Wisconsin REALTORS® Association: Professional Pointers

Professional Pointers

The Professional Pointers series offers you a boost of professionalism. The pointers explore topics like the ethical duties to cooperate, confidentiality, managing expectations and more.


March 18, 2024: From the DSPS: Restricted License for Applicant with OWI History

On or about June 30, 2023, the applicant filed for a Wisconsin real estate salesperson license. Information received in the application process reflected that the applicant has an OWI 2nd misdemeanor conviction from July 14, 2023. Information received in the application process also reflected that the applicant was found to have suspected alcohol dependency.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found that the applicant's conviction history calls into question his current competency to transact the business of real estate sales in a manner that protects the public. The facts and circumstances of the applicant's conviction record substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson as it is common practice for real estate salespersons to drive with clients in their vehicles while conducting business. The applicant failed to show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations.

The REEB granted the application for a real estate salesperson, but the applicant’s license is subject to the following limitations for at least one year:

  • The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker with whom the applicant has had no personal or familial relationship and who is pre-approved by the REEB.
  • The applicant shall arrange for the broker supervisor to provide written reports to the REEB on a quarterly basis. The reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the nature and extent of the applicant's sales activities and whether the applicant has practiced in compliance with all laws governing real estate practice.
  • The applicant shall not consume alcohol while conducting or engaged in the practice of real estate.
  • The applicant shall not drive real estate clients or customers in any motor vehicle.
  • The applicant must have and maintain a valid driver's license when driving for purposes of conducting real estate business.
  • The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of firm, status, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
  • The applicant shall commit no new violations of law and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations, to the REEB within 48 hours of any such event.

After one year of successful compliance, the applicant may petition the REEB for a full unrestricted license. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion.


February 12, 2024: From the DSPS: Obtaining Property Inspection before Listing Property

The broker has a current license, and his address on file is in Cincinnati, Ohio. The business entity has a current address, and the address on file is in Boynton Beach, Florida. Between January 1, 2021, and August 1, 2023, they had over 400 Wisconsin listings in the MLS and completed more than 250 sales. To demonstrate their intent to comply with state law, they voluntarily stopped taking any real estate listings in Wisconsin as of August 1, 2023.

On December 1, 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from another real estate licensee alleging the broker/entity did not perform a sufficient inspection of a property before listing it for sale. However, no errors or inaccuracies in the listing were alleged by the property owner nor any other consumer. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation, and on December 2, 2021, the DSPS contacted the broker/entity to request a response to the complaint. On December 9, 2021, the broker acknowledged that the broker/entity did not physically inspect the property prior to listing it and instead relied on photographs taken by the sellers.

On February 10, 2022, the DSPS received a complaint alleging a different listing contained inaccurate information. The DLSC subsequently opened a case for investigation. The MLS listing for the property incorrectly stated the property had four bedrooms, but the property only had three bedrooms. On February 14, 2022, the DSPS contacted the broker/entity to request a response to the complaint. On February 21, 2022, the broker acknowledged they had incorrectly stated the number of bedrooms in the MLS listing, and that they had not physically inspected the property prior to listing it. They instead relied on pictures taken by the sellers.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker/entity violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(1)(a) by failing to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of the property and violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The broker’s license and the entity’s license were both suspended for 30 days. Within 90 days, the broker shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000, and one-half of the costs of this matter in the amount of $474, for a total of $1,474. Within 90 days, the entity shall pay one-half of the costs of this matter for a total of $474.

The REEB limited the broker’s and the entity’s licenses as follows:

They must provide a brief statement, satisfactory to the REEB, describing how they will comply with the requirement in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(5) to provide the pre-listing inspection report to all parties to the transaction in a timely manner. Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(5) provides:

Reliance upon third party inspections and investigations. If a licensee or a party in a transaction engages the services of a qualified third party to conduct a property inspection or investigation of material facts, the licensee may rely on the results of the inspection or investigation providing the licensee obtains a written report of the inspection or investigation and delivers a copy of the report to all parties in a timely manner.

The broker/entity intend to use the “Showami” program at showami.com to source Wisconsin real estate licensees to perform the pre-listing inspections required under Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07. Showami is a service where licensed real estate agents may be paid to assist with buyer and rental showings, light inspection reports, open houses and other ad hoc tasks.

  1. The broker/entity shall submit to the DSPS within 90 days of the completion of their suspensions and quarterly thereafter for the next two years, a roster of each new listing contract they have entered into since the last report. The REEB will randomly select three listings from the roster.
  2. For each listing selected, the broker/entity shall provide a copy of the completed pre-listing inspection report. The REEB will then confirm that: the report document is substantively consistent with the template Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure (AVID) form attached to the order; if the inspection was conducted by a Wisconsin-licensed salesperson; the report document includes a completed, signed attestation from the salesperson inspector that they performed the inspection with the permission of their broker; and that any payment for the service provided is paid from Showami to their brokerage, and not directly to the salesperson; the report document includes the signature of the salesperson inspector's supervising broker, indicating that they are aware of and approve of the salesperson engaging in inspection activity on behalf of the entity; and the report document is completed in its entirety.

After one year of successful compliance with the order, the broker and the entity may petition the REEB for removal of the limitation. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order.


February 5, 2024: From the DSPS: Limited License Due to Past Criminal Convictions

On June 29, 2023, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received an application for a real estate salesperson credential. Information on file established the applicant has the following convictions on their record:

  • On or about July 16, 2014: Use Forged Credit/Debit Card/ <$30, a misdemeanor conviction in Illinois. The applicant somehow obtained another person 's credit card number and used it to purchase liquor at a liquor store. The applicant was sentenced to two years of probation, which was terminated on or about July 12, 2016.
  • On or about July 24, 2014: Counterfeit Credit/Debit Card, a felony conviction in Illinois. When subject to a traffic stop, the applicant was found to have items related to counterfeit credit/debit cards. The applicant was sentenced to 24 months of probation and 103 days in jail.
  • On or about October 25, 2018: Manufacture/Deliver Heroin (<3g), a felony conviction in Wisconsin. The applicant sold heroin to a confidential informant.
  • On or about October 25, 2018: Possess w/Intent-Heroin (<=3g), a felony conviction in Wisconsin. When an arrest warrant was executed upon the home in which the applicant lived, law enforcement found items related to the sale of heroin. The applicant was sentenced to eight years of probation and one year in jail. On or about March 29, 2019, the applicant was released from confinement for the 2018 felony convictions.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found that the applicant's conviction history calls into question their current competency to transact the business of real estate sales in a manner that protects the public. The facts and circumstances of the applicant’s 2014 convictions substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson. The practice of real estate sales involves unsupervised access to private residences and property as well as the handling of client funds and presents the opportunity for theft. While the applicant has demonstrated over 5five years with no further convictions, is in compliance with their probation and completed all other requirements for licensure, the applicant remains on probation and has not provided further evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations.

The REEB limited the applicant’s license for three years as follows:

The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker pre-approved by the REEB.

  1. The applicant shall provide a copy of this order to their current and any future pre-approved supervising real estate broker. The applicant shall provide the DSPS with written acknowledgement from each supervising real estate broker that a copy of the order was received. Such acknowledgement shall be provided to the DSPS within 14 days of beginning association with any new firm.
  2. The applicant shall arrange for written reports from his pre-approved real estate broker to be provided to the DSPS on a quarterly basis. These reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the circumstances of his association with the firm, including the nature and extent of the applicant's real estate salesperson activities and whether they have practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
  3. The applicant shall successfully complete all probation and provide proof of successful completion to the DSPS within 30 days of completion of the probation.
  4. The applicant shall arrange for written reports from his probation agent to be provided to the DSPS on a quarterly basis.
  5. The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of firm association status, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
  6. Applicant shall commit no violations of law pertaining to the practice of a Wisconsin licensed profession.

After one year of successful compliance with this order, the applicant may petition the REEB for removal of the supervision requirements set forth in paragraphs 1-3 above. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order.

After the applicant has been discharged from probation, the applicant may petition the REEB for full, unrestricted license. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order.


January 22, 2024: From the DSPS: Failure to Explain Documents to Buyer Client

On December 6, 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that a real estate salesperson did not properly communicate with a first-time homebuyer while representing the buyer in a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

On October 6, 2021, the agent drafted a buyer agency agreement that was signed by the Agent and the Buyer. The agent did not communicate with the buyer to explain the document before the buyer signed.

On October 7, 2021, the agent drafted an offer to purchase that was signed by the agent and the buyer. The agent did not communicate with the buyer to explain the document before the buyer signed.

A DSPS review of the offer to purchase found the agent did not complete lines 1 and 2 of the offer, which would have indicated whether the agent was the agent of the buyer, agent of the seller, or both.

On December 15, 2022, the agent’s license expired. On April 20, 2023, the agent renewed his license. According to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) records, the agent had four active listings while his license was expired.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(8)(b)1 by failing to explain the responsibilities of a buyer's agent before having his clients sign the buyer agency agreement. The agent also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(8)(c) by failing to state in the offer to purchase who he represented as an agent, Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care, and Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by engaging in the business of real estate and holding himself out as a licensed salesperson when his license was expired.

The agent was reprimanded, and the agent’s license was limited as follows:

  1. Within 60 days, the agent shall successfully complete one course on the topic of agency. The course attended must be pre-approved by the REEB. The agent must take and pass any exam offered for the course.
  2. The agent shall submit proof of successful completion of the ordered education to the DSPS.
  3. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements with the REEB.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay the costs in the amount of $1,349. If costs are not paid within 90 days, interest shall accrue at the statutory rate of 12%, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 440.22(2).


January 16, 2024: From the DSPS: Misappropriation of Identification

The real estate broker operated an apartment management business. On March 23, 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint that the broker used the tenant’s personal information to open a utility account for an apartment she never resided in. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation. The tenant also referred the issue to the Dane County District Attorney's office.

On April 15, 2021, the broker told the DSPS that the tenant toured the apartment in late November 2020 and wanted to move in as soon as possible. The tenant filled out an application for the apartment and met with the broker on November 29, 2020, to sign the lease. The broker stated the tenant wanted to modify the lease, so it was not signed at that time. Nevertheless, he claimed the tenant paid the security deposit, and the broker gave the tenant a key to the apartment. The broker stated he dropped off the updated lease in her mailbox the next day.

According to a police report obtained by the DSPS, on April 29, 2021, a police detective met with the broker. The detective told the broker, after speaking with neighbors, that no one had resided in that unit for at least one year. The broker then admitted the tenant had rented a unit from him about 15 years ago and allegedly owed him some money, so without her permission, he opened an account under her name with the utility company to “recoup some of the money that went unpaid from years prior.”

On August 6, 2021, when the DSPS asked for evidence of the broker’s communications with the tenant or a copy of her lease application, the broker told the DSPS that an employee of the broker’s apartment management business had erred in putting the utility account in the tenant’s name because the tenant had never moved into the apartment. The broker said the apartment management business paid the account balance once the error was realized. No evidence of the tenant’s alleged interest in the property was provided.

On August 18, 2021, the respondent was charged in circuit court with one count of Misappropriate ID Info-Obtain Money, Party to a Crime, a class H felony, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2)(a) and Wis. Stat. § 939.05.

On October 7, 2021, the broker admitted to the DSPS that the tenant had never met anyone at the apartment and had not communicated with anyone at the apartment management business. He also stated he wanted to retract his previous statements to the DSPS. The broker claimed he was in a car accident in late 2020, and had many health issues as a result, including cognitive disorders.

On February 15, 2022, the broker pled guilty in circuit court to one count of Misappropriation ID Info-Obtain Money, Party to a Crime.

The court withheld the broker’s adjudication and referred the broker to a first offender program on March 14, 2022, which the broker completed on December 27, 2022. The felony case was dismissed upon completion of the program.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices. The broker additionally failed to provide brokerage services honestly and fairly in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(a), failed to keep confidential information given to the firm in confidence, or any information obtained by the firm that the firm knows a reasonable person would want to be kept confidential in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(d), made a material misstatement to the REEB or DSPS in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(a), demonstrated incompetency to act as a broker in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(i), and engaged in conduct that constitutes improper, fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)k).

The broker’s license was suspended from December 8, 2023, to January 30, 2024.

Before returning to real estate practice from the suspension, the broker shall undergo an evaluation by a licensed physician (evaluator) who is competent to determine whether the broker currently possesses any mental or physical health condition that renders him unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety to clients. The evaluator must be preapproved by the REEB, have had a minimum of 10 years of experience in the practice of medicine, may not have been previously disciplined by any credentialing authority, and must meet additional conditions listed by the REEB.

Within 30 days of the completion of the evaluation, a written report regarding the results shall be submitted to the DSPS and shall identify restrictions on the nature of practice or practice setting or requirements for supervision of practice, if any, that are necessary to render the broker able to practice with reasonable skill and safety. The broker is responsible for the costs associated with the evaluation and must authorize the evaluator to discuss the results of the evaluation with the REEB.

The broker’s license also was limited as follows:

For a period of four years, the broker may only practice as a real estate broker while under the supervision of another Wisconsin licensed real estate broker, approved by the REEB, who must submit quarterly reports regarding whether the broker has practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate brokering.

Beginning after two years of successful compliance with the terms of this order, the broker may petition the REEB for reinstatement to full licensure. The REEB may grant or deny any such petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 and costs in the amount of $1,460 for a total of $2,460.


January 8, 2024: From the DSPS: Use of Forged Document in Transaction

On November 17, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that the agent had an assistant forge a real estate document for use in a transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

The agent represented the buyers in a real estate transaction that was scheduled for closing on November 13, 2020.

On November 12, 2020, the agent requested a WB-40 Amendment to reduce the amount of closing costs paid by the sellers. The sellers agreed, but the document required both the buyers' and sellers' signatures. On November 13, 2020, before closing, the agent sent the WB-40 Amendment to the sellers' agent for her clients to sign. The sellers electronically signed the WB-40 Amendment via DocuSign, and the sellers' agent then sent the signed document to the agent for his clients' signatures. The agent later advised that he had sent the fully executed document to the lender, who then sent it on to the title company.

Just prior to the 2:30 p.m. closing on November 13, 2020, the seller's agent received a copy of the fully executed WB-40 Amendment and noticed that the sellers' signatures were handwritten instead of electronically signed, and the signatures were dated November 12, 2020. The sellers' agent advised the title company representative that her clients did not sign this document in handwriting, and they did not sign anything on November 12, 2020. She also expressed concern that the agent had sent a forged document to the lender.

When the agent arrived at closing, the title company representative asked him about the signatures. The agent stated the buyers had signed the document via DocuSign on November 13, 2020. He stated that the previous day, he had someone at his office sign the document for both buyers and sellers, and he claimed that he had permission to have this person sign. The sellers’ agent insisted that there was no permission granted from the sellers.

On February 17, 2021, the Greater Milwaukee Association of REALTORS® (GMAR) Ethics Hearing Panel issued a decision regarding the agent’s behavior in the transaction. The agent was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and to complete remedial education.

On February 21, 2022, the DSPS emailed the agent to request copies of the transaction documents. On March 7, 2022, the agent emailed the transaction documents to the DSPS but did not include the forged document.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

The agent’s license was suspended for 14 calendar days.

The agent’s license also was limited as follows:

Within 60 days, the Agent must successfully complete one education course on the topic of ethics. The course must be pre-approved by the REEB, and the Agent must take and pass any exam offered for the course and submit proof of successful completion to the REEB. This course must not be the same course the Agent took as a result of the GMAR hearing. The education completed pursuant to this Order may not be used to satisfy any continuing education requirements with the REEB and may not be used in future attempts to upgrade a credential in Wisconsin.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $100 and costs in the amount of $1,814 for a total of $1,914.


January 2, 2024: From the DSPS: Practice with Expired License

On December 15, 2020, the broker’s real estate license expired. On July 14, 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that the broker was practicing with an expired license. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation. On the same day, the broker renewed his license.

On July 20, 2022, the DSPS contacted the broker to request a response to the complaint. On July 25, 2022, the broker replied to the DSPS and stated he renewed his license upon learning of its expiration.

On January 26, 2023, the DSPS contacted the broker to ask how many transactions he had performed while his license was expired as well as to inquire about ABC Real Estate Service LLC, which appeared to be an unlicensed real estate business entity operat by the broker. On February 22, 2023, the broker stated he had performed seven transactions in Wisconsin while his license was expired, and that he is the broker for ABC Real Estate Service LLC.

On August 9, 2023, the broker informed the DSPS that he no longer intends to practice real estate in Wisconsin and wishes to resolve this case by voluntarily surrendering his license.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) and the broker stipulated to the voluntary surrender of the broker’s license. The surrender was accepted by the DSPS.

In the event the former broker petitions the REEB for reinstatement as a real estate broker or applies for any other credential in the state of Wisconsin under Wis. Stat. chs. 440 through 480, he shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $927 before any petition or application for a credential will be considered by the applicable board or the DSPS.


December 26, 2023: From the DSPS: Soliciting Seller with Listing

On April 14, 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that the agent (Agent) was attempting to sign one of the complaining broker’s (Broker) seller clients (Seller) even though the Seller was under an exclusive listing contract with the Broker. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

The complaint included a copy of a letter the Seller had received from the Agent. The letter, dated April 2022, was addressed to the Seller and stated the Agent had toured the Seller’s home and felt that it didn't show well. The Agent offered the Agent’s services to the Seller and asked the Seller to give the Agent a call.

On April 15, 2022, the Agent responded to the complaint. The Agent apologized and stated the intention was for the letter to arrive after the expiration of the Broker’s exclusive listing contract with the Seller.

On April 19, 2022, the Agent’s broker responded to the complaint, indicating the Agent had made an error and is receiving supplemental training to ensure that the issue does not recur.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against unethical practices.

The Agent was reprimanded. 

Within 180 days of the date of the REEB’s order, the Agent shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $250, and within 90 days, the Agent shall pay costs in the amount of $529. If costs are not paid within 90 days, interest shall accrue at the statutory rate of 12%, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 440.22(2).


November 20, 2023: From the DSPS: Unethical Showing Scheme

On February 28, 2023, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that the agent acted in an unethical manner while providing real estate services to a potential homebuyer. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

In early 2023, the agent represented the potential homebuyer. The potential homebuyer asked the agent to show him several homes in the Green Bay area. The agent told the potential homebuyer that the agent was unavailable to show the homes and suggested a scheme to have an unknown real estate agent perform the showings without receiving a commission. The agent allegedly suggested that the potential homebuyer use an online service to find "a random agent" for the showings. The agent told the potential homebuyer to have his significant other contact the other agent, and bring a friend to pose as her spouse, so that the other agent would not discover that the potential homebuyer was represented. Then, if the potential homebuyer decided to make an offer on a property, the agent could write the offer and receive the commission. The potential homebuyer stated the agent admitted this was a "sketchy practice."

According to the agent, she set up several showings for the weekend of January 21 and 22, 2023, with other agents from the agent’s firm who worked in the Green Bay area. However, the potential homebuyer did not want to wait for the appointments to see the properties and called the agent to find out if there was any way to see the homes sooner. The agent admitted that she did advise the potential homebuyer to request a showing using Zillow. The agent added that the potential homebuyer was a difficult personality, often very persistent and aggressive, and would not take "no" for an answer.

The potential homebuyer obtained showings of the properties by following the agent’s plan. The potential homebuyer decided to make an offer on one of the properties. On January 21, 2023, the agent wrote an offer to purchase the property, which the seller accepted, and the agent received commission for the purchase.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public agent fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

The agent was reprimanded. The agent’s license was limited as follows:

Within 60 days, the agent must successfully complete one education course on the topic of ethics. The course must be pre-approved by the REEB. The agent shall be responsible for locating a satisfactory course and for obtaining the required REEB approval. The agent must take and pass any exam offered for the course and submit proof of successful completion to the REEB. The education completed pursuant to this Order may not be used to satisfy any continuing education requirements with the REEB.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 and costs in the amount of $747 for a total of $1,747.


November 13, 2023: From the DSPS: Drafting Lease Addendum Was Unauthorized Practice of Law

On May 4, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate salesperson (agent) acted inappropriately in drafting an addendum to a lease between the complaining party and the agent’s client. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

In 2012, the agent and their firm — a licensed real estate business entity acting as a property management firm — represented a client in the negotiation of a lease for a commercial property owned by the complaining party’s business in Hudson, Wisconsin.

The lease was signed on September 26, 2012. The lease form did not indicate who drafted the form.

On January 31, 2014, the agent drafted an amendment to the lease for the commercial property. On August 8, 2020, the DSPS contacted the agent and the firm to request a response to the complaint.

On August 24, 2020, their attorney stated that a real estate attorney had drafted the lease, and that in 2014, the agent had drafted the amendment. The attorney stated the amendment was a memorialization of changes to terms of the lease and was "a very simple one page worth of terms."

On December 5, 2022, the DSPS contacted the respondent’s attorney to ask if the amendment was made without the involvement of an attorney. On December 27, 2022, the attorney stated the agent drafted the amendment without the involvement of an attorney.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.06(1) by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by drafting the 2014 lease amendment.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay one half of the costs of this matter in the amount of $293, and the firm shall pay one-half of the costs of this matter in the amount of $293.


October 30, 2023: From the DSPS: Failure to Present Offer in a Timely Manner

On December 21, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate salesperson (agent) failed to present the buyer’s offer to purchase to the seller in a timely manner. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

The agent represented the seller in a real estate transaction. On December 10, 2020, the buyer submitted an offer for the listed property with a binding acceptance date of December 11, 2020. On December 11, the buyer contacted the agent to request an update about their offer. The agent stated their offer would be presented to the seller the following day. On December 12, the agent presented the offers in person to the seller client. The buyer again contacted the agent for an update. The agent informed the buyer that the seller had accepted another offer, however, the accepted offer ended with a mutual agreement to cancel, so the agent relisted the property.

On December 24, 2020, the buyer submitted a second offer for the property with a binding acceptance deadline of 7:00 p.m. the same day. The offer was purportedly emailed to the seller client at 7:21 p.m. This offer was rejected by the seller on December 26, 2020, in favor of another offer.

On January 20, 2021, the DSPS contacted the agent to request a response to the complaint. The agent provided some of the transaction documents for the property with the response. On January 27, the agent stated she emailed the buyer’s first offer to the seller soon after receiving it and presented the offer to the seller in person at the earliest opportunity, which was December 12, 2020. The agent provided an email to the seller client with the subject line indicating an offer to purchase was sent on December 11, 2020, but the attachment was not readable.

A DSPS review of the offers provided by the agent found the following issues:

  • On the buyer’s first offer dated December 10, 2020, the agent did not complete any of lines 587-589, which would have detailed the agent’s presentation of the offer to the seller, and the seller's response.
  • On an offer from Agent S. drafted on December 10, 2020, the agent only partially completed lines 587-589, indicating that the offer was presented to the seller; but this did not indicate a date, time or the seller's response.
  • On the buyer’s second offer dated December 24, 2020, the agent did not complete any of lines 587-589.
  • On an offer from Agent V drafted on December 24, 2020, the agent only completed line 589 indicating a counter-offer was made, but lines 587-588 were left blank.

On October 27, 2022, the DSPS asked the agent to provide all the emails between the agent and the seller, to be presented in a format where the DSPS could view the attachments included with the emails. Specifically, the DSPS asked the agent if she had any written documentation showing an agreement with the seller that offers should be presented at a later date in person, rather than promptly upon receipt. The agent replied that she no longer has access to the emails sent to the seller because the agent had purchased a new phone. The agent also stated that because the seller was visually impaired, the agent had to present everything in person, and that the agreement with the seller to present offers in person was never reduced to writing. The WB-1 Residential Listing Contract does not reference an agreement to present offers in person.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 15.04(1) by failing to retain for at least two years, exact and complete copies of all documents and correspondence utilized, received or prepared in connection with a transaction; Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda; Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(3)(c) by failing to promptly present to the client all written proposals received unless the presentation would be contrary to specific written instructions from the client; and Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The agent was reprimanded, and the agent’s license was limited as follows:

Within 60 days the agent shall successfully complete one course on the topic of real estate forms, and one course on the topic of real estate office management. Each course must be pre-approved by the REEB. The agent must take and pass any exam offered for the course(s). The agent must submit proof of successful completion of the ordered education in the form of verification from the institution providing the education. The education completed pursuant to this Order may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements with the REEB.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $809.


October 23, 2023: How to Explain Local MLS Broker Marketplaces to Clients

A professional real estate practitioner is wise to educate the consumers in their community about the workings and importance of the local MLS broker marketplace.

The local MLS, multiple listing service or local broker marketplace, whatever terminology is used, 
house data in one place for all the verified, up-to-date home listings in their area. Without NAR’s guidelines for the local MLS broker marketplaces, information on homes would be inaccurate, unreliable and scattered across real estate sites, disadvantaging buyers and sellers. Consumers can confidently rely on information because real estate agents share complete housing data backed by guidelines that ensure accuracy and transparency.

Local broker marketplaces or MLSs are important because they:

  • Give transparent, equitable and instant access to all home listings in an inclusive manner that is free from discrimination
  • Ensure the most accurate, up to date and verifiable source of active listings and past sales in a centralized location. Brokers submit daily new listings and update current listings
  • Maximize consumer choice, providing options for brokers to work with.
  • Enable sellers and buyers to have professional representation in the complex home sales process.
  • Allow different compensation models to thrive.
  • Foster competitive pricing and market competition for businesses of all sizes
  • Help home sellers earn more. For example, between 2019 and 2022, homes listed on local broker marketplaces sold for an average of 14.8% more than off-market properties.

