The Realtor® Association of Greater Fort Lauderdale, Inc. The Realtor® Association of Greater Fort Lauderdale, Inc.The Code of Ethics, created and adopted by the National Association of Realtors® in 1913, is designed to establish a public and professional consensus against which the practice and conduct of Realtors may be judged. Realtors, in joining an Association, signify their intention to abide by the Code and thereby enhance the public and professional image of themselves and all other Realtors. Adherence to the Code is the first great bond between Realtors throughout the country, and is an obligation voluntarily accepted by them to ensure high standards of professional conduct to serve the interests of their clients and customers.
For a complete set of the National Association of Realtor®s' Code of Ethics, click here.
Each local Association is responsible for enforcing the Code of Ethics, and the members and staff of the Realtor Association of Greater Fort Lauderdale take this duty seriously, conscientiously and responsibly.
Click here to download the Ethics Complaint forms and the Code of Ethics.
El Código de la Moralidad, creado y adoptivo por la National Association of REALTORS® en 1913, es diseñado para establecer un público y el consenso profesional contra que la práctica y el conducto del REALTOR® pueden juzgar. REALTORS® en la unión de una asociación, significa su intención para respetar el Código y con lo cual aumenta el público y la imagen profesional de sí mismos y de todos los otros REALTORS®. La adherencia al Código es el gran primer bono entre REALTORS® a través del país, y es una obligación voluntariamente aceptado por ellos asegurar los estándares que altos de conducto profesional servir los intereses de sus clientes.
Para un conjunto completo de la National Association of REALTORS®' Código de la Moralidad, hace clic aquí.
Cada asociación local es responsable de imponer el Código de la Moralidad, nosotros en el REALTOR® Association of Greater Fort Lauderdale tomamos esta responsabilidad seriamente y consientemente.
Arbitrating business disputes with fellow REALTORS® is your membership duty. It's also a membership benefit. The Association provides arbitration facilities governed by the National Association of REALTORS® which provides members with a forum to resolve commission disputes rather than to spend time and money litigating through the courts. In addition to arbitration, REALTORS® have the option of Mediation, an informal meeting with a mediator to attempt a resolution between the two parties -- a "win/win" situation for everyone. To find out more about the arbitration and mediation facilities of RAGFL, click on Arbitration Procedures Package.
More and more real estate salespeople are hiring unlicensed employees or personal assistants to help with some of the routine tasks involved in real estate transactions. What exactly may personal assistants and unlicensed employees legally do? In general, they may engage in any office activities that are not directly related to sales. More specifically, the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) has defined the activities that may be performed by an employee or a personal assistant who does not hold a real estate license. The FREC rulings are designed to establish guidelines for real estate professionals who employ unlicensed personal assistants. FREC ruled that the following activities do not require a real estate license and may be performed by an unlicensed employee, secretary or assistant:
Further, FREC ruled that an unlicensed individual may not negotiate or agree to any commission split or referral fee on behalf of a licensee.
For more information on FREC rules and regulations concerning unlicensed assistants, REALTOR members may call the Florida Association of REALTORS (FAR) Legal Hotline at (407) 438-1409 or DBPR at 1-800-342-7940.
REALTOR Association of Greater Fort Lauderdale
The professional standards department is hard at work making sure that all of our members practice the ethical code of conduct they promised to uphold as REALTORS® . If you want to view the current Code Of Ethics, please click here. If you want to file an ethics complaint against a REALTOR® , please download this file: RAGFL Ethics Complaint Package. These documents are in PDF format. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view/print. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it here.
The Association, in exercising its responsibility for the enforcement of the Code of Ethics, must distinguish controversies that involve commission disputes (arbitration) and allegations of unethical behavior by a Realtor (ethics complaint). If an ethics complaint is filed against a Realtor, and that Realtor is found by a panel of his/her peers to be in violation of the Code of Ethics, it is an offense against the Association and its members, and the Association may impose sanctions as described below (from the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics & Arbitration Manual):
Q. I have my home listed with a Realtor, and I'm very unhappy with his way of marketing my property. Can I file an ethics complaint against him and get out of my listing contract?
A. You may file an ethics complaint if you feel this Realtor is not acting in your best interests in marketing your home, provided the agent is a member of the Association. However, terminating a listing contract is a legal matter, and you may want to seek legal assistance.
