Case Interpretations Related to Article 10

A minority couple called on REALTOR® A and expressed interest in purchasing a home in the $390,000 to $435,000 price range with at least three bedrooms, a large lot, and located in the Cedar Ridge area of town. Being familiar with Cedar Ridge through handling of numerous listings in that area, REALTOR® A explained that houses in Cedar Ridge generally sold in the price range from $540,000 to $660,000. The couple thereafter indicated that they would then like to see “what was available” within their budget. After further discussion with the couple concerning their financial circumstances and the maximum price range they could afford, REALTOR® A concluded that the couple could not afford more than $412,500 as an absolute maximum. The couple was then shown homes which met the criteria they had described to REALTOR® A. However, although REALTOR® A discussed with the couple the amenities and assets of each of the properties shown to them, they expressed no interest in any of the properties shown. A few days later, the minority couple filed charges with the Professional Standards Administrator of the Association, charging REALTOR® A with a violation of Article 10 of the Code Ethics, alleging that REALTOR® A had violated the Article by an alleged act of racial steering in his service to the minority couple.

The Professional Standards Administrator promptly referred the complaint to the Grievance Committee, which conducted a preliminary review and referred the complaint for a hearing. REALTOR® A was duly noticed and provided with an opportunity to make his response to the complaint.

At the hearing, the complainants elaborated upon their charge of the alleged racial steering by REALTOR® A, telling the Hearing Panel that they had specifically expressed an interest in purchasing a home in the Cedar Ridge area, but were not shown any homes in Cedar Ridge. REALTOR® A responded by producing e-mail records documenting the housing preference of the couple as they had described it to him, including price range and demonstrating that he had shown them a number of listings that met the requirements as expressed by them, although admittedly none of the properties shown were located in Cedar Ridge. However, REALTOR® A explained that he had advised the couple that there were no listings available in Cedar Ridge falling within their budget. Further, REALTOR® A produced listing and sales information concerning numerous homes in Cedar Ridge which confirmed an average sales price of $540,000 to $660,000. REALTOR® A told the Hearing Panel that he had, in fact, offered equal professional service to the minority couple by showing them properties which met the criteria they had presented to him. He pointed out to the Hearing Panel that the couple was charging him with “racial steering” which presumably they were relating to the denial of equal professional service. REALTOR® A stated, “If there were listings in Cedar Ridge in the $390,000 to $435,000 price range with at least three bedrooms and a large lot, and I had refused to show them such listings, then they might have a point in their charge. But there are no such listings available now, nor have there been at any time since the original development of the Cedar Ridge area five years ago. I could not show them what did not and does not exist.”

The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A had properly met his obligation to offer equal professional service and was not in violation of Article 10.

Case #10-2: Denial of Equal Professional Service

(Revised May, 1988. Revised November, 2001. Revised May, 2017.)

On a Saturday morning, REALTOR® B, a salesperson affiliated with REALTOR® A, answered an e-mail from Prospect C, a recent college graduate who was moving into the city to take his first teaching job at Northwest High School. Prospect C was married, had two young children, and was a veteran.

After working with Prospect C to determine his family could afford a three-bedroom home in the $240,000 range, R_ealtoR ® B described available properties near Northwest High School and set up appointments to show houses to Prospect C. That afternoon, REALTOR® B showed Prospect C and his wife three houses in neighborhoods near the high school.

On Monday, at a faculty meeting, Prospect C met Prospect D, who was also moving into the city to take a teaching position at the same high school and who was also in the market for a home. Prospect D was married with two young children and was also a veteran.

Prospect C told Prospect D of REALTOR® B’s knowledge of the market and VA financing and how helpful he had been. Prospect D called REALTOR® A’s office that afternoon and asked for REALTOR® B. and asked for REALTOR® B.  REALTOR® B met Prospect D and determined Prospect D could also afford a home in the $240,000 range. Prospect D told REALTOR® B that he was also a new teacher at Northwest High School and had been referred by Prospect C. Prospect D was black.