For more resources and information about how local broker marketplaces support buyers and sellers everywhere, click here for infographics, fact sheets, FAQs, articles, infographics and other information. 

Read more online here


October 16, 2023: From the DSPS: Applicant with Recent Misdemeanor OWI Violations Receives Limited License 

On or about February 2, 2023, the applicant filed an application for a Wisconsin real estate salesperson license. 

Information received in the application process reflected that the applicant had convictions on or about December 7, 2011, for Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) 2nd, a misdemeanor conviction; and March 2, 2023, for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence 3rd (modifiers: General Alcohol Concentration Enhancer), a misdemeanor conviction. The applicant also had a conviction on August 24, 2022, for Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle, a misdemeanor conviction.

Information received in the application process also reflected the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependency. The applicant completed an outpatient program on April 4, 2023.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1), the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) may grant a license only to a person who is competent to transact business in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public, and only after satisfactory proof of the person's competence has been presented to the REEB. It is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to license any individual if they have been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense, the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the licensed activity. The applicant's conviction history calls into question their current competency to transact the business of real estate sales in a manner that protects the public. 

The facts and circumstances of the applicant's conviction record substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson as it is common practice for real estate salespersons to drive with clients in their vehicles while conducting their business. At this time, the applicant has failed to show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations on their license.

The applicant was granted a license to practice as a real estate salesperson subject to the following limitations for a period of at least two years:

  • The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker pre-approved by the REEB.
  • The applicant shall notify his broker-supervisor(s) of the history of arrests and convictions prior to association with the firm. The applicant shall provide a copy of this order to his current and any future supervising broker/firm. The applicant shall provide the DSPS with written acknowledgement from each firm that a copy of this order has been received within 14 days of beginning a new association with a firm and/or within 14 days of the date of this order for current firm association.
  • The applicant shall arrange for written reports from his pre-approved real estate broker to be provided on a quarterly basis. The reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the circumstances of his association with the firm, including the nature and extent of the applicant's sales activities and whether he has practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
  • The applicant shall maintain absolute sobriety.
  • The applicant shall not drive current or prospective real estate clients in any motor vehicle that requires a Department of Transportation-issued license.
  • The applicant must have and maintain a valid driver's license when driving for purposes of conducting real estate business.
  • The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of firm association status, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
  • The applicant shall commit no new violations of law and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations to the DSPS within 48 hours of any such event, including any convictions resulting from pending charges.

After two years of successful compliance with this order, the applicant may petition the REEB for a full, unrestricted license. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit.


October 9, 2023: From the DSPS: Agent Defrauds Buyer and Misrepresents Title to Property

The agent with an expired salesperson’s license failed to file an answer to the complaint filed by the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS), Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) and failed to appear for an April 3, 2023, pre-hearing conference. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the agent to be in default and issued a Notice of Default and order on April 4, 2023.

The DSPS received a complaint alleging the agent defrauded Buyer B in the purchase of a property. The DLSC subsequently opened a case for investigation.

On October 3, 2020, the agent submitted an offer to purchase the property on behalf of Real Property Enterprises for $30,000. The agent drafted the offer and signed it as the buyer. The offer was accepted contingent on probate proceedings and was slated to close on December 1, 2020. The transaction did not close. The agent’s former managing broker alleges the agent was a shareholder or owner of Real Property Enterprises. The agent’s LinkedIn profile indicates the agent was a real estate consultant for Real Property Enterprises. 

On October 12, 2020, the agent drafted an offer to purchase on the same property on behalf of Buyer B and submitted it to Real Property Enterprises, which was represented to Buyer B as the seller of the property. Real Property Enterprises "accepted" the offer on October 14, 2020, and closing was set for December 14, 2020. The purchase price was to be $70,000, and a deposit of $10,000 in the form of a cashier's check was collected and cashed on October 15, 2020. At closing, the agent collected a closing payment in the form of another cashier's check for $10,000 and signed a land contract with Buyer B. 

According to DSPS records, the agent’s real estate salesperson license expired on December 15, 2020, and has not been renewed. The agent’s former managing broker claims the agent’s affiliation with her brokerage was terminated as of December 16, 2020. She was unaware of the transaction between the agent and Buyer B, as the transaction was done outside the scope of the agent’s association with her firm. The transaction documents were never uploaded for review, nor were the two $10,000 payments deposited into the brokerage trust account. 

On January 27, 2021, the agent provided Buyer B with a Cancellation Agreement and Mutual Release and informed Buyer B the property was being taken off the market and that Buyer B’s $20,000 would be returned to him. Buyer B signed the document, but his money had not been refunded as of the filing of his complaint with the DSPS on June 8, 2021. 

A review of city of Milwaukee property records revealed that neither the agent, nor Real Property Enterprises, nor anyone else known to be affiliated with Real Property Enterprises, has ever owned the property.

Numerous attempts were made to contact the agent and elicit a response to the complaint but were largely unsuccessful. The agent did participate in a telephone pre-hearing conference and claimed not to have received the complaint or notice of hearing. The agent updated his mailing and email address. The ALJ ordered the agent to provide a written answer to the complaint by March 21, 2023, and adjourned the pre-conference hearing. The agent failed to file an answer to the complaint, ultimately leading to finding of default.

The ALJ observed that the allegations against the agent are serious as the agent engaged in behavior reflecting that the agent is incompetent, dishonest and incapable of protecting the public from harm. The agent used his position to put into action a scheme to defraud buyers by selling them property the agent knew the seller had no legal claim to, and refused to return their deposit money when he inevitably was unable to deliver on the sale. The agent has also ignored the legitimate authority of the DSPS. While the agent’s license is currently expired, the ALJ found it appropriate and necessary to impose discipline.

The ALJ concurred with the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) findings and conclusions of law that the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by engaging in the practice of real estate without a valid license, violated § 452.133(1)(a) by failing to provide brokerage services honestly, fairly and with reasonable skill and care, engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under § 452.14(3)(b) by making substantial misrepresentations as an agent in a transaction injurious to a party, engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under § 452.14(3)(h) by failing within a reasonable time to account for or remit money that was in his possession that belonged to another person, engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(i) by demonstrating incompetency to act as a salesperson in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public, violated § 452.30(7)(b) by engaging in independent real estate practice as a salesperson, violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices, violated § REEB 24.085 by drafting and using a document that he knew falsely portrayed an interest in real estate, and violated § REEB 24.17(5) by failing to respond to DSPS’ requests for information within 30 days.

Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the agent’s right to renew their real estate salesperson license to be revoked, effective on the date the final decision and order is signed by the REEB. The REEB signed the order on August 30, 2023.


October 3, 2023: From the DSPS: Applicant with Recent Misdemeanor Convictions Receives Limited License 

On or about January 5, 2023, the applicant filed an application for a Wisconsin Real Estate Salesperson License. 

Information received in the application process reflected that the applicant had convictions on or about April 8, 2021, March 16, 2022, and August 24, 2022, for Intentionally Abuse Hazardous Substance, a misdemeanor conviction. The applicant also had a conviction on August 24, 2022, for Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle, a misdemeanor conviction.

Information received in the application process also reflected that the applicant completed a comprehensive Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) assessment on or about June 19, 2023. The applicant was diagnosed with Inhalant Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission, and Alcohol Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission. The assessor recommended the applicant’s completion of the County Recovery Court program and continued involvement in the recovery community. The assessor opined that the applicant's prognosis appeared good due to a strong recovery foundation, with no further substance use or mental health treatment recommendations at that time.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1), the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) may grant a license only to a person who is competent to transact business in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public, and only after satisfactory proof of the person's competence has been presented to the REEB. It is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to license any individual if they have been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the licensed activity. The applicant's conviction history calls into question their current competency to transact the business of real estate sales in a manner that protects the public. The facts and circumstances of the applicant's conviction record substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson to the extent that they are indicative of substance use dependency and impairment, and it is common practice for real estate salespersons to drive with clients in their vehicles while conducting their business. Due to the recency of the applicant's substance-related convictions, the applicant has failed to show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations.

The applicant was granted a license to practice as a real estate salesperson subject to the following limitations for a period of at least two years:

  • The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker pre-approved by the REEB.
  • The applicant shall provide a copy of this order to his current and any future pre-approved supervising real estate broker. The applicant shall arrange for written reports from his pre-approved real estate broker to be provided on a quarterly basis. The reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the circumstances of his association with the firm, including the nature and extent of the applicant's sales activities and whether he has practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
  • The applicant shall abstain from all personal use of alcohol and any other substances. 
  • The applicant shall not drive current or prospective real estate clients in any motor vehicle that requires a Department of Transportation-issued license. 
  • The applicant must have and maintain a valid driver's license when driving for purposes of conducting real estate business. 
  • The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of firm association status, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change
  • The applicant shall commit no new violations of law and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations within 48 hours of any such event, including any convictions resulting from pending charges.

The applicant shall participate in and successfully complete the County Recovery Court program and the probation ordered by the circuit court. The applicant shall provide proof of participation on a quarterly basis. The applicant shall also provide proof of successful completion within 30 days of completion of the program and probation.

After two years of successful compliance with this order, the applicant may petition the REEB for a full, unrestricted license. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit.


September 25, 2023: From the DSPS: Practicing with Expired License, Company with No Entity License

On December 5, 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate broker had been leasing apartments with an expired broker's license. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

At all times relevant to this proceeding, the broker owned and operated a property management company, "the Company," located in Madison, Wisconsin. The Company did not have a real estate business entity license. According to the Company’s website, it is “a premier third-party property management company” that focuses on “student and multi-family/conventional apartments.”

On December 15, 2018, the broker’s real estate license expired. On March 28, 2022, the broker told the DSPS that he was the broker in charge of the Company from 2016-18, and that a different real estate broker, "Broker A," was designated as broker in charge in 2018. The broker also stated that he is the owner and president of the Company and is in charge of “operating and managing all aspects of his business.” According to DSPS records, Broker A was not licensed as a broker until December 2021.

On May 11, 2022, the DSPS contacted the broker and asked if the properties managed by the Company were owned by the Company or by others. The broker replied, “it varies.” On August 4, 2022, the broker’s license was renewed. On November 3, 2022, the Company was issued a real estate business entity license, with the broker designated as the broker in charge.

On March 7, 2023, the DSPS emailed the broker to clarify Broker A’s role at the Company. The next day, the broker replied that Broker A “was the licensee for the firm.” On March 9, 2023, the DSPS again emailed the broker and pointed out that Broker A did not have a broker's license until December 2021, and since the broker’s license expired in 2018, that meant the Company did not have a responsible broker for roughly three years. The DSPS asked the broker to explain his statement that Broker A was the broker in charge of the Company. On March 18, 2023, the broker replied, stating, “[Broker A] was a licensed broker during the time."

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by acting as a broker when his real estate broker's license was expired, violated § 452.136(2)(a) by practicing and advertising under a name other than that of a licensed broker or business entity, or a trade name previously filed by a firm with the DSPS, and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(3) by aiding and abetting the violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by allowing the Company to act as a broker business entity without a business entity license.

The broker was reprimanded.

The broker’s license is limited as follows:

  • Within 60 days, the broker shall successfully complete one education course on the topic of ethics offered by a provider pre-approved by the REEB, including taking and passing any exam offered for the course. 
  • The broker shall submit proof of successful completion of the ordered education in the form of verification from the institution providing the education to the REEB. The education completed pursuant to this requirement may not be used to satisfy any continuing education requirements that have been or may be instituted by the REEB or the DSPS.

Within 90 days, the broker shall also pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $1,756.


September 18, 2023: From the DSPS: Property Management Company Uses Unlicensed Person, Lease Not Signed

The broker is responsible for reviewing all property management agreements and leases prior to them being submitted to the other party for signature with regard to property management services conducted by the firm.

The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker and the broker’s firm provided deficient property management services. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

On June 2, 2020, the complaining rental property owner and the firm entered into a property management agreement in which the broker and the firm were to manage the owner’s rental property. The agreement was never signed by the broker and the firm, however, and the blank signature line on the document indicated that an unlicensed person (Property Manager H) was expected to sign it on the firm’s behalf.

On July 8, 2020, Property Manager H emailed a copy of the proposed lease to a prospective tenant for electronic signature. However, the tenant never returned a signed copy of the lease, and Property Manager H erroneously believed that the lease had been properly signed and executed. On July 17, 2020, the tenant moved into the rental property without a signed lease.

On October 2, 2020, the property owner was granted access to the firm’s online “owner's portal" and discovered the signed lease and addenda were not listed in the documents section of the site. On October 13, 2020, the property owner asked Property Manager H for a copy of the signed and completed lease, which Property Manager H stated was not available due to technical issues the tenant had with signing the lease. On October 26, 2020, the property owner contacted the broker to inquire as to why there was not a signed and completed lease for the property.

The tenant and the firm did not execute a lease until November 11, 2020, nearly five months after the tenant had moved into the property and over two weeks after the broker was informed of the issue. The lease was signed by the tenant, and Property Manager H signed for the broker and firm as the “Owner/Agent for Owner.”

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and the firm violated Wis. Admin. Code REEB § 24.17(3) by authorizing an unlicensed individual to sign both a lease and a property management agreement on their behalf, therefore aiding and abetting the unlicensed real estate practice, and violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The broker and the firm were reprimanded. The broker must pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000.00 and the broker’s license is limited as follows:

  1. For a period of one year, the broker shall engage the services of a Wisconsin licensed real estate broker, to be approved by the REEB, to review each completed property management agreement or lease that the broker and the firm execute to ensure that the documents are properly completed.
  2. The licensed real estate broker engaged by the broker shall provide quarterly written reports to the REEB assessing the quality of the broker’s and the firm’s documents.
  3. Within 90 days, the broker shall successfully complete one course on the topic of property management, and one course on the topic of contracts, offered by a provider pre-approved by the REEB, including taking and passing any exam offered for the courses.
  4. The broker shall submit proof of successful completion of the education in the form of verification from the institution providing the education to the REEB. None of the education completed pursuant to this requirement may be used to satisfy any continuing education requirements that have been or may be instituted by the REEB or DSPS and also may not be used in future attempts to upgrade a credential in Wisconsin.

Within 90 days, the broker shall also pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $1,993.


September 11, 2023: From the DSPS: Solicitation to Purchase Property

The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker and the broker's firm used misleading tactics to solicit the purchase of the complainant's property. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

On or about June 14, 2022, the complainant property owner received a letter in the mail from the broker and the firm. The letter stated: "My name is ABC. I am a real estate investor and real estate broker in your area. THIS CHECK reflects a legitimate cash offer for your property at XYZ. I can close in 30 days or less and will purchase your property 'as-is' with no required repairs." The letter included an image of a signed check made out to the complainant property owner in the amount of $32,421.60. The "check" purported to be from "EFG Real Estate Team" and to contain watermarks and a check number. The letter contained additional text stating, "We are ready to turn this into a LIVE CHECK for your property at XYZ."

After reviewing the broker's letter, the complainant property owner contacted the broker to accept the offer. The broker told the complainant property owner that he would first need to see the property. The complainant property owner refused to allow the broker to see the property and wished to move forward with the sale.

On August 2, 2022, the DSPS contacted the broker and the firm to request a response to the complaint. On August 24, 2022, their attorney stated that their letter was not an actual offer to purchase the complainant's property. The attorney denied that the broker and firm were acting as licensees and stated that no reasonable person would be misled by the letter. The attorney noted that the property in question was assessed at $21,900.

On February 24, 2023, the DSPS contacted the attorney to ask if the letter was sent to numerous individuals, or just to the complainant. On March 10, 2023, the attorney stated that the broker and firm sent the same type of document to other individuals, but this was the only time they solicited the purchase of a property with a letter containing a depiction of a check.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and the firm violated Wis. Stat. § § 452.136(I) by advertising in a manner that is false, deceptive or misleading.

The broker and the firm were reprimanded as follows:

  • Within 90 days, the broker shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000, and one-half of the costs of the matter in the amount of $258, for a total of $1,258.
  • Within 90 days, the firm shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000, and one-half of the costs of the matter in the amount of $258, for a total of $1,258.

September 5, 2023: Failure to Submit Offer to Firm and Give Agency Disclosures

An agent represented a potential buyer of a commercial property, submitting an offer to purchase on March 19, 2019. The offer provided, in lines 1-3, that the agent was the agent of the buyer. The offer was not accepted.

The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint regarding the agent’s involvement in that offer. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

On July 29, 2020, the DSPS contacted the agent's firm to request a response to the complaint. On the same day, the firm replied, stating that while the agent had provided the firm with documents for other transactions, they had no knowledge of the agent’s involvement in the attempt to purchase the commercial property. The firm was never provided a copy of that offer. The firm indicated it would be terminating the agent's association with the firm as of August 31, 2020, to allow the agent time to complete outstanding transactions.

On August 3, 2019, the agent submitted an offer to purchase a different property on behalf of the buyer. While the March 19, 2019, offer clearly identified the agent as the agent who completed the document and stated the agent's affiliation with the firm, this information was omitted on the August 3, 2019, offer.

On January 18, 2023, the DSPS contacted the agent's attorney to inquire further into the details of the complaint, including confirmation as to whether the agent’s supervising broker was aware of the transaction in question, and whether the agent had a written agency agreement with the buyer.

On March 12, 2023, the agent confirmed he did not submit a copy of the March 19, 2019, offer to the firm at any time between March 19, 2019, and the termination of his association with the firm in August 2020. The agent also acknowledged they did not have a written buyer agency agreement.

On March 13, 2023, the DSPS inquired whether the agent provided the Disclosure to Customers language mandated in Wis. Stat. § 452.135(1)(a) to the buyer. On April 19, 2023, the agent admitted they did not provide this disclosure.

In addition to practicing as a real estate salesperson, the agent is the owner and operator of the XYZ Investment Group, a real estate investment firm. A review of the investment group website found the site does not disclose the agent is a licensed real estate salesperson.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.30(7)(b) by engaging in independent real estate practice as a real estate salesperson. The agent also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.132(6)(b) by failing to submit the March 19, 2019, offer to the agent’s firm in a timely manner, and violated Wis. Stat. § 452.135(1)(a) by negotiating on behalf of a party who is not the firm's client without providing the required written disclosure statement to the party. The REEB also found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.136(2)(c) by failing to clearly identify they were a real estate licensee in an advertisement for the sale of real estate and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to reduce a buyer's agency agreement in writing.

The agent voluntarily surrendered their real estate salesperson’s license.

In the event the agent petitions the REEB for reinstatement as a real estate salesperson or applies for another credential in the state of Wisconsin under Wis. Stat. chs. 440-480, the agent shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $2,021, before any petition or application for a credential will be considered by the applicable board or department. In the event the agent petitions the REEB for reinstatement, the REEB may enter an order denying such application without further notice or hearing. Whether to grant a license and whether to impose any limitations or restrictions on any license granted shall lie in the sole discretion of the REEB, and such decision is not reviewable.


August 28, 2023: Commission, Licensing, Advertising and Records Violations

On November 12, 2020, the broker filed a complaint alleging their former firm was improperly withholding commissions on certain files. Based on the response of the former firm, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) commenced an investigation into whether the broker had permission to practice independently while associated by the firm with respect to properties in which the broker had an ownership interest. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

In the November 12, 2020, complaint, the broker stated that while associated with the former firm, the broker also conducted real estate transactions under the broker’s own firm, ABC Realty, without paying commissions to the former firm. The broker further stated the broker was permitted to do so based on a verbal agreement with the firm's acting broker.

ABC Realty did not possess a business entity real estate license with the DSPS while the broker was affiliated with the former firm. The broker contends it is common practice for real estate agents to use a trade name such as ABC Realty for marketing and advertising purposes. However, the broker had also not registered ABC Really as a trade name with the DSPS.

On October 20, 2020, the broker’s former firm claimed to have terminated the broker. The broker’s former firm discovered alleged issues with three specific transactions: the XYZ transaction, the DEF transaction and the HIJ transaction.

A DSPS review of the XYZ transaction revealed the listing contract that was completed and signed by the broker lists the firm as the broker’s former firm. The listing was entered into the MLS on April 1, 2019, and shows an expiration date of September 30, 2019. A signed vacant land offer to purchase WB-13 form dated August 15, 2019, shows a closing date of September 18, 2019. The broker completed the former firm' s “Offer Information Sheet,” however, the former firm alleges none of the paperwork was submitted for review by the broker’s managing broker. The broker contends the paperwork was uploaded into the firm's system, which is Dotloop, and available for review by the firm, consistent with past practice. The WB-13 drafted by the broker stated the earnest money was to be held by the listing broker. However, the buyer's earnest money check was made payable to the title company. The broker’s former firm alleges it was not aware the transaction had closed. The broker believes his former firm was aware the transaction had closed. A statement received from the title company shows that the only party that received commission from this transaction was ABC Realty. The broker agrees the former firm was entitled to a commission on this transaction but contends the fact it did not receive a commission was the result of error and not any intentional or fraudulent conduct on the broker’s part.

A DSPS review of the DEF transaction revealed the offer was drafted by the broker who indicated he was the agent of the buyer and seller. The broker also listed his firm as ABC Realty. The broker’s former firm alleged the broker did not submit the transaction documents for review by his managing broker. The broker contends the transaction documents were uploaded into the firm's system, which is Dotloop, and available for review by the firm, consistent with past practice. A Disclosure to Customers form, presumably drafted by the broker, was signed by the buyers. The title company confirmed that ABC Realty had been given the commission for this transaction on October 19, 2017. The broker agrees his former firm was entitled to a commission on this transaction but contends the fact it did not receive a commission was the result of error and not any intentional or fraudulent conduct on his part.

A DSPS review of the HIJ transaction revealed the broker represented himself in some of the transaction documents as an agent of the former firm, and other documents as an agent of ABC Realty. The listing contract showed that the property was listed by the broker through ABC Realty. In contrast, the MLS data sheet for this property showed it was being listed by the broker through the former firm. The listing commission was paid directly to the broker, and the broker’s former firm did not receive a commission.

On August 17, 2022, the broker stated he did not have copies of the above transaction files, as they were maintained by the former firm, and that ABC Realty had a real estate business entity license. On August 23, 2022, the DSPS advised the broker that the license he referenced was non-existent. The broker stated he would obtain a real estate business entity license for ABC Realty, which the broker subsequently did. On August 24, 2022, the broker applied for a real estate business entity license for ABC Realty. On November 15, 2022, the DSPS reviewed ABC Realty's website. The website displays a logo at the top of the page for “ABC Realty," and advertises homes for sale. On the “about" webpage, the broker’s name is the only name listed.

On November 15, 2022, the DSPS reviewed ABC Realty's Facebook page. Under "intro," it states, "ABC Realty Full Concierge Firm. Specializing in real estate investments. Handling all your real e." (sic) On February 2, 2023, ABC Realty LLC was issued a real estate business entity license. The broker contends that he tried to obtain a real estate business entity license when the broker left the former firm but submitted the wrong form by mistake and believed the license had been issued.

The broker’s actions implicate Wis. Stat. § 452.133(3)(a) given the allegation the broker accepted a fee or compensation related to a transaction from someone other than the broker’s client or firm, without prior written consent from all parties to the transaction. The broker’s actions also implicate Wis. Stat. § 452.132(6)(b) and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 15.04(2) given the allegation that the broker failed to submit to the broker's firm in a timely manner all documents related to a transaction, and Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1) given the allegation that the broker advertised in a manner that was false, deceptive or misleading. The broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.136(2)(a) by failing to advertise in the name of the licensed individual broker or licensed broker business entity, or to disclose a trade name previously filed by the firm with the DSPS. The broker's actions may implicate Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(a) given the allegation that the broker made a material misstatement in information furnished to the DSPS and Wis. Stat. § 452.19(2) given the allegation that the broker failed to pay all commissions to the broker's firm.

The broker’s license was suspended for five calendar days. The broker’s license was also limited as follows:

  • The broker shall at all times practice as a real estate broker under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker approved by the REEB.
  • The broker shall arrange for written reports from the supervising broker to be provided to the DSPS monitor on a quarterly basis, beginning 90 days from the lifting of the license suspension. The reports shall provide an assessment of the broker’s work during the previous quarter and compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate, including the Code of Ethics.
  • If the broker seeks to become associated with an individual broker or firm, the broker shall provide a copy of this order to the firm prior to association. The broker shall provide the DSPS monitor with written acknowledgement from each firm, if any, that a copy of this order has been received. Such acknowledgement shall be provided to the DSPS monitor within 14 days of beginning new firm associations.
  • The broker is responsible for compliance with all of the terms and conditions of this order, including the timely submission of reports by others. The broker shall promptly notify the DSPS monitor of any suspected violations of any of the terms and conditions of this order.
  • The broker may petition the REEB for modification or termination of these limitations after completion of one continuous year of practice in compliance with all terms and conditions of this order. The broker’s petition must include his history of practice and association with firms from the effective date of this order that states the dates and names of any firm, such practice in total equaling one year of practice. Any such petition shall be accompanied by a written recommendation from the broker’s supervising broker that includes, among other things, the dates of association and scope of responsibility during such firm association.
  • The REEB, in its discretion, may grant or deny any petition or may modify this order as it sees fit. Denial of a petition in whole or in part shall not be considered a denial of a license within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01 (3)(a), and the broker shall not have a right to any further hearings or proceedings on the denial, except that the broker may file subsequent petitions for termination or modification with the REEB in the event that a petition is denied in whole or in part.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000, and the costs in the amount of $2,449, for a total of $3,449.


