Disciplinary Actions

BRUCE M ALEXANDER (ASHEVILLE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Alexander for a period of 1 year, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that Mr. Alexander acting as qualifying broker/broker-in-charge of a firm and also licensed by the NC Licensing Board for General Contractors, failed to report that, by Consent Order dated October 21, 2020, Mr. Alexander was disciplined by the NC Licensing Board for General Contractors. Pursuant to the Consent Order with the Contractors’ Board, Mr. Alexander was suspended for one year with three months active, ordered to pay a $5000 fine, and ordered to complete two courses.

JACQUELINE N BARKEY (RALEIGH) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Barkey, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that as on-site agent /sales manager for a firm, Ms. Barkey was involved in selling lots and new construction homes in a subdivision that its affiliate had developed. The lots were located on a street which appeared to be a cul-de-sac and Ms. Barkey’s MLS listing directed potential buyers to turn “into the cul-de-sac” to get to the listed lots. Ms. Barkey represented to certain buyers that the lot they were interested in was in a cul-de-sac and would have a buffer of trees between the subdivision and a commercial development. In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac although both representations that the owner of the adjoining property had made in its re-zoning application and express conditions placed on the re-zoning when it was approved indicated a buffer would be maintained. In contracting to purchase, the buyer signed documents that agreed that they were “aware that some home sites are located near undeveloped property that is adjacent to the Community that could be developed in the future.”

MICHAEL JAMES BLACKBURN (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Blackburn for a period of 1 year, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that Mr. Blackburn acted as the broker-in-charge in three separate residential transactions. In one transaction, Mr. Blackburn’s broker failed to ensure that her seller client addressed all material issues noted on a previous buyer’s home inspection report prior to re-listing the property and/or failed to disclose any outstanding material items which were not corrected. Mr. Blackburn’s broker also initially advertised the subject property as having an outdoor pool along with hardwood and tile floors, when it did not. In the second transaction, Mr. Blackburn’s broker failed to pull the septic permit prior to listing the property as a 5-bedroom home. The septic permit only allowed for 3-bedroom occupancy. In the third transaction, Mr. Blackburn’s vendor buried parts of the outdoor pool beneath the back yard instead of removing it all from the property. The seller has now excavated and removed all of the items from beneath the yard after taking the home off the market. The listing agreement with Mr. Blackburn’s broker failed to include her license number and failed to comply with Commission rules by not placing the fair housing language in a clear and conspicuous manner.

PHILLIP B BOLLINGER (LENOIR) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mr. Bollinger, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that a provisional broker (PB) under Mr. Bollinger’s supervision acted as the buyer agent in a residential purchase transaction. After the buyer-client went under contract, the PB recommended that the client use a licensed inspector or PB’s father, who was not a licensed inspector, to perform the home inspection for the subject property. The buyer-client chose to use PB’s father, which was the less expensive option. PB and the buyer-client were present during the inspection. PB’s father did not produce a report of any findings; however, PB instead took notes of any issues. Around ten (10) months after closing, the buyer-client had a home inspection performed by a licensed inspector. That inspection discovered issues not identified by PB’s father such as evidence of water intrusion to the home’s foundation, a water leak in the master bathtub, improper ventilation of the wood stove, and issues with the electrical panel. The Commission notes that Mr. Bollinger does have a firm policy for agents to recommend only licensed professionals to clients.

CLAY-TIN LLC (LENOIR) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Clay-Tin LLC, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that a provisional broker (PB) the firm acted as the buyer agent in a residential purchase transaction. After the buyer-client went under contract, PB recommended that the client use a licensed inspector or PB’s father, who was not a licensed inspector, to perform the home inspection for the subject property. The buyer-client chose to use PB’s father, which was the less expensive option. PB and the buyer-client were present during the inspection. PB’s father did not produce a report of any findings; however, PB instead took notes of any issues. Around ten (10) months after closing, the buyer-client had a home inspection performed by a licensed inspector. That inspection discovered issues not identified by PB’s father such as evidence of water intrusion to the home’s foundation, a water leak in the master bathtub, improper ventilation of the wood stove, and issues with the electrical panel. The Commission notes that Clay-Tin LLC does have a firm policy for agents to recommend only licensed professionals to clients.

MICHAEL PERRY GUPTON (LITTLETON) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Gupton for a period of 60 days, effective March 1, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission found that in 2021, Mr. Gupton did not exercise reasonable care in negotiating contracts in which he was a Dual Agent.

