According to NAEBA President Chris Whitehead, “The seller had a contract with the broker through one agent. The buyer had a contract with the same broker through another agent creating a dual agency situation. In reading California law, it would appear that because the broker represented both the buyer and the seller, the agents working under that broker also represented both the buyer and the seller, which means that the seller’s agent should have protected both the seller’s interests and the buyer’s, which is an impossible situation. That is why NAEBA has long spoken out against dual agency. It’s not good for buyers or sellers, but only for the real estate licensees who will be able to collect both sides of the commission.”
NAEBA chose to submit a brief because the organization sees potential ramifications for the real estate industry not only in California, but throughout the United States. Adds Whitehead, “If nothing else, we hope that this case will enlighten consumers and the real estate industry on the risks and pitfalls of dual agency and its variants across the country.”
See the full brief at www.naeba.org/amicus.