RHONDA KAE AXHOJ (Waxhaw) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Axhoj effective October 1, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Axhoj, broker-in-charge of her sole proprietorship, sold a property she owned and signed an incorrect closing statement indicating the buyer paid a $2,000 earnest money deposit to her, when the buyer had not, in the belief that the buyer would pay the deposit after closing. Ms. Axhoj attempted to collect the $2,000 after closing but the buyer did not pay it.
JACOB O. BALOGUN (Fayetteville) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Balogun for a period of one year effective May 1, 2009. One month of the suspension was active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of 11 months. The Commission found that the N. C. State Board of Certified Public Accountant Examiners revoked Mr. Balogun’s CPA license in 2008, the revocation stemming from a violation of a six-month suspension of his CPA license in 2006, and that Mr. Balogun had failed to inform the Commission of either disciplinary action.
BDF REALTY, INC. (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the firm license of BDF Realty for a period of one year effective June 10, 2008. Thirty days of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of one year. The Commission found that BDF Realty received $950 which was intended to be used as option money. The Commission further found that BDF Realty had a verbal property management agreement with the owner, but no written agency agreement with any party. BDF Realty released the option money from its trust account to the would-be optionor, but did not have an option contract executed by the parties. The Commission noted that BDF Realty, upon first request of refund by the would-be optionee, refunded the would-be optionee $950.
BEAZER/SQUIRES REALTY, INC. ET. AL. (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the firm license of Beazer/Squires Realty, Inc., effective July 13, 2009. The Commission found that Beazer/Squires Realty, Inc. sold new construction homes to consumers and that its parent company, Beazer Homes USA, was charged in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of North Carolina with one count of Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy and one count of Accounting Fraud Conspiracy for transactions that occurred in or about 2000 through 2007.
HENRY C. BLAKE, JR. (Riegelwood) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the broker license of Mr. Blake effective September 9, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Blake, a broker-in-charge of a sole proprietorship, participated in mortgage fraud schemes in which he prepared false and inflated appraisals of certain parcels of real property that were submitted to mortgage lenders who relied on his appraisals to determine the values of certain real properties which would be collateral for mortgage loans.
JOHN MICHAEL BURTON (Catawba) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Burton for a period of five years effective August 13, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Mr. Burton violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Mr. Burton neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
MARTHA LILIANA CAMPOVERDE (Charlotte) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Campoverde effective May 28, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms.Campoverde violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Campoverde neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
DIANNE M. CARTER (Matthews) – The Commission permanently revoked the broker license of Ms. Carter effective August 18, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Carter, as broker-in-charge, principal broker, and/or treasurer of various real estate brokerage firms, failed to account for or to remit monies coming into her possession which belonged to another. The Commission also found that Ms. Carter scheduled withdrawals to herself without authorization from her principal, failed to turn over rental proceeds, failed to maintain rental proceeds in a trust account, and failed to make her trust account records available for inspection by the Commission.
BECKY PERRY CODER (Charlotte) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Coder effective October 1, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Coder had violated the Real Estate Law and Commission rules. Ms. Coder neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
CREATIVE BUYERS NETWORK, LLC (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Creative Buyers Network effective July 1, 2009. The Commission found that Creative Buyers Network, a licensed real estate brokerage firm, listed a home threatened with foreclosure, and that its broker-in-charge convinced an acquaintance to invest $15,000 to bring the mortgage payments current and make improvements on the property. The Commission further found that the broker-in-charge filled out a promissory note between the seller and investor and included Creative Buyers Network as trustee but that Creative Buyers Network failed to deposit the funds into its trust account.
JOSEPH F. DAVIS, JR. (Burlington) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mr. Davis effective June 1, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Davis, broker-in-charge of a real estate brokerage firm, failed to maintain his trust account records as required by the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. The Commission noted that Mr. Davis corrected all the violations noted with respect to his trust account records, there were no shortages, and no consumers were harmed as a result.
