Continuing with its 20-year history of advocating for home buyers, the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents filed an Amicus Curiae or “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the plaintiff in a case currently before the California Supreme Court. In his suit Horiike v. Coldwell Banker, plaintiff Hiroshi Horiike contends that even though the listing agent was originally contracted by the seller, because the listing agent was an agent of the same broker and in the same brokerage as his buyer agent, the listing agent also owed him, the buyer, representation as well. The California Second District Court of Appeal agreed stating, “When a broker is the dual agent of both the buyer and the seller in a real property transaction, the salespersons acting under the broker have the same fiduciary duty to the buyer and the seller as the broker.”
According to NAEBA President Chris Whitehead, “The seller had a contract with the broker through one agent. The buyer had a contract with the same broker through another agent creating a dual agency situation. In reading California law, it would appear that because the broker represented both the buyer and the seller, the agents working under that broker also represented both the buyer and the seller, which means that the seller’s agent should have protected both the seller’s interests and the buyer’s, which is an impossible situation. That is why NAEBA has long spoken out against dual agency. It’s not good for buyers or sellers, but only for the real estate licensees who will be able to collect both sides of the commission.”
NAEBA chose to submit a brief because the organization sees potential ramifications for the real estate industry not only in California, but throughout the United States. Adds Whitehead, “If nothing else, we hope that this case will enlighten consumers and the real estate industry on the risks and pitfalls of dual agency and its variants across the country.”
See the full brief at www.naeba.org/amicus.