In what should be exciting news to any Veterans looking to pursue a career in real estate, effective July 1st the initial licensure processing for all honorably discharged Veterans will be expedited.
S.B. Read more...
In what should be exciting news to any Veterans looking to pursue a career in real estate, effective July 1st the initial licensure processing for all honorably discharged Veterans will be expedited.
S.B. 1226 added Section 115.4 to the Business and Professions Code (BPC) and requires that all boards within the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer Affairs “expedite, and may assist, the initial licensure process” for any applicant that can prove honorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces. This includes the licensure process under the California Bureau of Real Estate. The Salesperson Exam/ License Application also provides the details for this expedited process. There is no word yet on how expedited the process will be, but considering the process can currently take several weeks this should be a valuable perk for Veterans.
We at Adhi Schools would like to thank all Veterans for their service and remind our readers that Veterans receive a 25% discount from our live packages if they choose Adhi for their real estate education. We are proud to say that we have many Veteran students who have completed our programs and we always provide the highest quality real estate education to those who have served our country.
|
Like any professional license, a real estate licensee can have his or her license suspended or revoked for various reasons. Criminal conduct is one of those, which makes sense considering the responsibilities Read more...
Like any professional license, a real estate licensee can have his or her license suspended or revoked for various reasons. Criminal conduct is one of those, which makes sense considering the responsibilities of a real estate agent. Few people would want to be represented by someone they do not trust while relying on that person for financial advice, showing their home, and handling the paperwork to buy or sell property.
Passing the California real estate exam does not equal an endorsement of one’s character and there are a lot of reasons why trust in your real estate agent is important. The good news is that in California, if a real estate licensee breaks the law there is a possibility that they will have their license suspended or revoked, protecting potential clients.
The California Bureau of Real Estate (CalBRE) runs background checks before granting licenses and reserves the right to deny them if an applicant has been convicted of a “substantially related crime”. Sections 480 and 490 of the Business and Professions Code define this as an act that may be deemed substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a real estate licensee, with more specific details of applicable conduct available here. Because the background check process involves fingerprinting, CalBRE is notified by the Department of Justice and the Bureau immediately begins an investigation to determine if the crime is substantially related. Disciplinary action can then be taken, including suspension or revocation of the license.
While this seems to be conveniently outlined by the law, below are a few cases that show how broad the phrase “substantially related crime” is. We have pulled real examples of disciplinary action from the CalBRE “Verify a License” section on their website, but have chosen to leave the individuals at the center of these cases relatively anonymous out of professional courtesy and good taste.
Case #1 is relatively straightforward—a real estate broker failed to properly oversee trust funds in his control and negligently allowed a shortage of $111,828.27 to occur. It was determined to not be a case of intentional mismanagement. and the broker license was revoked with a right to a Restricted license. The broker went on (a few years later) to regain a non-restricted broker’s license.
In Case #2 a real estate salesperson was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of cruelty to a child in connection with public intoxication. CalBRE believed that the cruelty to a child convictions were serious enough to revoke the salesperson license because of the threat of substantial injury to the children. Although CalBRE offered a path to a Restricted license, it doesn’t appear that the licensee performed the required steps to obtain this.
In Case #3 a real estate salesperson was convicted of felony assault and his license was revoked as the crime was substantially related to the qualifications, function, and duties of a real estate licensee. In this case there has been no action to restore the license or grant a restricted license to the offender.
What these three cases illustrate is CalBRE’s commitment to maintaining the standards of the real estate profession. The system in place recognizes, assesses, and meets a crime with appropriate disciplinary action. Few would argue that Case #1 and Case #3 should be met with identical punishment and they were not. While there is always the possibility for poor judgment or an appeals court overturning a CalBRE decision (which has happened), the system is in place for a reason and often functions well.
On top of the potential for a loss of license, if an agent or broker is a REALTOR® and is found to be in violation of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics, disciplinary action from the local REALTOR® association can include fines and suspension of REALTOR® membership. Many crimes would result in a violation of this code, so criminal offenses can be met with considerable consequences even if CalBRE or the courts decide that a license will not be suspended or revoked.
As always, for questions or clarifications just leave a message in the comment section or reach out to cody@adhischools.com . We welcome your opinions.
|
Illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, illegal aliens—whatever the chosen vocabulary, there are millions of people residing in the United States and California that fall into this category. Illegal Read more...
Illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, illegal aliens—whatever the chosen vocabulary, there are millions of people residing in the United States and California that fall into this category. Illegal immigrants live somewhere and with California’s notoriously high prices, renting is the only option for many. This raises questions for the landlord. Can you ask about immigration status? Do you have to rent to an illegal immigrant if you do not wish to? Are illegal immigrants reliable renters?
California law prohibits a “landlord or any agent of the landlord” from inquiring about the immigration or citizenship status (or compelling a statement about immigration or citizenship status) of a “tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property”. That same section of code does allow the landlord to request information or documents in order to verify an applicant’s identity and/or financial qualifications.
Remember, illegal immigrants can receive driver’s licenses in California and it is illegal to discriminate in employment or housing because of the nature of a driver’s license. Asking for identification documents might turn up one of these driver’s licenses. The person will not have a Social Security number, making it more difficult to verify information and financial capability. However, credit screening companies can run a credit report without a Social Security number if they have information such as the Individual Tax Identification Number. Because of this the California Apartment Association (CAA) recommends not rejecting applications because they do not have a Social Security number. Rather, they recommend a credit report and allowing the applicant to submit other evidence of financial stability, such as payment history on monthly bills like utilities. If at this point the applicant does not demonstrate adequate financial qualifications, there is significantly less risk in denying the application (as opposed to immediately rejecting the application when it becomes evident the applicant is not a legal resident of the country).
Whatever your screening process for tenancy applicants, put it in writing and follow it consistently. If someone is turned away—whether they are a legal resident of the country or not—and evidence suggests that another person was not turned away despite similar qualifications or lack thereof, it could be viewed as unlawful discrimination. As we discussed in our article about renting to convicted criminals, it is lawful to conduct an “individualized assessment” to determine if an applicant will be accepted for tenancy; what is not permitted is using this process to circumvent policy in a discriminatory manner. To put it into context for this article, if strict financial standards are put in place to rent (which can have legitimate purpose), it would be risky to specifically use individualized assessments to allow only citizens or legal residents of the United States to rent from you in order to weed out illegal immigrant applicants.
The bottom line is if an individual meets all other requirements to rent from you, it is risky to turn them away. If the applicant does not provide a form of identification along with evidence of financial qualifications, they can be rejected without risk (after all, it does not matter where someone is from, if they cannot prove who they are then those financial qualifications only prove someone is qualified to rent). Without a genuine reason (think finances, certain types of criminal record, etc.), however, discriminating against illegal immigrants in the State of California is not an advisable practice.
As always, for questions or clarifications just leave a message in the comment section or reach out to cody@adhischools.com . We welcome your opinions.
|
Medical marijuana, the controversial practice that flies in the face of federal legal classifications of the drug, has been a troublesome topic for landlords for some time. While California landlords have Read more...
Medical marijuana, the controversial practice that flies in the face of federal legal classifications of the drug, has been a troublesome topic for landlords for some time. While California landlords have had the right to prevent tenants from smoking in their residences under existing smoking laws, the law lacked the clarity needed to assure landlords of the legality of medical marijuana smoking bans. A new bill working its way through the state legislature would clarify the law.
California Assembly Bill 2300 is authored by Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) and is sponsored by the California Apartment Association (CAA) and supported by the California Association of Realtors. It specifically states that individuals permitted to smoke medical marijuana may not in “any location at which smoking is prohibited by law or prohibited by a landlord”. Marijuana is essentially being treated much more like tobacco.
This will not give landlords the legal ability to prevent individuals with a medical cannabis card from consumption of marijuana in any noncombustible form, including the use of edibles, oils, pills, patches, or vaporizers. The language of the bill specifically states smoking is prohibited with no language addressing these methods.
AB 2300 passed through the assembly floor on May 5th with broad bipartisan support—of the 80 potential votes, 77 votes yes and 3 were either absent or abstained. It is currently at the first reading stage in the state senate, meaning a vote should occur in the near future. If it passes—which looks probable given its bipartisan success in the assembly—it will move to the governor’s desk to be signed into law or be vetoed.
If a landlord chooses to exercise this right, clear, specific lease agreements are crucial. Just like any other provision of tenancy, landlords should make it clear that they are renting with conditions in mind. If this bill becomes law and landlords can treat marijuana like tobacco, it would still be wise—if for no other reason than convenience down the road—to clearly explain this policy and present it in a leasing agreement. Clear communication is a safe practice.