MARTIN J. EVANS (Hampstead) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Evans for a period of three years effective November 1, 2008. Six months of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of 30 months on certain conditions. The Commission found that Mr. Evans, qualifying broker and broker-in-charge of a real estate brokerage firm, listed a personal rental home and lot and advertised it in the MLS as being located in in a federal flood zone, but specifically not a COBRA zone, when in fact it was. Buyers of the property demolished the house, intending to build a new home, and then discovered that the property was in a COBRA zone and federal flood insurance was not available for a new structure.
KELLY A. FEELEY (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Feeley effective January 14, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Feeley certified in July 2007 that she had four years full time, active experience as a real estate broker or salesperson, thereby causing the Commission to remove her from provisional license status, when in fact her license had only been active for a total of only two years and 11 months. The Commission noted that prior to activation of her license she had worked in home sales for a builder developer in a capacity exempt from licensure. Ms. Feeley’s license was returned to provisional status until June 10, 2009, by which time she had completed a 30-hour post-licensing course.
RONALD S. FERRELL (Cornelius) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Ferrell for a period of two years effective May 1, 2009. Thirty days of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for two years. The Commission found that Mr. Ferrell, a certified appraiser from 2001 to 2004, surrendered his appraisal certificate to the North Carolina Appraisal Board in a consensual arrangement with the Board in the face of allegations that he had violated provisions of the appraiser licensing statutes and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
BRETT DAVID FURNISS (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Furniss for a period of one year effective June 10, 2009. Thirty days of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of one year. The Commission found that Mr. Furniss, broker-in-charge of a real estate brokerage firm, received $950 intended as option money. The Commission further found that Mr. Furniss had a verbal property management agreement with the owner, but no written agency agreement with any party. Mr. Furniss released the option money from his trust account to the would-be optionor, but did not have an option contract executed by the parties. The Commission noted that Mr. Furniss, upon first request of refund by the would-be optionee, refunded the would-be optionee $950.
MARK GAGLIARDI (Greenville) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Gagliardi for a period of five years effective August 1, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Mr.Gagliardi violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Mr. Gagliardi neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
JON C. GILLMAN (Charlotte) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Gillman for a period of five years effective July 1, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Mr. Gillman violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Mr. Gillman neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
GTC REALTY, INC. (Waxhaw) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded GTC Realty effective May 1, 2009. The Commission found that GTC Realty entered into a buyers’ agency agreement with a husband and wife and continued to act as a buyers’ agent after the agreement expired including writing an offer on a property and assisting the buyers in a lease-purchase contract. The Commission also found that GTC Realty was paid a 2% fee of just under $6,000 for its services which included showing the clients the house, contacting the seller on behalf of its clients, and delivering funds to the seller. Finally, the Commission found that after the clients filed a complaint with the Commission about the lease-purchase transaction, GTC Realty repeatedly failed to respond to Letters of Inquiry.
DR HORTON, INC. (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the firm license of DR Horton for a period of one year effective May 1, 2008. The Commission then stayed the suspension for a probationary period of two years on certain conditions. The Commission found that former employees of DR Horton sold 14 new construction homes to buyers and paid fees to unlicensed persons and entities for producing the buyers in these transactions.
ELBERTA L. JONES (Manson) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Jones for a period of one year effective March 1, 2009. Three months of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of nine months on certain conditions. The Commission found that Ms. Jones, who listed and sold a property for her seller clients, witnessed a promissory note executed by the buyer at closing in which the buyer agreed to repay a loan from the seller, but did not inform the closing attorney about the loan, which was not shown on the closing statement or otherwise disclosed to the lender. The Commission also found that after closing Ms. Jones acted as a conduit for payments from the buyer to the seller on the undisclosed loan.
JAMES M. MADAGAN (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the broker license of Mr. Madagan effective October 8, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Madagan, as a broker with resort real estate developer, became the custodian of a resort club new member initiation fees and failed the hold the money in a trust account and converted in excess of $700,000 of the money to his own use. The Commission noted that Mr. Madagain entered into an agreement to repay the money but has failed to make full restitution as of this date.
