| Visit the Newsletter Archive |
![]()
|
|
|
January 25, 2008
ROOKIES TO MEET
NEXT WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30 And it's not just for rookies . . . veterans always welcome! We have four quick questions for you:
If YES, join the Rookies for their first meeting on Wednesday, January 30 at 1 p.m. SHHH! TRAINING IN SESSION
![]()
The office will be re-opened immediately after each session. We appreciate your cooperation! ![]() Sign up online at www.thescaorstore.com for your classes, and get done before the April madness begins!
![]()
Today, Internet service providers (ISPs), like AOL, work harder to verify that e-mail is legitimate by looking up where it came from. Yet many associations and smaller ISPs do not have a verifiable identity record on their mail servers, which can lead to undelivered mail. Here are some steps to take to ensure that SCAOR e-mails will be delivered with the fewest difficulties to your mailbox. You may be blocking our association e-mails and not even realize it. Here are some tips on how to unblock our SCAOR e-mails:
![]() On January 23, 2008, twelve Sussex County REALTORS® met at SCAOR as an exploratory meeting to establish a Local Chapter of the Women's Council of REALTORS® (WCR). A presentation was made describing "what is" the Women's Council of REALTORS® and how a Local Chapter is formed. There was overwhelming support and enthusiasm to begin to form a Local Chapter in Sussex County. The next meeting of the WCR will be held on Thursday, February 14, 2008 from 3:30 - 5 pm at SCAOR. Come to find out what Women's Council is all about and bring a friend. For further information contact Brad Riedle at 302-227-4800 or briedle@remax.net. To register, click on the link below. ![]() During this very busy continuing education period, please do the following to ensure your class choices are obtained:
![]()
A Citizen's Guide to Radon: ![]() True Picture in Your Advertising The other day I received a flyer from a fellow REALTOR® showing a list of properties that were sold in a particular community. There was no disclosure indicating that the SOLDs represented the efforts of REALTORS® associated with the Sussex County Association of REALTORS® multi-list system. Find Out What You Need to Know Here >> ![]()
Click Here to Read the Steps >> ETHICALLY SPEAKING...
![]()
Below is a case interpretation related to Article 5. Please read the complaint and make a judgment on how the Professional Standards Panel should rule. The Hearing Panel's decision will be published in next week's newsletter.
Case #5-1: Contemplated Interest in Property Appraised Seller A and Buyer B were negotiating the sale of an apartment building, but couldn't agree on the price. Finally, they agreed that each would engage an appraiser and they would accept the average of the two appraisals as a fair price. Seller A engaged REALTOR® C as his appraiser, and Buyer B engaged REALTOR® D. Both REALTORS® were informed of the agreement of the principals. The two appraisal reports were submitted. The principals averaged the two valuations and made the transaction at the price determined. Six months later, it came to the attention of Seller A that REALTOR® C was managing the building that he had appraised. Upon making further inquiries he learned that REALTOR® C for several years had managed five other buildings owned by Buyer B, and that he had been Buyer B's property manager at the time he accepted the appraisal assignment from Seller A. At this point Seller A engaged REALTOR® E to make an appraisal of the building he had sold to Buyer B. REALTOR® E's valuation was approximately 30% higher than that arrived at six months earlier by REALTOR® C. These facts were set out in a complaint against REALTOR® C made by Seller A to the local Board of REALTORS®. The complaint charged that since REALTOR® C was an agent of Buyer B; since he managed all of Buyer B's properties; since he had become manager of the property he had appraised for Seller A in connection with a sale to Buyer B; and since he had not disclosed his relationship to Buyer B, he had acted unethically, and in the interest of his major client had placed an excessively low valuation on the property he had appraised for Seller A. At the hearing, Seller A also brought in a witness who stated that he had heard Buyer B say that he had made a good buy in purchasing Seller A's building because Seller A's appraiser was his (Buyer B's) property manager. Buyer B, appearing as a witness for REALTOR® C, disputed this and protested that he had paid a fair price. He substantiated REALTOR® C's statement that management of the building formerly owned by Seller A was never discussed between them until after it had been purchased by Buyer B.
How do you think the Professional Standards Panel ruled? POLITE: IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO
![]()
![]()
![]()
Did you know there was a listing of answers and instructions for Frequently Asked Lockbox Questions? Find them here at the SentriLock Q&A Archive >>
SentriSecure Brokerages as of 1.24.08 >> Brokerages with Combo Boxes as of 1.24.08 >> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 2008 Sussex County Association of REALTORS®
23407 Park Ave., Georgetown, DE 19947, USA Phone (302) 855-2300 ~ Fax (302) 855-2319 ~ info@scaor.com ~ www.scaor.com |
||