Do you have a question or topic related to REALTOR® ethics that you would like addressed in a future issue of Ethics Exchange? Click here to e-mail Scott Bush at the GMAR.
The Number of Properties You Show a Buyer is Not Determinative of Procuring Cause
I’ve heard this type of statement many times over the years: I’m procuring cause because I’ve been working with that buyer for six months and I’ve shown them more than 20 properties.  

As it relates to procuring cause, an arbitration hearing panel is primarily concerned with what actions were taken by the agent to cause the sale to happen regarding the subject property during the term of the listing contract. In other words, the listing broker may not care that you had shown a buyer other homes. The contract (the offer of compensation via MLS) is specific to the property. The listing broker will pay the agent who sold their listing; activities with the buyer on other properties are not relevant.

For more information on this subject, please click on the article below from the WRA.

Case Interpreation: Arbitration Involving a REALTOR® Selling her Own Property
REALTOR® B was a real estate broker and property manager who, in addition to managing property for others, frequently bought and sold income property for her own account. Needing capital for another project, REALTOR® B decided to sell a three-flat building in which she had a strong equity position and which she thought would move quickly, given the current market conditions. To maximize market exposure, she listed the property with her firm and entered the listing into the MLS. She put a sign in front of the property indicating that it was for sale “by owner.” Her ads in the local newspapers indicated that the seller was a “broker-owner.”

REALTOR® A, who lived near the building, saw the “for sale” sign and called REALTOR® B. Introducing himself as a broker and as a REALTOR®, REALTOR® A asked what the asking price was and whether REALTOR® B was interested in listing her property. REALTOR® B did not indicate that she had listed her own property nor did she disclose that she was a broker or a REALTOR®. She did indicate that she would pay a commission to REALTOR® A if he procured a purchaser for the property but added that she preferred not to enter into an exclusive relationship with any broker and didn’t want to put anything into writing.

REALTOR® A thought the property might interest Dr. X, REALTOR® A’s chiropractor, and contacted him. Dr. X was in fact interested and, after several visits to the property, made an offer to purchase which was subsequently accepted by REALTOR® B.

At the closing, REALTOR® A learned several things, among them, that REALTOR® B, the seller, was also a REALTOR® and, more importantly, that REALTOR® B had instructed that only half of the previously agreed on commission was to be disbursed to REALTOR® A. When REALTOR® A protested the shortfall, REALTOR® B responded that her property was highly desirable, had “practically sold itself,” and, in any event, REALTOR® A had expended minimal efforts in bringing about the quick sale. REALTOR® A disagreed with REALTOR® B’s reasoning and, after appeals to REALTOR® B’s sense of fairness went unheeded, filed an arbitration request with the Association of REALTORS®. Faced with the request to arbitrate, REALTOR® B declined, referring to Article 17 of the Code of Ethics and noting that it relates to disputes between REALTORS® “...arising out of their relationship as REALTORS® ...” whereas she had been the seller.

REALTOR® B’s refusal to arbitrate was referred to the Board of Directors for their consideration. REALTOR® B repeated her defense that, as the seller, she was not obligated to arbitrate a dispute with another REALTOR® who had been acting within the scope of his broker’s license absent a specific arbitration agreement. REALTOR® B pointed out that the agreement between them was oral and, in response to REALTOR® B’s question, REALTOR® A admitted that the question of arbitration had never even been discussed. REALTOR® A noted the property had appeared in the MLS, and REALTOR® B responded that inclusion of information in the MLS had been a “technicality” and that she had “listed with herself” merely to comply with MLS rules and that she had considered herself the seller, first and foremost. The Directors agreed with REALTOR® B that she obviously had been a principal in the sale of her own property but went on to conclude that by listing the property, albeit with herself, she no longer was exclusively a principal in the transaction but had also acted within the scope of her broker’s license. As such, she had become embroiled in a contractual dispute with another REALTOR® “...arising out of their relationship as REALTORS®...” and had become obligated to arbitrate.
We hope you enjoyed the August 1 Issue of Ethics Exchange 2022 brought to you by the Greater Milwaukee Association of REALTORS® (GMAR). The GMAR created this newsletter, each issue dedicated to a unique issue, because the REALTOR® Code of Ethics, on which our industry is built, is the foundation of what it means to be a REALTOR®.
Your proactive support of the Code of Ethics will assure your fellow REALTORS®, as well as members of the public, that every member of GMAR operates under the highest ethical standards.
Questions, comments or concerns regarding this issue can be directed to
Scott Bush at the GMAR Office (414-778-4929 or [email protected]).