PAUL DEVON MAXWELL (Lewisville) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the broker license of Mr. Maxwell effective October 8, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Maxwell, as broker and rental agent for the owner of a rental property, procured a tenant and collected $1,800 for rent and security deposit, but failed to deposit the money into an escrow account, and instead gave the money to his girlfriend. The Commission also found that Mr. Maxwell, whose license had expired at the time of the transaction, did not account for or remit the money to his landlord client or to the tenant.
FRANK T. MCCOY, JR. (Albemarle) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. McCoy for a period of six months effective October 1, 2009. The Commission then stayed the suspension for a probationary period of one year effective October 1, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. McCoy managed a property but failed to obtain a written property management agreement with the owner or written lease agreement with the tenants. The Commission also found that Mr. McCoy failed to maintain his trust accounts in compliance with the License Law and Commission rules. The Commission noted that Mr. McCoy has since taken the Basic Trust Account Course and brought his books and records into compliance.
MOUNTAIN LIFESTYLES, LLC (Asheville) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mountain Lifestyles effective September 1, 2009. The Commission found that Mountain Lifestyles, a real estate brokerage firm, listed in July 2006 a property which was served by a septic system and advertised the property as having three bedrooms, but failed to verify that the property was permitted for three bedrooms. The Commission further found that the buyer of the house discovered it had only been permitted for a two-bedroom home when attempting to sell the property several years after the purchase.
MYREALTY CONSULTANTS & MANAGEMENT, INC. (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the firm license of MyRealty Consultants & Management effective August 13, 2009. The Commission found that MyRealty Consultants & Management managed a residential rental property, but failed to deposit funds collected on behalf of the property owner into a trust account, failed to maintain and retain trust account records, and to maintain records in such a manner as to create a clear audit trail.
EZEKIAS R. NAPANT (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. NaPant for a period of one year effective September 1, 2009. The Commission then stayed the suspension for a probationary period of one year under certain conditions. The Commission found that Mr. NaPant, as qualifying broker and broker-in-charge of his own licensed firm, listed a home threatened with foreclosure, convinced an acquaintance to invest $15,000 to bring the mortgage payments current and make improvements on the property, promised a 20% return on the funds at closing and represented that he had a buyer waiting to close. The Commission further found that Mr. NaPant filled out a promissory note between the seller and investor and included himself as promissor and his firm as trustee but failed to deposit the funds into his trust account. The Commission further found that Mr. NaPant, after the contracted sale fell through, failed to repay the investor’s money and the home fell into foreclosure again.
DEBRA PAGANO (Waxhaw) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Pagano for a period of one year effective May 1, 2009. The Commission then stayed the suspension for a probationary period of one year on certain conditions. The Commission found that Ms. Pagano, qualifying broker and broker-in-charge of her licensed firm, supervised a provisional broker in the firm, who entered into a buyers’ agency agreement and continued to act as the buyers’ agent after the agreement expired including writing an offer on a property and assisting the buyers in a lease-purchase contract. The Commission also found that Ms. Pagano’s firm was paid a 2% fee of just under $6,000 for the provisional broker’s services which included showing the buyers the house, contacting the seller on behalf of his buyers, and delivering funds to the seller. Finally, the Commission found that after the buyers filed a complaint with the Commission about the lease-purchase transaction, Ms. Pagano repeatedly failed to respond to Letters of Inquiry.
WILLIAM T. PAGANO, III (Waxhaw) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Pagano for a period of one year effective May 1, 2009. The Commission then stayed the suspension for a probationary period of one year on certain conditions. The Commission found that Mr. Pagano, as a broker on provisional status, entered into a buyers’ agency agreement and continued to act as the buyers’ agent after the agreement expired including writing an offer on a property and assisting the buyers in a lease-purchase contract after the termination of the offer. The Commission also found that Mr. Pagano was paid a 2% fee of just under $6,000 for his services which included showing the buyers the house, contacting the seller on behalf of his buyers, and delivering funds to the seller. Finally, the Commission found that after the buyers filed a complaint with the Commission about the lease-purchase transaction, Mr. Pagano repeatedly failed to respond to Letters of Inquiry.