August 14, 2023: Professional Licensees Focus on the Needs of the Client

The road to real estate success is paved with strong connections, integrity and a genuine focus on client needs.

  1. Focus on prospective clients and customers and not yourself when building connections with people. Build human bridges by asking questions to discover what is shared in common with a potential party. Commonality leads to connection, which is the foundation for building trust and future relationships and referrals.
  2. Always tell the truth, no matter how painful the truth may be. There will be times for all licensees when they may not want to disclose what is wrong with the house, where a client asks a licensee to compromise their integrity, or when the licensee is tempted to stay quiet when they really need to speak up about an issue. It is better to be transparent and confront problems head-on. This will earn respect from those who have shared morals and standards.
  3. Show up and be present. Focus and pay close attention during client and customer interactions. Put the phone aside and devote 100% to the party.
  4. Whether a client has a $50,000 condominium or a $50 million estate, they each deserve the highest, most competent and professional services the licensee can provide.
  5. Keep your opinions to yourself. Instead, ask questions and take notes on what clients and customers say. They may have personal reasons they like or do not like a house, and it is the real estate professional’s job to honor the clients’ and customers’ wishes and to not impose the professional’s personal taste or opinions. The goal is to provide your clients with the best possible information so they can make the best possible decision.

See more in the Inman Select story, "12 rules of the road for new (and experienced) agents" online here.


August 7, 2023: From the DSPS: Licensee Operating ATV/UTV While Intoxicated

On December 13, 2022, a licensee applied to renew their credential as a real estate salesperson. The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) found information on file that the licensee had the following convictions on her record:

  • On or about January 25, 2023: Operating ATV/UTV While Intoxicated, an ordinance violation.
  • On or about January 25, 2023: Operating While Intoxicated (OWL 1st), an ordinance violation.
  • The licensee was ordered to complete an Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) assessment.
  • On or about November 16, 2022, the assessment found Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 440.08(4)(a), the Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) may deny an application for renewal if the DSPS determines the application denial for renewal of a credential is necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Under Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(p), the REEB may limit the license of any licensee if it finds the licensee has been convicted of an offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to real estate practice. Per Wis. Stat. § 111.335(3)(a)1., it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to license any individual if the individual has been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular licensed activity. A substantial relationship occurs where “the tendencies and inclinations to behave a certain way in a particular context are likely to reappear later in a related context, based on the traits revealed.”

The facts and circumstances of the licensee’s conviction record substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson. It is common practice for real estate salespersons to drive with clients in their vehicles while conducting their business.

The licensee’s AODA assessment finding of Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe and conviction history call into question her fitness to practice real estate sales in a manner that is required to protect the public health, safety or welfare. At this time, due to the recency of the licensee’s AODA assessment finding and alcohol-related convictions, the licensee failed to show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found that limitations on the licensee’s real estate salesperson credential are necessary to ensure that the licensee is competent to practice as a real estate salesperson.

The licensee’s real estate salesperson’s license is limited for two years as follows:

  1. The licensee shall enroll within 30 days in a drug and alcohol monitoring program that is approved by the DSPS (approved program).
  2. Failure to comply with any approved program rules or requirements is a substantial violation of this order. The requirements shall include:
    1. Contact with the approved program as directed on a daily basis, including vacations, weekends and holidays.
    2. Production of urine, blood, sweat, fingernail, hair, saliva or other specimen at a collection site designated by the approved program within five hours of notification of a test.
    3. The approved program shall require the testing of specimens at a frequency of not less than 28 times per year — one of which may be a hair test at the REEB’s discretion — for at least the first year. Thereafter, the REEB may adjust the frequency of testing on its own initiative at any time.
  3. The licensee shall abstain from all personal use of alcohol and of controlled substances as defined in Wis. Stat. § 961.01(4), except when prescribed, dispensed or administered by a practitioner for a legitimate medical condition. The licensee shall disclose their drug and alcohol history and the existence and nature of this order to the practitioner prior to the practitioner ordering the controlled substance and immediately sign a release authorizing the practitioner to discuss the licensee’s treatment with, and provide copies of treatment records to, the REEB. Copies of these releases shall immediately be filed with the DSPS monitor.
  4. The licensee shall report to the monitor all prescription medications and drugs taken by the licensee. Reports must be received within 24 hours of ingestion or administration of the medication or drug, and shall identify the person or persons who prescribed, dispensed, administered or ordered said medications or drugs. Each time the prescription is filled or refilled, the licensee shall immediately arrange for the prescriber or pharmacy to fax and mail copies of all prescriptions to the monitor.
  5. The licensee shall provide the monitor with a list of over-the-counter medications and drugs the licensee may take from time-to-time. Over-the-counter medications and drugs that mask the consumption of controlled substances or of alcohol, create false positive screening results, or interfere with the licensee’s treatment and rehabilitation, shall not be taken unless ordered by a physician, in which case the drug must be reported to the monitor.
  6. All positive test results are presumed valid and may result in automatic suspension of licensure by the REEB. The licensee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence an error in collection, testing, fault in the chain of custody or other valid defense.
  7. If any urine, blood, sweat, fingernail, hair, saliva or other specimen is positive or suspected positive for any controlled substances or alcohol, the licensee shall promptly submit to additional tests or examinations as the REEB shall determine to be appropriate to clarify or confirm the positive or suspected positive test results.
  8. The licensee shall attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, Narcotics Anonymous meetings, or other REEB-approved equivalent program for recovering professionals, no less than once per week. The licensee shall provide proof of attendance on a quarterly basis to the monitor.
  9. The licensee shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker approved by the REEB. Approval shall be obtained through correspondence with the monitor.
  10. The licensee shall provide a copy of the REEB order to their current and any future pre-approved supervising real estate broker with written acknowledgement from each firm that a copy of the order was received. Such acknowledgement shall be provided to the monitor within 14 days of beginning a new association with a firm and/or within 14 days of the date of this order for the current firm.
  11. The licensee shall arrange for written reports from their firm supervisor to be provided to the monitor on a quarterly basis. These reports shall assess the licensee’s work performance and describe the circumstances of their practice, including the nature and extent of their real estate salesperson activities and whether they have practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
  12. The licensee shall not drive current or prospective real estate clients in any motor vehicle that requires a Department of Transportation-issued license.
  13. The licensee must have and maintain a valid driver's license when driving for purposes of conducting real estate business.
  14. The licensee shall report to the REEB any change of affiliation with a firm, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
  15. The licensee shall commit no violations of law pertaining to the practice of a Wisconsin-licensed profession and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations, to the monitor within 48 hours of any such event, including any convictions resulting from pending charges.
  16. The licensee may petition the REEB on an annual basis for modification of any of these limitations after completion of one year of practice in compliance with all terms and conditions. After two consecutive years of successful compliance with this order, the licensee may petition the REEB for a full, unrestricted license.
  17. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit. Denial of a petition in whole or in part shall not be considered a denial of a license within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01 (3)(a), and the licensee shall not have a right to any further hearings or proceedings on the denial.
  18. In the event the licensee violates any term of this order, their license or their right to renew this license may be suspended at the discretion of the REEB without further notice or hearing. The REEB may terminate the suspension if provided with sufficient information that the licensee is in compliance with the order and that it is appropriate for the suspension to be terminated. Whether to terminate the suspension shall be wholly at the discretion of the REEB.
  19. The licensee shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred in conjunction with the monitoring, supervision and any other expenses associated with compliance with the terms of this order. Being dropped from a program for non-payment is a violation of this order.

August 1, 2023: From the DSPS: Theft of Weightlifting Equipment

On March 7, 2023, a person applied for a credential as a real estate salesperson. The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) found information on file that the applicant was convicted on April 27, 2023, of the theft of moveable property valued less than or equal to $2,500, which is a misdemeanor conviction in Wisconsin. The applicant removed weightlifting equipment from a gym without permission.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1), the Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) may grant a license only to a person who is competent to transact that business or occupation in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public, and only after satisfactory proof of the person’s competence has been presented to the REEB. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 111.335(3)(a)l„ it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to license any individual if the individual has been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor, or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular licensed activity. A substantial relationship occurs where “the tendencies and inclinations to behave a certain way in a particular context are likely to reappear later in a related context, based on the traits revealed.”

The facts and circumstances of the applicant’s conviction record substantially relate to the practice of a real estate salesperson. The practice of real estate sales involves unsupervised access to private residences and property and presents the opportunity for theft. The applicant's theft conviction calls into question their competency to practice real estate in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public. The REEB found, due to the recency of the conviction, that the applicant failed to show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to practice as a real estate salesperson without limitations.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found that limitations on the applicant's real estate salesperson credential are necessary to ensure that the applicant is competent to practice as a real estate salesperson.

The applicant’s application was granted provided that the real estate salesperson’s license is limited for one year as follows:

  1. The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin licensed real estate broker pre-approved by the REEB. Pre-approval of any future real estate broker-supervisor shall be obtained through correspondence with the Department Monitor.
  2. The applicant shall provide a copy of the REEB Order to their current and any future pre-approved supervising real estate broker. The applicant shall arrange for written reports from their real estate broker to be provided to the Department Monitor on a quarterly basis. These reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the circumstances of their practice, including the nature and extent of their real estate salesperson activities and whether they have practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
  3. The applicant shall not be permitted unsupervised access to real property.
  4. The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of affiliation with a firm, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
  5. The applicant shall commit no violations of law pertaining to the practice of a Wisconsin licensed profession.
  6. The agent may petition the REEB for modification or termination of any of these limitations after completion of one year of practice in compliance with all terms and conditions.
  7. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this Order as it sees fit. Denial of a petition in whole or in part shall not be considered a denial of a license within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01 (3)(a), and the agent shall not have a right to any further hearings or proceedings on the denial.
  8. In the event the applicant violates any term of this Order, their license, or their right to renew this license, may, at the discretion of the REEB, be suspended, without further notice or hearing. The REEB may terminate the suspension if provided with sufficient information that the applicant is in compliance with the Order and that it is appropriate for the suspension to be terminated. Whether to terminate the suspension shall be wholly at the discretion of the REEB.

July 24, 2023: From the DSPS: Failure to Provide Proper Report of Conviction

On June 2, 2021, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a report of conviction form that stated an agent with a salesperson's license had six convictions from 2019 and 2020. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

According to DSPS records, the agent applied to renew their license for the 2020-22 biennium on October 28, 2020. In the application, the agent was asked about pending charges or convictions. The agent answered "no" to the following question:

Since your last renewal or initial licensure (if this is your first renewal), do you have any pending charges, prior convictions and/or have you violated any federal or state laws, or any local ordinances (ordinance violations do not include minor traffic violations that do not involve alcohol or drugs, such as speeding, running stoplights, and seat belt violations)?

On December 3, 2020, the agent was convicted of the following:

  • Possess/illegally obtain prescription, a misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a non-criminal ordinance violation, from an incident on October 24, 2019.
  • OWI (first), an ordinance violation, from an incident on January 11, 2020.
  • Bail jumping, a misdemeanor, from an incident on June 7, 2020.
  • OWI (third), a misdemeanor, from an incident on June 7, 2020.

For the above convictions, the agent was placed on probation for two years. Additionally, in the OWI (third) case, the agent was sentenced to 80 days in jail and was ordered to complete an AODA assessment, maintain absolute sobriety, and pay a fine and court costs. The agent's driver's license was also revoked for 24 months, and the agent was required to have an ignition interlock installed for 27 months. On January 14, 2022, the DSPS received a complaint that alleged the agent had multiple OWI convictions and had been driving clients around even though the agent did not have a valid driver's license. The complainant stated, "His clients should fear for their lives when riding with him." On February 2, 2022, the agent, through the agent's attorney, responded to the complaint acknowledging the convictions and stating the agent had been granted an occupational driver's license and had followed the restrictions of that license. The agent also stated they had completed an AODA assessment and all recommended counseling and had been sober for "the better part of a year." On December 1, 2022, the agent applied to renew his license for the 2022-24 biennium and again responded they had no pending charges or convictions.

On December 19, 2022, the agent's attorney told the DSPS that the report of conviction form that was submitted to the DSPS was not prepared by the agent. The agent suspected a former personal assistant had completed and submitted the form. The agent asserted the agent attempted to timely report their convictions and had completed a different form and had given it to the former personal assistant to send to the DSPS, but the assistant had apparently not done so.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent was subject to discipline pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(a) by making a material misstatement in the application for a license. The REEB found the agent violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(1) by violating a law, the circumstances of which substantially related to the practices of a real estate licensee, and failing to report convictions within 48 hours after the judgments of conviction.

The REEB suspended the license of the agent for 10 business days.

The agent's license was limited as follows:

  1. The agent shall not drive current or prospective real estate clients in any motor vehicle that requires a Department of Transportation-issued license.
  2. While conducting real estate business, the agent shall abstain from all use of alcohol and illicit substances.
  3. The agent shall commit no new violations of law and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations, to the DSPS monitor within 48 hours of any such event, including any conviction resulting from a pending charge.
  4. The agent shall provide a copy of this order to all current and future broker firms the agent is associated with.
  5. The agent may petition the REEB for modification or termination of any of these limitations after completion of two years of practice in compliance with all terms and conditions of this order. The agent's petition must include their history of firm associations from the effective date of this order that states the dates and names of any firm, over two years of practice. Any such petition shall be accompanied by a written recommendation from the agent's current firm that includes, among other things, the dates of the agent's association with the firm and scope of responsibility during such association.
  6. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit. Denial of a petition in whole or in part shall not be considered a denial of a license within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01 (3)(a), and the agent shall not have a right to any further hearings or proceedings on the denial.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $500 for the costs in this matter in the amount of $1,346, for a total of $1,846


The Professional Pointers series offers you a boost of professionalism. The pointers explore topics like the ethical duties to cooperate, confidentiality, managing expectations and more.

July 17: From the DSPS: Agent Reported OWI Conviction

On October l4, 2021, the agent with a salesperson's license reported a conviction to the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS). The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) subsequently opened a case for investigation.

On February 2, 2020, the agent was pulled over for speeding and was found to be intoxicated. The arresting officer administered a breathalyzer test, and the agent had a BAC of 0.16. The agent was arrested for operating while under the influence.

On October 14, 2021, the agent was convicted of operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (3rd). The terms of the agent's sentence included a fine of $1,744, 45 days in county jail, driver's license revocation for 24 months, required use of an Ignition Interlock Device for 24 months, completion of an alcohol assessment, and driver's safety plan and participation in the OWI court program.

The REEB reprimanded the agent. The agent's license is limited as follows:

  1. The agent shall not drive a current or prospective client in any motor vehicle that requires a Department of Transportation-issued license for the purposes of his profession.
  2. While conducting real estate business, the agent shall abstain from all use of alcohol and illicit substances.
  3. The agent shall commit no new violations of law and shall report all law enforcement contacts leading to arrest, charge or conviction, including DWI/OWI and municipal/ordinance violations, to the department monitor within 48 hours of any such event, including any conviction resulting from a pending charge.
  4. The agent shall comply with all terms of his sentencing from the reported conviction.
  5. The agent shall provide a copy of this order to all current and future broker firms with which the agent is associated.
  6. The agent may petition the REEB for modification or termination of these limitations after completion of two years of practice in compliance with all terms and conditions of this order. The agent's petition must include his history of firm associations from the effective date of this order that states the dates and names of any firm, over two years of practice. Any such petition shall be accompanied by a written recommendation from the agent's current firm that includes, among other things, the dates of the agent's association with the firm and scope of responsibility during such association.
  7. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion, or may modify this order as it sees fit. Denial of a petition in whole or in part shall not be considered a denial of a license within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01 (3)(a), and the respondent shall not have a right to any further hearings or proceedings on the denial.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $642.


July 10: From the DSPS: Breach of Confidentiality

The agent's license expired December 15, 2022, and the agent retained the right to renew their real estate salesperson license until December 14, 2027.

On March 21, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a homeowner alleging the agent had acted improperly in a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the agent.

In March 2020, the homeowner was seeking to sell his home and was not represented by a real estate firm. On March 8, 2020, the agent contacted the homeowner to inquire about the home. According to the homeowner, the agent stated they worked for ABC Real Estate (ABC) and was a buyer's agent. On March 11, the agent showed the home to their clients, S.C. and B.C.

On March 13, 2020, the agent submitted an offer to purchase the home on behalf of S.C. and B.C. The offer provided the agent would receive a commission paid by the seller. The offer did not indicate who had drafted the form and did not have a firm name listed on the form. On March 20, 2020, the homeowner raised some concerns with the agent about the offer not being filled out correctly, including not having a firm or licensee listed, and about who she worked for, as DSPS records showed the agent was not associated with a firm.

The homeowner later provided the DSPS with copies of text messages between himself and the agent. In the text messages, the homeowner informed the agent that when he looked the agent up online, it showed no real estate firm association for the agent's license. He asked the agent to explain why the agent said she worked for ABC. The homeowner also stated that "it sounds like [the buyers] are under contract with [real estate broker] C.O.," who worked at a different firm. The agent replied that the agent had been working under real estate broker C.O. at the other firm "for a couple years," and had recently made the switch to ABC. The agent stated that S.C. and B.C. had "strictly worked with the agent as their agent." The agent also stated they could have S.C. and B.C. "sign a new agency agreement" with the agent and have the broker for ABC draft an offer until the agent is officially associated with ABC in the DSPS records.

On June 15, 2020, in response to this complaint, the agent told the DSPS the agent was switching real estate firms at the time. The agent stated that the agent that she worked for had been working with S.C. and B.C., and they wanted to see the home and write an offer with the agent's guidance. On July 26, the agent told the DSPS the offer was for friends of the agent and the agent "was not drafting or representing." The agent stated they were "just guiding on the process" and knew they would be associated with a firm by the time the transaction closed.

On July 28, 2021, the DSPS spoke to J.F., a real estate licensee who represented the buyers of S.C. and B.C.'s home in Pardeeville. J.F. stated that she had a buyer's agency agreement with the buyers. J.F. stated the agent presented the buyers directly with an unsigned WB-11 offer. This offer had "XYZ -ABC" listed at the top of the page and was dated April 18, 2020. J.F. contacted the agent to inform her that she had a buyer agency agreement with the buyers of the Pardeeville home and asked the agent for a copy of the signed WB-11 offer. On April 18, the agent provided J.F. with a signed WB-11 offer for the Pardeeville home. On this document, "XYZ - ABC" was no longer listed at the top of the page. Also, the offer indicated that the seller was to pay a 4% transaction fee to EFG, LLC. According to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions website, the agent is the registered agent for EFG, LLC, which is not licensed as a real estate business entity.

In the agent's July 26, 2021, email to the DSPS, the agent also stated she did not have a listing contract with S.C. and B.C. for the sale of their Pardeeville home. The closing statement for the Pardeeville home states that ABC was the listing broker.

A review of the DSPS records revealed the following:

  • a. From April 17, 2018, to March 22, 2020, the agent's license was not registered with any firm or company.
  • b. From March 23, 2020, to December 31, 2020, the agent's license was registered with ABC Brokers LLC.
  • c. From December 31, 2020, to the present, the agent's license has not been registered with any firm or company.
  • d. The agent's license was never registered with real estate broker C.O.

The REEB found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.30(7) and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 17.03(4) by engaging in real estate practice as a salesperson when not associated with a firm. The agent also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(5) by attempting to negotiate the sale of real estate directly with a party with the knowledge that another licensee had a buyers agency agreement with that party, and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices.

The agent voluntarily surrendered the agent's real estate salesperson's license to the REEB.

In the event the agent petitions the REEB for reinstatement as a real estate salesperson or applies for another credential in the state of Wisconsin under Wis. Stat. chs. 440 through 480, the agent shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $1,554, before any petition or application for a credential will be considered by the applicable board or department. If the agent petitions the REEB for reinstatement as a real estate salesperson, the REEB may enter an order denying such application without further notice or hearing. Whether to grant a license and whether to impose any limitations or restrictions on any license granted shall be in the sole discretion of the REEB and such decision is not reviewable.


June 26: From the DSPS: Breach of Confidentiality

On February 1, 2022, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a real estate licensee (Licensee) alleging the real estate salesperson (Salesperson) had made false accusations about him and shared a text message he had sent to the Salesperson with a third party.

The Salesperson was representing a buyer interested in a property listed by the Licensee. The Salesperson attempted to contact the Licensee by phone to make an offer but was unable to speak with him. The Salesperson and the Licensee exchanged text messages where the Licensee notified the Salesperson that the first offer fell through, however, there were multiple other offers on the property and the second offer was accepted.

The Salesperson became upset that the Licensee did not notify him after the first offer failed and stated, "if you want to be a good agent, you should answer your phone more than 1/100 times someone calls."

The Salesperson also informed the Licensee what his client was willing to offer for the property.

The Salesperson then shared a screenshot of this text exchange with an unknown third party and told them to show it to the seller of the property, adding that the Licensee, who was the seller's agent, was "a joke."

The REEB found the Salesperson violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(d) by failing to keep confidential any information given to him in confidence, or any information obtained by him that he knows a reasonable person would want to be kept confidential. The Salesperson also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(a) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

The REEB reprimanded the Salesperson. The Salesperson's license was limited as follows: Within 90 days, the Salesperson must successfully complete one education course on the topic of ethics or professionalism from a provider pre-approved by the REEB or its designee, including taking and passing any exam offered for the course. The Salesperson shall submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the Salesperson shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $638.


June 19: From the DSPS: Competence for Credential

On or about November 7, 2022, an applicant filed an application for a real estate salesperson credential. In the application, the applicant disclosed prior professional discipline. On August 18, 2022, the applicant's Wisconsin Childcare Center license issued by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families was revoked for numerous violations of Wisconsin statutes and regulations including: (a) exceeding childcare center capacity by nearly double the amount of children the applicant was permitted to have in their care, and (b) failing to maintain or have childcare center records available, including those pertaining to attendance, staffing, procedures and emergencies.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1), the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) may grant a license only to a person who is competent to transact that business or occupation in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public, and only after satisfactory proof of the person's competence has been presented to the REEB. The practice of real estate involves abiding by Wisconsin statutes and regulations governing the practice of real estate. The practice of real estate sales involves maintaining and having available records related to the practice. An applicant's prior professional discipline and failure to practice in accordance with law raises concerns about their competency to practice real estate.

The applicant, because of their prior conduct, is subject to limitations against their new real estate sales credential, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1).

The applicant's real estate salesperson is license was granted subject to the following limitations:

  • For period of one year from the date of license granting order:
    • (a) The applicant shall, at all times, practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker pre-approved by the REEB.
    • (b) The applicant shall provide a copy of the order to her current and any future pre-approved supervising real estate broker. The applicant shall arrange for written reports from her pre-approved real estate broker to be provided to the DSPS monitor on a quarterly basis. These reports shall assess the applicant's work performance and describe the circumstances of her employment, including the nature and extent of the applicant's real estate salesperson activities and whether she has practiced in compliance with all laws governing the practice of real estate sales.
    • (c) The applicant shall report to the REEB any change of employment status, residence, address or telephone number within five days of the date of change.
    • (d) The applicant shall commit no violations of law pertaining to the practice of a Wisconsin licensed profession.

After one year of successful compliance with this order, the applicant may petition the REEB for a full, unrestricted license. The REEB may grant or deny any petition, in its discretion.


June 12: From the DSPS: Property Management Account Withdrawals

On December 3, 2018, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a company alleging unauthorized property management account withdrawals by the firm, which was their property manager. Previously, on November 28, 2017, the company gave notice to the firm that the company was not going to renew its contract, which ended on December 31, 2017. At the time, the company owed the firm money for services rendered to the company by the firm, including by service providers retained by the firm, many of whom were subsidiaries of the firm. According to the firm, the total owed by the company to the firm and other service providers was over $128,000.

After the company gave its notice to the firm that it was terminating the contract, the firm’s property management director/broker called the company's executive director to discuss how the firm was to pay for services rendered to the company by the firm and its affiliated providers. According to the broker, when she spoke with the company's executive director, the executive director told her to withdraw the needed money from the security deposit accounts and that the company would refund that account from its separate reserve accounts. The company's executive director died on December 19, 2017, and therefore, this statement could not be corroborated.

Pursuant to the firm's contract with the company, the firm had established different bank accounts for the company's properties. The contract set forth that the money in the accounts was the property of the company, "subject to disbursement of expenses by (the firm)." The accounts were established in the name of the company with the firm as agent, and the firm had authority to make disbursements from those accounts pursuant to the parties' contract.

The DSPS reviewed bank statements provided by the company for three of the bank accounts established by the firm. Two of these accounts were labeled "security deposit accounts." None of these accounts were trust accounts and were not required to be, provided they were owner's accounts, pursuant to Wis. Admin, Code § REEB 18.031(5)(a), an owner's account is "an account maintained by an owner of rental property for depositing and disbursing any funds payable to or by the owner." (Emphasis added). The firm asserts that the accounts were the owner's accounts. To support this assertion, it stated that the money in the accounts belonged to the company, and that rent and security checks were made payable to the company, not to the firm. The firm has not offered any evidence that the company maintained these accounts, however. The company told the DSPS that no one at the company had access to or signatory authority over the accounts. The only access the company had to the accounts was to review the monthly statements provided to them by the firm.