VERRIA HAIRSTON (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Hairston for a period of 1 year, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Hairston acted as the listing agent in three separate residential transactions. In one transaction, Ms. Hairston failed to ensure that her seller client addressed all material issues noted on a previous buyer’s home inspection report prior to re-listing the property and/or failed to disclose any outstanding material items which were not corrected. Ms. Hairston also initially advertised the subject property as having an outdoor pool along with hardwood and tile floors, when it did not. In the second transaction, Ms. Hairston failed to pull the septic permit prior to listing the property as a 5-bedroom home.  The septic permit only allowed for 3-bedroom occupancy. In the third transaction, Ms. Hairston’s vendor buried parts of the outdoor pool beneath the back yard instead of removing it all from the property. The seller has now excavated and removed all of the items from beneath the yard after taking the home off the market. Ms. Hairston’s listing agreement failed to include her broker license number and failed to comply with Commission rules by not placing the fair housing language in a clear and conspicuous manner.

DOUGLAS RICHARD HINDMAN (RALEIGH) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mr. Hindman, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that as on-site agent /sales manager for a firm, Mr. Hindman was involved in selling lots and new construction homes in a subdivision that its affiliate had developed. The lots were located on a street which appeared to be a cul-de-sac and Mr. Hindman’s MLS listing directed potential buyers to turn “into the cul-de-sac” to get to the listed lots.. In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac although both representations that the owner of the adjoining property had made in its re-zoning application and express conditions placed on the re-zoning when it was approved, indicated a buffer would be maintained. In contracting to purchase, the buyer signed documents that agreed that they were “aware that some home sites are located near undeveloped property that is adjacent to the Community that could be developed in the future.”

SONMI MOORE LEWIS (GREENBORO) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Lewis for a period of 1 year, effective February 15, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission found that as qualifying broker/broker-in-charge of a firm, a review of Ms. Lewis’ trust account records showed that Ms. Lewis failed to retain check backs, failed to identify the purpose of remittance on checks and failed to reconcile timely leading to an inability to create an accurate audit trail. Ms. Lewis identified an overage of approximately $4000 in approximately $140,000 in held trust monies.

JOHN JUNIOUS LEWIS III (GREENBORO) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Lewis for a period of 1 year, effective February 15, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission found that as bookkeeper and affiliated broker of a firm, a review of Mr. Lewis’ trust account records showed that Mr. Lewis failed to retain check backs, failed to identify the purpose of remittance on checks and failed to reconcile timely leading to an inability to create an accurate audit trail. Mr. Lewis identified an overage of approximately $4000 in approximately $140,000 in held trust monies.

ALBIN DENNIS NOVINEC (JACKSONVILLE) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Novinec effective March 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Mr. Novinec violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Mr. Novinec neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

STEVEN CHINEDU ONYEBERECHI (GREENSBORO) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Onyeberechi for a period of 2 years, effective January 31, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective January 31, 2022. The Commission found that Mr. Onyeberechi managed a residential property for lease and also executed an Option to Purchase agreement with the tenants and received a $6,965 option fee, unbeknownst to the property owner. Mr. Onyeberechi failed to account for the option fee and failed to maintain entrusted funds in accordance with Commission rules. In another transaction, Mr. Onyeberechi entered into a Buyer Holding Fee Agreement, which did not comply with Commission rules and collected a $6,000 fee. Mr. Onyeberechi failed to account for the fee and failed to maintain entrusted funds in accordance with Commission rules. Mr. Onyeberechi made promises to the buyer regarding returning the fee and failed to fulfill those promises. Mr. Onyeberechi also formed a company to assist individuals repair/restore their credit rating and collected money up front.  On multiple occasions, Mr. Onyeberechi has failed to fulfill promises made to those persons regarding improving their credit rating and obtaining homeownership. The Commission notes that Mr. Onyeberechi has agreed to cease his credit repair/restoration operations and has made reimbursements.