HELEN W. PEE (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the broker license of Ms. Pee effective August 13, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Pee, as qualifying broker and broker-in-charge of a real estate brokerage firm, managed a residential rental property, but failed to deposit funds collected on behalf of the property owner into a trust account, failed to maintain and retain trust account records, and to maintain records in such a manner as to create a clear audit trail. The Commission also found that Ms. Pee converted approximately $600 of the property owner’s funds to her own use.
MEN NESHIANNE PHILLIPS (Rocky Mount) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Phillips for a period of two years effective July 1, 2008. One year of the suspension was active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of two years on certain conditions. The Commission found that Ms. Phillips, acting as both broker and loan officer in a transaction, created a false verification of rent in order to assist her buyer in qualifying for a loan. The Commission also found that Ms. Phillips negotiated a higher interest rate for her buyer client to increase her income at the expense of her buyer and received a $1,900 yield spread premium when the loan closed.
RONNIE B. RICKS (Smithfield) – The Commission ordered the permanent revocation of the broker license of Mr. Ricks effective May 11, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Ricks, in three transactions involving new construction homes and in which the buyers were introduced to the properties by the same unlicensed entity, failed to disclose to the lender the true purchase prices for the properties and misrepresented the purchase prices on contracts. The Commission also found that on the HUD-1 closing statements Mr. Ricks misrepresented the true purchase contract prices, misrepresented that he owed monies, when he did not, for second mortgage payoffs and assignment fees to the unlicensed entity that introduced the buyers to the properties, and assisted the unlicensed entity in receiving payment for conducting brokerage services.
DON STEPHEN SCOTT (Murphy) – By Consent, the Commission revoked the broker license of Mr. Scott effective July 13, 2009. The Commission found that Mr. Scott was indicted in August, 2008 in U.S. District Court on one count of sending sexually explicit photos of a minor via the Internet, 13 counts of receiving sexually explicit photos of a minor via the Internet and one count of possessing a computer containing sexually explicit photos of minors. The Commission further found that Mr. Scott pled guilty to all charges in December 2008, failed to report his conviction to the Commission as required by Commission rule and failed to respond in a timely fashion to the Commission’s Letters of Inquiry.
ABIGAIL SEYMOUR (Charlotte) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Seymour for a period of five years effective July 1, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Seymour had violated the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Seymour neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
DEVERA S. SMITH (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Smith for a period of one year effective December 1, 2008. The Commission found that Ms. Smith, became broker-in-charge of a sole proprietorship in 2005 and her employer’s broker license was revoked in 2005 for various trust account violations; despite the revocation, her employer continued to represent clients and Ms. Smith acted as a broker and accepted trust monies from clients, but failed to safeguard the funds received.
SUNSHINE REALTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (Burlington) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Sunshine Realty-Property Management effective June 1, 2009. The Commission found that Sunshine Realty-Property Management failed to maintain its trust account records as required by the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. The Commission noted that Sunshine Realty-Property Management corrected all the violations noted with respect to its trust account records, there were no shortages, and no consumers were harmed as a result.
DONNA A. TEELING (Mount Holly) – The Commission revoked the broker license of Ms. Teeling effective July 13, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Teeling certified to the Commission in June 2006 that she possessed four years’ full-time experience as a broker or salesperson to remove her license from provisional statusal when, in fact, she possessed less than three years’ experience. The Commission also found that Ms. Teeling failed to respond to Letters of Inquiry from the Commission.
PAXTON J. TUCKER (Pawleys Island, South Carolina) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Tucker for a period of five years effective July 1, 2009. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Mr. Tucker had violated the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Mr. Tucker neither admitted nor denied misconduct.
GIDGETT M. WAY (Mount Airy) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Way effective April 1, 2009. The Commission found that Ms. Way, broker-in-charge of a sole proprietorship, listed a home located in Virginia and represented on the MLS that it was a modular home with 1,800 heated square feet, relying on inaccurate data in a previous MLS listing and not measuring it herself; after entering a lease/purchase agreement, buyers discovered that the home was a mobile home with 1,472 square feet, a difference of 22%.