On December 22, 2017, the firm withdrew $23,118 in funds from these three accounts, including the two security deposit accounts. The DSPS reviewed the contract between the company and the firm that terminated on December 31, 2017 ("the 2017 contract") as well as an earlier contract for a term from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012 ("the 2011 contract"). The 2011 contract stated that "... in the event of a shortfall of funds in the Operating Accounts, Owner shall advance funds from Owner's reserve Accounts or other sources as provided in, and subject to the limitations and restrictions in, the Governing Documents," The 2017 contract stated that in the event of a shortfall in the operating account, "Agent (the firm) shall promptly inform the Owner of the deficit, and the Owner shall then remit to Agent sufficient funds to cover the deficiency within 10 days."

As noted above, some of the vendors that the firm had contracted to provide services to the company were subsidiaries of the firm. The 2017 contract did not disclose the firm's relationship with any of these subsidiaries, although it did provide that the firm was "authorized to engage, on behalf of the Owner, any entity that is an affiliate of the Agent." The 2011 contract specifically disclosed the firm's affiliation with one vendor, but this language was removed from the 2017 contract. There are no facts to suggest that any vendor providing services to the company under the contract, whether or not said vendor is affiliated with the firm, was not entitled to the payments or had failed to provide the services for which they were paid. The firm and its brokers allege that more than $105,000.00 remains unpaid by the company for services provided under the contract.

On September 6, 2019, the DSPS contacted the firm and requested a copy of any written authorization the firm received authorizing it to withdraw fees from the security deposit accounts. On September 23, 2019, the firm replied it only received verbal authorization from the company, so no written documentation could be provided.

The REEB found the brokers and the firm violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The REEB reprimanded each broker and the firm. The two brokers and the firm shall each pay costs in this matter in the amount of $310 for a total of $930.


June 5: From the DSPS: Failure to Return Earnest Money; Failure to Respond to the DSPS

The licenses of the broker and the firm expired, but they had the right to renew their licenses until December 14, 2023. On July 12, 2018, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker and entity failed to return the buyers' earnest money despite numerous attempts by the buyers to contact the broker and the firm. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the broker and the firm.

On March 30, 2018, the buyers submitted an offer that was accepted. Pursuant to the offer, the buyers mailed the earnest money to the listing broker/firm. The transaction failed, and on June 6, 2018, a Cancellation Agreement and Mutual Release was signed by all parties and sent to the listing broker/firm. The buyers made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the listing broker/firm regarding the return of earnest money. On July 12, 2018, the listing broker/firm returned the earnest money to the buyers, the same day the complaint was filed with the DSPS. On October 2, 2018, the DSPS mailed a letter to the broker and firm at the address of record to request a response to the complaint. No response was received.

The broker also held a license as an attorney. On October 9, 2018, the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) suspended the broker's license for failing to respond to an investigation, failing to pay dues, failing to file a trust account verification, and other lack of cooperation. On October 22, 2019, the Wisconsin Supreme Court entered a default judgment, and the attorney license was suspended for professional misconduct.

Between June 6, 2019, and September 10, 2019, the DSPS made numerous attempts to contact the broker and firm for a response to the investigation. No response was received.

On July 9, 2019, the broker was charged with felony possession of narcotic drugs, misdemeanor possession of cocaine, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 15, 2021, the broker was convicted of misdemeanor possession of cocaine. The broker did not report the above conviction to the DSPS.

These matters went to the hearing stage. The DLSC served the complaint and notice of hearing in this matter on the firm and broker on October 20, 2022, by both certified and regular mail. They did not file a written answer as required by Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 2.09(4). On December 9, 2022, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a telephone pre-hearing conference. The DLSC moved for default based on the failure to timely file an answer. The ALJ denied the motion and instead directed the DLSC to serve another copy of the complaint and notice of hearing at a new address provided by the broker, and the answer deadline was extended to January 2, 2023. The ALJ also informed the broker that a failure to answer could result in default judgment being entered against the broker and firm. The broker and firm did not file an answer and did not show good cause for their failure to do so.

The REEB found the broker and the firm violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(5) by failing to respond within 30 days to numerous communications from the DSPS in 2018 and 2019, which requested a response to the consumer complaint filed against them. By failing to account for or return the earnest money in a reasonable time, they violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices. They also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care. Finally, because the broker never reported her 2021 misdemeanor possession of cocaine conviction to the DSPS, she also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(1), which requires licensees to report a conviction within 48 hours after entry of the judgment of conviction. The REEB also found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The REEB revoked the rights of the broker and the firm to renew their credentials.


May 30: From the DSPS: Unilateral Cancellation of Contracts

On September 1, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker was attempting to cancel an accepted contract unilaterally. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the broker.

On August 13, 2020, the broker's firm entered into a listing contract with a seller for the sale of agricultural land. On August 16, Buyer #1 submitted an offer to purchase the property for $150,000 and provided a check for $10,000 as earnest money. On August 17, the broker drafted a counter-offer on behalf of the seller. The counter-offer provided the property would be surveyed to determine the total acreage and the purchase price would be $5,000 per acre. In addition, the counter-offer stated, "Seller is entertaining other offers, final decision will be made on or before August 24, 2020." Buyer #1 accepted the counter-offer on August 18.

On August 23, 2020, Buyer #2 submitted an offer to purchase the property, offering $ 155,000. The broker presented the second offer to the seller on August 24, and the seller accepted. On August 24, the broker sent Buyer #1 a WB-41 Notice Relating to Offer to Purchase form that stated, "Offer is rejected." On August 25, the broker's firm returned the earnest money to Buyer #1. On October 6, 2020, the transaction with Buyer #2 closed.

On March 17, 2021, the broker told a DSPS investigator he had drafted the counter-offer to Buyer #1 based on the wishes of the seller. On March 24, 2021, the sellers told a DSPS investigator they did not officially accept the offer from Buyer #1. They stated they told the broker to extend the opportunity for further offers to be made through August 24, 2020.

The REEB found the broker violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda. The REEB also found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

The REEB reprimanded the broker.

The broker's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker must successfully complete one education course on the topic of forms and one course on the topic of contracts from a provider pre-approved by the REEB or its designee, including taking and passing any exams offered for the courses. The broker shall submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $732.


May 22: From the DSPS: Illegible Forms

On June 4, 2021, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker had acted improperly in a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the broker.

On June 18, 2021, the broker responded to the complaint and provided the DSPS with the transaction documents. The DSPS reviewed a Disclosure of Adverse Material Facts form dated June 2019 that contained instances of handwriting that was difficult to read and/or illegible, making the form hard to understand or interpret. The DSPS reviewed a second Disclosure of Adverse Material Facts form, dated July 2020, that appeared to be incomplete. The one-page form contained typed text at the end of the page that ends in the middle of a sentence. On April 6, 2022, the DSPS asked the broker to provide the second page of the Disclosure of Material Adverse Facts form and to explain why some forms contained illegible handwriting.

On April 18, 2022, the broker stated there was no second page of the Disclosure of Material Adverse Facts form. The broker further stated he try to have computer-generated forms filled in and ready to use, but in the field where a computer and/or printer are not available, the broker handwrites the forms. On May 10, 2022, the broker stated the computer software he used to draft the Disclosure of Adverse Material Facts form had accidentally cut off part of the final sentence.

The REEB found the broker violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda.

The REEB reprimanded the broker.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $692.


May 15: From the DSPS: Failure to Document in Writing

On July 18, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker and their firm, representing Buyer A in the transaction, failed to uphold a written agreement that repairs to the property would be completed by the time of closing. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the broker and the firm with which the broker was associated.

On March 26, 2020, the broker submitted a WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase for Buyer A to purchase Property A. The offer was accepted on March 27, 2020, and closing was scheduled for May 11, 2020. On March 31, 2020, the parties executed a WB-40 Amendment to Offer to Purchase that listed repairs to Property A that needed to occur by closing. On April 6, 2020, another amendment was executed moving the closing date to May 20, 2020, because Buyer A had received an offer on their current residence, Property B, that needed to close simultaneously due to financing conditions.

On May 19, 2020, the buyers of Property B informed Buyer A that a well inspection issue with their current residence was going to cause them to have to move the purchase of Property B back, with a closing date to be anytime between May 20, 2020, and May 26, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the buyers of Property B informed Buyer A the sale of their current residence had closed, and they needed to close on Property B that morning. That same day, another amendment was executed changing the closing date of Property A from May 20 to May 21, 2020.

The broker contacted the seller's agent and requested Buyer A be allowed to move in a day early because the closing on Property B left Buyer A without a residence for the night. The parties agreed Buyer A could take early occupancy of Property A, however this consent and any consideration therefor were never reduced to writing.

On May 21, 2020, Buyer A initially refused to close because some of the repairs required to be completed by closing per the March 31, 2020, amendment had not been made. The broker and firm claimed the repairs were waived in lieu of allowing Buyer A to take occupancy the night before. The parties signed another amendment that stated the repairs must be finished by May 31, 2020. The transaction then closed.

The broker and the firm were previously issued an administrative warning for failing to obtain written consent for a multiple representation relationship.

The REEB found the broker and the brokage firm violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to put in writing all transaction documents, expressing the exact agreement of the parties.

The REEB reprimanded the broker and the brokage firm.

The broker's license was limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker must successfully complete one education course on the topic of forms from a provider pre-approved by the REEB or its designee, including taking and passing any exam offered for the course. The broker shall submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the broker and the brokage firm shall each pay one-half of the costs of this matter, in the amount of $953 each.


May 8: From the DSPS: Agency Representation Confusion

On February 21, 2021, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging a real estate salesperson represented both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transaction but was working in the best interest of the seller at the expense of the buyer. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation against the salesperson as well as the firm the salesperson was associated with and the salesperson's managing broker.

In the summer of 2021, the salesperson represented the seller of a Wisconsin property. The listing contract with the seller indicated that the seller agreed to multiple representation with designated agency.

In July 2021, the salesperson and the buyer communicated in text messages regarding the sale of the property. On July 13, 2021, the buyer told the salesperson he was ready to make an offer and was fine with the salesperson acting as a "dual agent." The buyer and the salesperson settled on a purchase price of $610,000. On August 7, the salesperson asked the buyer, "Still good for $610?" and the buyer answered, "Yes." The salesperson replied that the seller "will take it," and the salesperson said he would draft the offer. On August 9, the salesperson informed the buyer the reason for the delay in drafting the offer was that there had been some showings, and they were waiting for responses. The buyer responded, "I thought we had a deal. When you are a dual agent, you need to fairly represent me too."

On August 20, 2021, the buyer signed the offer drafted by the salesperson. The offer stated the salesperson was an agent of the buyer. The buyer also signed the Disclosure to Customers form drafted by the salesperson, which stated the salesperson was the seller's agent and not the buyer's agent.

On September 7, 2021, following the home inspection, the buyer sent a list of 31 items from the home inspection report to the seller to address. The salesperson emailed the seller, "Below is his laundry list of repairs. Not too happy with it. Let's discuss, I am of the mind to tell him we aren't interested in repairing anything since we came down in price so much. Gather your thoughts and let me know." On November 11, 2021, after seeing the email, the buyer contacted the salesperson's managing broker to express concerns with the salesperson's impartiality. On November 19, the parties signed a WB-40 Amendment to Offer to Purchase drafted by the salesperson, which stated, "Buyer acknowledges [the salesperson] and [their firm] assisted Buyer as a Customer, not Client, as disclosed in the Disclosure to Customers signed by Buyer on 8/20/21. Buyer hereby waives any claims against [the salesperson] or [their firm] and shall agree not to file any actions or complaints with the Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board, National Association of REALTORS®, or civil or criminal actions related to this transaction." On November 19, 2021, the transaction closed.

On June 17, 2022, the salesperson's managing broker responded to the complaint. The managing broker stated they had reviewed the file and " ... there were definitely a few missteps. The contract was not written correctly, the wrong buyer type was struck as it was written as agent of the buyer and the Disclosure to Customer should have been better explained to the customer."

The REEB found the salesperson, the managing broker and the brokage firm violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(a) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care. The REEB also found the salesperson violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(g) by failing to present contract proposals in an objective and unbiased manner and disclose the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda.

The REEB reprimanded the salesperson, the managing broker and the brokage firm.

The salesperson's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the salesperson must successfully complete an education course on the topic of agency relationships. This education must address agency relationships in the context of contracts, ethics and using approved forms. This education may be accomplished by completing three courses, on contracts, ethics and approved forms, as long as each course addresses agency issues, or the education may be accomplished by completing one course specifically on the topic of agency relationships. The salesperson shall seek approval of the course(s) from the REEB and shall take and pass any exam(s) offered for the course(s) and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the salesperson, the managing broker and the brokage firm shall each pay one-third of the costs of this matter, in the amount of $197 each.


May 1: From the DSPS: Failure to Use Current Approved Listing Contract

On August 22, 2019, the broker and the real estate business entity were reprimanded for conducting approximately 50 real estate transactions while the real estate business entity license was expired.

On February 21, 2021, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging a real estate salesperson with the firm along with the broker and the real estate business entity (the licensees) acted improperly during a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

According to the complaint, the broker had withdrawn a listing for a property on February 2, 2021, but was still advertising the property for sale as of February 21, 2021. The DSPS emailed the licensees to request a response to the complaint. The broker responded and stated the firm still had an active listing contract for the property. However, the listing contract the broker provided to the DSPS showed an expiration date of April 11, 2020.

The DSPS asked for clarification regarding the expired listing contract and requested documentation of a new listing contract or proof that an extension had been granted. The broker responded and provided a document titled "Addendum A. Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement" (the Agreement). This document is not a board-approved form and was not drafted by an attorney.

The Agreement, which had been signed by the broker and the seller on October 11, 2019, set out the services that the licensees would provide to the seller and the price of those services. Additionally, the Agreement stated that if the seller wanted to extend the listing contract for longer than the six-month term, they must pay a $95 extension fee for an additional term. The document did not specify the length of an additional term.

The broker also provided two receipts showing the seller had twice paid the Agreement's fee for an "MLS extension," which is described as "extending your current MLS listing for an additional term." The receipts do not indicate the length of the additional terms.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the licensees violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.04(1) by failing to use approved forms when acting as an agent or a party in a real estate transaction and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing put in writing the exact agreement of the parties.

The REEB reprimanded the salesperson, the broker and the brokage entity.

The broker's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker must successfully complete one remedial education course on the topic of forms from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

The salesperson's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the salesperson must successfully complete one remedial education course on the topic of forms from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days from the date of this order, the broker shall pay one-half of the costs of this matter, for a total of $472. Within 90 days from the date of this order, the salesperson shall pay one-half of the costs of this matter, for a total of $472.


April 24: From the DSPS: Buyer Took Inspectors to Walk-through

On December 18, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate salesperson acted improperly during a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

On June 12, 2020, the salesperson submitted an offer to purchase on their buyer client's behalf. On June 13, 2020, the seller countered the offer, with a stipulation that the property was being sold "as is" with no warranty as to the condition of the property, however, an inspection would be allowed as set forth in the inspection contingency included in the offer to purchase. The inspection contingency allowed for the buyer to inspect the property and complete any follow-up inspections no later than 15 days prior to closing, which was scheduled for July 20, 2020. On June 19, 2020, an inspection of the property was completed. No evidence of mold was identified by the home inspector.

On July 9, 2020, an appraisal of the subject property was performed. The appraisal came in at value, however, the appraiser identified what he described as possible black mold in the basement. On July 14, the underwriter for the lender added a condition that the mold issue must be addressed prior to the loan being approved.

A request by the salesperson for a follow-up home inspection was denied because it was now within 15 days of closing, and the seller was no longer obligated to allow the follow-up inspection under the terms of the inspection contingency.

On July 16, 2020, the salesperson requested a final walk-through for the buyer to occur on July 17. The salesperson made no mention of the buyer client's intention to bring home inspectors along to inspect the basement. On July 17, 2020, the salesperson and their buyer clients brought two home inspectors into the property for the walk-through. The two home inspectors performed an inspection of the basement and confirmed there was no mold present. On August 3, 2020, the transaction closed.

On December 15, 2020, the Greater Milwaukee Association of REALTOR® (GMAR) Ethics Hearing Panel issued a decision finding the salesperson had violated the REALTOR® Code of Ethics by providing access to property on terms or conditions other than those authorized by the owner.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the salesperson violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by falling to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

The REEB reprimanded the salesperson. The salesperson's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the salesperson must successfully complete one course on the topic of ethical real estate practice offered by a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the salesperson shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $200 and costs in the amount of $400, for a total of $600.


April 17: From the DSPS: Late Reporting of Conviction; Failure to Promptly Respond to the DSPS

On April 27, 2021, a salesperson was convicted of OWI (2nd), a misdemeanor in the county of the incident. The salesperson was sentenced to 40 days in jail, revocation of their driver's license for 14 months, and an Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) assessment, among other things. On May 27, 2021, the salesperson reported their conviction to the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).

On April 14, 2022, and also on April 29, 2022, the DSPS emailed the salesperson and requested a copy of the AODA assessment. No response was received.

On May 17, 2022, the DSPS again emailed the salesperson and requested a copy of the AODA assessment. The same day, the salesperson replied they had not been ordered to do an AODA assessment. The DSPS replied the same day and advised the salesperson of the court order and asked for a response. No response was received.

On May 24, 2022, and also on June 6, 2022, the DSPS emailed the salesperson asking for an update on providing the AODA assessment document. No response was received.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the salesperson violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(1) by violating a law, the circumstances of which substantially relate to the practices of a real estate licensee, and by failing to report the conviction to the REEB within 48 hours after the judgment of conviction The salesperson also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(5) by failing to respond to the DSPS and the REEB regarding any request for information within 30 days of the date of the request.

The REEB reprimanded the salesperson. Within 90 days, the salesperson shall pay costs in the amount of $507.


April 3: From the DSPS: Failing to Indicate Role of Broker

On November 10, 2018, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate salesperson acted unethically during a real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

On October 6, 2018, the salesperson drafted a WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase and failed to strike "Agent of Seller/Listing Broker" and "Agent of Buyer and Seller," on line 2.

On October 7, 2018, the salesperson drafted a WB-41 Notice Relating to Offer to Purchase and failed to strike either "Buyer" or "Seller" on line 1.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the salesperson violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.133(4m)(a). The salesperson also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda.

The REEB reprimanded the salesperson. The salesperson's license is limited as follows: Within 90 days the salesperson must successfully complete one remedial education course on the topic of approved forms offered by a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the Department Monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the salesperson shall pay costs in the amount of $747.


March 27: From the DSPS: Harassing Comments to Asset Management Company

On November 12, 2019, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received two complaints from a real estate asset management company (Company) alleging the broker had sent harassing emails to their employee. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

On September 3, 2019, the broker had been assigned by the company to act as the listing agent for a property. After visiting the site, the broker observed this was a distressed property and advised the company that the property required extensive cleaning and winterization prior to sale. On or around November 6, 2019, the Company instructed the broker to list the property.

On November 6, 2019, the broker sent an email to an employee of the Company (Employee) to inform her the property was still in bad condition, and that additional work was required to prepare the property for sale. Between November 6 and November 11, the broker sent numerous emails to the Employee regarding the poor condition of the property he was requested to list. The broker's communications became increasingly inappropriate and unethical.

On November 7, the broker sent an email to the Employee that stated, "... No response? I am not going to sit on the bullshit. I will drop the listing if you are not going to work with me cleaning the place up. Please advise ..." On November 8, the broker sent an email to the Employee to inform her he would not list the property until it was cleaned up. On November 11, 2019, the Employee sent an email to the broker stating the file would be reassigned to another listing agent. Shortly thereafter, the broker sent an email to the Employee that stated, “Ignorant asshole, I should have let the place freeze solid ..." Later that day, the broker sent an email to the Employee that stated, "Hey ... I will take my pride not to work with you any further. I tried to help save your asset, good luck finding a better agent. Don't contact me or my office ever again ..." Later that evening, the broker sent an email to the Employee that stated, "Don't you ever contact me or my office, or I will harass you everyday for the next year ..."

On December 26, 2019, the broker sent an email to the DSPS in which he admitted that he had expressed some unpleasant words in his interaction with the Employee due to his frustration with the Company.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.133(4m)(a). The broker also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices.

The REEB reprimanded the broker. The broker's license is limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker must successfully complete a course on the topic of business ethics from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay costs in the amount of $497.


March 20: From the DSPS: Failure to Disclose Code Violations

On October 11, 2017, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a buyer who alleged she was notified, after closing on a property, of open city code violations on the property that were not disclosed by the listing agent or his clients, who were the sellers, during the real estate transaction. The Division of Legal Services and Compliance (DLSC) opened a case for investigation.

On April 10, 2017, a notice was mailed to the sellers that detailed code violations that needed to be addressed and completed by August 1, 2017. The agent was informed by the sellers during a pre-listing walk-through in May 2017 that the city inspected the property and had a few items that were to be corrected. The agent claims the sellers wanted to take care of the repairs prior to listing, so when he was contacted by the sellers to list the property approximately one week later, he "had no reason to believe the seller hadn't taken care of the items, and did not deem it necessary to call the City to check [the seller's] work."

On May 25, 2017, the sellers completed the Real Estate Condition Report. Under Property Condition Statement C21, it states, "I am aware of federal, state or local regulations requiring repairs, alterations or corrections of an existing condition. This might include, but is not limited to, orders to correct building code violations." The sellers marked "No."

On August 14, 2017, the buyers closed on the property. On September 7, they received a Reissued Official Notice from the city outlining several city code violations regarding the property. A housing inspector supervisor for the city provided email exchanges between the inspector and the sellers on May 22, July 17, and August 21, 2017, which indicated the work was not completed as required by the city.

DSPS records indicate the agent's real estate salesperson license expired on December 15, 2016, and was renewed on February 7, 2017. The agent listed one property on January 24, 2017, while his license was expired.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by engaging in the practice of real estate while his real estate salesperson license was expired between December 15, 2017, and February 7, 2017. The agent also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(1)(b) by failing, before executing the listing contract, to inspect and make inquiries of the seller on the condition of the structure, mechanical systems and other relevant aspects of the property as applicable.

The REEB reprimanded the agent. The agent's license is limited as follows: Within 90 days, the agent must successfully complete a three-hour course on the topic of ethics — disclosures from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay costs in the amount of $678.


March 13: From the DSPS: Failure to Disclose Well Water Pressure Issues

The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint on January 7, 2017, from a consumer alleging that the real estate salesperson (agent) failed to disclose to the buyer and the buyer's agent that the private well for the property was not functioning properly when the agent knew of this condition prior to the closing of the transaction.

On October 17, 2016, the buyers signed an offer to purchase drafted by their agent for a property listed by the agent. The sellers accepted the offer, and the buyers had a home inspection on October 22. The inspection report noted a potential water leak regarding the water line going from the outside hose bib to the pond. Water tests were subsequently conducted, which revealed bacteria. However, no water pressure issues were noted during the inspection.

On November 4, the parties agreed to amend the offer to purchase to add a water test and inspection. One condition of the amendment was to have the well shocked by a licensed well installer and prove no further issue with bacteria. No condition was included regarding the potential water leak noted in the home inspection. On November 14, when a licensed well installer came to the property to chlorinate the well, he noted the water pressure system was not working correctly, and he had difficulty flushing the system. On November 18, the office of the well contractor told the agent via email that the property's water system was not working correctly, even though it was working during the prior home inspection and that the homeowner was made aware of the issue.

The agent indicated the seller represented to her that the well issue was resolved. On December 16, the transaction closed. The agent had not disclosed any issues regarding the malfunctioning water pressure system to the buyers.

After moving into the property, the buyers discovered there was an issue with the water pressure system. They called the same well installer whose number was on the pressure tank. The well installer informed the buyers that the system was not working correctly, and that he had notified the past homeowner and his agent of the issue previously.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(a) and (b) by failing to provide brokerage services honestly and fairly with reasonable skill and care to all parties in a transaction pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.133(4m)(a), and violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(c) and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(2) by failing to timely disclose in writing all material adverse facts that the agent knew and the buyers did not know and could not discover through reasonable vigilant observation.

The REEB reprimanded the agent. The agent's license was limited as follows: Within 90 days, the agent must successfully complete a course on the topic of ethics from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, take and pass any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the agent shall pay a forfeiture in the amount of $750 and costs in the amount of $554.


March 6: From the DSPS: No Disclosure to Customers, No Written Listing Contract

On February 21, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the broker had acted improperly in a real estate transaction that ultimately failed.

On October 22, 2017, the broker, acting as an agent of the seller, drafted a WB-11 Offer to Purchase for the buyer to purchase a spec home under construction. The broker did not have a written listing contract with the seller.

The broker did not have a buyer agency agreement with the buyer and did not provide the buyer with a written Disclosure to Customers form. The seller of the home was a company in which the broker had an ownership interest. The offer was signed by the buyer and by the broker as a member of the seller entity on October 22, 2017. The broker also completed the RANW Addendum A to the Offer to Purchase, and at lines 160-163, disclosed he had an interest in the seller entity and was acting as a real estate agent on behalf of the seller with consent of all parties. This form was initialed by the buyer.

The broker failed to indicate who drafted the offer at line 443, and the broker failed to indicate who presented the offer to the seller and when at line 459. On November 1, 2021, the broker, through his attorney, told the DSPS the Disclosure to Customers form was not provided to the buyer because the buyer was not the broker's client.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.135(1)(a) by negotiating on behalf of the buyer, who was not his client, without providing a written Disclosure to Customers statement, and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to put in writing the listing contracts, expressing the exact agreement of the parties.