REALTOR® B showed Prospect D houses in several neighborhoods undergoing racial transition but did not show Prospect D homes in neighborhoods near the high school. Prospect D asked about houses closer to Northwest High School. REALTOR® B replied that he had no knowledge of any homes in that area for which  Prospect D could qualify. The next day, Prospect D, while visiting Prospect C, related his problems in finding a home near the high school and learned that REALTOR® B had shown Prospect C several homes near the high school. Prospect D filed a complaint with the Association of REALTORS® claiming that REALTOR® B had discriminated against him and his family by not offering equal professional services.

The complaint was reviewed by the Grievance Committee. REALTOR® B was charged with an alleged violation of Article 10, and the complaint was referred to a Hearing Panel of the Association’s Professional Standards Committee for hearing. At the hearing, REALTOR® B admitted that he did not use the same efforts to show Prospect D properties in neighborhoods near the high school as he did with Prospect C because he felt Prospect D and his family would feel more comfortable living in a racially integrated neighborhood.

REALTOR® A responded that he was sorry that Prospect C had that opinion, but that certainly he held no such attitude as charged. REALTOR® A advised the Hearing Panel that he routinely utilized a contact report for each prospect which includes identification information on the clients, provides data on the price range, type of house and location preferred by the prospect, and records the homes shown to the prospect with information on the price, type, and location of each home shown. REALTOR® A presented several such reports from his files including the report pertaining to Prospect B. Prospect C’s report showed that several homes shown to her met the data as supplied by her.

The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A’s documented evidence did, in fact, establish a clear position in which equal professional service had been offered and that no violation of Article 10 had occurred.

Case #10-4: Use of “Choose Your Neighbor” Marketing Letters

(Adopted November, 1987. Revised November, 2013, November, 2017 and November, 2022.)

REALTOR® A listed a property in a new subdivision. At the instruction of his client, Seller X, REALTOR® A did not enter the listing in the MLS, did not place a “For Sale” sign on the property and did not advertise the property online. Seller X had told REALTOR® A that he wanted the sale handled quietly, with the new purchasers being people who would “fit into the neighborhood — people with the same socioeconomic background” as the other residents of the subdivision.

Based on his conversation with Seller X, REALTOR® A’s only marketing effort was mailing a letter to the other residents of the subdivision, inviting them “. . . to play a part in the decision of who your next neighbor will be. If you know of someone who you would like to live in the neighborhood, please let them know of the availability of this home, or call me and I will be happy to contact them and arrange a private showing.”

REALTOR® A’s marketing strategy came to the attention of REALTOR® B, whose mother lived in the subdivision. REALTOR® B filed a complaint charging REALTOR® A with a violation of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics.

At the hearing, REALTOR® B told the Hearing Panel of receiving a copy of the marketing letter from his mother, who had recently moved to the subdivision. REALTOR® B advised the panel that he had checked the MLS for information on the property, had driven past the house to look for a “For Sale” sign and had searched online for any information on the property. Finding nothing, REALTOR® B concluded that REALTOR® A’s marketing strategy was to limit access to the property to individuals preselected by the current residents. “In my mind,” said REALTOR® B, “this could only mean one thing. REALTOR® A was deliberately discriminating against home buyers from other areas, or those with different backgrounds, who would never have the opportunity to learn about the house’s availability. Obviously, REALTOR® A was directing all of his marketing energies into finding purchasers who would not disrupt the ethnic and economic character of the neighborhood.”

REALTOR® A defended his actions by advising the panel that he was acting on Seller X’s instructions. Seller X appeared as a witness for REALTOR® A and confirmed this fact, adding that he and the other residents of his block had an informal agreement that they would try to find “suitable” purchasers for their homes if they ever decided to sell. Seller X felt that by broadening the marketing campaign to include all residents of the subdivision he had increased the chances of finding such potential purchasers.

The Hearing Panel found REALTOR® A in violation of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics. In their decision, the panel advised REALTOR® A that no instruction from a client could absolve a REALTOR® from the obligation to market properties without regard to race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, country of national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, as expressed in Article 10. There was no doubt, in the panel’s opinion, that the exclusive use of “Choose Your Neighbor” letters to market the property was designed to circumvent the requirements of Article 10.