ANN WEEKS (Asheville) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Weeks for a period of six months effective September 1, 2009. The Commission stayed the suspension for a probationary period of six months. The Commission found that Ms. Weeks listed a property in July 2006 which was served by a septic system and advertised the property as having three bedrooms, but failed to verify that the property was permitted for three bedrooms. The Commission further found that the buyer of the house discovered it had only been permitted for a two-bedroom home when attempting to sell the property several years after the purchase.
AMY MARIE YOUNGERMAN (Charlotte) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Youngerman for a period two years effective January 26, 2009. Six months of the suspension were active with the remainder stayed for a probationary period of four years on certain conditions. The Commission found that Ms. Youngerman, on or about August 13, 2008, pled guilty to and was convicted of Level 2 Impaired Driving, placed on probation for 24 months, and ordered to surrender her drivers license and obtain substance abuse assessment and recommended education or treatment. The Commission noted that Ms. Youngerman was convicted of of Level 4 Driving While Impaired in April 2006 while licensed as a real estate broker and timely reported the conviction, and Driving After Consuming Under 21 in 1998, which she disclosed on her 2003 license application.
This article came from the October 2009-Vol40-2 edition of the bulletin.
Following is a summary of Real Estate Commission rule changes which become effective July 1, 2009.
General Brokerage
• Require provisional brokers to have the consent of their broker-in-charge in order to advertise any real estate brokerage service, and to include in any advertisement the name of the broker-in-charge or firm with which they are associated.
• Revise the requirements for being reinstated as a broker-in-charge after losing broker-in-charge eligibility.
• Remove the requirement that loan commitment dates be shown in offer to purchase and sales contracts.
Examinations
• Authorize the Commission to discipline brokers who cheated on or misused the licensing examination where the cheating or misuse did not come to the attention of the Commission until after the person was licensed.
Licensing
• Eliminate language in connection with firm activation referring to a “form provided by the Commission” when the Commission does not provide or require such a form.
• Address the requirements for reinstating licenses “cancelled” when provisional brokers fail to complete their postlicensing education.
• Clarify that the license issuance date will not be changed for licenses reinstated within six months following their expiration.
• Provide that a broker whose license has been suspended by the Commission shall have sixty days from the end of the period of license suspension to pay any license fees that may have accrued during the period of suspension, and that failure to pay within that period will result in loss of licensure.
• Require brokers and license applicants to report to the Commission any “notarial commission sanctions” they have received.
Postlicensing Education
• Permit the Commission to deny or withdraw postlicensing course credit to any broker who attends more than twenty-one classroom hours of postlicensing instruction in any given seven-day period.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
Beginning July 1, most former brokers-in-charge can be re-designated as brokers-in-charge without first completing the Broker-in-Charge Course; however, within 120 days following their re-designation they must complete either the 12-hour BIC Course or, if they have completed the BIC Course within the past three years, the 4-hour Broker-in-Charge Annual Review Course.
Currently, a broker-in-charge must complete the course prior to re-designation.
The Commission found that when BICs lose their BIC status (usually due to their failure to complete all required CE or to renew their licenses on time), the offices they supervise are effectively shut down until the broker can take the BIC Course.This may require a few weeks’ wait and possibly considerable travel.
The revised rule allows the former brokers-in-charge to re-designate themselves immediately after reinstating the expired licenses (if applicable), satisfying any CE deficiency and re-activating their licenses. They then have 120 days to complete the BIC Course (or, if eligible, the BICAR Course).
Of course, they must also be able to certify on a new Broker-in-Charge Declaration that they have two years’ full-time brokerage experience within the past five years. Remember, always check with the Commission to verify the specific requirements for your particular situation!
Brokers-in-charge who do not satisfy their education requirement within 120 days following designation or re-designation are removed as BIC and must complete the 12-hour BIC Course prior to requesting to again be designated, even if the course was completed within the preceding three years.
A related rule revision reserves the BICAR Course exclusively for currently designated BIC’s and brokers who are “BIC eligible” (former BIC’s who have continuously maintained an active license and taken the BICAR Course each year). Other brokers attending the BICAR Course will not receive any CE elective credit for it. A Certificate of Eligibility (verification of BIC status) can be obtained from the Commission’s website.