The broker was reprimanded, and the broker's license was limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker must successfully complete one remedial education course on the topic of forms from a provider pre-approved by the REEB, take and pass any exam offered for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the department monitor. The education completed may not be used to satisfy any other continuing education requirements.

Within 90 days, the broker shall pay the costs in the amount of $3,812.


February 27: From the DSPS: Improper Influence of Appraiser; Failure to Return Earnest Money

On October 7, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that a broker attempted to improperly influence an appraiser to change an appraisal.

In September 2020, an appraiser was hired by a bank to perform an appraisal of a property listed by the broker. The appraisal valued the property at less than the agreed upon purchase price for the property in an offer to purchase on the property. On September 29, 2020, the broker emailed the banker to object to the appraisal report. The broker then emailed the appraiser, "Regarding the XYZ Properties — see below. There are a number of discrepancies … and we ask you to correct the appraisal immediately and re-submit with the appropriate value of both properties, as the deadline is tonight at midnight." In another email to the appraiser, the broker stated:

We have been speaking with a number of prior clients, or opposing clients, and just a heads up, everyone so far has stated you have personal interest in the values being deemed lower than they should be. The reasons given to us is that it is because you own properties and that you are a broker, and therefore have a biased and personal opinion when evaluating properties, you don't own or didn't have access to.

On October 1, 2020, the broker emailed the appraiser to object to the comparables he used in the appraisal. The broker again emailed the appraiser again that day and stated, "Regarding the items for XYZ I have sent over, please confirm receipt and make appropriate adjustments." On October 2, 2020, the broker emailed the appraiser and stated, "Please adjust (sic) using the proper values, as you brought the comp in the appraisal and failed to use the proper values … it is your obligation to add value for the differences ... You have failed to do your job." Later in the email the broker wrote, "By Monday morning, if you have failed to perform your obligations as an appraiser for the properties in which I am acting Broker, I will be forced to file complaints and take any legal means necessary." On October 2, the broker again emailed the appraiser and stated, "I will ask you one last time, to please focus on the problem at hand — The appraisal for XYZ properties needs to be updated."

In another matter, DSPS received complaints alleging that the broker and her firm failed to return the earnest money in a transaction after a Cancellation Agreement and Mutual Release (CAMR) was signed by all parties. The broker and her firm listed the seller's property, the seller had an accepted offer and the buyer sent $25,000 in earnest money to the listing broker/firm. The transaction failed and the parties signed a CAMR directing the return of the earnest money to the buyer. The buyer made several attempts to contact the listing broker/firm regarding the return of the earnest money, but they failed to return the earnest money.

On January 4, 2021, the buyer filed a lawsuit against the broker and the firm for failure to return the earnest money. On January 12 and 15, 2021, the buyer and seller filed complaints with DSPS. In March 2021, the earnest money was returned, and the lawsuit was dismissed.

The broker failed to respond to emails and letters from the DSPS, using various contact information for the broker, on June 17, 2021, June 25, July 7, September 20, and October 8, all requesting a response to the DSPS complaint.

On October 8, 2021, a DSPS investigator also sent an email to the broker at an alternate email address and the broker responded to the complaint. The broker stated she returned the earnest money as soon as she realized that there were no legal allegations against either party to the transaction. She also stated she had moved out of the state and was no longer practicing real estate in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and firm violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(a) by failing to provide brokerage services honestly and fairly, violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(5) by failing to respond to DSPS regarding requests for information within 30 days of the date of the request, and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

The broker and the firm voluntarily surrendered their licenses and their right to renew their licenses.

If the broker petitions DSPS or the REEB for reinstatement of her credential or applies for another Wisconsin credential she must pay the costs of this matter in the amount of $2,274 before any petition or application will be considered. If the broker or the firm petition DSPS for reinstatement of their credentials, DSPS may enter an order denying such application without further notice or hearing. Whether to grant a license and whether to impose any limitations or restrictions on any license granted shall be in the sole discretion of DSPS and such decision is not reviewable.


February 20: From the DSPS: Failure to Disclose Material Adverse Facts

On August 31, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint that a salesperson had failed to disclose an adverse material fact regarding the property during the process of Buyer B's purchase of a home.

The property in question was originally listed on March 19, 2020, and an offer to purchase was accepted on March 25. Buyer A had a home inspection that revealed several defects, including that the fireplace in the residence was inoperable. On April 5, the parties executed a Cancellation Agreement and Mutual Release (CAMR) after the seller declined to correct several of the deficiencies identified by the home inspector.

Buyer B submitted an offer to purchase the property on May 7, 2020. The Real Estate Condition Report (RECR) did not disclose a defect in the fireplace. The home inspection completed on Buyer B's behalf on May 15 revealed the fireplace in the residence was inoperable. On May 23, the salesperson provided Buyer B with the home inspection report from the cancelled transaction.

On November 4, 2020, the salesperson provided a response to the DSPS complaint. The salesperson admitted they were aware of the inoperable fireplace and had failed to revise the listing and advise the sellers to update the RECR prior to Buyer B submitting an offer. The salesperson also stated they were dealing with the stress of a family health crisis at that time, and also addressing other defects disclosed in the first home inspection report that were the cause of the cancellation of the first transaction. The salesperson claimed the failure to disclose the defect relating to the fireplace was not a deliberate attempt to cover up the issue, but merely an oversight.

The Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the salesperson violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.07(3) by becoming aware of information suggesting the possibility of material adverse facts to the transaction and failing to disclose this information to the parties in writing and in a timely fashion. As a result of the rule violation, the salesperson is subject to discipline pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(L).

The salesperson is reprimanded, and their license is limited. Within 90 days, they must successfully complete one course of education on the topic of approved forms offered by a provider pre-approved by the REEB, taking and passing any exam offered for this course, and submit proof of successful completion to the REEB. The education completed to satisfy this requirement may not be used for continuing education or in future attempts to upgrade a credential. The salesperson also must pay costs in the amount of $1,089.


February 13: Preserving a Professional Reputation

Article 15 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides:

"REALTORS ® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about other real estate professionals, their businesses, or their business practices. (Amended 1/12)"

While REALTORS® may assume this applies to comments made to clients or the public, it equally applies to the derogatory commentary sometimes exchanged between licensees, such as unkind critiques of a broker's handling of a transaction or another agent's “apparent” ignorance or ineptitude, or the explosion of vehement complaints from an unhappy agent leaving a company. Such potential Article 15 violations detract from the higher standards of decorum expected of those who aspire to be regarded as a profession.

False or misleading statements, gossip or social media posts about another REALTOR®, their business or their business practices can be Article 15 violations. In the moment, a licensee may think they are justified venting their displeasure, but playing the victim or being a gossip-monger will never make a licensee look good. Think of the optics. Broadcasting one’s anger or personal grievances is worse for the speaker than the one being disparaged. It impacts the reputation of the industry by undermining the professional reputation of both the speaker and the subject.

If a real estate professional thinks someone has acted in a way that's dishonest or illegal, there are proper ways to address that. Have a discussion with their broker or file a complaint with their local association or the state. Be sure you have the facts to back up your grievance, or you will be left looking like the foolish one.

The real estate professional promotes their own professional reputation as well as that of their colleagues and the industry by resolving complaints and disagreements in a dignified manner.

Read more in the Inman News article, "Is Your Trash Talk Violating the Code of Ethics? This information can be found online here.


February 6: From the DSPS: Commissions Must Be Paid to the Firm

The LLC is licensed as a real estate business entity. On February 11, 2022, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that agents at the LLC were being paid their commissions directly from the proceeds at closing by title companies.

On February 22, 2022, the LLC's responsible broker responded to the complaint. They did not deny that agents for the LLC were paid their commissions with the proceeds at closing. They stated the LLC uses a "Commission Disbursement Authorization" form to direct the title company how to pay commissions. The broker explained that this procedure allows the LLC to assign the portion of the commission that the agent is legally entitled to receive and saves the need to issue a second check. The LLC still issues 1099 forms at the end of each tax year to its agents.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found that the LLC aided and abetted the violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.19(2) by failing to ensure all commissions were paid to the firm. Wis. Stat. § 452.19(2) provides:

“If a licensee is associated with a firm, all fees or commissions and any part thereof for performing any act specified in this chapter and all compensation for a referral or as a finder's fee shall be paid to the firm.”

Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(3) provides:

“Violation of statutes, administrative code and board orders. Licensees may not violate any provisions or terms or conditions of, or aid or abet the violation of ch. 452, Stats., chs. REEB 11 to 25 or any order of, the board.”

As a result of the violation, the LLC was reprimanded and required to pay costs in the amount of $650.


January 30: Article 6 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics: Disclosure of Interests and Profits

Generally speaking, it is important that the professionals working in a real estate transaction exercise independent judgment based on their experience and expertise. If the home inspector is related to a licensee in a transaction, there may be a perception — or the reality — of a conflict of interest. Therefore, it would be prudent to let all parties know of the relationship.

Article 6 protects clients and customers from conflicts of interest by the REALTOR® by requiring advance disclosure of the REALTOR®’s connection or interest in any organization or business entity before the REALTOR® recommends such services or products. Similarly, Wis. Stat. § 452.133(3)(c) provides for written disclosure if the licensee “has an interest” in the individual or entity being referred.

Many REALTORS® have interests in service firms, including contracting, roofing, brickwork, plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, title insurance, homeowner’s insurance, pest control or moving, for example. The REALTOR® is not precluded from offering such services, and it should be noted that such services may be among the best available. But, to recommend such services without first disclosing the REALTOR®’s interest, making it clear that the clients and customers are free to obtain these services elsewhere, can raise suspicion and create the appearance of impropriety.

Article 6 also prevents the REALTOR® from benefiting financially from the providers of such goods or services without the client’s prior knowledge and consent. Remember to disclose when you or your firm will receive any fee or will benefit directly from recommending a real estate service or product to a client or customer.

When recommending real estate products or services — such as homeowner’s insurance, warranty programs, mortgage financing or title insurance, for example — REALTORS® shall disclose to the client or customer to whom the recommendation is made any financial benefits or fees, other than real estate referral fees, the REALTOR® or REALTOR®’s firm may receive as a direct result of such recommendation. Similarly, Wis. Stat. § 452.133(3)(c) provides for written disclosure if the licensee may receive compensation from the individual or entity being referred.

For example, Property Manager A bought, at wholesale prices, janitorial supplies used in cleaning and maintenance of an office building he managed for his client, Owner B. In his statements to Owner B, he billed these supplies at retail prices. This came to the attention of Owner B who filed a complaint with the local REALTOR® association, charging Property Manager A, who was a REALTOR®, with unethical conduct in violation of Article 6 of the Code of Ethics.

In questioning during the hearing before the Professional Standards Committee, Property Manager A’s defense was that the prices at which he billed these supplies to his client were no higher than the prices that Owner B had been paying prior to putting the property under Property Manager A’s management. It was clearly established that no disclosure of this profit or supplies used in property management had been made, and also that in proposing the management contract, Property Manager A had held out to Owner B the inducement of attainable economies in operation.

Property Manager A, who was a REALTOR®, was found by the hearing panel to be in violation of Article 6.

See Case #6-1: Profit on Supplies Used in Property Management at www.nar.realtor/code-of-ethics-and-arbitration-manual/case-interpretations-related-to-article-6.


January 23: Article 3 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics: Cooperation and Compensation

Article 3 of the Code of Ethics: Cooperation and Compensation REALTORS® shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client’s best interest. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees or to otherwise compensate another broker.

Cooperating brokers may not assume that any offer of cooperation includes an offer of compensation. A cooperating broker’s commission will be determined by the offer of compensation made by the listing broker. An offer of compensation may be made by an MLS participant to other MLS participants when a property is entered into the MLS, by policy letter or an independent compensation agreement between the brokers. If the property is not in the MLS and no alternate commission has been offered, there is no broker-to-broker offer of compensation. Terms of compensation, if any, shall be ascertained by cooperating brokers before beginning efforts to accept the offer of cooperation.

After a REALTOR® has submitted an offer to purchase or lease property, the listing broker may not attempt to unilaterally modify the offered compensation with respect to that cooperative transaction. Sending a text message or email reducing the commission after the buyer has submitted their offer is too late. The listing firm’s attempt to reduce the co-broke commission would be ineffectual. Any change in the offered co-broke occurs when the change is posted in the MLS and thus communicated to all MLS participants. The pertinent issue is whether that occurred before or after the buyer’s offer was submitted.

Standard of Practice 3-2 to Article 3 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics states:

Any change in compensation offered for cooperative services must be communicated to the other REALTOR® prior to the time that REALTOR® submits an offer to purchase/lease the property. After a REALTOR® has submitted an offer to purchase or lease property, the listing broker may not attempt to unilaterally modify the offered compensation with respect to that cooperative transaction (Amended 1/14).

The listing broker may not unilaterally change the MLS offer of compensation unless the cooperating firm is timely notified before the offer is submitted. If the MLS participants agree after that time to change the compensation, a mutual agreement could be entered into between the brokers. Standard of Practice 3-2 does not preclude the listing broker and cooperating broker from entering into a mutual agreement to change the cooperative compensation for the transaction.

See the discussion about policy letters in “Working with Commission Splits,” in the July 2021 Wisconsin Real Estate Magazine at www.wra.org/WREM/Jul21/Commission.


January 17: From the DSPS — Too Many Protected Buyers Listed

In August 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate broker had improperly included too many names of prospective purchasers on a protected buyers list.

On November 10, 2020, the broker’s firm entered into a WB-5 Commercial Listing Contract for the sale of a commercial property. The WB-5, at lines 204-217, defines a protected buyer.

On June 1, 2021, the broker provided the seller with a protected buyers list containing 98 individual names. The broker explained he sent an email to over 3,000 potential buyers regarding the property and directly called or emailed 98 of them who became his protected buyers list. Some of the 98 did not return his call or reply to his email, but he believed he spoke directly to the vast majority. The broker did not have records of his phone calls or emails.

On June 7, 2021, the seller, through his attorney, objected to the broker’s protected buyers list. On June 17, 2021, the broker, through his attorney, defended the protected buyers list, but agreed in good faith to reduce the number of protected buyers from 98 to 70.

On July 16, 2021, the seller sent a letter to the broker, further objecting to the protected buyers list and providing an affidavit from one individual (A) on the list who stated he had not discussed the property with the broker or anyone from his firm, and he had not been aware the property was for sale. The seller also provided an obituary for an individual (B) on the list who had been deceased when the listing contract was signed. On July 26, 2021, the broker sent the seller an updated protected buyers list, reducing the number of individual names to 18 prospective purchasers, noting this was not an admission that the prior lists were “overkill” or “fraudulent.”

On August 12, 2021, the broker explained he had sent information regarding the property to the last-known points of contact for individuals A and B and he had not been aware individual B had passed away. Individual A had been a principal in a real estate investor group, and the broker had communicated with someone else from that group. He included individual A’s name because that was in his database of investors for that group.

On March 9, 2022, the broker sent the DSPS a spreadsheet detailing his follow-up with the 98 individual names identified on the original protected buyers list, showing seven prospects toured the property, 15 said they were not interested, a message was simply left for 32, and five have no notes. None of them are noted to have made an offer or communicated directly with the seller.

As a result of these violations, the broker was reprimanded. His license was limited as follows: Within 60 days, the broker shall successfully complete one remedial education course on the topic of consumer protection, and one course on the topic of office management, from a provider pre-approved by the REEB or its designee, including taking and passing any exam(s) offered for the course.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and the entity violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(I )(a) by failing to provide brokerage services honestly and fairly. He also violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 15.04 by failing to retain all documents and correspondence utilized, received or prepared in connection with the subject transaction.

Within 90 days, the broker must pay costs in the amount of $1,001.


January 9: From the DSPS — Failure to Renew Entity License

In September 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging the real estate broker (broker) and the real estate business entity (business entity) were practicing without current credentials. The broker is identified in DSPS records as the responsible licensee in charge of the business entity.

On December 15, 2020, the credential for the business entity expired.

On September 27, 2021, an employee of the business entity stated they had accidentally missed processing the payment for the license renewal. On September 30, 2021, an employee of the business entity stated the license had expired due to an oversight. On October 1, 2021, the business entity renewed its credential.

On March 10, 2022, the broker and the business entity emailed the DSPS documentation for 58 real estate transactions they had worked on while the license for the business entity was expired during the period from December 21, 2020, until September 30, 2021.

The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and the entity violated Wis. Stat. § 452.03(1) by engaging in or following the business or occupation of a broker or salesperson without a license. They also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)l. and 2. by engaging in any of the activities covered by the firm license while the license was expired; and engaging in any of the activities covered by the firm’s license on behalf of the firm while the firm’s license was expired.

As a result of these violations, both the broker and the entity were reprimanded.

Within 90 days, the broker and the firm must each pay a forfeiture of $500.00 and one-half of the costs, for a total of $819 each.


January 3: From the DSPS — Drafting and Negotiation Errors

In January 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging a salesperson made several mistakes in a real estate transaction, resulting in a failed transaction.

On October 31, 2019, the agent, representing the buyers, submitted a WB-11 Offer to Purchase for a property.

The offer contained the following errors: At line 2, the agent failed to strike “Agent of Buyer and Seller.” The agent checked the box for a financing contingency but failed to include the type of loan, the amount of the loan, or the monthly payments. At lines 1-2 of Addendum TR to the Offer to Purchase, the agent failed to indicate the date of the offer and the names of the buyers.

On November 3, 2019, the seller accepted the offer and submitted an amendment to address the errors.

On November 15, 2019, a home inspection of the property revealed the existence of “potential” organic growth in the attic. On November 18, 2019, the agent submitted a WB-40 Amendment that requested a mold inspection be performed at the seller’s expense. The agent did not file a notice of defects regarding the potential mold issue. The sellers refused to comply with the mold inspection because there was no testing contingency in the accepted offer.

On November 18, 2019, the agent submitted a WB-41 Notice Relating to Offer to Purchase that stated the buyers were “rescinding” the offer. On Line 1 of the WB-41 Notice Relating to Offer to Purchase, the agent failed to strike the word “seller.” On November 18, 2019, the agent submitted a WB-45 Cancellation Agreement & Mutual Release. On December 31, 2019, the property was sold to a different buyer.

The Real Estate Examining Board found the salesperson violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(8) by failing to use approved forms and prepare addenda in such a manner as to adequately accomplish the contractual instruction of the person for whom the licensee uses the forms and prepares the addenda. The agent also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(l)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care.

As a result of these violations, the agent was reprimanded. The salesperson’s license is limited, as follows:

Education: Within 60 days, the agent must successfully complete an education course on the topic of Wisconsin real estate forms from a provider approved by the REEB or its designee, including passing any exam for the course, and submit proof of successful completion to the DSPS monitor. This course may not be used to satisfy CE requirements.

Supervision: The agent shall at all times practice as a real estate salesperson under the supervision of a Wisconsin-licensed real estate broker approved by the REEB or its designee. The agent must notify their approved supervising broker of their disciplinary history with the board and provide a copy of their disciplinary order to the current and any future supervising broker. The agent shall provide the DSPS monitor with written acknowledgement of receipt of the disciplinary order from each firm. The agent shall arrange for quarterly written reports from their broker supervisor/firm to be provided to the DSPS monitor. These reports shall assess the agent’s work performance and describe the nature and extent of their sales activities and whether they have practiced in compliance with all real estate laws and the REALTOR® Code of Ethics. The agent may petition the REEB for removal of the limitations after two years.

Within 90 days, the agent must pay one half of the costs in this matter in a total amount of $920.


December 19: From the DSPS — Improper Property Management Practices

In February 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received two complaints from rental property owners alleging that a broker had improperly managed their rental properties and funds.

In 2009, the broker and his business partner began operating a rental property management business, RPMB LLC (RPMB), that was registered with the Department of Financial Institutions in 2009 and administratively dissolved in March 2021. RPMB never had a real estate business entity license, but “RPMB LLC” is registered with the DSPS as a trade name for the broker’s business partner’s firm.

According to the first complaint, the broker had not made rent deposits into Owner A’s account since September 30, 2019. Further, Owner A alleged the broker had ignored requests to return security deposits, ignored requests for copies of leases, failed to pay for a new furnace provided in October 2019, and failed to provide requested accounting reports for Owner A’s properties.

According to the second complaint, the broker failed to transfer rent payments to Owner B for January and February 2020 and failed to return security deposits to tenants. Owner B stated the broker was holding $5,500 in rent and $2,700 in security deposits to which he was not entitled. Further, Owner B alleged the broker had ignored requests to return keys, leases and other documents.

On July 8, 202l, the broker’s attorney responded to the complaints, stating the broker was responsible for RPMB’s day-to-day operations, and that several missteps, errors and accounting discrepancies occurred under the broker’s management. On September 21, 2021, the broker returned all funds owed to Owners A and B.

The Real Estate Examining Board found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(l)(f) by failing to safeguard trust funds and other property held. The broker also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(l)(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

As a result of these violations, the broker was reprimanded. The broker’s license is limited, such that he may not hold client funds, including funds from any property management business, and may practice real estate licensee only under the supervision of a Wisconsin licensed real estate broker approved by the board or its designee. The broker must notify his approved supervising broker of his disciplinary history with the board and provide a copy of his disciplinary order to his supervising broker. Beginning in 90 days, the broker shall arrange for quarterly written reports from his supervising broker to be provided to the department monitor. These reports shall assess the broker’s work performance including the nature and extent of his sales activities and whether he has practiced in compliance with all real estate laws. The broker may petition the board for removal of the limitations after one year.

Within 90 days, the broker must pay the costs in the amount of $672 and a forfeiture in the amount of $500, for a total of $1,172.


December 5: Confidentiality

Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides that when representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. The obligation to the client is primary, but REALTORS® are also obligated to treat all parties honestly.

To that end, Standard of Practice 1-9 requires REALTORS® to preserve confidential information provided by clients, and to remember their obligation to preserve confidential information continues after the termination of the agency relationship. What is considered confidential information is determined under state law. Property condition defects, however, are not considered confidential. REALTORS® cannot reveal confidential information of clients, use confidential information to the disadvantage of clients, or use confidential information for the REALTOR®’s advantage or the advantage of third parties, unless:

  1. Clients consent after full disclosure.
  2. REALTORS® are required by court order.
  3. It is the intention of a client to commit a crime and the information is necessary to prevent the crime.
  4. Or it is necessary to defend a REALTOR® or the REALTOR®’s employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.

Wisconsin law includes similar provisions to protect confidential information. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(d), brokers have the duty to all parties in the real estate transaction to maintain confidentiality:

“The duty to keep confidential any information given to the firm in confidence, or any information obtained by the firm that the firm knows a reasonable person would want to be kept confidential, unless the information must be disclosed by law or the person whose interests may be adversely affected by the disclosure specifically authorizes the disclosure of particular information. The firm shall continue to keep the information confidential after the transaction is complete and after the firm is no longer providing brokerage services to the party.”

The key analysis here is whether information was given to the real estate professional in confidence, or whether the licensee or firm knows a reasonable person would want the information to be kept confidential. One way to provide clarity is to use the “confidential information” sections in the listing contracts and buyer agency agreements to specify information the party wants protected as confidential. The “non-confidential information” sections in these agency agreements can also be used to authorize disclosure of information that may otherwise be considered confidential, for example, the seller’s requirement that buyers provide proof of funds before allowing buyer access or instructions for delayed offer presentation dates. That will establish the listing broker’s authorization to share this restriction with others, for example, include it in the broker-to-broker remarks section in the MLS.

The Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.12(1) confidentiality of offers provisions provide limited exceptions when information is being shared with another buyer or potential competing buyers:

“Except as provided in sub. (2), a licensee acting as a principal or an agent in a real estate or business opportunity transaction shall not disclose any of the terms of one prospective buyer's offer to purchase, exchange agreement, or option to any other prospective buyer or to any person with the intent that this information be disclosed to any other prospective buyer. Licensees shall encourage all prospective buyers to submit their best offers. A licensee may, but is not required to, disclose information known by the licensee regarding the existence of other offers on the property, that a seller has accepted an offer, that the offer is subject to contingencies, and that the offer is subject to a clause requiring removal of certain contingencies upon the occurrence of an event such as receipt, acceptance, or conditional acceptance of another offer.”

The other narrow exception to confidentiality under Wisconsin law is when the seller has given another party a right of first refusal on the property. If the seller has given another party a right of first refusal on the property, and the licensee has disclosed the existence of a right of first refusal in writing in a timely manner to all persons seeking to acquire an interest in the property, the licensee may deliver a copy of a party’s subsequent offer to purchase, exchange agreement, option contract or lease proposal to the party holding the right of first refusal.

For further discussion, see the National Association of REALTORS®’ “Narrative Explanation of Each Article with Synthesis of Related Standards of Practice and Case Interpretations” online here.


November 7: Promoting the Interests of Clients: Providing Offer Status Update

Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides that when representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. The obligation to the client is primary, but REALTORS® are also obligated to treat all parties honestly.

To that end, Standard of Practice 1-6 requires the submission of offers and counter-offers objectively and as quickly as possible. REALTORS® transmit all offers and counter-offers objectively to the seller or landlord as quickly as possible for the owner’s decision regardless of who produced the offer. This echoes license law in Wisconsin and the rules in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(3) requiring prompt presentation of written proposals in an objective and unbiased manner wherein licensees inform their clients and customers of the advantages and disadvantages of all submitted written proposals. And a licensee shall not withhold any written proposal from presentation pending the party's action on a written proposal previously presented unless the presentation would be contrary to specific written instructions from the licensee's client or customer. Real estate professionals do not impose any artificial delays and promptly present in an objective manner unless otherwise directed by their client or customer.