Q. My wife and I found the home of our dreams, and we wrote a check for $1000 as a good-faith deposit when we made an offer on the property with our Realtor. It just so happens we couldn't qualify for a mortgage, and we lost the house. Now we're having trouble getting our good-faith deposit back from our Realtor. Should we file an ethics complaint?
A. If you require assistance regarding the return of your deposit monies, you should contact the Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation at 407-245-0800 or contact an attorney. Filing an ethics complaint is not the appropriate course of action.
Q. I recently filed an ethics complaint against a Realtor, and the Association sent me a letter telling me that there was "no probable cause." What does that mean?
A. "No probable cause" means that, after careful consideration of your complaint by the Grievance Committee, the Realtor has been found "not guilty" of violating the Code. Complainants who file a complaint and learn later it was dismissed by the Grievance Committee may file an appeal to the Association's Board of Directors if you feel your complaint was unjustly dismissed.
Q. Last month, I filed a complaint against a Realtor and the Association sent me a letter shortly after that an ethics hearing has been scheduled, and that I need to be present. What is an ethics hearing and why do I need to be present?
A. By filing a complaint against a Realtor, it is the Association's duty to carefully review the matter to determine if that Realtor is in violation of the Code of Ethics. Apparently, your complaint has merit, and the Grievance Committee, who acts like a grand jury, determined that there was sufficient evidence to support a possible violation. The ethics hearing is where a panel of this Realtor's peers will hear the testimony of you and the Respondent to determine whether or not this Realtor is "guilty or not guilty." Think of it as a court of law with a judge and a jury. Similarly, a panel consisting of duly appointed members of the Professional Standards Committee will act as "judge and jury." They'll listen to your testimony, review evidence, consider the testimony of witnesses, weigh the facts and make a decision. If the Realtor is found to be in violation of the Code, sanctions may be imposed. If the Realtor is ultimately found to be "not guilty" the matter is dismissed. However, no decision is final. Parties have appeal rights, and if you disagree with a panel's decision, you may appeal to the Association's Board of Directors.
Q. What is the difference between the Grievance Committee and the Professional Standards Committee?
A. The function of the Grievance Committee is clearly distinguishable from the function of the Professional Standards Committee. Professional Standards is similar to a court. The court adjudicates matters that come before it, and Professional Standards makes decisions on matters involving ethics or arbitration (commission disputes). In a similar manner, the Grievance Committee receives ethics complaints and arbitration requests to determine, if taken as true on their face, a hearing is to be warranted. The Grievance Committee makes only such preliminary evaluation as is necessary to make these decisions. While the Grievance Committee has meetings, it does not hold hearings like Professional Standards does. Grievance does not decide whether members have violated the Code of Ethics, nor do they mediate or arbitrate business dispute. These are solely the purposes of the Professional Standards Committee.
Q. I want to file an ethics complaint against a Realtor. Does it cost anything?
A. No. In the interest of effective and consistent enforcement of the Code of Ethics, no filing fees may be required to accompany a complaint alleging unethical conduct on the part of the Realtor member.
Q. I recently called the Association to find out if a Realtor had any complaints filed against him. They told me it was confidential. Why can't an Association tell me if a member has complaints filed against them? Isn't the board supposed to be protecting the public?
A. According to the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual, the allegations, findings and decisions rendered in ethics and arbitration hearings are confidential and may not be reported or published by the Association, any member of a tribunal, or any party under any circumstances except those established in the Manual as amended from time to time.
Q. I filed a complaint against a Realtor six months ago, but the Association dismissed it. The Realtor is continuing to make me very angry, and I want to file another complaint against her. Can I?
A. If an ethics complaint is received and reviewed by the Association's Grievance Committee and is dismissed as not warranting a hearing, the respondent(s) shall not subsequently become subject to the same (or substantially similar) ethics complaint in the same or any other Association with which the respondent(s) holds membership.
Q. May I bring my attorney to an ethics hearing? May I introduce a witness?
A. Yes, all parties to an ethics complaint or arbitration dispute have the right to be represented by legal counsel and introduce witnesses.
The Association's Grievance Committee will review your written complaint and any written response from the respondent(s). Their job is to review complaints to determine if the allegations made, if taken as true, might support a violation of the Article(s) of the Code of Ethics cited in the complaint (probable cause).
If the Grievance Committee dismissed your complaint, it does not mean they do not believe you. Rather, it means that they do not feel that your allegations would support a Hearing Panel's conclusion that the Article(s) cited in the complaint had been violated.