A further rule revision exempts from the broker-in-charge requirement sole proprietor brokers who hold tenant security deposits only in a trust account for properties they personally own.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
As a qualifying broker and/or broker-in-charge of a real estate firm, you have certain responsibilities to assure that firm and individual licenses are renewed by the June 30 deadline.
Qualifying brokers should be certain to renew both the firm license and their own. When you renew the firm license but fail to renew your personal license, the firm’s license will be placed on inactive status July 1.
Since a firm on inactive status cannot have agents associated with it, broker licenses are changed to reflect their home addresses and the absence of firm affiliation. And provisional brokers are placed on inactive status.
Brokers-in-charge should verify that all licensees under their supervision have renewed between May 15 and June 30. You can accomplish this at the Commission’s website, www.ncrec.state.nc.us.
The “BIC Only” tab on the website gives you access to a variety of current data on those under your supervision. To view and print the information, click on the tab and enter your license number and PIN (the last four digits of your Social Security number unless you have changed it).
In addition to your personal information), you will find the following:
• A listing of all licensees which, according to Commission records, are affiliated with you or under your supervision.
• The “level of their licenses – “PB” (Provisional Broker), or “B” (Broker).
• Their license renewal date.
• Their continuing education and postlicensing credits (if needed).
If any of your agents have not renewed their licenses, you may renew them.
This is important because you, as broker-in-charge, are subject to disciplinary action if a broker at your office continues to list, sell, etc. real estate after his or her license is expired.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
The annual real estate license renewal period begins May 15. The Commission’s website, www.ncrec.state.nc.us, will be available on that date and through the June 30 deadline for online renewing.
Login at the website and go to Renew/Reinstate and enter your license number and PIN (personal identification number). Unless you have changed your PIN, it will be the last four digits of your Social Security number. Charge the $40 fee using your MasterCard or Visa.
You will receive confirmation, which you can print, that your renewal is being processed by the Commission. While online, update your email, fax and residence address, if needed.
You must renew on or before the deadline of midnight, June 30. If you renew by mail, your renewal must be received at the Commission office on or before that date.
If you miss the deadline, your license will expire and you must pay a $55 fee to reinstate it.
While online, check your continuing education and postlicensing credit information to be certain they has been properly recorded. If you have not completed all your continuing education (eight hours, four of which are the Update Course), you may do so by the June 10 deadline. There are no CE classes after that date until July. Incomplete CE results in the change of status of an “active” license to “inactive” on July 1.
Allow 15 days following a class for any credits to be reflected. The CE credits displayed on the label of this Real Estate Bulletin are those posted about two to three weeks before its arrival. Those posted on the website will be more current.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
By Miriam J. Baer, Assistant Director, Legal Counsel, Legal Services
In today’s economic climate, you may encounter sellers who owe more for their property than it is worth, i.e., they’re “upside down” or “under water” on their mortgage. They may have more than one mortgage, a home equity loan, outstanding judgments and tax liens that must be dealt with before selling – one or all of which exceed the value of the property.
For sellers in financial distress, a “short sale” may help. A short sale occurs when a lender accepts a discounted payoff of the loan balance and gives up its interest in the property. In some cases, the seller is relieved of further liability; in others, the seller may still be indebted to the lender for the balance.
Lenders may agree to “short sales” to avoid the expense of a foreclosure, but often impose certain conditions:
• Loan status: Usually, the loan must be in default or imminent default; sometimes being “upside down” is enough.
• Hardship: Sellers must demonstrate that circumstances beyond their control prevent them from making their mortgage payments.
• Financial Status: Sellers must demonstrate insufficient resources to cover the loan amount.
• Loan Fraud: There must be no evidence of fraud in connection with the original loan. The lender is more likely to suspect fraud if default occurs within the first 12 months of the loan term.
• Property Value: The property must be appraised to determine the amount the lender will accept.
Although the buyer and seller have a contract, the seller’s lender is in control in a short sale and can “just say no” to prevent it. Therefore, closing the sale is more uncertain than in ordinary transactions.
