Eventually, the buyer asked me to write an offer and I did so. The buyer mentioned to me that she owned her current home. The buyer asked me many questions about the home. I gave the buyer a Brokerage Relationships Disclosure (Buyer) form which she signed. Prior to any serious discussion with the buyer, I disclosed to the buyer that I was working as a seller’s agent. During an open house, a buyer, who is not working with any broker, fell in love with the property. This month’s article considers the same example (repeated below) and compares the advantages versus the advantages of becoming a transaction-broker when you sell your own listing. It would not surprise this author if at least one judge in Colorado disagreed with the conclusion of last month’s column. Law suits begin in the mind of an unhappy person. The listing broker might only be exonerated after a law suit. While the law is fairly clear that the broker had no liability to the buyer, the seller might have a different recollection of the seller’s choice not to ask the buyer about the buyer’s need to sell her existing home. Both the buyer and the seller are likely to have a poor impression of the broker. The seller might have a harder time than the seller expects getting the buyer’s earnest money. While the broker didn’t do anything legally wrong, the end result was undesirable: The broker didn’t get a commission. Last month’s article considered a transaction (discussed below) which did not close. Yet while this option is available to licensees and sellers, is the option desirable?

This is a specific example of the general phenomenon that brokers may work on a transaction as an agent of one party and assist the other unrepresented party with the ministerial tasks identified in Real Estate Commission Rule E-33, without establishing a transaction-broker or other brokerage relationship with the unrepresented party. Pickle in the Middle or Gladiator on One Side?īrokers may sell their own listings while remaining a seller’s agent.

Transaction broker