OPENDOOR BROKERAGE LLC (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the firm license of Opendoor Brokerage LLC for a period of 18 months, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that Opendoor Brokerage LLC acted as the listing firm in three separate residential transactions. In one transaction, Opendoor Brokerage LLC’s broker failed to ensure that the seller client addressed all material issues noted on a previous buyer’s home inspection report prior to re-listing the property and/or failed to disclose any outstanding material items which were not corrected. Opendoor Brokerage LLC’s broker also initially advertised the subject property as having an outdoor pool along with hardwood and tile floors, when it did not. In the second transaction, Opendoor Brokerage LLC’s broker failed to pull the septic permit prior to listing the property as a 5-bedroom home. The septic permit only allowed for 3-bedroom occupancy. In the third transaction, Opendoor Brokerage LLC’s vendor buried parts of the outdoor pool beneath the back yard instead of removing it all from the property. The seller has now excavated and removed all of the items from beneath the yard after taking the home off the market. The listing agreement with Opendoor Brokerage LLC’s broker failed to include her license number and failed to comply with Commission rules by not placing the fair housing language in a clear and conspicuous manner.

EDWARD BARBER PEASE (RALEIGH) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mr. Pease, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that as Vice President of a firm, Mr. Pease was involved in selling lots and new construction homes in a subdivision that its affiliate had developed. The lots were located on a street which appeared to be a cul-de-sac and the MLS listing directed potential buyers to turn “into the cul-de-sac” to get to the listed lots. In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac although both representations that the owner of the adjoining property had made in its re-zoning application and express conditions placed on the re-zoning when it was approved, indicated a buffer would be maintained.

ROSHONDA CHENISE PEELE (LILLINGTON) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Peele, effective March 16, 2022. The Commission found that on August 18, 2021, Ms. Peele was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting/concealment of goods. She was assessed a fine and performed community service. Respondent stated that she proceeded through a retail self-checkout without paying for all of the items in her cart.

RENEE ROTTHOFF (RALEIGH) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Rotthoff, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that as on-site agent /sales manager for the sale of lots in a subdivision developed and marketed by firm, Ms. Rotthoff was involved in selling lots and new construction homes in a subdivision that its affiliate had developed. The lots were located on a street which appeared to be a cul-de-sac and Ms. Rotthoff’s MLS listing directed potential buyers to turn “into the cul-de-sac” to get to the listed lots. In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac. Ms. Rotthoff represented to certain buyers that the lot they were buying would have a buffer of trees between the subdivision and the commercial development In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac although both representations that the owner of the adjoining property had made in its re-zoning application and express conditions placed on the re-zoning when it was approved, indicated a buffer would be maintained. In contracting to purchase, the buyer signed documents that agreed that they were “aware that some home sites are located near undeveloped property that is adjacent to the Community that could be developed in the future.”

LUCINDA DIANA BAILEY CARTER SANTANGELO (CHARLOTTE) – Following a hearing, the Commission permanently revoked the license of Ms. Santangelo, effective February 8, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Santangelo advertised her services as a property manager, actively managed properties for others, and collected entrusted funds without ever being designated broker-in-charge of her sole proprietorship. Furthermore, Ms. Santangelo deposited rent payments that she collected into her personal bank account, which was not designated “trust” or “escrow”, and which caused these funds to be comingled with her personal funds. Funds from the account were then used to make purchases for food, shopping, gas, and to make payments on her credit card.  Ms. Santangelo failed to create, maintain, or retain trust account records in accordance with Commission rules. Ms. Santangelo failed to provide all records or documents to the Commission’s investigator upon request. Ms. Santangelo was previously sanctioned in 2011 for similar issues and received a three (3) year suspension at that time.

SEMPER FI REALTY (JACKSONVILLE) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the broker license of Semper Fi Realty effective March 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Semper Fi Realty violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Semper Fi Realty neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

SJL PROPERTIES OF THE TRIAD LLC (GREENBORO) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of SJL Properties of the Triad LLC for a period of 1 year, effective February 15, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission found in review of SJL Properties of the Triad LLCs’ trust account records showed that SJL Properties of the Triad LLC failed to retain check backs, failed to identify the purpose of remittance on checks and failed to reconcile timely leading to an inability to create an accurate audit trail. SJL Properties of the Triad LLC identified an overage of approximately $4000 in approximately $140,000 in held trust monies. 

PERRY VERILLE (RALEIGH) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Verille for a period of 2 years, effective March 15, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 15, 2022. The Commission found that as broker-in-charge, Mr. Verille was responsible for the conduct of advertising and supervision of affiliated brokers in relation to adherence to disclosure requirements. Mr. Verille’s firm sold lots and new construction homes in a subdivision that its affiliate had developed. The lots were located on a street which appeared to be a cul-de-sac and the firm’s MLS listing directed potential buyers to turn “into the cul-de-sac” to get to the listed lots. In fact, the adjacent parcel had a right-of-way to connect a private drive to the cul-de-sac although both representations that the owner of the adjoining property had made in its re-zoning application and express conditions placed on the re-zoning when it was approved indicated a buffer would be maintained. In contracting to purchase, the buyers signed documents that agreed that they were “aware that some home sites are located near undeveloped property that is adjacent to the Community that could be developed in the future.”