Listing Agent Responsibilities
Before you list a property, determine whether there is any possible need for a short sale, and be prepared to advise the seller about the process and consequences of one. While better than foreclosure, the seller’s credit record will suffer. The process can take more time and the lender can simply stop it at any time. Suggest that the seller consider other options, including loan modification, refinancing, giving the lender a deed in lieu of foreclosure, or allowing foreclosure to occur. Recommend, prior to sale, consulting with the seller’s attorney and financial and tax experts.
Consider the list price carefully: it cannot be so low that the seller’s lender will reject it or it so high that buyers will lack interest.
Remember that because funds are “short,” the seller may not be able at closing to pay third parties. Payments to lien-holders and other service providers, including yourself and maybe another broker, must be addressed. While foreclosure may wipe out some liens, a short sale requires negotiation with all lien-holders.
A short sale is a material fact. As listing broker, you must disclose this to the buyer and buyer agent.
Short Sale Addendum – Listing Contract
Address in the listing contract a seller attempt at a short sale. The North Carolina Association of REALTORS® has developed a new Short Sale Addendum to Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement which:
• requires the seller to work to obtain lender approval, including providing necessary financial information; and
• allows the listing agency to market the property as a short sale or pre-foreclosure property, to continue marketing while it is under contract and the lender is considering contract approval, and to disclose information to the lender and buyer agent.
Buyer Agent Responsibilities
When looking at properties and before making an offer, try to determine whether the property may be a short sale. The listing agent should disclose it, but if you have any doubt, ask for information about the status of the seller’s loan, the possibility of a foreclosure action, and the seller’s ability to convey the property free and clear of liens.
Be particularly attentive to property value, especially in a “soft” or declining market. An asking price below the seller’s loan pay-off amount does not mean the property is worth it. Buyer agents should encourage clients to inspect the property to determine its condition, since a seller may not be financially able to make any repairs.
Some lenders in a short sale will not consider an offer until the buyer and seller have signed a contract. Make sure the buyer understands that once the contract is submitted, the lender may be slow to make a decision, require changes before approval, or even undertake foreclosure while considering it.
Short Sale Addendum – Offer
The North Carolina Association of REALTORS® has developed a Short Sale Addendum to the standard North Carolina Offer to Purchase and Contract. It includes contingencies that allow either party to cancel the deal if the lender rejects the short sale and the buyer to terminate the contract at any time prior the lender’s approval by written notice to the seller. In either event, the buyer is entitled to the return of earnest money.
The addendum permits the seller to continue marketing the property and to communicate new offers to the lender. If those offers are higher than the contract price, the lender may reject the short sale contract in favor of a new offer or foreclose instead.
In Sum
Lenders are increasingly more likely to entertain the possibility of a short sale. However, because much of the decision-making rests with the seller’s lender, such transactions entail significant risk, particularly for the buyer. Brokers should be certain to disclose to the buyer prior to contract if a short sale is necessary to accomplish the deal, use the standard addenda or have contract language drafted to specifically address the short sale, and allow plenty of time for the transaction to close.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
Yes, for the cost of about a tank of gasoline, you can renew your real estate broker license for another year. Did you know that your $40 annual renewal fee is among the lowest in the country (only five states are lower)?
In fact, the national average is twice that charged in North Carolina.
Since 2001, your license renewal fee has increased only once (from $35 to $40) which is especially gratifying since the Real Estate Commission receives no financial assistance from the State.
You worked hard for your license. We are working hard to maintain, if not exceed, the level of service we provide to you and real estate consumers without increasing your fees or other costs.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
By Pamela R. Rorie
Continuing Education Officer
An eager crowd of real estate instructors, school officials and publisher representatives attended the 2009 Real Estate Educators Conference held in Raleigh on April 14, 2009. The Commission-sponsored meeting drew 216 participants from across the state for this year’s one-day event. Director of Education and Licensing Larry Outlaw kicked-off the conference with a discussion of the state of real estate education and licensing and invited educators to offer suggestions as to the optimal means of delivering needed instruction to licensees in specialty areas of real estate brokerage.
Lisa McQuillen, Education and Licensing Officer, followed with a Prelicensing and Postlicensing Education “update” session in which she explained proposed rule revisions and recognized prelicensing schools and instructors who had exhibited outstanding performance.