We will be sure to update our readers as this process unfolds. As always, for questions or clarifications simply comment below or reach out to cody@adhischools.com
|
You’re a landlord and you receive an application for one of your vacant units. You get excited, looking forward to the income, but then you learn that the applicant has a criminal record. What do you Read more...
You’re a landlord and you receive an application for one of your vacant units. You get excited, looking forward to the income, but then you learn that the applicant has a criminal record. What do you do?
Maybe it matters what the crime is. You might feel comfortable renting to a nonviolent offender convicted twenty years ago. Maybe mental illness was involved and the convicted individual has demonstrably undergone successful treatment.
But what about a sex offender or someone recently convicted of running a meth lab in their last residence? Obviously the type of crime and amount of time since the conviction will impact your perception of risk. So what do you do? You want to protect your property and other tenants.
Landlords must be careful to ensure that their reaction to these situations is not perceived as unlawfully discriminatory. While no state or federal law prevents discrimination that solely targets criminal offenders, it is illegal for the practice to discriminate against protected groups such as racial minorities, regardless of intent.
On April 4th, 2016 the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that their interpretation of the Fair Housing Act is that any policy or practice that is “facially neutral” but has a “disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class” is “unlawful”, unless the policy or practice is “necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest”. This is where the type of offense and the period of time since the conviction come into play. While refusing to rent to an arsonist who burned down his last apartment building can be considered legitimate, discriminating against someone with a petty theft conviction may be more difficult to justify. Especially if it turns out that you are turning away members of an otherwise protected class and you don't have uniform standards.
The last requirement is an evaluation of potential, less discriminatory, alternatives. In the event a policy is challenged and upheld as lawful, HUD or the rejected tenant can examine alternatives. The landlord does not need to search for alternatives to their legal policy—this burden falls on HUD (or the potential tenant to recommend a HUD-approved policy). But change could be prompted if HUD finds the necessary interest of the policy “could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect”. This could be a mandate to include an “individualized assessment” that allows the potential tenant to prove good tenant history since the conviction, evidence of rehabilitation, etc. This may not change the decision for the individual appealing the rejection of their application, but in theory it would make the policy less discriminatory over time. And in October of last year HUD allocated $38 million to more than 100 groups to fight housing discrimination. Legal challenges to these policies should be anticipated.
So, unless you end up rejecting candidates in proportions that match your population, you could wind up on the wrong end of allegations of illegal discrimination. Thus, it is important to have a well thought out, comprehensive, consistent standard for these situations. And, if in doubt, contact legal counsel specializing in these issues.
In summary, here are the rules to keep in mind to best protect yourself:
Consider the nature of the crime
Consider how long it has been since the conviction
Apply your standard consistently—exceptions are risky!
|
The Section 8 housing voucher program is at the center of recent debates in the California legislature and in the Appellate Division of the Sacramento Superior Court. Section 8 is designed to provide housing Read more...
The Section 8 housing voucher program is at the center of recent debates in the California legislature and in the Appellate Division of the Sacramento Superior Court. Section 8 is designed to provide housing for very low income families, the elderly, and the disabled: the federal government provides the funding and local housing agencies distribute vouchers that essentially guarantee a portion of the rent to a landlord. The Section 8 recipient pays a portion of the rent and the housing agency sends a check for the remainder. Landlords have long chosen whether or not they would participate in Section 8. Federal law does not require landlords to participate, so states typically follow those guidelines. Now, however, arguments are being made that landlords should not be able to reject applications to rent for the reason that their income is from a Section 8 voucher.
The court case of Sacramento Manor v. Morris was of particular importance in this debate. Court proceedings began when Sacramento Manor ended its participation in the program, eventually evicting any remaining Section 8 tenants. The Sacramento Manor cites difficulties receiving payment on time as a significant reason for their intended exit from the program (an issue they blame on government administration of the Section 8 program, not the tenants). A tenant, Dorothy Morris, was sued for eviction and in her appeal claims elderly tenants and Section 8 tenants should be considered protected classes under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
In February the California Apartment Association (CAA) filed a court brief arguing that participation in the Section 8 Housing voucher program should remain optional for landlords. The CAA claims “a myriad of valid business and policy reasons why owners should not be forced in to the program and why it should remain voluntary as intended under federal law”. In the brief the CAA also argues that the voluntary nature of the program is designed to incentivize people to join the program and that landlords should not be forced into permanent arrangements. Last week the plaintiff chose to drop the Section 8 protected class argument (for which the CAA claims credit), ending the threat to landlords—for now. Without the legal precedent of a court ruling, another person could bring a similar suit to court with a chance of success.
