Chicago Title sent out a memorandum to its agents on September 27 that I want to bring to the attention of those who read this blog.
South Carolina’s Real Estate Commission has begun to send out enforcement letters to investors the Commission believes are participating in illegal “wholesaling.” One of those redacted letters is attached.
On May 21, Governor McMaster signed into law former bill HB 4754, which requires a real estate broker’s license for those engaging in wholesaling. The new law defines the term “wholesaling” as “having a contractual interest in purchasing residential real estate from a property owner, then marketing the property for sale to a different buyer prior to taking legal ownership of the property.” The definition further states that “wholesaling does not refer to the assigning or offering to assign a contractual right to purchase the real estate.”
The question has become whether an investor can avoid the technicalities of the statute by marketing an assignment of a contract rather than directly marketing the underlying real estate. Investors appear to be taking the position that this activity is not prohibited, but the Real Estate Commission appears to disagree.
Investors are apparently being reported to the Real Estate Commission for potential violations of the new statute, and the Real Estate Commission is purportedly sending out letters to enforce the statute.
It is likely that our courts will become involved in resolving this question.
Anyone who has been involved in attempting to pass legislation will understand that drafting, redrafting, and amending bills often leads to tricky language. My guess is that most dirt lawyers could have drafted a clearer statute, but the bargaining and back-and-forth nature of drafting legislation has likely resulted in the complicated language we have.
Stay tuned as the Real Estate Commission and our courts deal with this issue.
Rule changes resulting from NAR class action settlement discussed
South Carolina real estate lawyers were invited to an excellent Zoom meeting on August 20 sponsored by South Carolina Realtors. The meeting was advertised on the South Carolina Bar’s Real Estate section listserv. Nick Kremydas of that organization and Gary Pickren, founding member of Blair Cato Law Firm, addressed the changes residential real estate lawyers should expect as a result of the National Association of Realtors class action settlement. South Carolina dirt lawyers owe a huge thank you to these two well-informed lawyers who, in addition to speaking and answering questions on the topic, offered their email addresses for the purposes of fielding further questions. *
According to the settlement, as of August 17, NAR affiliated residential multiple listing services can no longer accept listings that indicate the amount or percentage of the seller’s commission that will be paid to the buyer’s broker. There is no requirement that a buyer be represented by a separate broker, and for many years, buyers typically had no representation. But in recent years, buyers’ agents have routinely been employed, and it is clear that some other method must be worked out for their payment.
The speakers initially stated that the MLS entities in South Carolina have complied with the August 17 deadline, but there was a brief mention that Hilton Head may be an exception. Some brokers are drafting “showing agreements” or “touring agreements” to comply with the rule that a buyer must agree to commissions prior to seeing houses.
The implementation of the changes in practice has fallen to the state level, which makes sense because state laws are not consistent on the related issues. Gary Pickren said implementation may be somewhat of a moving target as the market begins to dictate what will occur. It is important to remember, he said, that only sixty percent of real estate agents are NAR-affiliated Realtors, so all agents are not currently required to comply. As a practical matter, however, agents will have to comply because they use the MLS services. In addition, according to Gary, future lawsuits are always a possibility, so that threat will encourage compliance by everyone in the marketplace.
Gary pointed to three ways buyers’ agents may be compensated:
Direct Payment: The seller will pay the seller’s agent and the buyer will pay the buyer’s agent. Gary sees this method being applicable with higher-priced homes. Settlement Statements will simply reflect a charge for the seller and a charge for the buyer.
SC Realtor Form 120: This form is a compensation agreement. The seller will enter into an agreement with the listing agent to pay $X to the listing agent and to authorize the listing agent to pay $Y to the buyer’s agent. The Settlement Statement will reflect both charges to the seller, exactly as we have shown these charges in recent years.
Contract Concessions: In addition to the normal concessions for closing costs, sellers may make concessions for commissions. Settlement Agreements will reflect the seller’s charge for the listing agent’s commission, the buyer’s charge for the buyer’s agent commission, and a credit from the seller to the buyer for the concession. There may be some concern here with regard to appraisals and lender limitations on concessions. Closing attorneys will have pay particular attention to these issues.
