Grievance Case Part 2

Here's another interesting case we had this week.

So, Jill was buying a house. Jack was her agent. 

Jill was buying the house from Wilma. Wilma owned the house, in fact, it was a flipped property. Wilma was also the selling agent. 

Wilma said in her advertising the AC was two years old. Wilma also said in her disclosure statement she was "told" the AC was two years old. 

Jill did not get a home inspection. Instead Jack provided her (given to him from Wilma) an old property inspection that had been done weeks earlier. In it, it said the AC is not two years old but probably towards the end of its useful life. Apparently Jill did not read this report. By the way, the AC went out a week after Jill moved in. 

Jill was accusing Wilma of false advertising. 

And here is where it got dicey. As agents (we are all agents on the Grievance Committee) we saw that Jack was a horrible agent and did not advise his client to get a home inspection or a educate his client of a few other necessary tid-bits that would have let Jill make an informed purchase decision. Also, it appeared that Jill didn't actually read the former home inspection. Jack really needed to have his butt handed to him for not doing his job. 

However, Jill filed an ethics breach on Wilma. 

The committee agreed Wilma had falsely advertising the AC unit was newer than it is. The case needed to go to the High Inquisitor Squad. If I were Wilma, I would probably argue that Jack didn't do his job and educate his client. Jill didn't read the material handed to her by Jill's agent nor did she read the actual purchase contract that says the buyer needs to do her own due diligence. I'm not saying Wilma is innocent, I just think the bigger transgression is Jack's failure to make sure his client was educated and protected. But, according to Jill, Jack is a rock star (incidentally, this member of the committee did not agree with Jill about Jack's rock star status.). 

Oh yes, the committee also decided Wilma's broker, was on the hook for this too and Mr. Broker now has an ethics complaint on behalf of Wilma. I am sure he will be thrilled. In real estate terms, the broker actually owns the listing so if the agent (Wilma) advertises something incorrectly it is on him as well. Though this paragraph is short, I promise you the debate that ensued to get to this point, was not.

I am sorry I won't see how this one turns out. But, I may look up Wilma a few weeks from now and see if she is practicing real estate somewhere else.