Judges: W.A. DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General of Oklahoma.
Filed Date: 12/7/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Dear Senator Snyder,
¶ 0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:
2. Does 59 O.S. 2001, § 858-353(4)(b) require atransaction broker retained by the seller to keep the sellerfully informed regarding the transaction if the seller andtransaction broker agree the seller does not want to be furtherinformed by the transaction broker regarding the transaction?1. Does 59 O.S. 2001, § 858-353(4)(a) of the Oklahoma Real Estate License Code require a transaction broker retained by the seller to receive offers for presentation to the seller if the seller and transaction broker have agreed that all offers shall be presented directly to the seller?
¶ 1 You indicated that your question was directed to limited service agreements in which transaction brokers, for example, list a seller's property with a Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"), but provide no other services with respect to the sale of the seller's property.
¶ 2 Title 59 O.S. 2001, § 858-353[
1. To perform the terms of the written brokerage agreement, if applicable;
2. To treat all parties with honesty;
3. To comply with all requirements of the Oklahoma Real Estate License Code and all applicable statutes and rules; and
4. To exercise reasonable skill and care including:
a. timely presentation of all written offers and counteroffers,
b. keeping the party for whom the transaction broker is providing services fully informed regarding the transaction,
c. timely accounting for all money and property received by the broker,
d. keeping confidential information received from a party confidential as required by Section 7 of this act, and
e. disclosing information pertaining to the property as required by the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act.
Id. (footnotes omitted).
¶ 3 The duties in Section 858-353 are mandatory. See, e.g.,Grimes v. City of Oklahoma City,
¶ 5 "[T]he primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and follow the Legislature's intention. ``[T]he plain meaning of a statute's language is conclusive except in the rare case when literal construction produces a result demonstrably at odds with legislative intent.'" Duncan v. Okla. Dep't of Corr.,
¶ 6 These statutes and rules require a transaction broker to communicate offers to the seller with whom he or she has contracted if he or she receives such offers. However, neither Section 858-353(4)(a), nor the rules implementing the provision, state that a transaction broker must receive offers that might otherwise be communicated directly to the seller. "It is not the function of the courts to add new provisions which the legislature chose to withhold." Pentagon Acad., Inc. v. Indep.Sch. Dist. No. 1,
¶ 7 In Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt,
Had the legislature intended to include the sub-surface storage area, they could have done so in clear language. It is the duty of a court to give effect to legislative acts, not to amend, repeal or circumvent them, and a court is not justified in ignoring the plain words of a statute. Neither the Supreme Court nor a district court may expand the plain wording of a statute by construction where the legislature has expressed its intention in the statute as enacted.
Id. (footnotes omitted). See also Nealis v. Baird,
¶ 8 Additionally, statutes are to be given a sensible construction, bearing in mind the evil to be avoided. In A.G. Opin. 02-08, we determined that requiring all offers to be presented to the seller, notwithstanding an agreement to present only above-listing price offers, reduces the possibility that the broker could exert influence on a seller not to consider certain offers. Id. at 44. Construing Section 858-353(4)(a) in accordance with its plain language eliminates that possibility by permitting the seller, if he or she wishes and so contracts, to receive offers directly from prospective buyers, eliminating the risk of the broker exerting any influence on the seller with respect to which offers to consider. The buyer and the seller are thus protected from any misfeasance or malfeasance by the broker in communicating offers because the broker is not filtering or impeding the flow of communication.
¶ 9 Further, it is established law in Oklahoma and elsewhere, that in the absence of an exclusive listing agreement, a seller "has the right, in good faith, to sell the propertyindependently of the broker without liability to the broker for commission." Kennedy Kennedy v. Vance,
¶ 10 If a transaction broker receives a written offer, he or she must present it to the seller. 59 O.S. 2001, §858-353[
¶ 12 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the AttorneyGeneral that:
1. If the transaction broker and the seller with whom he or she has contracted have agreed that the seller will directly receive offers, 59 O.S. 2001, § 858-353(4)(a) of the Oklahoma Real Estate Code does not require the transaction broker to receive offers.
2. Section 858-353(4)(b) requires a transaction broker to keep the party for whom he or she is providing services fully informed regarding the transaction. This mandatory provision cannot be avoided through contractual language. However, if the seller and the transaction broker agree that listing a property on the Multiple Listing Service is the transaction with which the seller would like assistance, a transaction broker would satisfy his or her duty to keep the seller informed regarding the transaction by keeping him or her fully informed regarding the listing of the property with the Multiple Listing Service.
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON Attorney General of Oklahoma
JOANN T. STEVENSON Assistant Attorney General