In addition to these three methods, some brokers are drafting their own documents to handle commissions in different ways.
Gary questioned how the new rules will be policed and indicated closing attorneys may have additional liability in this regard with no additional payment. We have all seen that our Supreme Court seems to place the liability for the accuracy of closing statements directly on the shoulders of closing attorneys. He said he does not feel closing attorneys will have to review MLS listings, but they may ask to see the Forms 120 and they require have the parties sign separate documents addressing the accuracy of the commissions reflected on the Settlement Statement.
Gary indicated the Real Estate Commission has no jurisdiction to police these issues, but the MLS services and the local Realtor Associations may implement rules with fines, commission forfeitures and even suspensions and bans from using the MLS services.
I want to personally thank Nick and Gary for providing this service for all of us. It appears to me that their thinking and their willingness to educate the Bar may place South Carolina lawyers ahead of lawyers in other states. Based on the reading I’ve done from a national standpoint, it appears the answers to these issues are still very mysterious in some locations.
*I won’t offer up the email addresses, but lawyers know how to find each other!
This blog recently discussed the Missouri class action by residential real estate sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a real estate agent trade association, and several real estate agent entities, which resulted in a judgment of $1.8 billion. The plaintiffs argued that commissions are rarely negotiable and that the seller is required to pay commissions for both sides of transactions
A South Carolina lawyer posted on a listserv I read on the subject that litigation like this wouldn’t happen in South Carolina because standard residential contracts leave a blank for the percentage of the buyer’s agent’s commission. This poster was, sadly, wrong.
Housingwire reported on November 10 that Shauntell Burton has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina alleging that the NAR and Keller Williams colluded to artificially inflate agent commission rates. You can read the story here.
The plaintiff is seeking class action status for all home sellers in South Carolina who have sold a home on the MLS with a Keller Williams agent since November of 2019. The 107-page complaint states that NAR’s “clear cooperation” policy leads to the commission problem because that policy requires agents to provide a blanket offer of compensation to the buyer’s agent to list a property on the MLS.
Apparently, similar suits are being brought in multiple states.
Dirt lawyers, what do you think about this? Is Keller Williams the only broker involved in the practice, or will other brokers be named in the future? Is it your experience that commissions paid by sellers to buyers’ agents are negotiated, as the poster mentioned above suggested? I’d love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experience.
Real Estate Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction
The South Carolina Supreme Court, answering questions certified to it by the Federal District Court, held last week that the South Carolina Real Estate Commission (REC) does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine violations of the South Carolina Vacation Time Sharing Plans Act.*
The Court also stated that the REC’s determination of a violation of the Time Act** is not a condition precedent to a private cause of action to enforce the Act and that the determinations of the REC are not binding on the courts.
These questions arose from two sets of litigation in the federal court involving individuals who entered into contracts with developers to purchase timeshare interests.
One set of plaintiffs, the Fullbrights, brought a purported class action against a timeshare developer, Spinnaker Resorts, Inc., seeking the return of money paid under a contract to purchase, plus interest, as well as a declaration that the contract was invalid.
The other set of plaintiffs, the Chenards, brought suit against another timeshare developer, Hilton Head Island Development Co., LLC, alleging fraud, negligent representation and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as violations of the Timeshare Act.
In answering the questions, the Supreme Court stated that it was not taking any positions on the merits of the cases, which remain under the jurisdiction of the federal court.
The Court found that §27-32-130 unambiguously allows for lawsuits by stating that the provisions of the Act do not limit the right of a purchaser to bring a private cause of action. The developers had argued that this statute is ambiguous and that public policy evidenced by the Timeshare Act as a whole requires the REC’s jurisdiction to be exclusive.
These determinations will no doubt clear the way for class action lawsuits against timeshare developers.
*Fullbright v. Hilton Head Island Development Co., LLC, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 27220 (May 17, 2017).
Let's Talk Dirt 