Commission Education Program Wins Top ARELLO Award

The Association of Real Estate License Law Officials (ARELLO) presented its top education recognition award to the North Carolina Real Estate Commission for its “Total Education Program.”

This award honors a jurisdiction’s real estate licensing agency for operating an overall education program that is judged to be particularly outstanding based on awards criteria such as program design, program standards, innovation, resources devoted to the program and benefits of the program.

Specific aspects of the Commission’s education program that contributed to the Commission’s selection for this honor include:

Education Award – Lanny Wilson, Commission Chairman, (r) receives ARELLO award from Larry Outlaw, Director, Education and Licensing. Commission members (l. to r.) are Marsha lordan, Raymond Bass Wanda Proffitt, William Lackey, Sang Hamilton, Allan Dameron and Mona Hill.

New Broker Prelicensing Course —The emphasis on practical application of laws, rules and concepts, inclusion of a major section on “Introduction to Commercial Real Estate Brokerage,” and provision by the Commission of high quality course final examinations for use by instructors are particularly noteworthy.

Standards for Prelicensing and CE Update Course Instructors — Prospective CE update course instructors have long been required to demonstrate by videotape that they possess minimally acceptable basic teaching skills. Prelicensing instructors are now subject to this requirement and new instructors must attend a Commission-sponsored New Instructor Seminar. In addition, prelicensing instructors must obtain instructor continuing education to renew their approval.

CE Update Course — The Commission-developed mandatory update course, featuring entirely different subject matter each year, is highly regarded for the quality of information and instruction.

CE Elective Course Standards — The Commission utilizes very strict elective course approval standards in an effort to assure that approved courses serve the public interest and meet minimum quality standards regarding the information to be provided, course design, materials and similar matters.

Instructor Training — The Commission sponsors a two-day Real Estate Educators Conference each year for the benefit of approved instructors and other real estate educators. The Commission also conducts two six-hour training sessions for CE update course instructors each year to help prepare them to teach the update course for that year.

Broker-in-Charge Course — Since October 2000, all newly designated brokers-in-charge must take this Commission-developed course within 90 days of being designated. The 4 1/2-hour, PowerPoint®-based course focuses on the legal and practical responsibilities of brokers-in-charge and is conducted by the Commission 4-5 times a month at various locations across the state.

Trust Account Course — The Commission conducts both a Basic Trust Account Course and a Resort Property Managers Trust Account Course for licensees. The basic course is taught once a month in Raleigh and both are taught each spring in several locations across the state. The courses utilize a PowerPoint®-based instructional program.

North Carolina Real Estate Manual— The Commission publishes biennially this text on North Carolina real estate law and brokerage practices. It is used in the broker prelicensing course and also serves as a reference book for practitioners. The 718-page Manual features detailed coverage and many practical examples not found elsewhere.

Information Publications for Licensees and Consumers — The Commission publishes a licensee newsletter, the Real Estate Bulletin, a Working with Real Estate Agents brochure (which licensees must provide to prospective sellers and buyers), and aResidential Square Footage Guidelines booklet. In addition, the Commission publishes free of charge to licensees and consumers a series of Question and Answer brochures on *Fair Housing, *Renting Residential Real Estate, *Tenant Security Deposits, Condos and Townhouses, Residential Subdivisions and Planned Communities, Home Inspections, and Purchasing Coastal Real Estate in North Carolina (* available in a Spanish language edition).

The Commission is very proud to have received the ARELLO award recognizing its achievements in the education area. [ARELLO is an international organization of real estate licensing agencies and individuals involved with regulation of the real estate industry.]

This article came from the February 2002-Vol32-4 edition of the bulletin.

FORMAT CHANGED

We have received a number of inquiries as to whether the Bulletin is published monthly or quarterly. To avoid any further confusion, we have decided to change the heading on the Bulletin to show the quarter instead of the month of publication. This issue is designated “Fall Quarter 1970.” Succeeding issues will be published for the Winter, Spring, and Summer Quarters.

This article came from the Fall 1970 Vol1-3 edition of the bulletin.

CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Your Board has now completed its move to expanded quarters at 813 Branch Banking and Trust Building in Raleigh. You are cordially invited to visit the office at any time you -ire in the Capital city. The Board id entire staff welcome you.

With over 10,000 licensees in the state, the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board has found it necessary to enlarge its staff as well as its quarters. We are fortunate to have added Mr. Blanton Little, who will serve as assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer. Blanton is a native of Stanly County and a long time resident of Raleigh. He is well qualified for his new position. He is a Davidson graduate and has over twenty years experience in the fields of appraising and lending on residential, farm, and commercial properties.

Each member of the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board and staff dedicates himself to the protection of the interest of the public. We will continue to work for the strengthening of the profession by fair and impartial administration of the legislation and rules and regulations under which we operate.

Best wishes,

J. W. Olive

This article came from the Fall 1970 Vol1-3 edition of the bulletin.

BUM CHECKS

Believe it or not, the Licensing Board occasionally receives a worthless check in payment of license fees. This is a violation of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and ground for license suspension or revocation and is being enforced by the Board.

This article came from the Fall 1970 Vol1-3 edition of the bulletin.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

QUESTIONS: 1. Is a corporation which maintains and operates a golf club and related facilities required to use the services of a licensed real estate broker or salesman for the sale of a golf club membership, which membership includes the sale of a lot? 2. Is the corporation mentioned in Question I required to secure the services of a licensed broker or salesman (1) in event the corporation, for a fee, sells a member’s lot at his request or (2) in the event the corporation, for a fee, rents or leases a member’s house?

CONCLUSIONS:  1. No.
2. Yes.

OPINION: With respect to Question 1, G. S. 93A-2(c) provides, in port, that no real estate broker’s or salesman’s license is required for a corporation which, as owner, sells its own real estate.
With respect to Question 2, G. S. 93A-2(a) provides:

“A real estate broker within the meaning of this chapter is any person, partnership, association, or corporation, who for a compensation or valuable consideration or promise thereof lists or offers to list, sells or offers to sell, buy or offers to buy, auctions or offers to auction (specifically not including a mere crier of sales), or negotiates the purchase or sale or exchange of real estate, or who leases or offers to lease, or who sells or offers to sell leases of whatever character, or rents or offers to rent any real estate or the improvement thereon, for others.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus the lease or rental of a member’s house by the corporation for a fee clearly falls within the statutory definition of a real estate broker.

It is noted that the corporation here involved was organized as a non-profit corporation under Chapter 55A of the General Statutes. Whether the corporation was organized for profit under Chapter 55 or as a nonprofit corporation would not affect the conclusions made herein.

This article came from the Fall 1970 Vol1-3 edition of the bulletin.

Administrative Assistant

The Licensing Board takes pleasure in announcing that Blanton Little of Raleigh has been employed as Administrative Assistant to J. F. Schweidler, Secretary-Treasurer of the Board. Mr. Little has recently token early retirement from the Prudential Insurance Company of America after having served the Real Estate Investment Department of that company for a period of twenty-four years in the various capacities of Mortgage Loan Inspector, Mortgage Loan Appraiser, Reviewing Appraiser, Supervising Appraiser, and Senior Appraiser. Mr. Little began his duties with the Licensing Board on September 8.

Mr. Little is a native of North Carolina, having been raised in Albemarle. He graduated from Albemarle High School and from Davidson College, where he majored in Economics and Political Science. He served as a Naval Officer in World War 11.

He is married to the former Lillie Bradshaw of Wilson County, and they have one son, Blanton, Jr.

This article came from the Fall 1970 Vol1-3 edition of the bulletin.

MEET YOUR LICENSING BOARD

A. P. CARLTON, Greensboro, was appointed to the Licensing Board in 1968 and presently serves as Chairman. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina. He is a licensed real estate broker and has been quite active as a Realtor, having served as President, Greensboro Board of Realtors; Director, N. C. Association of Realtors; President, N. C. Real Estate Educational Foundation; and Dean of the Realtors Institute. In 1969, he was chosen Greensboro Realtor of the Year. Mr. Carlton’s business interests include Interstate .Realty, Inc., Carlton-Phillips Insurance Agency, and H.M. & T. Investment Company.