The parties and their agents have the right to know what has happened to the offers and written proposals they submit: were they presented and what was the response? If the seller/owner will not initial the offer or other proposal to indicate it was rejected or countered, the Code of Ethics and license law require affirmation that the proposal was submitted to the owner. Upon the written request of a cooperating broker who submits an offer to the listing broker, Standard of Practice 1-7 indicates the listing broker shall provide, as soon as practical, a written affirmation to the cooperating broker stating that the offer has been submitted to the seller/landlord.

This is consistent with § REEB 24.13(4):

Notification of action on written proposal. Licensees shall promptly inform their clients and customers whether the other party has accepted, rejected, or countered their written proposal. A licensee shall immediately provide a written statement to the other party's firm that includes the date and time when the written proposal was presented when such a statement is requested by the other party or the other party's firm. A licensee shall immediately provide a written statement to the other party's firm that includes the date and time when the written proposal was rejected or had expired without acceptance when such a statement is requested by the other party or the other party's firm.

A complaint may be filed against a licensee who does not comply. See dsps.wi.gov/Pages/SelfService/FileAComplaint.aspx for a DSPS complaint or www.wra.org/professionalstandards for an ethics complaint. A licensee cannot fulfil their duty to promptly inform their party whether the party’s proposal was accepted, rejected or countered if the other licensee refuses to provide this information. Consumers will be left believing the licensees are not knowledgeable, competent or professional.

For further discussion, see the National Association of REALTORS®’ “Narrative Explanation of Each Article with Synthesis of Related Standards of Practice and Case Interpretations” online here.


October 24: Promoting the Interests of Clients: Obligation for Honesty

Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides that when representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. The obligation to the client is primary, but REALTORS® are also obligated to treat all parties honestly.

Standard of Practice 1-2 recognizes a client as one or more persons or entities with whom a REALTOR® or the REALTOR®’s firm has an agency relationship, while a customer is a party to a real estate transaction who receives information, services or benefits but has no contractual relationship with the REALTOR® or the REALTOR®’s firm. In Wisconsin, clients have a listing contract, buyer agency agreement, property management agreement or some other written agreement between a firm and a client in which the client authorizes the firm to provide brokerage services to the client.

REALTORS® are legally and ethically obligated to a client to use their best efforts to accomplish the client’s objective, be it the sale, purchase or lease of real property; managing; or other real estate-related service. REALTORS® must be completely faithful to a client they have committed to serve. At the same time, they must also be honest with all parties to the transaction. For example, if a REALTOR® is the agent of a seller, the REALTOR® nonetheless must be honest with buyers and cooperating brokers. If the REALTOR® is the agent of a prospective purchaser, the REALTOR® must also be honest with sellers and their agents by making their relationship with the buyer clearly known to all. If a REALTOR® leases property as the agent of the owner or landlord, the REALTOR® must be honest with the lessee and any other brokers involved in the transaction.

REALTORS® must be forthright and honest when advising prospective sellers about the value of their property. When entering into listing contracts, they must advise sellers and landlords of 1) their company policies regarding cooperation and the amount of compensation that will be offered to other firms, 2) that buyer and tenant agents or brokers may represent the interests of the buyer or tenant even if compensated by the REALTOR® or the seller or landlord, and 3) any potential for the REALTOR® to act as a disclosed dual agent under multiple representation without designated agency.

When seeking to become a buyer or tenant representative, REALTORS® must not mislead buyers or tenants as to the savings or other benefits that might be realized by using the REALTOR®’s services. When entering into buyer/tenant agreements, REALTORS ® must advise potential clients of:

  • Their company policies regarding cooperation.
  • The amount of compensation to be paid by the client.
  • The potential for additional or offsetting compensation from other brokers or parties.
  • Any potential for the REALTOR® to act as a disclosed dual agent under multiple representation without designated agency.
  • And the possibility that the sellers or sellers’ representatives may not treat the existence, terms or conditions of offers as confidential unless confidentiality is required by law. In Wisconsin, we have the Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.12 confidentiality of offer rule.

For further discussion, see the National Association of REALTORS®’ “Narrative Explanation of Each Article with Synthesis of Related Standards of Practice and Case Interpretations” online here.


October 10: Writing Inclusive Property Descriptions

When writing property descriptions in the MLS or for other media, the goal is to attract as many interested buyers as possible. To do that, the real estate professional should strive to make everyone feel comfortable, welcomed and included. To that end, there are certain words and phrases that are best avoided.

“Safe neighborhood/quiet neighborhood”

What is safe may be relative and may mean different things to different people. A buyer should review the local crime data and speak with the local police department’s public information officer when evaluating the level of neighborhood safety for themselves. Licensees have no basis for telling buyers what type of experience they buyers will have in a neighborhood. One person’s assessment of safe or quiet may not meet another’s expectations or standards. These phrases may also be code language used to signify the neighborhood as predominantly white, upper class or consisting of few children.

“Walking distance”

For those who are older or have limited mobility, this language is relative and may be a signal to look elsewhere. If the point is that certain businesses or services are nearby, the message is best stated using actual distances. For example, “This home is conveniently located near ABC grocery store (0.2 mi), XYZ school (0.4 mi) and Horicon Park (0.6 mi).”

“Great family room/playroom for the kids”

A bonus space or room should not be marketed exclusively to families. It may make an ideal media room, home office, hobby space, exercise room or entertaining space. Don’t assume how a potential buyer might use a particular space when there are so many possibilities. Inspire the buyer to think of the potential use that resonates with them.

“Fisherman’s/hunter’s retreat”

The suggestion here is that the buyer will be a man and assumes the audience for a rustic off-the-grid cabin wants to fish and hunt. But there are rural buyers who want some peace and quiet as well as some land for gardening, conservation or nature studies.

As tempting as it might be, don’t pigeonhole the prospective buyers and decide what use they will make of the property. Describe the features and let the buyers decide what they might do there. The professional approach is to market properties in an all-inclusive manner, avoids discrimination and earns consideration of the property by a wide variety of buyers. This approach brings the greatest success to the seller clients.

For more, see “15 Ways to Make Your Property Descriptions More Inclusive,” by Inman News online here.


September 26: Article 16 – Respecting Exclusive Relationships

Aggressive, innovative marketing practices are not inherently unethical, but any business practice must comply with the other requirements imposed by the REALTOR® Code of Ethics. Article 16 does not prohibit disagreements with other REALTORS® involving commission, fees, compensation or other forms of payment or expenses.

Recognize that Article 16 does not prohibit general advertising, including telephone canvassing, mailings or distributions to all property owners in a given area or to all members of a class, organization or group, even though one or more of the recipients may currently be a party to an exclusive listing agreement. What is unethical are telephone or personal solicitations of property owners who have been identified by a real estate sign, multiple listing compilation or other information service as having exclusively listed their property with another REALTOR®. Mail or other forms of written solicitations of prospects whose properties are exclusively listed with another REALTOR® when such solicitations are not part of a general mailing but are directed specifically to property owners identified through compilations of current listings, “for sale” or “for rent” signs, or other sources of information are also unethical.

A REALTOR® is not prohibited from offering to provide unrelated services to the client of another REALTOR® or from offering the same type of service for property not subject to other firms’ exclusive agreements. But MLS information or other offers of cooperation may not be used to target clients of other REALTORS® to whom such offers to provide services may be made.

When another REALTOR® requests information from a firm concerning one of their listings, they are encouraged to disclose the type of listing they have and its expiration date so that the other REALTOR® can avoid an inadvertent interference in the relationship with the client. If, for any reason, the firm chooses not to share that information, they should be aware that their refusal will entitle the other REALTOR® to obtain it directly from the client and to discuss the terms of a future listing with the client or to take a listing to become effective upon the expiration of any current listing.

Recognize that if the discussion is initiated by the property owner, a REALTOR® may discuss taking a future listing on a property currently listed exclusively with another REALTOR® and may take a listing to become effective upon the expiration of the current listing.

A prospect’s prior selection and use of a REALTOR® in previous transactions cannot prevent other REALTORS® from trying to obtain that individual’s future business.

Once a listing has expired, other REALTORS® are free to solicit the listing. Before taking a listing, agents should use their best efforts to make sure the property is not already currently listed on an exclusive basis with another firm.


September 12: Article 16 – Respecting Exclusive Relationships

The REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides in Article 16 that, “REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS ® have with clients.”

Competition among brokers to provide brokerage, managing, leasing or other services is extremely intense until the prospective client enters into a binding agency agreement for such services. When an exclusive relationship is created, the competition shifts to the search for buyers or to otherwise fulfill the agreement. Once clients have selected a particular firm to serve their interests, the competition that prevailed earlier ceases, and cooperation takes center stage.

Cooperation between REALTORS® is the normal professional practice. Cooperation benefits the clients and customers in virtually every case. REALTORS® must carefully avoid taking any action inconsistent with the exclusive relationship, such as between the seller and the listing firm, and avoid any action that could be construed to induce a breach of the contract made with the client.

The client has made a decision and is entitled to the benefit of their bargain. This includes relief during the term of the agency agreement from direct overtures by other REALTORS® seeking to interest the party in the services they provide. This limited protection from direct solicitation does not preclude general advertising efforts by other REALTORS® but does prohibit efforts to induce the breach of an existing contract so that another REALTOR® can substitute themself in the place of the current firm.

In the case of an exclusive listing, to respect the exclusivity of the listing firm’s relationship, other REALTORS® must be able to determine whether an exclusive listing exists. If the listing firm refuses to disclose the nature (type) and duration of a listing, Article 16 recognizes the REALTOR®’s right to contact the seller or lessor directly to obtain this essential information. Under these circumstances, the REALTOR® may also discuss the terms of a future listing or may enter into a listing to become effective upon the expiration of the current listing.

Article 16 also acknowledges the right of property owners whose properties are listed exclusively to contact other REALTORS® if they are not satisfied with the listing broker’s performance. A REALTOR® is free to discuss the terms of a future listing on the property and may enter into a listing to become effective upon the expiration of the current listing if the discussion and contact were initiated by the property owner.

Actions inconsistent with the exclusive relationship of a listing broker can occur when a cooperating broker fails to obtain permission to show the property from the listing firm but contacts the owner directly. It can occur when a cooperating broker takes an offer directly to the client without the knowledge and consent of the listing firm. It can occur when a cooperating broker uses the showing of a property as an opportunity to make unsolicited, derogatory remarks about the listing firm that are untrue.

REALTORS® are obligated to respect the exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements of other REALTORS® and to work through them as long as the exclusive relationship remains in effect.


August 29: From the DSPS — Contract in Writing, Interference with Agency

On August 30, 2019, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint alleging that a broker and his firm billed a potential seller for real estate services without having a contract for those services. In July 2018, the potential seller asked the broker and his firm to review the potential seller’s property and to obtain bids for “trashing out" the property. The potential seller also discussed listing the property with the broker and his firm. They began performing the work at that time before signing a contract with the potential seller to do so. On October 16, 2018, the firm and the seller signed a WB-1 Residential Listing Contract — Exclusive Right to Sell for the property. On October 2, 2019, the broker admitted he and his firm performed work on the property and billed the potential seller for the work prior to signing a contract.

On December 17, 2019, the DSPS received a complaint from a listing firm alleging the broker and his firm acted unethically during a real estate transaction. On November 12, 2019, the broker drafted an offer to purchase for a bank-owned property. The broker wrote the offer as a subagent; the buyer was his customer, and the listing firm represented the seller. On November 19, the listing agent emailed the broker a Multiple Counter-Offer with a higher purchase price for the property.

On November 20, the buyer accepted the Multiple Counter-Offer, and the broker emailed the listing agent the signed Multiple Counter-Offer. That same day, a banker representing the seller/bank, contacted the broker to negotiate the transaction while the listing agent was on vacation. The banker, apparently unaware the buyer had accepted the Multiple Counter-Offer, disclosed the seller/bank may be willing to accept the original cash offer with the lower purchase price. The broker informed the banker the buyer had already accepted the Multiple Counter-Offer, and the broker emailed a copy to the banker. The broker also sent an email to the banker and inquired, " … may I ask how you listed with [the listing agent]?"

On November 25, the broker sent an email to the bank/seller and stated he thought maybe a small selling agent bonus was in order since he convinced the buyer to go $3,000 higher. On November 27, the broker sent an email to the title company handling the closing and asked, "did the bank give me a selling bonus? lol."

The DSPS Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the broker and his firm violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to put in writing all listing contracts, guaranteed sales agreements, buyer agency agreements, offers to purchase, property management agreements, options, financial obligations and any other written proposals regarding transactions expressing the exact agreement of the parties. The broker was found to have violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices, and the firm violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.17(3) by aiding and abetting the above violation.

As a result of these violations, the broker and the firm were reprimanded. The broker’s license was limited, and he must complete an education course about business ethics within 30 days. The broker and the firm also must each pay costs in the amount of $1,018.00 within 90 days. The broker’s license may be suspended should he not comply with these conditions.

A similar result comes under the NAR Code of Ethics, with Article 9 stating agreements should be “in writing in clear and understandable language expressing the specific terms, conditions, obligations and commitments of the parties.” Article 16 proclaims, “REALTORS ® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients.” REALTORS® are not to interfere with the selection of listing firms, listing contracts, nor the compensation agreed to therein by the seller and listing firm.


August 15: From the DSPS — Improper Use of Contracts and Forms

On August 4, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from Buyer #1 stating that Agent A pressured the seller to accept a different offer, in part because it would give Agent A a greater commission.

On June 18, 2020, Agent A entered into a WB-1 Residential Listing Contract that states the firm will be paid a 5% commission. The seller, Agent A and two of Agent A’s colleagues signed a “Team/Assist Addendum to Representation/Service Contract” document saying that the term “Agent” is amended to mean Agent A and his colleagues, Agent B and Agent C. This was not a Board-approved form and does not state who drafted it. The seller also signed a “Wisconsin Addendum to Listing Contract” that was not a board-approved form, does not state who drafted it, and was not referenced in the WB-1.

In his response to the DSPS regarding Buyer #1’s complaint, Agent A stated the seller told Agent A that Buyer #1 had been talking to the seller directly for months regarding purchasing the property. The seller asked if Agent A would help Buyer #1 draft an offer, and Agent A agreed. Agent A stated he also agreed to a reduced commission of 2.5% if Buyer #1’s offer was accepted, but this reduced commission was not in the WB-1, nor in any other documents provided to the DSPS.

On July 16, 2020, Agent A met with Buyer #1 to discuss the details of an offer. Agent A did not have a buyer agency agreement with Buyer #1 and did not provide Buyer #1 with a Disclosure to Customer form. An offer was drafted and submitted to the seller. That same day, Agent B, who is one of Agent A’s colleagues, drafted a WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement with Buyer #2 specifically for the listed property. Agent A, Agent B and Buyer #2 all signed a “Team/Assist Addendum to Representation/Service Contract” document providing the term “Agent” is amended to mean Agent A or Agent B. This is not a board-approved form and does not state who drafted it. Agent B drafted an offer on behalf of Buyer #2 for the property and submitted it to the seller.

Agent A told the DSPS that on July 17, 2020, he notified Buyer #1 that another offer had been made on the property, asked if Buyer #1 wanted to increase the price, and Buyer #1 said yes. Since the seller had not yet signed to accept the original offer, Agent A just re-drafted the first page of the offer with the new price. Buyer #1 did not sign a new offer. The original first page was not included in the transaction documents Agent A provided to the DSPS. Later that day, the seller told Agent A he was going to accept Buyer #1’s offer. Agent A called Agent B and Buyer #1 to tell them the news. Agent B told Buyer #2, and Buyer #2 decided to raise their offer by $25,000. Agent B asked the seller if he had signed the offer from Buyer #1, and the seller had not. The seller signed and accepted Buyer #2’s offer.

On February 11, 2022, Agent B told the DSPS the final commission for the sale to Buyer #2 was 3.2% instead of the 5% provided in the WB-1. Agent B admitted the reduced commission was not in writing.

The DSPS Real Estate Examining Board found Agent A violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(I )(b) by failing to provide brokerage services with reasonable skill and care pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.133(4m)(a) and violated Wis. Stat. § 452.135(I )(a) by negotiating on behalf of a party who is not the firm’s client without having provided to the party the required written disclosure statement.

Agent A failed to retain exact and complete copies of all documents received or prepared in connection with any transaction for at least two years, in violation of Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 15.04(1), and Agent A violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.06(4)(a) and (b) by using a pre-prepared addendum form that did not identify the drafter of the form and was not incorporated by reference into the approved form to which it was connected. Agent A also failed to put in writing all listing contracts, guaranteed sales agreements, buyer agency agreements, offers to purchase, property management agreements, options, financial obligations and any other written proposals regarding transactions, expressing the exact agreement of the parties, as required by Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08.

As a result of these violations, Agent A was reprimanded. The agent’s license was limited, and he must complete an education course about forms within 60 days. The agent also must pay costs in the amount of $1,043.00 within 90 days. Agent A’s license may be suspended should he not comply with these conditions.

The morals to this story are:

  • Provide a notice to customers when negotiating on behalf of a party who is not a client — a party to an agency agreement.
  • Retain all transaction documents for two years.
  • Write a new offer or counter-offer to the buyer’s offer if the buyer wants to raise the purchase price in an unaccepted offer.
  • Be sure that any addendum used explicitly indicates who drafted the addendum — whether the firm or an attorney.
  • And put all agreements in writing, such as amendments to listing contracts.

August 1: Prompt Presentation of Offers

On June 16, 2021, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint stating an agent received a $245,000 cash offer with no contingencies for her seller clients, but the agent did not notify the sellers or present the offer until three days after the offer expired.

The sellers’ listing in the MLS included a "Best & Final" offer deadline of June 8, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. and indicated the sellers would review all offers at that time. On June 2, 2021, the buyer submitted an offer with a binding acceptance date of June 4, 2021. The agent called the buyer to discuss extending his offer deadline to June 8, 2021, but the buyer found another property he wanted to see before extending his offer deadline. That same day, the agent spoke with the sellers and mentioned she would forward with the offers already received. The sellers questioned this, asking, “I thought I had to wait to see them until Tuesday [June 8, 2021]?” The agent replied that was correct and did not email any offers to the sellers.

On June 7, 2021, the agent called the buyer again to discuss the deadline extension, and the buyer asked for another showing of the property as well as a showing of another property. That same day, the sellers reached out to the agent to ask if the buyer’s offer was still valid, and the agent told them she was still speaking with the buyer about it. The next day, the buyer informed the agent he would not be extending his offer as he decided to put in an offer on another property.

The DSPS Real Estate Examining Board found the agent violated the prompt presentation rule. The current version of that rule found in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(3)(c) states: “A licensee shall promptly present all written proposals received to the licensee’s client or customer unless the presentation would be contrary to specific written instructions from the licensee’s client or customer. A licensee shall not withhold any written proposal from presentation pending the party’s action on a written proposal previously presented unless the presentation would be contrary to specific written instructions from the licensee's client or customer.”

The agent failed to promptly present all offers received to the seller for consideration. The agent also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(L), and the REEB may “revoke, suspend, or limit the license of any licensee, or reprimand the licensee, if it finds that the licensee has done any of the following: … Violated any provision of this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter.”

As a result of these violations, the agent was reprimanded. The agent’s license was limited, and she was required to complete an education course about business ethics within 90 days. The agent also was required to pay costs in the amount of $515.00.

The REALTOR® Code of Ethics in Standard of Practice 1-6 similarly provides, “REALTORS® shall submit offers and counter-offers objectively and as quickly as possible. (Adopted 1/93, Amended 1/95)


July 18: Professional Overtures

The approach and attitude of a real estate professional does not include the following qualities:

Self-centeredness

Focus on what you can do for the other person and do not be self-centered. Do not be that person who only reaches out to others when they want something, who launches straight into a monologue about themselves. Professional communication begins with a greeting and polite banter. When a favor is needed, be prepared to offer something in return.

Passive-aggressiveness

There is no place in professional communications for the eloquent sigh, eyeroll or headshake. This passive-aggressiveness leaves others interpreting nonverbal cues and to trying to accommodate what was not said.

Repetitiveness

If a deal has been done, bringing up the same issues again and again will not help. Revisiting a disagreement will not make it better. If a decision has been made, returning to it repeatedly will not create a different outcome.

Rudeness

Rude written communication can include:

  • TYPING WITH ALL CAPS SO IT FEELS LIKE YOU’RE YELLING!
  • Reaching out to someone you last contacted weeks or months ago without a one- or two-sentence explainer upfront refreshing their memory.
    • Jumping to conclusions about tone or intent, especially in written communication. Unless there is a real reason, assume that people are coming from a good place in their texts and emails instead of getting hurt or mad at perceived curtness.

    For discussion of other unprofessional communications tactics to be avoided, see “It’ll Cost You!” from Inman News online here.


    July 5: Communication Etiquette

    A real estate professional shows consideration during interactions with others and acts with empathy, kindness, respect and open-mindedness. Professional etiquette should be extended to others in the various modes of communication with clients, customers and other professionals.

    One example is a virtual meeting such as on Zoom. It is important to take these meetings seriously and be prompt, polite and attentive, just as you would it you were physically in a room together. Avoid distractions and put yourself on mute when not speaking to eliminate inadvertent interruptions or distractions. Just as you would with other meetings, use an agenda, an outline and easy-to-read presentation materials that can be shared on the screen.

    Consideration of others and etiquette also play a role when communicating via email. Use a professional-sounding email address to set the tone. This may be the email address provided by the firm. An email should start with a greeting and end with a professional signoff, similar to what would be done if writing a letter. Be careful to reply just to the sender and to not “reply to all” unless you intend to share the response with an entire group. If you fall into the habit of using “reply to all,” you may unintentionally share information that was intended to be private and communicated to just one person. It also pays to start a new email thread when you have been emailing back and forth, particularly when starting a new topic. Continuous threads among a group of people also pose a risk that information might be shared with those not intended to receive it. 

    When texting, identify yourself in the message and do not assume someone knows your number. Texting is not a good method for sending sensitive or upsetting news because the message is short, and personal interaction such as on the telephone may be preferred. The writing, spelling and grammar in a text message should be professional, just like with emails or business correspondence. Texting may work well for a quick update, but for complicated information or for sending attachments, email is generally preferable when working as a professional in a real estate transaction.


    June 20: Forms Use Guidance

    The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a party alleging a real estate firm and the firm's responsible broker would not return his $4,000 down payment after he cancelled a contract to have a home built within the cancellation window. The firm responded to the complaint and provided only one document — the party’s mortgage preapproval letter — instead of the complete transaction file requested by the DSPS. The DSPS also requested a response from an agent associated with the firm. The agent provided a complete copy of the transaction file. The agent indicated he had showed the party several model homes offered for sale by ABC Homes, a homebuilding company the agent represented in the sale of new homes and contracts for new construction homes.

    After the party received a mortgage preapproval letter, the agent met with the party to review paperwork for the purchase of a new construction home. The party asked the agent if he had seven days to back out of the contract. The agent told him the only contingency for having the deposit returned was if he could not obtain mortgage preapproval, but the party already had a mortgage preapproval letter. The party signed the purchase contract and paid the $4,000 deposit. Less than a week later, the party asked to cancel the contract due to financial issues.

    No board-approved forms were used. The purchase contract is titled, “[ABC] Homes Wisconsin, Inc. Agreement for Purchase of New Home.” There also were addenda, and none of the documents indicate the drafter.

    The contract provides the builder shall complete the home within 150 days of the start of construction, but only if the “Purchaser has demonstrated the ability to close with cash or Purchaser has obtained a pre-approval or commitment for a mortgage loan that satisfies all conditions of the Mortgage Rider attached hereto and has satisfied all conditions contained therein” (emphasis added). The mortgage rider requires the party to obtain a mortgage commitment, not a pre-approval, and to give the seller notice if they cannot. The seller can then either agree to finance on substantially the same terms or secure a mortgage commitment on behalf of the party. But if the seller does neither, then “the Agreement shall be null and void and the payments delivered to Seller shall be returned to Purchaser.”

    The broker informed the DSPS the forms were drafted by ABC Homes and approved by the builder’s outside counsel, that agents were trained on how to fill out the forms correctly and how to address customer concerns, and the agent had filled in the customer information, purchase price and other information. The broker stated he reviews all purchase contracts to ensure they have all the required information to move forward with building a home.

    The firm’s broker entity license expired and was not renewed for approximately six months. The broker indicated that during that time, the firm conducted 36 transactions. 

    The REEB found the broker violated Wis. Stat. § 452.132(1) by failing to supervise the brokerage service activities of each licensee associated with the firm. The firm, broker and agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm) by engaging in the practice of real estate when the firm’s real estate license was expired. The firm, broker and agent licensee also failed to use forms approved under s. 452.05(1)(b); and violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 16.04(1) by failing to use approved forms, or contractual forms drafted by a party or an attorney with the name of the drafter imprinted on the forms. They also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(i) by demonstrating incompetency to act as a real estate licensee in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public.

    As a result of these violations, the broker and the firm were reprimanded. The broker’s license was limited, and he must complete an education course about forms within 90 days. The broker and the firm must each pay costs in the amount of $509 each. 

    An agent must use an approved form if an approved form is available. The rules permit an agent to use a form drafted by a party, such as a builder, or an attorney if an approved form does not exist for the type of transaction involved. If the purchase of a newly built house from the builder is a unique kind of transaction and is different from the purchase of a property under the REEB-approved offers to purchase, one could argue the builder’s attorney-approved purchase contract could be used if it had the drafter’s name. The broker was responsible to supervise and ensure proper forms were used and applied correctly and ensure the entity license was timely renewed.