ALISHA SMITH WALKER (HUDSON) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Walker for a period of 6 months, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Walker acted as the buyer agent in a residential purchase transaction. After her buyer-client went under contract, Ms. Walker recommended that her client use a licensed inspector to perform a home inspection, but also gave her client the option to use an unlicensed person to do a “home consultation” on the subject property since it was less expensive.  The buyer-client chose to have  the less expensive home consultation. Ms. Walker and her buyer-client were present during the  home consultation. The unlicensed person did not produce a report of any findings; rather, Ms. Walker  took notes of  issues that the unlicensed person discovered. Around ten (10) months after closing, the buyer-client had a home inspection performed by a licensed inspector. That inspection discovered issues such as evidence of water intrusion to the home’s foundation, a water leak in the master bathtub, improper ventilation of the wood stove, and issues with the electrical panel. Ms. Walker disputes that the issues found in the inspection were present the day of closing. Ms. Walker has only recommended licensed professionals to perform home inspections for her clients since this incident.

CHRISTOPHER RYAN WALLACE (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Mr. Wallace, effective March 10, 2022. The Commission found that Mr. Wallace was a broker for the listing firm in a residential transaction. The previous buyer terminated after discovering issues during their home, well, and septic inspections and emailed these reports to the Listing Agent. The house was then taken off the market while repairs were made to the septic system. When the subject property was re-listed, Mr. Wallace handled the transaction in place of the Listing Agent and failed to disclose material issues noted in the previous buyer’s home inspection report, which were not repaired by the property owner. Mr. Wallace was aware that a previous buyer had terminated the contract and that the property had been re-listed. A number of the same material issues were noted during the final buyer’s home inspection as were noted in the previous buyer’s inspection. The final buyer and seller agreed that the seller would pay money in lieu of repairs and the final buyer closed on the subject property.

CE Required for Brokers with BIC Eligible Status

Do you have BIC Eligible status? Are you a designated BIC? Do you know which CE courses you need to take?

Rule 58A .1702 requires brokers who hold BIC Eligible status to take the BICUP (Broker-in-Charge Update) course and one Commission-approved elective each year in order to maintain active license status and BIC Eligible status. A broker with BIC Eligible status who takes the General Update course and an elective will maintain an active license but will lose BIC Eligible status (and, in turn, BIC designation).

For more information or to ask a question, contact the Education and Licensing Division at LS@ncrec.gov or 919.875.3700.

Current Stats: Monthly Licensee Count as of February 1, 2022

Postlicensing and CE – Myths vs. Reality

What are the differences between the Postlicensing (PL) and Continuing Education (CE) programs? Do they interact with each other? Who is required to complete the courses – and when?

Following are the rules regarding the Postlicensing and CE programs, key points about rule requirements, and clarification of three common myths about the programs.

Postlicensing (PL) Education

Rules 58A .1901-.1905 and 58H .0101-.0415

Key Points:

• PL is a 90 hour program comprised of three 30-hour courses.
• PL course titles are Post 301-Broker Relationships & Responsibilities, Post 302-Contracts and Closing, Post 303-NC Laws, Rules, and Legal Concepts. Course syllabi are provided on this page.
• To remain on or be eligible for active license status, provisional brokers (PBs) must complete all three PL courses within 18 months of the date of licensure.
• If a PB does not complete all three PL courses within 18 months of licensure, their license is placed on inactive status. To be eligible for active status, the PB must complete all three courses within a two-year period.
• Course completion means attending a minimum of 90% of a scheduled course and passing the end-of-course exam with a minimum score of 75%. Note that education providers may have stricter completion requirements.
• PL courses time out after two years. So, if a PB does not complete all three PL courses within a two-year period, the courses will time out and will have to be repeated.