The highlight of the morning’s program was a “tag-team” presentation by Thomas Miller, Special Deputy Attorney General/Director of Legal Services, and Miriam Baer, Assistant Director of Legal Services of the NC Real Estate Commission.
They addressed such matters as misrepresentation – which is the cause of most consumer complaints, required disclosure of agent bonuses, real estate lotteries/drawings, embezzlement, and other topics as requested by the attentive crowd.
During the luncheon, the North Carolina Real Estate Educators Association (NCREEA) held its spring meeting and annual awardS presentations led by President John Carroll.
The Association presented its “Program of the Year” award to Sheila Lowery for her Continuing Education elective course, Alternative 2 – Made Easy, and its “Educator of the Year” award to Dana Rhodes, DREI, of the Mingle School of Real Estate.
Also during the luncheon, Commission Chairperson Melvin “Skip” Alston presented the Commission’s Billie J. Mercer Excellence in Education Award to NCREEA’s Educator of the Year, Dana Rhodes. This award is presented annually in memory of former Commission member and chairperson, Billie Mercer, who was especially dedicated to the cause of real estate education. The name of each year’s award winner is engraved on the Mercer Award cup that is displayed in the Commission’s lobby. Commission Vice Chairperson Marsha Jordan was also in attendance for the presentation.
Following the luncheon, a brief Continuing Education “update” session was conducted by Continuing Education Officer, Pamela Rorie, after which participants were treated to a lively presentation by Steve Richman of Genworth Mortgage Insurance which focused on the positives of the current economy and the best sources of information regarding new loan programs and guidelines.
The conference finale was presented by Deborah Carpenter, DREI, and Brian Pate who provided useful and creative techniques for motivating and engaging real estate students.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
The 2009-10 Broker-in-Charge Annual Review course will cover dual and designated agency, compensation issues, safeguarding trust accounts, and recent changes in broker-in-charge qualification and eligibility requirements.
Expanding upon discussion in the 2007-08 BICAR course, the course will address in greater detail the differences in practicing dual agency as “traditional” dual agents versus “designated” dual agents and the underlying authority and general expectations in practicing each including confidentiality issues.
Compensation issues involve how the lack of an active license may affect payment, who may be paid and by whom, referral fees, “bird-dog” fees, finder fees and other incentives, and the effect of a firm license lapse on affiliated brokers’ entitlement to compensation.
All BIC’s must take the BICAR course during the first full license period following initial designation and each license period thereafter.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.
The Commission has noted an increasing number of reports of brokers providing, for a fee, a “broker price opinion” (BPO) for a party who is not a client or potential client of the broker.
The downturn in the real estate market has apparently resulted in more demand for informal estimates of the most probable sale/purchase prices for properties that are less expensive than a full appraisal.
Brokers may be requested by lenders, loan servicers, potential investors or others to provide this service for a fee, or brokers may simply be seeking alternative sources of income in a slow market.
Brokers should remember that the North Carolina Appraiser Act requires any analysis, opinion or conclusion as to the value of real estate performed for compensation to be performed by a licensed or certified appraiser.
However, the statute does provide a limited exception to this requirement that permits real estate brokers to perform a “comparative market analysis” for compensation ONLY for prospective or actual brokerage clients or for real property involved in an employee relocation program.
A “comparative market analysis” (CMA) is defined as “the analysis of sales of similar recently sold properties in order to derive an indication of the probable sales price of a particular property by a licensed real estate broker.”
A “broker price opinion” (BPO) that is based on recent sales of comparable properties is, therefore, a CMA, and may be performed for a fee only as noted above.
The Real Estate Commission considers the performance by a broker of a BPO for compensation in violation of the Appraiser Act to also constitute a violation of the Real Estate License Law.
Practice Tip
When performing a comparative market analysis or broker price opinion for a client or potential client, be sure to:
• Document your relationship with the client or prospective client.
• Document the recent sales of comparable properties upon which you base your analysis.
• Identify the results of your analysis as a “probable sales price” only and not as the “market value” or an “appraisal”.
This article came from the May 2009-Vol40-1 edition of the bulletin.