    June 6: Acting Without Supervision

    The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from the licensee’s former firm alleging the real estate salesperson improperly received commissions directly from title companies, failed to submit contract documents for review, and purported to be acting as an agent of the firm while conducting sales independently with regard to three transactions. The firm subsequently terminated the agent. See the details regarding the three transactions below.

    In the first transaction that closed in 2017:

    • The agent received a $4,075 commission directly from the title company.
    • The agent did not submit any of the transaction documents to his supervising broker for review.
    • The firm did not have signed copies of many of the transaction documents.
    • There was no agency disclosure form in the FSBO transaction.
    • The agent said he directed the title company to pay him directly.

    In the second transaction that closed in 2019:

    • The agent received a $2,500 commission directly from the title company.
    • The agent did not submit any of the transaction documents to his supervising broker for review.
    • The firm did not have signed copies of the transaction documents.
    • The agent said the listing agent directed the title company to pay the agent directly.

    In the third transaction that closed in 2020:

    • The agent received a $3,500 commission directly from the title company.
    • The agent did not submit any of the transaction documents to his supervising broker for review.
    • The firm did not have signed copies of many of the transaction documents.
    • The agent said the listing agent directed the title company to pay the agent directly.

    The REEB found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.132(6)(b) by failing to submit to his firm in a timely manner all agency agreements, offers to purchase, leases and other documents executed by the parties and records related to the brokerage services that were used by or received by the licensee, and Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.05(1)(a) (which is now in Wis. Stat. § 452.133(3)(a)) by, while acting as an agent in a real estate transaction, accepting a fee or compensation related to the transaction from someone other than agent’s client, principal firm or firm he was associated with without prior written consent from all parties to the transaction. In addition, he violated Wis. Stat. § 452.19(2) that requires that when a licensee is associated with a firm, all fees or commissions be paid to the firm.

    The agent was subject to discipline based on the following Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3) grounds:

    (f) Accepted from any person except the firm with which the licensee is associated, if the licensee is associated with a firm, a commission or valuable consideration for the performance of any act specified in this chapter or as compensation for referring a person to another licensee or to any other person in connection with a transaction,

    (g) Represented or attempted to represent a firm without the express knowledge and consent of the firm,

    (h) Failed, within a reasonable time, to account for or remit any moneys coming into the licensee's possession which belong to another person,

    (i) Demonstrated incompetency to act as a broker or salesperson, whichever is applicable, in a manner which safeguards the interests of the public, and

    (L) Violated any provision of this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter. 

    As a result of these violations, the agent’s license was suspended for 10 business days, and thereafter, his license is limited to practice under the supervision of an approved licensed broker who must submit monitoring reports every three months for one year when the agent may petition for the removal of the limitations. The agent must pay a forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 and the costs in the amount of $1,238, for a total of $2,238.

    Clearly a real estate professional with a sales license must be associated with a firm and practice under the firm’s supervisions and not act independently. An agent must submit transaction documents to the firm’s supervising broker. This enables the supervising broker to review the documents before closing to look for errors such as missing signatures so that such deficits may be remedied. The firm must have the documents and records for record retention per Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 15.04. Bypassing these obligations and the requirement that commissions be paid through the firm disrupt orderly firm administration of transaction and commissions and the ability to practice without liability. 


    May 23: Professional Property Management

    The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a property owner alleging a real estate business entity and the responsible licensee in charge were not fulfilling their duties as property managers for the owner’s rental property. The real estate business entity credential for the property management company expired on December 15, 2020, and was not renewed until July 13, 2021. The company’s attorney indicated that (1) the company was acting as property manager for the rental property owner based on a verbal, non-written agreement between the parties, (2) the rent checks received by the company were held in the company’s business checking account and not in a trust account, and (3) the company continued to operate during the months when its license was expired.

    The Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) found the company and responsible licensee violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 18.031(1) by failing to deposit all real estate trust funds received in a real estate trust account within 48 hours of receipt. They were also found in violation of Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)2 by engaging in any of the activities covered by the firm's license on behalf of the firm while its license was expired. In addition, they violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to put in writing all property management agreements and any other commitments regarding transactions.

    As a result of these violations, the company and the responsible licensee were reprimanded and must each pay one-half of the costs of this matter for a total of $327. The license of the responsible licensee was limited pending completion of an education course regarding trust accounts from an approved provider.

    Clearly a real estate professional must operate under a current real estate license. In addition, real estate licensees are obligated to put the agreement of parties in writing unless the parties themselves or their attorneys complete a writing, as stated in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08. Similarly, Article 9 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics requires REALTORS® to protect the parties by assuring agreements are put in writing “in clear and understandable language expressing the specific terms, conditions, obligations and commitments of the parties.”

    Rental application deposits, security deposits and rent may be deposited into one of the following three accounts:

    1. A traditional non-interest-bearing trust account, in other words, the regular trust account with which licensees are historically familiar.
    2. An interest-bearing trust account if the broker obtains the written consent of the parties for whom the funds are being held. This authorization must specify how and to whom the interest will be paid. No interest may be paid to or provided in any way for the benefit of the broker. This type of account will be needed for brokers in communities that require that interest be paid on security deposits. See Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 18.031(3).
    3. The rental owner's account. "Owner's account" is defined as an account maintained by the rental property owner for the deposit and disbursement of the owner's funds. A broker may deposit rental application deposits, security deposits and rent into the owner's account as long as these checks are payable to the one or more of the owners or to the owner's account, as authorized in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 18.031(5).
    See Legal Update 00.10, "Trust Account Basics," at www.wra.org/LU00.10.

    May 9: Confidentiality

    The DSPS received a complaint from Buyer A alleging a real estate agent (salesperson’s license) violated confidentiality. Buyer A had made an offer to purchase the home. Two days later, the agent held an open house where the agent met potential Buyer C. Buyer A alleged they overheard the agent reveal to Buyer C the price in Buyer A’s offer, the price the sellers were planning to counter with, and the price of a previously accepted offer that had fallen through. After the open house, the agent wrote an offer to purchase for Buyer C, and their offer was accepted. The agent later admitted that at the open house she had revealed to Buyer C the price in the counter-offer the sellers were planning to make to Buyer A’s offer to purchase.

    It was found the agent violated Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(d) by failing to keep confidential any information given to the firm in confidence, or any information obtained by the firm that the firm knows a reasonable person would want to be kept confidential. These duties of the firm extend to each licensee associated with the firm pursuant to § 452.133(4m)(a). The agent was also found to have violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices.

    As a result of these violations, the agent was disciplined pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3)(i) because the agent demonstrated incompetency to act as a salesperson in a manner that safeguards the interests of the public. The agent was reprimanded and must pay a $500 forfeiture and costs in the amount of $878.

    Offer terms, such as price, remain confidential even if the offer has not been accepted. Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.12 prohibits licensees from disclosing the terms of a prospective buyer’s offer to other prospective buyers or any other person with the intent that this information be disclosed to other prospective buyers. Licensees can and should encourage all prospective buyers to submit their best offers but cannot disclose terms of another buyer’s offer to create motivation or set the parameters of what might make the best offer.

    With regard to the disclosure of the seller’s price strategy, Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics provides that REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. Standard of Practice 1-9 indicates the obligation of REALTORS ® to preserve confidential information provided by their clients. REALTORS® shall not knowingly reveal confidential information of clients, use confidential information of clients to the disadvantage of clients, or use confidential information of clients for the REALTOR®’s advantage or the advantage of third parties.


    April 27: Avoidance of Unfair Advantage

    The Preamble to the National Association of REALTORS® Code of Ethics provides:

    Realizing that cooperation with other real estate professionals promotes the best interests of those who utilize their services, REALTORS® urge exclusive representation of clients; do not attempt to gain any unfair advantage over their competitors; and they refrain from making unsolicited comments about other practitioners.

    If disagreements did not arise between members, there would be little need for ethics or arbitration hearings. REALTORS® should strive to minimize the likelihood of disagreements through professional practice, including adherence to the Code of Ethics, understanding and respect for the law, and general competence in all transactions undertaken. A REALTOR® cannot guarantee that disagreements will never arise but should always seek to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

    Perhaps unfair advantage can be best avoided by caring, consideration and communication. REALTORS® who care for the interests of every individual involved in a real estate transaction are not apt to take any unfair advantage. REALTORS® who consider all points of view are not likely to take unfair advantage. Good relationships and good results in real estate matters are commensurate with good communication between principals, agents and cooperating brokers.

    The phrase “unfair advantage” is not intended to discourage aggressive competition. Rather, it is intended to discourage, among other things, misrepresentation of law or fact; misleading clients and customers with respect to the competence, honesty or loyalty of other REALTORS®; resorting to technicalities to justify questionable actions; and attempts to induce a breach of contract. It is not inappropriate to list or sell aggressively, or to work harder and longer than others. Ultimately, unfairness works to the disadvantage of clients and customers since it limits their power of choice, exposes them to possible litigation and deprives them of the full benefits of an open and cooperative relationship.


    April 11: Ensuring All Agents and Firms Are Properly Licensed

    A complaint was made with the Department of Safety and Professional Services that a broker and his firm acted improperly in a real estate transaction. The DSPS sent a cease-and-desist notice indicating the firm’s business entity license had expired and instructed them to cease and desist from performing any real estate services that require a business entity license. A review of DSPS records found that before that point in time, the firm’s credential had been expired for a period of seven years. The firm had at least 154 sold transactions, 69 expired listings and nine current listings during this period.

    Four months later, the firm renewed its license. Subsequently, the firm’s credential once again expired. The firm continued to host active listings on the MLS system.

    The broker and firm were found to have violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)1 by engaging in activities covered by the business entity license while the license was expired. The broker also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)2 by being a licensee associated with a firm and engaging in activities covered by the firm's license on behalf of the firm while the firm’s license was expired. 

    The broker and the firm were reprimanded and each was ordered to pay a forfeiture in the amount of $500 and one-half of the costs of $1,384.

    Real estate professionals must take great care that their licenses are in order. In particular, the business representative of a business broker entity should ensure not only that the broker’s individual license is renewed each biennium, but that the entity license is also renewed. Licensure is the fundamental foundation for professional services.


    April 4: Responding to Regulatory Agencies

    A complaint was made with the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) that a broker and his firm acted improperly in a real estate transaction. The DSPS sent a cease-and-desist notice indicating the firm’s business entity license had expired and instructed them to cease and desist from performing any real estate services that require a business entity license. A review of DSPS records found that before that point in time, the firm’s credential had been expired for a period of seven years. The firm had at least 154 sold transactions, 69 expired listings and nine current listings during this period.

    Four months later, the firm renewed its license. Subsequently, the firm’s credential once again expired. The firm continued to host active listings on the MLS system.

    The broker and firm were found to have violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)1 by engaging in activities covered by the business entity license while the license was expired. The broker also violated Wis. Stat. § 452.12(5)(bm)2 by being a licensee associated with a firm and engaging in activities covered by the firm's license on behalf of the firm while the firm’s license was expired. 

    The broker and the firm were reprimanded and each was ordered to pay a forfeiture in the amount of $500 and one-half of the costs of $1,384.

    Real estate professionals must take great care that their licenses are in order. In particular, the business representative of a business broker entity should ensure not only that the broker’s individual license is renewed each biennium, but that the entity license is also renewed. Licensure is the fundamental foundation for professional services.


    March 28: Duties to REALTORS®

    The agent was called to the sellers’ home to discuss listing the home. Upon arrival, the agent discovered a “for sale” sign from another MLS company. The sellers stated that the current contract expires at the end of the month, and they do not want to extend the listing. May the agent enter into a listing to start next month? 

    Yes, the new listing broker may enter into a listing that would begin next month. The second listing would be subject to the first broker’s rights with respect to the current listing based on listing protection or override rights it establishes with respect to properly qualified buyers.

    Pursuant to Article 16 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics, a REALTOR® may not initiate contact with the client of another REALTOR®. However, if the seller contacts the REALTOR®, the REALTOR® may discuss terms upon which they may enter into a future listing contract.

    Standard of Practice 16-6 provides:

    When REALTORS® are contacted by the client of another REALTOR® regarding the creation of an exclusive relationship to provide the same type of service, and REALTORS® have not directly or indirectly initiated such discussions, they may discuss the terms upon which they might enter into a future agreement or, alternatively, may enter into an agreement which becomes effective upon expiration of any existing exclusive agreement. (Amended 1/98)


    March 21: Duties to Clients and Customers

    From the disciplinary records of the Wisconsin DSPS

    On December 3, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from a seller alleging a salesperson had promised to give the seller $1,000 at closing, but he had not done so. In August and September 2020, the agent represented a seller in a real estate transaction. Before closing on the property, the seller expressed concerns to the agent that because of a mortgage on the property, the seller would not make enough money from the transaction. The agent verbally agreed to reduce his commission by $1,000 to assist the seller. He agreed to give the seller that money at closing. At closing, the seller realized the agent was still receiving the full commission. The agent told the seller he would transfer the money electronically, but he did not. On January 21, 2021, which was after the complaint was filed, the agent gave the seller a cashier’s check for the $1,000. On July 19, 2021, the agent admitted to the DSPS he had failed to put his agreement to reduce the commission into writing. 

    The REEB found the salesperson violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 by failing to put in writing all listing contracts, guaranteed sales agreements, buyer agency agreements, offers to purchase, property management agreements, option contracts, financial obligations and any other commitments regarding transactions, expressing the exact agreement of the parties unless the writing is completed by the parties or their attorneys or the writing is outside the scope of the licensee's authority under Ch. REEB 16.

    The salesperson was reprimanded and ordered to pay costs in the amount of $802. If the seller had filed a complaint with the local REALTOR® association, the salesperson could have been found in violation of Article 9 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics: 

    “REALTORS®, for the protection of all parties, shall assure whenever possible that all agreements related to real estate transactions including, but not limited to, listing and representation agreements, purchase contracts, and leases are in writing in clear and understandable language expressing the specific terms, conditions, obligations and commitments of the parties. A copy of each agreement shall be furnished to each party to such agreements upon their signing or initialing. (Amended 1/04)”

    Clearly a professional licensee must protect the parties and put all agreements in a transaction in writing, in clear and understandable language.


    March 14: Duties to REALTORS®

    From the disciplinary records of the DSPS

    On November 13, 2020, the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) received a complaint from real estate licensee (L) that Broker A had sent L a threatening text message. The case was opened for investigation. Broker A had a listing contract for a property that expired on November 6, 2020. On November 7, 2020, L sent a letter to the property owner regarding listing that same property with L. On November 10, 2020, L sent a second letter to the property owner. On November 11, 2020, Broker A sent a text message to L that stated Broker A would be contacting all of L's clients to see if they would like to list with the Broker A. Broker A also wrote, "Yep, I am sending to all yours and will start my negative campaign. Hope it was worth it." On January 21, 2021, Broker A provided a response to the complaint. He admitted sending the text message, but stated he had no intention to contact any of L's listings.

    The REEB found Broker A Violated Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.03(2)(b) by failing to act to protect the public against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical practices. Broker A was reprimanded, given 90 days to successfully complete an education course regarding business ethics, and ordered to pay costs in the amount of $866. If he violates any condition of the order, his license will be automatically suspended until compliance is achieved.

    Broker A's text was unprofessional and unnecessary. L appropriately waited until Broker A's listing expired before reaching out to the seller to recruit them as a potential client. If Broker A had reached out to L's clients, Broker A could have been in violation of Articles 15 and 16 of the Code of Ethics.

    Contacting a seller who is currently involved in an exclusive right to sell listing and disparaging the current listing contract may be seen as interference with the other broker's agency contract in violation of Article 16. A person who interferes with a contract may also be sued in civil court if damages can be proved. Further, Article 15 provides, "REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about other real estate professionals, their businesses, or their business practices. (Amended 1/12)."


    March 7: Duties to Clients and Customers

    When can a broker disclose other offers?

    The Wisconsin Administrative Code and the REALTOR® Code of Ethics regulate the sharing of information about pending offers on a property. Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.12(1) provides:

    "A licensee may, but is not required to, disclose information known by the licensee regarding the existence of other offers on the property, the fact that a seller has accepted another offer, that the offer is subject to contingencies and that the offer is subject to a clause requiring removal of certain contingencies upon the occurrence of an event such as receipt, acceptance or conditional acceptance of another offer."

    Therefore, unless the seller has required the broker to keep any information about offers on the property confidential, the agent may disclose the existence of other offers.

    Standard of Practice 1-15 provides:

    "REALTORS®, in response to inquiries from buyers or cooperating brokers shall, with the sellers’ approval, divulge the existence of offers on the property. Where disclosure is authorized, REALTORS® shall also disclose, if asked, whether offers were obtained by the listing licensee, another licensee in the listing firm, or by a cooperating broker. (Adopted 1/03, Amended 1/09)."

    Therefore, with the seller's approval, the agent shall disclose information about other offers. If, however, the seller directs the agent not to disclose, the broker may document this fact and follow the instructions of the seller.

    Standard of Practice 3-6 provides that REALTORS® must disclose the existence of accepted offers to brokers seeking cooperation. Therefore, unless the seller has indicated that this information is confidential per Wis. Stat. § 452.133(1)(d), the broker would disclose accepted offers. Any confidentiality directive should be in writing in the listing contract, or an addendum or amendment thereto, or on a copy of an agency disclosure form.

    In summary, REALTORS® must disclose the existence of other submitted offers if asked and if the seller has authorized the disclosure of this information. When a property is listed, REALTORS® should discuss with sellers whether they want the existence of submitted offers disclosed to buyers. REALTORS® should obtain the sellers written authorization in the listing contract (or an addendum or amendment thereto). The authorization may specify whether the disclosure is authorized only when the broker is asked or whether the broker should volunteer the information. Absent a seller's directive ordering or prohibiting the listing broker's disclosure of the existence of submitted offers, REALTORS® still have the discretion to choose whether to disclose the existence of submitted offers per § REEB 24.12.


    February 28: Duties to REALTORS®

    Brokers must not negotiate commission in the offer 

    Article 16 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics states: "REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage relationship agreements that other REALTORS® have with clients. (Amended 1/04)"

    Standard of Practice 16-16 provides, "REALTORS®, acting as subagents or buyer/tenant representatives or brokers, shall not use the terms of an offer to purchase/lease to attempt to modify the listing broker's offer of compensation to subagents or buyer/tenant representatives or brokers nor make the submission of an executed offer to purchase/lease contingent on the listing broker's agreement to modify the offer of compensation. (Amended 1/04)." Modifications to compensation should be settled before submitting an offer to purchase.

    A story illustrating an Article 16 violation may be found in Case #16-15: Cooperating Broker's Compensation Specified on Deposit Receipt. The following is a summary.

    The listing and cooperating firms were both MLS participants, and the listing firm specified the compensation offered on the listings filed with the MLS. However, the cooperating broker ignored this information, and on two separate occasions, submitted offers with copies of deposit receipts that specified more compensation than what had been offered in the MLS. In other words, they were demanding cooperating broker compensation greater than that offered by the listing firm. In addition, the language of the deposit receipt conditioned presentation of the offer upon the listing firm's agreement to pay a larger commission than offered in the MLS. This created a dilemma for the listing firm to either not submit the offer to the client, which would violate Wisconsin license law, or pay a larger co-broke commission.

    The cooperating broker insisted he had a right to negotiate, and the amount on the deposit receipt was the compensation for which he was willing to work. The hearing panel agreed the cooperating broker was entitled to negotiate concerning compensation but that such negotiation should be completed prior to the showing. The panel's decision further advised it was improper to insert the amount of cooperating broker compensation in the offer between the buyer and seller, as the brokers are not the parties to that contract. Compensation between the cooperating firm and the listing firm is properly a matter of contract between firms, and preconditioning an offer to purchase on the listing firm’s acceptance of an increased co-broke commission was inappropriate and in violation of Article 16.


    February 21: Duties to the Public

    Active participation in enforcement of law, regulations and the REALTOR® Code of Ethics

    If the REALTOR® becomes aware of any practice damaging to the public or that may bring discredit upon the real estate profession, the Preamble to the REALTOR® Code of Ethics encourages the REALTOR® to bring such actions to the attention of the State Real Estate Commission.

    Such reports should not be prompted by personal whim, preference or spite, but should be a manifestation of respect for the law and the REALTOR® Code of Ethics.

    Reports should never be made for the purpose of restraining a competitor who provides new or different services. Any challenge of a competitor’s practice must be based solely upon an unbiased and disinterested analysis of the practice or service itself and whether it damages the public or brings discredit upon the real estate profession.

    REALTORS® should be aware that they must arbitrate certain business disputes with other members rather than resorting to litigation. However, the obligation to arbitrate does not obviate the obligation to report any potential violations of the law to the governmental agency charged with regulating the practices of brokers and salespeople in the state.

    REALTORS® having direct personal knowledge of conduct that may violate the Code of Ethics involving misappropriation of client or customer funds or property, willful discrimination or fraud resulting in substantial economic harm have a duty to bring such matters to the attention of the appropriate board or REALTOR® association.

    For more information, click here.


    February 14: Duties to REALTORS®

    Ensure That Your Comments About Other Real Estate Professionals Are Truthful and Not Misleading

    Professional agents refrain from speaking ill or bad-mouthing other agents and professionals in real estate transactions.

    Manage your words and actions thoughtfully and stay at a high professional level. It is not necessary to make comments or share your personal feelings about others. The focus of a real estate professional is the parties and a successful transaction.

    Article 15 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics states, "REALTORS® shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about other real estate professionals, their businesses, or their business practices."

    Nothing is gained and much may be lost by "sounding off" in public. Uninvited criticism is counterproductive, impairs cooperative efforts, and diminishes the public's appreciation for the valuable services provided by REALTORS®.

    See the case interpretations related to Article 15 online here.


    February 7: Respect for REALTORS®' Relationships with Clients

    The agent was called to the sellers' home to discuss listing the property. Upon arrival, the agent discovered a "for sale" sign from another MLS company. The sellers stated that the current contract expires at the end of the month and the sellers do not want to extend the listing. May the agent enter into a listing to start next month?

    Yes, the new listing broker may enter into a listing that would begin next month. The second listing would be subject to the first broker's rights with respect to the current listing based on listing protection or override rights it establishes with respect to properly qualified buyers.

    Pursuant to Article 16 of the Code of Ethics, a REALTOR® may not initiate contact with the client of another REALTOR®. However, if the seller contacts the REALTOR®, the REALTOR® may discuss terms upon which they may enter into a future listing contract. Standard of Practice 16-6 provides that, "When REALTORS® are contacted by the client of another REALTOR® regarding the creation of an exclusive relationship to provide the same type of service, and REALTORS® have not directly or indirectly initiated such discussions, they may discuss the terms upon which they might enter into a future agreement or, alternatively, may enter into an agreement which becomes effective upon expiration of any existing exclusive agreement. (Amended 1/98)."


    January 31: Respect for REALTORS®' Relationships with Clients

    Cooperating agent contacted the seller directly

    A REALTOR® from an out-of-town firm contacted the seller directly to show the property to a buyer who wanted to present an offer. The seller is not happy about this because she runs a business, and her employees and clients do not yet know the business is for sale. This out-of-town REALTOR® should contact the listing agent, correct? Was this unethical practice?

    Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(5) provides licensees may not negotiate the sale of a property with the seller directly if the party has an unexpired written contract in connection with the real estate that grants another firm an exclusive right to sell. All negotiations shall be conducted with the listing firm, and not the owner, except with the consent of the listing firm or where the absence of the listing firm or other similar circumstances reasonably compels direct negotiation with the owner.

    If the other licensee is also a REALTOR® member, then Article 16 and Standard of Practice 16-13 of the Code of Ethics may also apply. Standard of Practice 16-13 indicates that, “All dealings concerning property exclusively listed, or with buyer/tenants who are subject to an exclusive agreement shall be carried on with the client’s representative or broker, and not with the client, except with the consent of the client's representative or broker or except were such dealings are initiated by the client."


    January 24: Respect for REALTORS®' Relationships with Clients

    Contacting another broker's client

    The broker has a property under an exclusive right to sell listing contract that does not expire until summer. Another REALTOR® contacted the seller with a letter discussing the benefits of listing with their firm. The letter is addressed specifically to the sellers and does not include a disclaimer for the sellers to disregard the letter if the property is currently listed. Does this violate the National Association of REALTORS®' Code of Ethics? Does it show a lack of professionalism? What actions should the listing broker take?

    Article 16 provides, "REALTORS® shall not engage in any practice or take any action inconsistent with the agency or other exclusive relationship recognized by law that other REALTORS® have with clients. (Amended 1/98)." However, Standard of Practice 16-2 does not preclude REALTORS® from making general announcements to prospective clients describing their services and availability even though recipients may have entered into agency agreements or other exclusive relationships with another REALTOR®.

    A general mailing or distribution addressed to all prospective clients in a given geographical area or in a given profession, business, club or organization, or other classification or group, is deemed "general" for purposes of this standard. If the mailing was part of a mass mailing and not targeted, there may be no violation of the Code. The listing broker may wish to contact the agent and his or her broker regarding the fact that the seller received the letter, and that the property is currently listed under an exclusive right to sell listing. While it is common practice to include a disclaimer statement to any seller of a property to disregard the promotional material if their property is currently listed, it is not required under the law or by the Code.