Continuing Education (CE)

Rules 58A .1701 -.1712 and 58H .0101-.0415

Key Points:

• All brokers are required to complete 8 hours of CE comprised of an Update course and one Commission-approved elective, annually between July 1 and June 10.
  — Brokers who do not have BIC Eligible Status must take the General Update (GENUP) course
  — Brokers who have BIC Eligible Status must take the Broker-in-Charge Update (BICUP) course to retain BIC Eligible Status.
• If a broker does not complete all 8 hours by June 10, their license will be placed on inactive status on July 1, provided the license is timely renewed by June 30. To be eligible for active status, the broker must follow the steps laid out in rule 58A .1703.
• Course completion means attending a minimum of 90% of a scheduled course. Note that education providers may have stricter completion requirements.
• The only exception to this requirement is that newly-licensed brokers are not required to complete CE prior their first license renewal.

MYTHS and REALITY

MYTH: If a PB completes all three PL courses within the first year of licensure, the broker will have to take CE right away.

REALITY: PL and CE are separate programs. Completion of PL courses does not affect CE deadlines, nor does completion of CE affect PL deadlines.

Example: Provisional Broker Pat was licensed on August 24, 2021.

• Pat’s Postlicensing education deadline will be February 24, 2023, which is 18 months after licensure.
• Pat will not have to take CE by June 10, 2022, because Pat will renew their license for the first time during May 15-June 30, 2022. Pat will be required to take CE sometime between July 1, 2022, – June 10, 2023.
• When Pat completes all 3 Postlicensing courses, the provisional status is removed from their license. The timing of Pat’s Postlicensing course completion has no impact on Pat’s first CE deadline.

MYTH: You have to complete CE before you can renew your license.

REALITY: CE and renewal are separate requirements.

Licenses must be renewed annually during the May 15-June 30 renewal period. If a license is not renewed by June 30, it will expire.
In order to maintain active license status – or be eligible for active license status – brokers must complete CE each year between July 1-June 10.
In other words, you can renew your license as early as May 15 and complete your CE as late as  June 10. Also, you can renew your license without completing CE; in such case, your license will be on inactive status but will not expire on July 1.

MYTH: The content of the Update course is the same every year.

REALITY: The Commission determines Update course topics each year based on industry issues and trends.

Update course topics and materials from previous years are provided on this page. Do you have questions about the PL or CE programs? Contact the Education and Licensing Division at LS@ncrec.gov or 919.875.3700, x772.

A Rose By Any Other Name – Names, Name Changes and Assumed Names

Did you know that Bruno Mars’ real name is Peter Gene Hernandez? If Bruno had a real estate license in North Carolina, he would still need to advertise as Peter Hernandez. A broker may not use a name in their real estate business that is different from the name on their real estate license certificate (which should be their legal name). If Peter Hernandez advertised his brokerage services in the name of Bruno Mars, he would be in violation of the Real Estate License Law.

The following will help guide you in the proper use of your name in advertising.

First Names

Nicknames have always been common, and you can certainly use one in place of your legal first name. The key is to remain readily identifiable to the public and to the Real Estate Commission. Some nicknames are short versions of a longer name and are commonly known. For example, William may go by “Will” or “Bill,” Robert by “Rob” or “Bob,” and Elizabeth by “Liz,” “Beth,” or even “Betsy.” In these kinds of situations, you may use a nickname because your actual name can be easily determined. Similarly, a nickname involving the use of initials in place of your given name is acceptable, as when Thomas Joseph Jefferson goes by “T. Joseph Jefferson” or even “T.J. Jefferson.”

Other nicknames are not logically associated with the user’s first name. For example, if your name is Midlemas Phestus Jones and you use a nickname like “Purple,” a member of the public would have no way of knowing that you are actually “Midlemas.” In order to assure that you can be easily identified, your business cards and correspondence should include your full name together with your nickname. This can be done in various ways. For example, your business card might read, “Midlemas ‘Purple’ Jones, Broker,” and your social media ad could say, “For all your real estate needs, call Purple! (M.P. Jones, Broker).”

Last Names

On the other hand, using a surname that is not your own is not allowed. If you have an awkward or lengthy surname, you may wish that you could shorten or simplify it only in connection with your real estate business. While the goal is understandable, the result is misleading if you haven’t legally changed your name. For instance, if your surname is Furplesnurkle, you can’t simply call yourself “Mr. Furp” or “Mr. Jones” in your brokerage activities, if your legal name remains Furplesnurkle. If a consumer wishes to confirm that you are licensed or wants to file a complaint, it is imperative that you are identifiable.  If you want to become “Furp” or “Jones,” you must legally change your name. The most straightforward way to do this is to go through a judicial name change proceeding before the clerk of court in the county where you reside.