J. BART HALL, Belmont, has been a member of the Licensing Board since 1957 and has served as Board Chairman. After graduating from Davidson College in 1925, he began a banking career in Charlotte. He joined the Belmont Savings and Loan Association in 1932 and has been President since 1954. He has served as Director, United States Savings & Loan League; President, North Carolina Savings & Loan League; President, Belmont Kiwanis Club and President, Belmont Chamber of Commerce and is a Trustee of Gaston College.

W J. TOLIVER DAVIS, Forest City, as appointed to the Licensing Board in 1966 and is a post Chairman. He is a graduate of Wake Forest Low School and practices low in Forest City. During the 1955, 1957, and 1959 sessions, he was a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives. He is active in various legal organizations including the N. C. State Bar, N. C. Bar Association, American Bar Association, and the American Trial Lawyer’s Association. Mr. Davis served in the U. S. Navy as a LCDR in the European and Pacific Theatres in WW 11 and was decorated with the Purple Heart and Silver Star citations.

KENNETH R. SMITH, Raleigh, was appointed to the Licensing Board in 1957. He is a past Chairman and presently serves as Vice Chairman of the Board. He attended Washington and Lee University. He is a retired fire insurance executive. Prior to his appointment to the Licensing Board, he served as Director of the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad. He has served on many prominent committees including Chairman of the Committee on Rates, Rules and Forms for the N. C. Inspection and Rating Bureau and Executive Committee of the N. C. Fire Insurance Rating Bureau.

JOHN W. OLIVE, Mount Airy, was appointed to the Board in November, 1969. He is a graduate of Duke University and served in the U. S. Army 1942-45. He is actively engaged in real estate development and residential construction. He serves as Executive Vice President of the United Savings and Loan Association with offices in Mount Airy, Elkin, and King. He is affiliated with a number of companies as a Director. He is a licensed real estate broker and is a member of the Surry County Board of Realtors.

This article came from the June 1970 Vol1-2 edition of the bulletin.

LICENSE STATISTICS

(No examination held in June)

LICENSES SUSPENDED-REVOKED

WILLIAM A. CROSS – Greensboro broke r-suspencled 60 day suspension–G.S. 93A-6(12)

This article came from the June 1970 Vol1-2 edition of the bulletin.

IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAW OF BROKERAGE

It has been the general rule of law that a broker is entitled to his commission when the contract of sale is signed by buyer and seller. In accepting the purchaser, the seller has approved the buyer, and should the latter later refuse to consummate the deal, the burden is upon the seller to enter suit to compel the buyer to perform. A case of great importance, which rejects the premise that the owner is liable to the broker for commission, where the buyer defaults, is the case of Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson (owner) and larussi (buyer), 50 N.J. 528. In joining the buyer as defendant, the broker charged the buyer with breach of an implied agreement to pay the commission if he failed to complete the purchase and thus deprived the broker of commission from the seller. The trial judge held, as a matter of law, that the broker’s commission vested upon execution of the contract of sole, and the commission was not dependent upon the closing of title. The jury found for the broker in the amount of $15,000 against the owner. Upon appeal, the appellate court said:

“Corbin notes that there has been immense amount of litigation over .e years with respect to the commissions of land brokers I Corbin on Contracts 50 (1963). Almost a century ago, the former Supreme Court ruled that when a broker who hod been duly authorized by the owner to find a buyer for his property produced a willing and able purchaser who entered into a contract to buy on terms agreeable to the owner, the broker had fulfilled his undertaking and his right to commission from the owner was complete …

There can be no doubt that ordinarily when on owner of property lists it with a broker for sole, his expectation is that the money for the payment of commission will come out of the proceeds of the sole. He expects that if the broker produces a buyer to whom the owner’s terms of sole are satisfactory, and a contract embodying those terms is executed, the buyer will perform, i.e. he will pay the consideration and accept the deed at the time agreed upon. Considering the realities of the relationship created between owner and broker, that expectation of the owner is a reasonable one, and, in our view, entirely consistent with what should be the expectation of a conscientious broker as to the kind of ready, willing and able purchaser his engagement calls upon him to tender to the owner.