    January 17: Pathways to Professionalism

    The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) Pathways to Professionalism at www.nar.realtor/code-of-ethics-and-arbitration-manual/pathways-to-professionalism emphasize the importance of courtesy and etiquette. One aspect is respect for peers:

    1. The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) Pathways to Professionalism at www.nar.realtor/code-of-ethics-and-arbitration-manual/pathways-to-professionalism emphasize the importance of courtesy and etiquette. One aspect is respect for peers:
    2. Identify your REALTOR® and professional status in all contacts with other REALTORS®.
    3. Respond to other agents' calls, faxes and emails promptly and courteously.
    4. Be aware that large electronic files with attachments or lengthy faxes may be a burden on recipients.
    5. Notify the listing broker if there appears to be inaccurate information on the listing.
    6. Share important information about a property, including the presence of pets, security systems and whether sellers will be present during the showing.
    7. Show courtesy, trust and respect to other real estate professionals.
    8. Avoid the inappropriate use of endearments or other denigrating language.
    9. Do not prospect at other REALTORS®' open houses or similar events.
    10. Return keys promptly.
    11. Carefully replace keys in the lockbox after showings.
    12. To be successful in the business, mutual respect is essential.
    13. Real estate is a reputation business. What you do today may affect your reputation — and business — for years to come.


    January 10: Pathways to Professionalism

    The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) Pathways to Professionalism emphasize the importance of courtesy and etiquette. One aspect is respect for the property of others:

    1. Be responsible for everyone you allow to enter listed property.
    2. Never allow buyers to enter listed property unaccompanied.
    3. When showing property, keep all members of the group together.
    4. Never allow unaccompanied access to property without permission.
    5. Enter property only with permission even if you have a lockbox key or combination
    6. When the occupant is absent, leave the property as you found it (such as lights, heating, cooling or drapes). If you think something is amiss (such as vandalism), contact the listing broker immediately
    7. Be considerate of the seller’s property. Do not allow anyone to eat, drink, smoke, dispose of trash, use bathing or sleeping facilities, or bring pets. Leave the house as you found it unless instructed otherwise
    8. Use sidewalks; if the weather is bad, take off your shoes and boots inside the property.

    January 4: Pathways to Professionalism

    The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) Pathways to Professionalism emphasize the importance of courtesy and etiquette. One aspect is respect for the public:

    1. Follow the "golden rule": do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    2. Respond promptly to inquiries and requests for information.
    3. Schedule appointments and showings as far in advance as possible.
    4. Call if you are delayed or must cancel an appointment or showing.
    5. If a prospective buyer decides not to view an occupied home, promptly explain the situation to the listing broker or the occupant.
    6. Communicate with all parties in a timely fashion.
    7. When entering a property, ensure that unexpected situations, such as pets, are handled appropriately.
    8. Leave your business card, if not prohibited by local rules.
    9. Never criticize property in the presence of the occupant.
    10. Inform occupants that you are leaving after showings.
    11. When showing an occupied home, always ring the doorbell or knock and announce yourself loudly before entering. Do the same before entering any closed room.
    12. Present a professional appearance at all times; dress appropriately and drive a clean car.
    13. If occupants are home during showings, ask their permission before using the telephone or bathroom.
    14. Encourage the clients of other brokers to direct questions to their agent or representative.
    15. Communicate clearly; don’t use jargon or slang that may not be readily understood.
    16. Be aware of and respect cultural differences.
    17. Show courtesy and respect to everyone.
    18. Be aware of and meet all deadlines.
    19. Promise only what you can deliver — and keep your promises.
    20. Identify your REALTOR® and professional status in contacts with the public.
    21. Do not tell people what you think — tell them what you know.

    December 28: Personal Transactions

    An agent is running a rental ad for a property, but the name of the firm is not in the ad. Does this violate the Code of Ethics? 

    Article 12 of the Code of Ethics states REALTORS® shall be careful at all times to present a true picture in their advertising and representations to the public. REALTORS® shall ensure that their professional status — for example, broker or property manager — is readily apparent in the ad. In addition, Standard of Practice 12-6 provides that “REALTORS®, when advertising unlisted real property for sale/lease in which they have an ownership interest, shall disclose their status as both owners/landlords and as REALTORS® or real estate licensees. (Amended 1/93)”

    An agent, personally and not in an LLC, owns vacant land and plans to sell. What disclosure must be made about the agent’s licensee status and property ownership?

    A professional licensee first refers to company policy about personal sales transactions. Firms have different policies about how to structure transactions to comply with license law and the Code, avoid liability, and assure compliance with errors and omissions insurance.

    Article 4 of the Code of Ethics provides, in relevant part, “In selling property they own, or in which they have any interest, REALTORS® shall reveal their ownership or interest in writing to the purchaser or the purchaser’s representative. (Amended 1/00).” Standard of Practice 4-1 indicates these written disclosures should be made before signing any contract.

    These provisions mirror the disclosure of interest rules in Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.05, which require a licensee who is the buyer or seller in a transaction to obtain the prior written consent of the parties in the offer to purchase or other transaction contract.


    December 20: Duty of Loyalty to Clients

    The broker sees a property in the MLS that meets all the criteria of what his buyer client wants in their new home. But the listing agent works at a brokerage firm where the broker has experienced in the past that they may offer lower compensation for buyer’s agents. So, the broker decided not to tell the client about the listing and instead showed other properties where the offered compensation would be higher.

    Brokers who will not show buyers homes matching the buyers' search criteria because of the smaller commission they would receive are violating the law and behaving selfishly and unprofessionally – and will be violating the new pro-consumer MLS guidance NAR adopted November 15, 2021.

    Wisconsin licensees cannot place their own interests ahead of those of their clients. They have the duty to loyally represent their client's interests and place the client's interests ahead of the interests of the firm, as stated in Wis. Stat. § 452.133(2)(a). They cannot put their own interests in receiving more money ahead of a buyer client finding the best properties meeting their criteria.  

    Changes to the NAR guidance for local MLS marketplaces reinforces greater transparency for consumers. The changes ensure disclosure of compensation offered to buyer's agents, and ensure listings are not excluded from search results based on the amount of compensation offered to buyer's agents. The NAR board of directors adopted the changes to take effect January 1, 2022. This reiterates and strengthens REALTORS®' existing duty to inform clients about all relevant properties meeting their criteria.

    A real estate professional working with buyers serves their best interests and helps them learn about the potential options meeting their search parameters, regardless of the offered compensation.


    December 6: Embracing Fair Housing Initiatives

    A real estate professional does not discriminate and embraces fair housing initiatives. With fair housing education comes the ability to stand against discriminatory practices, advocate for fairness and provide equal service and treatment to all homebuyers, renters and property owners.

    Real estate professionals take on the identity of a real estate agent in the fictional town of Fairhaven at fairhaven.realtor. This fictional agent is confronted with different forms of discrimination while racing to close four deals. The real-life examples help agents realize housing discrimination occurs within everyday conversations and throughout typical transactions.

    As an added bonus, Wisconsin REALTORS® who complete Fairhaven are honored by having their name posted on the WRA list of Wisconsin Fairhaven graduates! See www.wra.org/Fairhaven

    Real estate professionals attend implicit bias training. The “Bias Override: Overcoming Barriers to Fair Housing” video at www.nar.realtor/videos/bias-override-overcoming-barriers-to-fair-housing was developed by the Perception Institute in partnership with the National Association of REALTORS® to help us understand how our brains are programmed to unconsciously organize information and stereotypes. Learn the steps to take to combat these biases and avoid fair housing discrimination.

    Real estate professionals complete the At Home With Diversity (AHWD) course. The AHWD certification helps agents learn diversity sensitivity, how to apply fair housing laws in their business, and ways to develop professional guidelines for working with people in the increasingly multicultural real estate market. Visit www.nar.realtor/at-home-with-diversity


    November 29: Professional Communication with Clients and Customers

    A real estate professional, together with the client or customer, should set a schedule of the critical milestones throughout the transaction. The professional should also report any success or issues to contend with at each deadline as well as what the professional is doing. 

    The professional and the party should define the appropriate means for feedback. Clients and customers may have questions or concerns, and they should understand the fastest and most effective way of communicating their concerns so the real estate professional can help resolve them as quickly as possible.

    The real estate professional should communicate in the way in which the client or customer prefers. Find out the preferred method of communication for each client and customer. Whether via text, email or phone call, let the customer or client know what is happening every step of the way using their preferred method of communication.

    The real estate professional should ask how frequently a client or customer wants updates, and then make sure to follow through and communicate at the preferred frequency. It is impossible to overcommunicate; if the client or customer say they need less communication, then ease up a bit.

    These communication details can go a long way toward making a party feel their needs and concerns, as well as their transaction, are fully addressed.


    November 22: Disclosing Financial Benefits

    When recommending real estate products or services, such as homeowners insurance, warranty programs, mortgage financing or title insurance, REALTORS® shall disclose to the client or customer to whom the recommendation is made any financial benefits or fees, other than real estate referral fees, the REALTOR® or REALTOR®’s firm may receive as a direct result of such recommendation.

    Article 6 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics protects clients and customers from conflicts of interest by the REALTOR® by requiring advance disclosure of the REALTOR®’s connection or interest in any organization or business entity before the REALTOR® recommends such services or products.

    Many REALTORS ® have interests in service firms, including contracting, roofing, brickwork, plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, title insurance, homeowners insurance, pest control or moving, for example. The REALTOR® is not precluded from offering such services, and it should be noted that such services may be among the best available. But, to recommend such services without first disclosing the REALTOR®’s interest, making it clear that the clients and customers are free to obtain these services elsewhere, can raise suspicion and create the appearance of impropriety.

    Article 6 also prevents the REALTOR® from benefiting directly or indirectly from the providers of such goods or services without the client’s prior knowledge and consent. Remember to disclose when you or your firm will receive any fee or will benefit directly from recommending a real estate service or product to a client or customer.


    November 15: Painting a True Picture

    Article 12 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics reads, in part: "REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communications and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations." Violations of Article 12 are one of the top issues that come up in ethics and grievance hearings. Thus real estate professionals must be careful with the picture they portray.

    Licensees must represent themselves and their brokerages in a reasonable and readily apparent manner. Agents must make sure the consumer knows they are not the broker if they're not. They must display who they are as a licensee and who the brokerage firm is in a clear and conspicuous manner. It shouldn't be something the consumer has to search for on fliers, signs, websites or social media posts.

    Accurate representations are a must, but that does not mean to copy the information or photographs of others. Professionals do not violate copyright law or copy the information of others. They do not use images obtained from Google Images unless they have permission from Google. They should not copy photos from the MLS without permission.


    November 8: Communication Is Key

    Communication and cooperation with other agents in the transaction is critical. Agents should always respond to others' calls and emails promptly and politely. But all too often they do not. This is a serious failing because real estate professionals rely on communicating and cooperating with other competitors for their livelihood.

    The following is some wonderful advice regarding what to do if the agent on the other side of the transaction is unresponsive. Reach out to the agent's broker and say:

    "Mr. (or Ms.) Broker, I’ve been trying to reach Betty Agent to present an offer we have on her listing at 123 Elm Street. I’ve tried reaching Betty on her cell via voice mail and text, as well as leaving multiple messages at her office. I’m wondering if she is O.K. My buyers are eager to have their offer presented. What do you recommend?"

    Good communication may also mean following up with the other agents to make sure that they are attending to the issues facing their party. But that does not mean demeaning them, bossing them around or peppering them with countless messages. Be firm and polite and show professional respect for your peers.


    November 1: Ethical Duty to Cooperate

    A licensee who does not belong to a REALTOR® association or MLS wants to show a property the broker has listed. Can the broker decline to make the property available? 

    No, the broker cannot decline to make the property available based on the buyer agent’s membership status. Article 3 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics requires REALTORS® to cooperate with other brokers in their client’s best interest. REALTORS ® are obligated to share information on the property they have listed and to make the property available to other brokers for showing regardless of the cooperating broker’s membership status. This ethical duty to cooperate does not, however, create a duty to compensate. Compensation in a cooperative transaction typically results from a blanket offer made through the MLS. When dealing with brokers who do not belong to the MLS, the listing broker should discuss compensation with the cooperating broker and enter into a compensation agreement before an offer to purchase is submitted.

    Standard of Practice 3-1 provides, in part

    "REALTORS®, acting as exclusive agents or brokers of sellers/landlords, establish the terms and conditions of offers to cooperate. Unless expressly indicated in offers to cooperate, cooperating brokers may not assume that the offer of cooperation includes an offer of compensation. Terms of compensation, if any, shall be ascertained by cooperating brokers before beginning efforts to accept the offer of cooperation."


    October 25: Documents and Agreements in Writing

    There is a home in the MLS that the agent thinks her buyer client would love, but the commission being offered by the listing broker is lower than she wants to be paid. It’s so low it won’t cover the time or effort she puts in to representing the buyer in the transaction. What is the right thing to do?

    Article 9 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics reads, in part: “REALTORS®, for the protection of all parties, shall assure whenever possible that all agreements related to real estate transactions including, but not limited to, listing and representation agreements, purchase contracts, and leases are in writing in clear and understandable language expressing the specific terms, conditions, obligations and commitments of the parties.” Similarly, Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.08 requires a licensee to put all listing contracts, buyer agency agreements, offers to purchase, property management agreements, financial obligations and any other commitments regarding transactions in writing, expressing the exact agreement of the parties, unless the writing is completed by the parties or their attorneys.

    Getting extensions to contracts in writing is also important as provided in Standard of Practice 9-1. Reasonable care should be used to ensure transaction documents are kept current with written extensions or amendments. If the transaction doesn’t close on time and there are no contract extensions, a party may have damages, and a REALTOR® who didn’t make the effort to get extensions in writing may be in violation of the Code of Ethics.

    REALTORS® also must make reasonable efforts to explain the specific terms of contracts and agreements to parties before they sign them, as confirmed in Standard of Practice 9-2. This applies to listing contracts, buyer agency agreements, offers and leases sent electronically. Pick up the phone and call them and explain to the parties exactly what they’re signing. This is a great way to stay out of legal trouble and avoid code violations. It’s also just a good professional practice.


    October 18: Commissions Are Negotiable

    There is a home in the MLS that the agent thinks her buyer client would love, but the commission being offered by the listing broker is lower than she wants to be paid. It’s so low it won’t cover the time or effort she puts in to representing the buyer in the transaction. What is the right thing to do?

    If the agent believes the buyer client would love the house, she should show the property to the buyer. There are a few options to address the fact that the offered compensation is less than desirable. The buyer agency agreement provides the buyer’s firm is authorized to seek payment from the listing firm or the seller, provided both parties in the transaction give written consent. Then the buyer pays any remaining commission to the extent it’s not paid by the either of those. 

    If the buyer does not want to pay any of the buyer agency fee out of pocket, the buyer may ask the seller to pay the fee as a condition of the offer. A buyer’s broker may ethically suggest or recommend that the buyer ask the seller to pay some or all of the buyer’s broker’s fee pursuant to Article 16 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics and NAR Case Interpretation #16-17. The buyer may condition the offer upon the seller paying some or all of the buyer’s broker’s fee on behalf of the buyer, as a seller’s expense at closing. 

    Additionally, the agent could ask the listing broker to negotiate the offer of commission. This request can be made at any time during the transaction, even after showing the property or submitting an offer to purchase on behalf of the client. The agent cannot, however, submit an offer to purchase that is contingent upon an increase in the commission paid by the listing broker. 


    October 11: Becoming and remaining informed

    (This week's Professional Pointers tip comes from the Aspirational Objectives in the Preamble of the Code of Ethics online here.)

    The amount of information a REALTOR® may have can vary at different states of the REALTOR®’s professional life. The REALTOR® should strive to: (1) become informed as rapidly and thoroughly as feasible about laws, proposed legislation, government regulations, public policies, and current market conditions; and (2) seek reliable information on matters that depend, in whole or in part, upon information or knowledge the REALTOR® may provide to clients and customers.

    REALTORS® will find it difficult to advise clients and customers properly if they do not know the requirements and limitations imposed by laws impacting upon a property or its owner. REALTORS® must provide accurate information but must refrain from the unauthorized practice of law. REALTORS® should avoid engaging in activities where they lack sufficient knowledge or when the activity is beyond the scope of their licensure.

    An important corollary is to admit any lack of pertinent knowledge and recommend that information be sought from others who are adequately informed. Intelligence and integrity are measured in part by the awareness an individual has as to that which the individual does not know.

    REALTORS® cannot be fully informed on all matters at all times but must always be honest and forthright and should constantly increase their knowledge and expertise consistent with the reasonable expectations of clients and customers.

    Only informed REALTORS® can contribute responsibly to public thinking. With so many issues affecting the practice of real estate and the rights of property owners, it is recommended that REALTORS® be informed and contribute responsibly to debate and decision as best they can.


    October 4: Managing expectations

    Get to know your clients

    Your clients and customers are human beings with passions, goals, hopes and fears. You may have clearly defined checklists and flowcharts for the entire transaction process, but it is important to take a little time to get to know your clients so you can understand their expectations and fears.

    Discuss communication methodology

    Everyone has a preferred way of communicating. Take the time to discuss preferred communication styles with your clients and customers to learn how they prefer to communicate and at what frequency. While some clients may prefer texting, important communications should also be made by email to create clear documentation, and serious problems may need to be discussed by phone.

    Create checklists

    Whether it’s buying or selling, having a system with plenty of checklists ensures no details are overlooked. Effective checklists serve as roadmaps for the parties and highlight critical steps along the way. Everyone is happy when no step is forgotten.

    Clients and customers will appreciate their agent’s organization and professionalism, and you will have an internal safeguard to keep everyone on track and avoid missteps.


    September 27: Communication

    Silence is like the kiss of death in real estate. No news often means potentially bad news is on the horizon, and things are about to unravel very quickly.

    Accordingly, the other agent should acknowledge communication within a reasonable time frame. Agents should always strive to respond with an email, text message or phone call, even if it is to say you don't have the answer at the moment, but you will get back to them when you do. No response may mean the message was not received, fell through the cracks, or went straight to junk or spam. Or it may be perceived as "no news is bad news" and negative assumptions and misconceptions may falsely begin to percolate.

    If you call another agent and they don't answer, the solution is not to keep calling until they do. Texting, for example, is a great way to relay what the nature of the call is about until you're able to connect properly.

    Good or bad communication has the power to alter the sentiment of the buyer and seller and the attitude of the agents involved as well as leave a lasting impression on everyone involved for years to come.


    September 20: Communication

    Is a listing agent required to advise a buyer’s agent or a buyer of the seller’s action on the buyer's offer, showing it was presented as well as the seller’s response?

    Yes. Under Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(4), written responses are to be given upon request by the other agent or party about the date and time of presentation and the date and time the proposal was rejected or expired. Standard of Practice 1-7 similarly provides the listing broker will provide, upon request, written affirmation to the cooperating broker that the offer was submitted.

    Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13(4) provides:  

    Notification of action on written proposal. Licensees shall promptly inform their clients and customers whether the other party has accepted, rejected, or countered their written proposal. A licensee shall immediately provide a written statement to the other party's firm that includes the date and time when the written proposal was presented when such a statement is requested by the other party or the other party’s firm. A licensee shall immediately provide a written statement to the other party’s firm that includes the date and time when the written proposal was rejected or had expired without acceptance when such a statement is requested by the other party or the other party’s firm.

    A professional licensee communicates the outcome to parties and agents waiting to know. Agents are obligated to let clients and customers know how the other party responded to their proposal if asked. Help them out so we all can be professional in the eyes of our clients and customers! 


    September 13: Uncooperative Agents

    If the other agent in the transaction is uncooperative, the professional agent steps in for the good of the parties and the transaction. 

    As a real estate agent retained by the parties for the sale and purchase of real estate, a real estate professional takes action to address the issue the other agent is not. Browbeating the other agent with an avalanche of emails is a diversion from the goal and has little likelihood of changing the other agent’s behavior. The focus is the successful transaction. Nobody wants to feel they are working for free, but the parties want the transaction to close and will not be favorably impressed if the agents in the transaction are pointing fingers and playing the blame game.

    Once the transaction is completed the professional may reach out to the other agent’s broker to express concern over what happened and move forward with complaints if needed. The uncooperative agent should not be left believing that other agents will always cover for them.


    September 7: Unauthorized Access

    Agents have been showing up with buyers without scheduling an appointment to see the property. It is believed they see in Showingtime or otherwise learn there is another showing scheduled at that time, and the agents just show up with a buyer without communicating with the listing agent or officially scheduling an appointment.

    Piggyback or drop-in showings are an ethics and professionalism concern. If the seller did not authorize the drop-in showing, then the agent who brought the buyer or sent the buyer to another buyer’s showing appointment or facilitated this situation is permitting buyer access to a listed property on terms other than those authorized by the property owner. An agent showing up at another's scheduled showing appointment with the intention of showing the property is violating the REALTOR® Code of Ethics:

    Standard of Practice 1-16: "REALTORS® shall not access or use, or permit or enable others to access or use, listed or managed property on terms or conditions other than those authorized by the owner or seller. (Adopted 1/12)"

    Standard of Practice 3-9: "REALTORS® shall not provide access to listed property on terms other than those established by the owner or the listing broker. (Adopted 1/10)"


    August 30: Courtesy and Communication

    The communication and presentation of offers contributes to an overall impression of professionalism. Recent reports about listing brokers not presenting offers or not communicating with cooperating brokers and buyers about the seller’s response unfortunately do not reflect the high standards of REALTORS®

    Some reminders about the applicable standards are in order. Much of this guidance is based on Wis. Admin. Code § REEB 24.13. 

    1. First of all, licensees must always promptly present all written proposals to their client or customer unless contrary to specific instructions.
      1. Licensees should not withhold offers from presentation simply because there are other offers waiting for the seller’s response. 

      A good choice when there are multiple buyers is the WB-46 Multiple Counter-Proposal, allowing the seller to negotiate simultaneously with more than one buyer. It is the seller’s decision — not the listing agent’s — about which offer or offers to entertain. 


      August 23: Competent Cooperation

      Be sure to read showing instructions and other MLS instructions — and then follow them — to avoid wasting time while others have to correct the situation. Be a cooperative professional and follow directions. If you don't understand, seek clarification before you proceed!

      A professional knows how to fill out forms correctly and completely. Don't make the other agent spend their time with corrections and counter-offers. Be a competent professional in the eyes of clients and customers. 

      If the listed property is a condominium or HOA property, courteously disclose the fees to buyers so the parties and their agents are not blindsided and can prepare properly for closing and beyond. Unhappy surprises do not enhance the reputation of real estate practitioners.


      August 16: Confidentiality Concerns

      An agent has a listing where the seller accepted an offer from a buyer. The seller ended up being underwater on their mortgage and was not able to provide clear title. The buyer's attorney is going to draft a document to return the earnest money but is asking for a copy of the listing contract. Can the listing firm provide the listing contract?

      The listing contract is a confidential document between the seller and the listing firm and should not be provided to anyone unless the seller and the firm both agree to provide it. Even if the seller gives permission, the firm should contact the firm's legal counsel to determine whether it is advisable to provide the firm's listing contract to the buyer's attorney.

      A professional licensee respects the confidentiality of others and thereby earns their trust and respect.


      August 9, 2021: Communication

      • Bad communication is a major pet peeve and does not win favor or cooperation.
      • If an email or text asks three or four specific questions, be sure to answer all the questions the first time around. Don’t make the other agent waste time chasing you down for the missing information. Promote efficiency, as a professional should.
      • It may not be pleasant to deliver bad news, but a professional has the courage and courtesy to call when there is bad news as well as the good and discuss the situation directly.
      • Delivering bad news or a negative response to an issue may lead to disagreement or a dispute, which everyone would prefer to avoid. But it comes as part of the job of a real estate professional. Radio silence will not make the issue go away and just contributes to the frustration on the other side.

      Be responsive. Be prompt. Be direct and efficient. Be professional.


      August 2, 2021: Objective Information

      Buyer clients are shopping for homes in a new city and want to know about the crime rates in different neighborhoods to help them make their homebuying decision. The agent explains what she has heard about criminal activity in the local news.

      A professional agent always avoids giving personal opinions about a community or neighborhood, even if asked. Instead, guide buyers to third-party resources to answer their questions about neighborhood-specific information such as demographics, schools and crime statistics. Allow buyers to research what is important to them and their families and reach their own decisions. This will help the professional avoid any potential steering claims or fair housing law violations.

      The professional real estate agent provides facts and reputable third-party sources of information; never their personal perceptions or opinions.


      July 26, 2021: Professional Communication

      Is a listing agent required to provide a buyer’s agent or a buyer, upon their request, with a copy of their rejected offer, showing it was rejected by the seller?

      Although it is wonderful when this documentation is provided to the buyer, the listing agent cannot compel the seller to document their rejection on the offer. An agent is, however, required to provide a written statement indicating when an offer was presented if requested by the buyer or the agent working with the buyer. Additionally, if requested by the agent working with the buyer or the buyer, the listing agent shall provide a written statement indicating when the offer was rejected or expired without acceptance.

      The mark of a professional is to go beyond what is required by law and voluntarily let buyers know what has happened to their offer. A professional agent promptly communicates with others and does not leave buyers and their agents waiting in suspense. No agent wants to be put in the position of trying to give an answer to a frustrated buyer when they have no idea what has happened.


      Copyright 1998 - 2025 Wisconsin REALTORS® Association. All rights reserved.

      Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Use   |   Accessibility   |   Real Estate Continuing Education