Marital Status

But what about your wife who is also a broker–Mrs. Furplesnurkle? Before she married you, her maiden name was Myrtle Evans. What name can she use now in her brokerage activities? The answer depends on whether she legally changed her name upon her marriage. If she did, then she must use her new, legal name, “Myrtle Furplesnurkle” or “Myrtle Evans Furplesnurkle.” In addition, she must notify the Commission that she has legally changed her name by filing a Request Broker Name Change and to Reissue Real Estate License/Pocket Card form (https://www.ncrec.gov/namechange ) to have her license reissued in her new name. She will need to upload a copy of the marriage certificate and a copy of her driver’s license or other state issued ID with the new name. Myrtle cannot be Myrtle Furplesnurkle to family and friends but be Myrtle Evans on advertising.

If Myrtle did not legally take your name, she must continue to use her maiden name until she legally changes it.

If you later divorce and she wants to revert to her maiden name, she may apply to the clerk of court in the county where she lives. Upon legally resuming her maiden name, she must again notify the Commission on the same form she used when she married you and her license will be reissued in her maiden name.

 Assumed Names

If you don’t want to go to the trouble of changing your name legally, then you should use your legal name in all aspects of your business. You cannot avoid the problem by filing an assumed name registration in the office of the register of deeds. That procedure is only for business names – not for individuals who wish to have a “stage name” like Bruno.

What is an “Assumed Business Name”? For example, when an individual broker/sole proprietor named Alex Robinson advertises as Robinson Realty, Alex is not using an assumed name because Robinson Realty includes the broker’s surname.

If Alex Robinson instead advertises brokerage services (with business cards, ads, etc.) as broker-in-charge of a sole proprietorship under the name, “Luxury Homes 4U Realty,” Alex is now using an assumed business name and must comply with the statute and Commission rule.

The Commission recognizes Assumed Business Names (aka DBAs) for licensed firms and for sole proprietorships, not for individual brokers. Accordingly, the designated broker-in-charge of a sole proprietorship may submit the Request Firm/Sole Proprietorship Name Change and to Reissue Real Estate License/Pocket Card form once they have filed an assumed name certificate for their company. Again, an assumed business name is not meant for Alex Robinson to use the stage name Alex Star when he is really Alex Robinson.

However, if you see an advertisement for Elton John’s brokerage services, it’s okay. He legally changed his name from Reginald Kenneth Dwight back in 1972.

Staff Appearances

Janet Thoren, Director of Regulatory Affairs, spoke at the Durham Regional Association of Realtors meeting on February 2.

Nick Smith, Consumer Protection Officer, spoke at the Allen Tate Realtors meeting on February 8.

Dee Bigelow, Information Officer, spoke at the Dream Team Realty Group meeting on February 10.

Employment Opportunities Available

Are you interested in joining the staff of the North Carolina Real Estate Commission? From time to time, employment opportunities become available. They are posted on the Commission’s website under the “About Us” tab.

We currently have opportunities available for the following positions:

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer – The Officer be responsible for creating, implementing, and advancing the Commission’s diversity and inclusion initiatives across the state. Application deadline March 3, 2022.

Click here for more information.

Disciplinary Actions

SUSAN JONES AMICK (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Amick, effective January 17, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Amick assisted with maintaining the trust accounts at the firm. An audit of these accounts found that two different software systems were being used, which caused reporting issues. Monthly reconciliations of the bank balance and property ledger trial balance were also not occurring. Furthermore, the software system had not been completely set up when it was implemented years ago. Deficit spending was also present and the security deposit did not hold enough personal funds to offset the bank fees. Finally, not all transactions were being reported on the same date in the journal and ledger, which lead to unreliable reporting. The Commission noted that Ms. Amick’s firm has now converted to one software management system and hired an independent auditor who assisted with bringing the accounts into compliance with Commission rules; Ms. Amick’s firm has hired a CPA to assist in oversight moving forward; and Ms. Amick has taken the Basic Trust Account Procedures course.

JANICE R COOPER (PRINCEVILLE) – By Consent, the Commission reprimanded Ms. Cooper, effective February 17, 2022. The Commission found that during her tenure as the BIC of a firm, in January 2021, a broker affiliated with Ms. Cooper listed two residential properties for a seller client. In February 2021, the broker was notified that the properties were owned in part by the heirs of the seller’s deceased ex-husband. The broker failed to disclose to the buyers or closing attorneys that there were additional owners. The first property closed after the broker provided the closing attorney with documents which falsely indicated that the seller-client was widowed, not divorced, and therefore owned the properties. All proceeds went to the seller-client. The closing attorney for the second property discovered the ownership interests. When informed of possible ownership issues, Ms. Cooper failed to advise the affiliated broker to disclose the ownership issues to the buyers but advised the broker to inform the closing attorney and that it would be caught during a title search. The Commission noted that Ms. Cooper assisted with the transaction to get the second transaction closed and the seller-clients have refunded the proceeds from the first transaction.