The present New Jersey rule as exemplified by the cases cited above is deficient as an instrument of Justice. It permits a broker to satisfy his obligation to the owner simply by tendering a human being who is physically and mentally capable of agreeing to buy the property on mutually satisfactory terms, so long as the owner enters into a sale contract with such person. The implication of the rule is that the owner has the burden of satisfying himself as to the prospective purchaser’s ability, financial or otherwise, to complete the transaction; he cannot rely at all on the fact that the purchaser was produced in good faith by the broker as a person willing and able to buy the property. Once he enters into a contract of sale with the broker’s customer, he is considered to have accepted the purchaser as fully capable of the ultimate performance agreed upon. If it later appears that the purchaser is not financially able to close the title, or even that he never did have the means to do so, the owner must pay the broker his commission, so long as he acted in good faith, Such a rule, considered in the context of the real relationship between broker and owner, empties the word “able’. of substantially all of its significant content and imposes an unjust burden on vendors of property. It seems to us that fairness requires that the arrangement between broker and owner be interpreted to mean that the owner hires the broker with the expectation of becoming liable for a commission only in the event a sale of the property is consummated, unless the title does not pass because of the owner’s improper or frustrating conduct …

Thus when the broker produces his customer, it is only reasonable to hold that the owner may accept him without being obliged to make on independent inquiry into his financial capacity. That right ought not to be taken away from him, nor should he be estopped to assert it, simply because he “accepted” the buyer . . . In a practical world, the true test of a willing buyer is not met when he signs an agreement to purchase; it is demonstrated at the time of closing of title, and if he unjustifiably refuses or is unable financially to perform then, the broker has not produced a willing buyer …

Study of the problems involved in this case in light of the above considerations leads us to the following conclusions as to what the controlling rule should be in New Jersey: When a broker is engaged by an owner of property to find a purchaser for it, the broker earns his commission when (a) he produces a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on the terms fixed by the owner, (b) the purchaser enters into a binding contract with the owner to do so, and (c) the purchaser completes the transaction by closing the title in accordance with the provisions of the contract. If the contract is not consummated because of any other default of his, there is no right to commission against the seller. On the other hand, if the failure of completion of the contract results from the wrongful act or interference of the seller, the broker’s claim is valid and must be paid. In short, in the absence of default by the seller, the broker’s right to commission against the seller comes into existence only when his buyer performs in accordance with the contract of sole . . .

The rules which we have set down above to govern dealings, rights, and duties between brokers and owners are necessary for the protection of property owners, and constitute the public policy of our State …

This Court has held that when a prospective buyer solicits a broker to find or to show him property which he might be interested in buying, and the broker finds property satisfactory to him which the owner agrees to sell at the price offered, and the buyer knows the broker will earn commission for the sale from the owner, the low will imply a promise on the part of the buyer to complete the transaction with the owner. If he fails or refuses to do so without a valid reason, and thus prevents the broker from earning the commission from the owner, he becomes liable to the broker for breach of the implied promise. The damages chargeable to him will be measured by the amount of commission the broker would have earned from the owner.”

-Narello News

This article came from the June 1970 Vol1-2 edition of the bulletin.

DID YOU KNOW

that North Carolina low automatically adds a risk of loss clause to real estate contracts?

Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act

39-39. Risk of loss. – Any contract hereafter made in this State for the purchase and sale of realty shall be interpreted as including an agreement that the parties shall have the following rights and duties, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise:

(1) If, when neither the legal title nor the possession of the subject matter of the contract has been transferred, all or a material part thereof is destroyed without fault of the purchaser, the vendor cannot enforce the contract, and the purchaser is entitled to recover any portion of the price that he has paid;

(2) If, when either the legal title or the possession of the subject matter of the contract has been transferred, all or any part thereof is de strayed without fault of the vendor, the purchaser is not thereby relieved from a duty to pay the price, nor is he entitled to recover any portion thereof that he has paid.”

This article came from the June 1970 Vol1-2 edition of the bulletin.