If the Grievance Committee forwards your complaint for a hearing, that does not mean they have decided the Code of Ethics has been violated. Rather, it means they feel that if what you allege in your complaint is found to have occurred by the Hearing Panel, that panel may have reason to find that a violation of the Code of Ethics occurred.
Familiarize yourself with the hearing procedures that will be followed. In particular you will want to know about challenging potential panel members, your right to counsel, calling witnesses and the burdens and standards of proof that apply.
Complainants have the ultimate responsibility ("burden") of proving that the Code of Ethics has been violated. The standard of proof that must be met is "clear, strong and convincing," defined as "...that measure or degree of proof which will produce a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established." Consistent with American jurisprudence, respondents are considered innocent unless proven to have violated the Code of Ethics.
Be sure that your witnesses and counsel will be available on the day of the hearing. Continuances are a privilege - not a right.
Be sure you have all the documents and other evidence you need to present your case and bring everything with you to the hearing.
Organize your presentation in advance. Know what you are going to say and be prepared to demonstrate what happened and how you believe the Code of Ethics was violated.
Appreciate that panel members are unpaid volunteers giving their time as an act of public service. Their objective is to be fair, unbiased, and impartial; to determine, based on the evidence and testimony presented to them, what actually occurred, and then to determine whether the facts as they find them support a finding that the Article(s) charged have been violated.
Hearing Panels cannot conclude that an Article of the Code of Ethics has been violated unless that Article(s) is specifically cited in the complaint.
Keep your presentation concise, factual, and to the point. Your task is to demonstrate what happened (or what should have happened but did not), and how the facts support a violation of the Article(s) charged in the complaint.
Hearing panels base their decisions on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing. If you have information relevant to the issue(s) under consideration, be sure to bring it up during your presentation.
Recognize that different people can witness the same event and have different recollections about what they saw. The fact that a respondent or their witness recalls things differently does not mean they are not telling the truth as they recall events. It is up to the hearing panel, in the findings of fact that will be part of their decision, to determine what actually happened.
The hearing panel will pay careful attention to what you say and how you say it. An implausible account does not become more believable through repetition or through volume.
You are involved in an adversarial process that is, to some degree, unavoidably confrontational. Many violations of the Code of Ethics result from misunderstanding or lack of awareness of ethical duties by otherwise well-meaning, responsible real estate professionals. An ethics complaint has potential to be viewed as an attack on a respondent's integrity and professionalism. For the enforcement process to function properly, it is imperative for all parties, witnesses, and panel members to maintain appropriate decorum.
When you receive the Hearing Panel's decision, review it carefully.
Findings of fact are the conclusions of the impartial panel members based on their reasoned assessment of all of the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing. Findings of fact are not appealable.
If you believe the hearing process was seriously flawed to the extent you were denied a full and fair hearing, there are appellate procedures that can be invoked. The fact that a Hearing Panel found no violation is not appealable.
Refer to the procedures used by the local REALTOR Association for detailed information on the bases and time limits for appealing decisions or requesting a rehearing. Re-hearings are generally granted only when newly discovered evidence comes to light which could not reasonably have been discovered and produced at the original hearing and which might have had a bearing on the Hearing Panel's decision.
Appeals brought by ethics respondents must be based on perceived misapplication or misinterpretation of one or more Articles of the Code of Ethics, a procedural deficiency or failure of due process, or the nature or gravity of the discipline imposed by the Hearing Panel.
Appeals brought by ethics complainants are limited to procedural deficiencies or failure of due process that may have prevented a full and fair hearing.
Complainant: John Wayne
Respondent: REALTOR® Cookie Dough
Complainant John Wayne was about to retire and move to another state, and had discussed the sale of his house with a number of brokers. He dropped in at Realtor Cookie Dough's office to discuss the matter and said that various brokers had told him he should expect to sell his property at from $150,000 to $158,000. "Oh, that sounds low to me," said Cookie, "property moves well in that neighborhood and I recall that your house is in good shape and well landscaped. Give us an exclusive on it at $168,000 and we'll make a strong effort to get you what your property is really worth." Cookie got the listing.