STEPHANIE D DAVIS (SANFORD) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Davis for a period of 3 years, effective February 1, 2020. The Commission then stayed the suspension effective February 1, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Davis, acting as BIC of a sole proprietorship, failed to safeguard and account for trust account money and failed to properly maintain trust account records in compliance with Commission rules. Commission staff also determined that Ms. Davis’ trust account was short $11,229.78.

SUZANNE BERNADETTE DAVIS (CHAPEL HILL/ORANGE COUNTY) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Davis effective February 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Davis violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Davis neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

KRISTI GALLAGHER FOSTER (BOONE) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Foster for a period of five years, effective February 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Foster violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Foster neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

FOUR SEASONS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the firm license of Four Seasons Property Management Inc. for a period of 12 months, effective January 17, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission, during an audit of Four Seasons Property Management Inc.’s trust accounts, found that two different software systems were being used, which caused reporting issues. Monthly reconciliations of the bank balance and property ledger trial balance were also not occurring. Furthermore, the software system had not been completely set up when it was implemented years ago. Deficit spending was also present and the security deposit did not hold enough personal funds to offset the bank fees. Finally, not all transactions were being reported on the same date in the journal and ledger, which lead to unreliable reporting. The Commission noted that Four Seasons Property Management Inc. has now converted to one software management system and hired an independent auditor who assisted with bringing the accounts into compliance with Commission rules and that Four Seasons Property Management Inc. has hired a CPA to assist in oversight moving forward.

MICHAEL ROBERT GRAHAM (MOORESVILLE) The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Mr. Graham for a period of two years, effective January 19, 2022. In light of the surrender, the Commission dismissed without prejudice a complaint filed against Mr. Graham relating to an alleged misrepresentation of a property’s sewage disposal system.Mr. Graham neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

HIGH COUNTRY VACATION HOMES (BOONE) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the firm license of High Country Vacation Homes, effective February 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that High Country Vacation Homes violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. High Country Vacation Homes neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

MARY M. HUNT (LUMBERTON) – The Commission accepted the voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Hunt for a period of five years, effective February 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Hunt violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Hunt neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

ELIZABETH HOLLY RAMOS (JACKSONVILLE) – The Commission accepted the permanent voluntary surrender of the broker license of Ms. Ramos effective February 16, 2022. The Commission dismissed without prejudice allegations that Ms. Ramos violated provisions of the Real Estate License Law and Commission rules. Ms. Ramos neither admitted nor denied misconduct.

FAWN ELIZABETH THAYER (DURHAM) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Ms. Thayer for a period of 4 months, effective February 17, 2022. The Commission found that Ms. Thayer participated in a social media exam study group and actively shared confidential exam information or encouraged others to gather exam information.

JOHN C WELCH JR (CHARLOTTE) – By Consent, the Commission suspended the broker license of Mr. Welch Jr. for a period of 12 months, effective January 17, 2022. The Commission then stayed the suspension in its entirety. The Commission found that as the BIC of a firm, an audit of Mr. Welch Jr.’s trust accounts found that two different software systems were being used, which caused reporting issues. Monthly reconciliations of the bank balance and property ledger trial balance were also not occurring. Furthermore, the software system had not been completely set up when it was implemented years ago. Deficit spending was also present and the security deposit did not hold enough personal funds to offset the bank fees. Finally, not all transactions were being reported on the same date in the journal and ledger, which lead to unreliable reporting. The Commission noted that Mr. Welch Jr has now converted to one software management system and hired an independent auditor who assisted with bringing the accounts into compliance with Commission rules, and that Mr. Welch Jr has stepped down as BIC of the firm.

The April 20 Commission meeting will be in Fayetteville!

Have you ever wanted to attend a Real Estate Commission meeting to see what it is really all about? Or have you wanted a chance to talk to a Commission member? Are you going to be in the Fayetteville area on Wednesday, April 20? If so, please join us at the Springhill Suites, 4750 Lake Valley Drive, Fayetteville, NC in the Plank/Campbell Meeting Room.

