what those rules are!!

Hi Marte -- you got a point.  An inadvertent mistake, which is a no-harm, no-foul is one thing.  Deliberate acts of omission, etc. are another.

Hey Peter . . . that's the most interesting comment I've ever read.

HI LARRY -- IT'S RARE THAT THEY'LL CLOSE THE ENTIRE OFFICE DOWN WHEN AN AGENT/BROKER GETS NICKED.  UNLESS THERE IS SOME MASS IMPROPRIETIES AND GROSS VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND/OR FEDERAL LAWS.  I'VE ONLY HEARD ABOUT A LOCAL OFFICE BEING CLOSED DOWN ONCE IN MY CAREER

Hi Gordon . . . The license might be easy to get, but this particular agent had been licensed for over 20 years.  You'd think they'd have gained some knowledge in that time.  Apparently not.

Hey Marshall -- Good rule to follow!!  Thanks for your comment.  A good summation.  And moral of that story is:  Just because it's easy to do . . . doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Hi Lenn . . . That was my thought!  Especially since I worked a deal with this agent a few years ago, and they managed to screw that one up too!!  It closed, but what a pain. 

Hey Kathy -- Sounds confusing, but it worked out in the end.  Good to have someone watching your back!!

Hi Margaret . . . sub-par is RIGHT.  Yeah, one down ;-)

Hey Cynthia -- You know . . . you can just get a sense of the natural flow of a deal, and getting docs too fast would raise an eyebrow for me too.  I remember one deal and the listing agent was also the father of the sellers.  All disclosed . . . but the paperwork had ONLY ONE signature (there were two sellers).  One of the sons signed:  John Doe, et al.  ET AL ?!?  I do know what that means, but that's not what it says on the deed.  To me, it didn't satisfy a fully executed contract the way they signed off.  I pitched a bitch on that.  They thought I was crazy . . . and I thought they were lazy.  GET THE PROPER SIGNATURES or get a POA and sign the dang PURCHASE CONTRACT correctly!! 

Hi Jon . . . you got that right!!  There's been a few holes in my tongue punctured when I've had to bite it . . . in order to just get the deal done, and protect the clients' interests!!  RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT you are sir!!

Hi Pat & Wayne . . . just goes to show how someone with many years under their belt can really mess up! 

Hey JL -- the time tested saying rings true once again!

Hi Ann . . . I'm more afraid of the "know it alls" 

Hey Jon . . . thank you for your comments.  The interesting overall of it was that we tend to know the agents who are practicing sub par.  Most annoying!

Hi Sheila -- I believe it was the CLIENTS who initiated the complaint.  I say this because when an agent files against another agent there might not be any breach of fidicuary duties.  If the client files -- there is clear evidence when this happens.  THEN the licensing board can do what they're supposed to, as I suspect happened in this case. 

Hey Heath . . . with my comment to Sheila, above, I do think there's a lot more weight in the complaint when it comes from a client. 

Hi Carrie & Kathy -- Sounds like forgery.