She advertised the property, held it open on weekends, had many inquiries about it, and showed it to numerous perspective buyers for a few weeks, but received no offers. When activity slowed, and Mr. Wayne became concerned, Cookie was reassuring. "We'll just keep plugging till the right buyer comes along," she said. When the 90-day exclusive expired, Cookie asked for a renewal. She told Mr. Wayne that the new houses coming on the market were adversely affecting the market on resales of existing houses, and recommended lowering the price to $158,900. Mr. Wayne ruefully agreed, but the lowered price did not materially increase buyer interest in the property. As the term of the 90-day extension of the listing neared, Cookie brought Mr. Wayne an offer of $150,000 and strongly recommended that it be accepted. But Mr. Wayne objected. "You told me it was worth about $168,000 and sooner or later the right buyer would pay that price. Meanwhile similar houses in the neighborhood have been selling within 30 to 60 days at around $156,000."
"I know," said Cookie "but six months ago we had a stronger market and were at the most favorable time of the year and $168,000 was not an out-of-line price at that time. But now we're in the slow time of the year and the market is off. All things considered, I think the $150,000 offer in hand is a good one. I doubt that a better one will come along."
Mr. Wayne accepted the offer and complained against Cookie Dough to the local Association of REALTORS, charging Cookie with misinforming him as to fair market value apparently as a means of obtaining the listing of his property.
At the ethics hearing, the facts as set out above were not disputed. Questioning developed the additional fact that at the time of the original listing Cookie had not gone through the house to make a systematic appraisal of opinion of value, and that his recommended offering price was not based on a systematic review of sales in the neighborhood. Members of the Hearing Panel pointed out that the neighborhood in question was a development of houses, basically the same in size and quality, that had been put on the market about ten years earlier at prices varying from $145,000 to $150,000; that good location and land development practices had maintained a good market for resales, but there was no indication that any property in the immediate neighborhood had been resold for as high as $160,000. When told that circumstances tended to bear out the complainant's charge that Cookie Dough's recommended price was a strategy to obtain the listing, Cookie's defense was that she felt she had a right to take an optimistic view of the market.
How would you rule?
The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR Cookie Dough was in violation of Article 1 of the Code of Ethics and was issued a letter of reprimand and given a requirement to attend a 14-hour Ethics education course prescribed by the Association.
Article 1 reads in part: "When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly. (Amended 1/01)"
Complainant: REALTOR® Suzy Martin of Reputable Realty
Respondent: REALTOR® John Smith of Sold Realty
Shortly after mailing his "Homeowners Neighborhood Newsletter" to local residents, a complaint was filed against Realtor John Smith of Sold Realty alleging he had engaged in deceptive advertising in violation of Article 12's "true picture" mandate.
At the ethics hearing, the complainant, Realtor Suzy Martin of Reputable Realty, provided panel members with copies of John Smith's newsletter, noting that he had compiled a list of 20 homes in an exclusive area of town, titling the list "Recently Sold." Suzy Martin, the listing broker for two of those properties, stated that he believed that readers could conclude that John Smith, in advertising this way, had constructively claimed to have sold all of the properties on the list and that such claims violated Article 12.
In his defense, John Smith acknowledged that his "Homeowners Neighborhood Newsletter" was, in fact, primarily an advertising vehicle and that it did not have a regular publication schedule. While it included news and information, including tips on how to make residential property more readily saleable and information regarding products and services offered by his firm, John said its primary purpose was to generate business for his firm. He defended inclusion of the "Recently Sold" list, pointing out that all of the properties on the list were the subject of recent sales transactions; that the period of time during which the transactions had closed was clearly stated; that the information had been taken from the local MLS compilation of historical data had been duly noted; that a footnote at the bottom of the page clearly indicated that the properties on the list had been listed and sold by various Participants in the MLS; and that such use was consistent with the local MLS rules and regulations.
The hearing panel accepted John Smith's defense, holding that reasonable readers would conclude that most newsletters were, in reality, promotional advertising pieces and, in any case, that John Smith's newsletter had included some items of "news." Moreover, they noted that if John Smith had simply listed the 20 transactions, titling them as "recently sold" and had done nothing more, then a reasonable reader might have concluded that he was claiming to have listed and sold those properties. However, since John Smith had included a footnote pointing out that the properties on the list had been listed and sold by various Participants in the MLS, the fact that John Smith had not included the names of each listing broker could not be construed as his claim to have been the listing broker in each instance or to have "sold" each of the properties.
How would you rule?
The hearing panel found no violation of Article 12 by the respondent and recommended that all charges be dismissed.
