I sold a mf to my daughter a couple of weeks ago. The Seller's agent said I broke the law in not disclosing it was my daughter that bought it. I had nothing to do with the listing or the sellers...just was being a buyer's agent and did have a signed agency disclosure...did nothing I wouldn't do for any buyer...Did I need to disclose that I had a relationship with the buyer? I never heard of it before and I always follow the law..I realize there's no excuse if I broke the law and I'm not trying to make one but did I break it? I just never heard of it..
I certainly have heard if I have a relationship to a property to disclose that but does this count as that too? Thanks

I think someone's just ringing your chimes ! When I've had Agents bringing their Relatives to my Listings, I virtually INSIST (though I can't enforce it) that they be, as you were, a Buyer's Representative. As a practical matter, we can never expect a Contract to somehow create ties of loyalty that are stronger than blood.

Maybe that Seller's Agent should go back and study the Law of Agency and Mass Rules and Regulations BEFORE making such Accusations. If there was a Violation, File a Complaint; otherwise Shut Up!

Actually, in many states if you did not disclose that your client was your daughter in the contract, then you would be considered breaking the law. This is very important that this type of client is disclosed to all parties in the transaction.

In our local purchase contract, there is even a section in there that needs to be filled out if your client is a licensee or a relative.

SC is one of those.

In Ohio would have had to disclose the fact that you were related to your client (rather they are a buyer or sell).

I have never figured out what the hell it matters??? but, its the law none the less so I disclose it.

If I was the listing agent and found out that you had the relationship and did not disclose it, I would just think you did not know that you had to disclose it and move on. No big deal.

I have looked around for this law in the MA Supplment for Modern Real Estate Practive...5th edition and can't find it. Someone did say "next of kin" but I also can't find that in there. I did find on p.59 "Disclosure of Interest in Property... but that only addresses my hvig an interest in the property, either buying or selling. I certainly had no interest in my daughter buying a property..how would I benefit? I'm searching for the law somewhere in MA laws but are they just inferred and is an inference enough to file a law suit on? I'm only trying to see this law...not split hairs.

In many states you would be violating the law, but you have another issue. You have an obligation to disclose material facts. Our firm receives E&O claims every week and mostly they relate to failure to disclose something. A conflict of interest should always be disclosed whether its required or not. Its a similar concept with dual agency.

Where's the Conflict of Interest ? She's a Buyer Broker representing a Client who also happens to be her Daughter. She WAS NOT pretending to represent the Seller OR the Listing Agency; but her Daughter/Client. So what's the Rub ?

What does your principal broker say?

He feels the other broker is correct. I just don't see the conflict. It would be nice if someone could explain it to me..because there is no interestto me in my daughter buying the property. It's ok if someone says it's the law but I'm just trying to understand it and I would like to see it written. I just don't want to take someone else's word for it...it's got to be written somewhere. I'm not trying to belabor the point...I 'm just not taking anyone's word for it.

Ferne, I'm just wondering if there isn't a missing ingredient here. I have had Agents get an Agency Relationship Disclosure Signed, and put a little check mark in a box that says they are representing the Buyer. This box is there to reveal to a Seller that this Agent is working for the Buyer.

Sometimes, Agents who do not frequently represent Buyers will check that same little box, and think that they have established a Client/Agent relationship with their Customer. I have had to then tell them that the Disclosure IS NOT A CONTRACT , and that they are still representing the Seller's side of the Transaction until they establish a written Contractual Relationship with their Buyer. Their Buyer is still only a Customer; not a Client.

So Ferne, just to clarify things, you said that you had a signed Agency Disclosure, AND that you said you had been representing your Daughter as a Buyer's Agent; but did you also have an actual "Contract" establishing the contractual relationship with your Daughter? It may be the absence of a Separate Buyer Representation Agreement that has caused this to become a question.

That's all I can figure. And if that is the issue, I bet that won't happen again.

In alabama, you have to disclose if you are an agent or buyer is your relative by law, but I saw and knew so many agents bought homes either for themselves or mother/daughters but never disclosed it to listing agent/seller, do not know what the deal?

Locally agents are required to disclose in writing any direct or indirect relationship to any of the parties to a transaction. This includes both a personal and/or business relationship.

Locally a failure to disclose material facts, would be deemed material non-disclosure as well as a violation of the local regulations governing agents and subject to prosecution by the regulatory authorities.

The interpretation of a personal relationship as opposed to a business relationship has been interpreted to mean a person related by blood, adoption or conjugal relationship.

The main purpose of disclosure is to circumvent the rise of potential issues and to avoid liability in relation thereto. (an ounce of prevention)

In instances where the opposing party received full and timely disclosure of all facts as may be material, then this goes a long way towards eliminating issues that could or might be subsequently raised.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .

I can't see that you should have any concern about a lawsuit, because nobody has or foreseeably will be damaged by the alleged non-disclosure, assuming the transaction was not fraudulent. but, if you have in fact breached a duty of disclosure, then you could be subject to discipline by the state, if someone were to file a complaint.

no legal advice intended

I dont know the full facts. Obviously someone has to allege and prove damages relating to the issue. It doesnt appear as if anyone was damaged. But attorneys often bring such issues into a suit. We have found issues where a relative bought a property and then sold it for a significant amount more. The original seller alledged the broker owed a responsibility to the seller (which they listed for) In one case the adjudicated damages were in excess of $1M. In this case since you were not the sellers agent, there probably is less of an issue, however, we have also seen suits when the broker represented the tenant or the buyer only. But again, full disclosure of any potential conflicts is always best