We will be welcoming the public in for coffee at 8:30 AM, with the Commission meeting starting at about 9:00. This is a great opportunity to meet the Commission Members and key staff. You are also welcome to stay for a portion or for all of the Commission’s meeting. Mark your calendars for April 20!

But the Seller Breached! When Should Due Diligence Fees be Refunded?

In today’s hot market, due diligence fees have become a significant consideration for both buyers and sellers. The commonly used NC REALTORS©/NC Bar Association Offer to Purchase and Contract (Form 2T) incorporates a due diligence period for which the buyer may pay a negotiated fee. Some brokers are encouraging their buyer clients to offer considerable amounts in due diligence fees to make their offer more competitive, and some buyers do so even against their broker’s advice. 

First, it’s important to note that the parties are not required by law or by the Commission to either use the form provided to brokers by their trade association or to include a due diligence fee as part of their contract. The parties are always free to have their own attorney draft a contract for their transaction or to choose not to offer a due diligence fee. Brokers should be careful to not imply otherwise.

The Commission has seen a major increase in complaints from buyers insisting they are owed a due diligence fee refund because a home inspection discovered an issue with the property which was not disclosed prior to going under contract. If a buyer is offering thousands of dollars in due diligence fees to secure a contract, they need to be fully aware that the fee is generally not refundable, even if the inspection reveals material defects in the property. The rights of a buyer during the due diligence period are the same whether they have paid $0, $100, or $100,000 in due diligence fees.   

Brokers should never lose sight of the goal: doing what is best for the client rather than getting a bad contract in place. A good broker will always be sure to take the time to clearly explain the risks to the buyer in paying any amount of due diligence money. A broker’s fiduciary duties to their client include loyalty, obedience, accountability, disclosure, and skill, care and diligence.  When a buyer has hired a broker for their expertise and assistance in making what frequently amounts to the largest purchase they’ll ever make, then the expectation is that the broker will be looking out for their best interests. 

A broker’s best practices include being well versed regarding the terms of a contract and educating their client on all of the ins and outs of due diligence, including the risks involved and when a fee is refundable.

The Due Diligence Period is designed to allow the buyer:

1. a period of time to inspect the property and determine if they wish to accept it in its current condition
2. the opportunity to request repairs and negotiate the repairs and costs with the seller,
3. access to the property for any and all inspections, surveys, appraisals, etc. and
4. the right to terminate the contract unilaterally prior to the end of the due diligence period for any or no reason.

It’s a common misconception that a seller has ‘breached the contract’ by failing to agree to pay the cost of repairs or for not disclosing a defect in the property. While the buyer may seek to negotiate repairs, the contract does not obligate the seller to make any repairs. The seller’s obligations under the contract Form 2T are in Paragraph 8 and only relate to repairs to the extent that the seller has agreed to perform them. Specifically, the contract requires the seller to:

1. provide evidence of clear title and a General Warranty Deed and payoff of all existing liens with an affidavit regarding payment,
2. pay ad valorem taxes, pro-rated property taxes and any late listing fees, confirmed special assessments, Owner’s Association fees and certain charges payable by seller, and any agreed-upon buyer’s expenses,
3. provide access to the property for the buyer including working utilities,
4. remove the seller’s personal property, garbage and debris, and
5. perform all repairs that have already been negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

If the seller fails to perform those obligations, thereby breaching the contract, then the buyer may be entitled to a refund of their due diligence fee along with any earnest money, and costs incurred performing their due diligence (see paragraph 23 for the remedies). 

The contract makes no guarantee as to the condition of the property and, under paragraph 4(d), states that the property is being sold in its current condition. Brokers should make buyers aware that the Residential Property and Owners Association Disclosure Statement is not a guarantee of the property condition. A seller’s answer of “no” or “no representation” on the disclosure statement does not mean that there are no problems or defects in the property, only that the seller is either unaware of a problem or has chosen to make no representation. A deliberate misrepresentation by a broker may result in disciplinary action. Similarly, a deliberate misrepresentation by an unlicensed seller could result in civil liability if a buyer chose to pursue a private civil suit. However, the Commission has no authority to award such damages. The bottom line? Brokers should advise their buyer clients early and often that they should not expect a refund of any due diligence fee they pay even if they are dissatisfied with the condition of the property. Brokers should do everything they can to ensure that their buyer-clients are well-informed and offer an amount of due diligence fee that they are prepared to lose.