Complainant: James Dean, a property owner
Respondent: REALTOR® Tom Jones of Jones Realty
REALTOR Tom Jones advertised in a local newspaper as follows: "Free Market Analysis With No Obligation." He also distributed certificates reading, "This will entitle the bearer of this certificate to one (1) FREE Market Analysis with no obligation to bearer." The certificate included the REALTOR's name and the name of his firm.
A property owner, James Dean, saw the ad in the newspaper and also received a "certificate" from Tom's company. Mr. Dean complained about "being the victim of a come-on scheme" to solicit the listing of his property.
An ethics hearing was held and at the hearing, the property owner testified that he had called Tom Jones to have him prepare a market analysis of his residential property, " ...with no obligation..." as claimed in Tom Jones' ads. However, Mr. Dean said that when the REALTOR came to his home, he explained that he would be glad to provide the market analysis but said, "I presume you understand that when we provide this service, we also expect that if you list your property, you'll permit us to serve you." Mr. Dean testified that Tom Jones did not press the matter at the time and did provide a market analysis. Mr. Dean told the panel that for the next three weeks, Tom Jones or one of his representatives called "practically every single day" soliciting the listing of his home. Mr. Dean testified that on several occasions, someone from Tom Jones' office reminded him that Tom had provided a "valuable free service and we feel that you owe us the listing of your property."
Tom Jones responded that he had provided the "free market analysis" as represented in his advertising, and had provided it "...with no obligation." He stated that he had neither asked for nor received a fee for the market analysis. He could not understand whey he was required to appear before a hearing panel in connections with the allegations of a violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics.
The hearing panel noted that offering premiums or prizes as inducements, or the advertising of anything described as "free" is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics nor can such advertising be prohibited by the REALTOR Association unless it presents other than a "true picture" as required by Article 12.
The panel concluded that although REALTOR Tom Jones was free to advertise "free market analysis with no obligation," such a representation was not a "true picture" if all the terms governing availability are not clearly disclosed in the ad or representation. The hearing panel noted that the statement by the REALTOR when he provided the "free market analysis" that it was "presumed" Mr. Dean would list with Tom Jones if the property was offered for sale, and the subsequent "reminders" by sales representatives from Tom's office about "expectation" made the representation less than a true picture.
How would you rule?
The panel concluded that Tom Jones was in violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics, and imposed a $250 fine and a mandate that he attend a Realtor Orientation course as prescribed by the Association.
Complainant: Bob Smith, buyer
Respondent: REALTOR® Joe Miller
Article 8 of the Code of Ethics reads: "REALTORS shall keep in a special account in an appropriate financial institution, separated from their own funds, monies coming into their possession in trust for other persons, such as escrows, trust funds, clients' monies, and other like items."
Joe Miller, a Realtor with Trustworthy Realty, obtained a listing to sell a home. He received a signed offer to purchase, together with an earnest money deposit check in the amount of $5,000 from Bob Smith, a potential buyer of the property for sale. Mr. Smith's offer was subject to the sale of his current home. Realtor Miller presented the offer to his seller who accepted it. Shortly thereafter, Joe Miller inadvertently deposited the earnest money check in his own personal checking account. Since Mr. Smith's offer was contingent on the sale of his current residence, the seller's house remained on the market. A week later, Joe Miller received another offer to purchase this seller's home. He presented the offer to the seller as a back-up offer. Mr. Smith found out about the back-up offer and reluctantly concluded that he would be unable to waive the sale contingency or proceed with the purchase. He then asked Joe Miller for his deposit back. Joe explained that he mistakenly deposited the earnest money deposit check into his own personal account, and was temporarily unable to refund the deposit.
Bob Smith was very angry and filed an ethics complaint against Joe Miller with the Realtor Association. An ethics hearing was conducted, and Joe Miller explained to the hearing panel that his bank account had been unexpectedly attached following the loss of a civil suit which he was appealing; that his deposit of the buyer's check in his personal account was a simple error in handling deposit slips; that he was arranging for the prompt release of his account; and that everything would be straightened out in three or four days, which should not be of great inconvenience to Mr. Smith.
How would you rule?
It was the conclusion of the hearing panel that Joe Miller was in violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics for having failed to put the buyer's earnest money deposit in a special account separate from his personal funds. Respondent Miller was issued a $2,500 fine and a letter of reprimand.
To see many more Interpretations of the Code of Ethics Case Studies, click here.
