Uncategorized

bad apple

10
10 Comments

Before I post this link I’d just like to give the following disclaimer: most realtors are honest professionals that will give you good advice on buying and selling and not take advantage of you, but I guess there’s always an exception to the rule.

Vancouver realtors Dian Dai-Qing Gao and her husband Norman Chan of Sutton-Killarney Realty have been ordered by the BC supreme court to hand over profits from a flipped condo to the original owners.

The couple had purchased a new home in West Vancouver and listed their condo for sale at $529,900 with Gao*(see note below). They had accepted an offer for $517,500 but the day the offer was to go through it collapsed, the court was told.

At this point Gao and Chan decided to purchase it themselves. The couple testified that they were assured by Gao that the apartment wouldn’t be flipped but would be kept by the realtors as an investment. Six days after Gao took possession of the condo it was listed for sale at over $100,000 more than she had paid for it.

Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse found that Gao had breached a fiduciary duty she had with the couple and ordered her to repay them the profit of about $70,000 she made in flipping the property.

So if a realtor offers to buy the property you’re selling, should you be suspicious?

____

*Joel Korn of Sutton Group Killarney writes in to point out that the linked article is incorrect on this point. Gao was not the listing agent, the property was listed through Ralph F. Oakes according to the property info sheet.

10 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
the pope

Paul: I agree that the problem here was that the agents said one thing and then did the opposite, but its funny that in most any other line of work this wouldn't be a problem. No one is surprised when a used car lot gives them a low price on their car then turns around and sells it for thousands more.Then again used car salesmen don't have that brochure explaining how they will always work in their clients interest.

1
0
Paul

I am a real estate agent. Of course I am in this business to make money for myself. I am also in this business to get the most $$$ for my sellers and help my buyers negotiate a favourable deal. It can be win win for all parties. The majority of Realtors are not trying to swindle their clients. That said, their are snakes in this field as their are in many professions and you should always use care when finding a Realtor, or Lawyer, or Banker, or Mortgage Broker, Stock Broker,or Notary etc.

0
0
Jojuchst

I see it as being that the RE agent didn't do their part in getting the best price for their client.Not all sellers stay current with market prices and in my opinion they are paying a RE agent to advise them on what's their property's worth in the current market. The RE agent should advise the seller to revise their price up if the market is as volatile as it's been recently.Not only did the agent fail to do that but they took advantage of the volatility in the market and profited for themselves.What would happen if you go to a mortgage broker and instead of getting the best rate at closing the broker instead offer the rate when you first saw him even though the rate has gone down since your original meeting. And he pockets the difference?A person… Read more »

0
0
el bbub

I don't see nothing wrong with buying cheap and selling for more. First of all they should've invited more realtors to view the property and choose the realtor who suggested the average price. Second of all offering and making these kinds of aggreements is immoral.

0
0
Paul

The problem with this transaction was the Realtor did not disclose why they were purchasing the home. They in fact said they wanted to hold it long term….The Realtor was unethical.But, how worse off are the owners had the first offer not collapsed v. the Realtor puchasing…. no difference.As a Realtor your intentions must be disclosed but this is hardly a juciy evil Realtor tale.

0
0
e

jim: i agree with you. unfortunately, REBGV looks out for its best interests (i.e. the interests of the realtors who pay the membership). its kind of like a union of sorts. unfortunately, the industry isn't regulated, and nothing will ever happen to REBGV.

0
0
Jim

I left Calgary in 1989. I sold my house under duress. I discovered months later that it was purchased by my relator's sister. As Ozzie would say as long as you are happy with the price there are no bad deals-or somthing like that. I think the realtor should lose their liscense and I think the REBGV should be held accountable.Only then will the REBGV clean up their act.

0
0
quack

I wonder how it has affected Sutton-Killarney Realty. Do you suppose they've lost or will lose any clients? Will the cost to them be greater than the amount the realtors in question have been ordered to pay?

0
0
mk-kids

really! $517,000 wasn't enough for this greedy couple??!! geesh. those helpful realtors were just doing them a favour. the world has gone mad (end sarcasm)

0
0
the pope

…and a hat tip to Marco for the link.This just seems unfair, I mean this is just a professional couple doing their job, seeing an opportunity to make a little extra money and their clients sue them? What is this world coming to?

0
0