Meanwhile, State Senator Mark Leno (D, Senate District 11) has authored SB 1053, which ,if passed and signed into law, would classify those receiving Section 8 vouchers as a protected class under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, meaning discriminating based on a potential tenant receiving Section 8 vouchers would become illegal.According to Senator Leno, “All tenants should have a fair opportunity to apply for housing, regardless of whether they receive a housing voucher”, receiving support from housing-specific advocacy groups such as Housing California.
This would also mean that the recent developments in the Sacramento Manor v. Morris court case would become irrelevant as the legislature (and subsequently, the governor) settles the issue itself. California’s legislature has a strong Democratic majority and the state also has a blue governor, so it is quite possible that this Democrat-sponsored bill will in fact become law. The bill is currently placed on Appropriations Suspension file, meaning it is waiting to advance to the floor for voting.
Real estate professionals should keep an eye on these proceedings as they could greatly impact the renter’s market in California. There is also the obvious need to understand any and all protected classes in order to avoid discriminatory behavior in your business practices. We will be sure to update our readers as soon as possible when there is a development.
For questions or clarifications, start a discussion in the comments or write to the author at: cody@adhischools.com
|
Anyone involved in the real estate industry knows that interest rates are currently near historic lows, which makes sense—the government does not want to slow down spending in a sluggish economy. There Read more...
Anyone involved in the real estate industry knows that interest rates are currently near historic lows, which makes sense—the government does not want to slow down spending in a sluggish economy. There has been speculation for months that the Fed would raise rates (it has to happen eventually) based upon the health of different sectors of the economy. This speculative waiting was put to rest (at least for a moment) on Wednesday (4/27/16) when the Fed announced that it would not be raising its benchmark rate yet. The Fed wants its monetary policy to remain “accommodative, thereby supporting further improvement in labor market conditions”, providing continuing hope for the recovering housing market.
Although the Fed has not changed its rates, Freddie Mac’s Mortgage Rate Survey showed a jump from 3.59% to 3.66% from last week for the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. This is a climb from all of April, but no need for alarm. March had higher rates and February spent most of the time right around the 3.66% figure. Last year at this time the average rate on these loans was 3.68%. So disregard any alarmist articles or discussion about the significance of this rate jump.
So what does all of this rate talk mean for the housing market? Well, lower rates tend to free up investment. Some analysts have praised the Fed’s decision, noting that unemployment figures are not yet ideal and the low rate policies have been working. And although mortgage rates have climbed over the last week, they are far from high. We will keep an eye on this situation and report back with any updates, but for now rates do not appear to threaten the housing market.
For questions or clarifications, start a discussion in the comments section or contact the author at: cody@adhischools.com
|
If you’re reading this, you’re probably interested in the real estate industry. Maybe you are considering getting your license or you’re a veteran REALTOR® pondering change. No matter the situation, Read more...
If you’re reading this, you’re probably interested in the real estate industry. Maybe you are considering getting your license or you’re a veteran REALTOR® pondering change. No matter the situation, anyone in the industry wants to know what competition and opportunity looks like in their area or an area they’re interested in operating in.
Most REALTORS® probably have a pretty good idea of where other REALTORS® work. Large states with large populations like California, Texas, Florida, and New York obviously have more REALTORS®—common sense. Some states (like Florida, again) also have a reputation for having a lot of REALTORS® compared to the overall population. We decided to look up some figures to see which states had the most REALTORS® per capita.
Check out the Top 10 rankings! States are ranked by the number of people per REALTOR® (so since Florida’s number is 133.74, there is one REALTOR® for every 133.74 people).
Florida— 133.74
Arizona— 161.31
Hawaii— 162.14
Nevada— 191.96
New Jersey— 205.53
Utah— 221.66
Idaho— 226.05
California— 229.44
Connecticut— 232.27
Colorado— 237.84
No surprise with the top 3 states—they were the top 3 in 2012 as well. But there are a few significant changes in rankings. Washington, D.C. was 4th in per capita REALTORS® in 2012, but now sits at 12th. Utah is a newcomer to the top 10, sitting at 6th. Idaho made the biggest jump in rankings within the top 10 since 2012, moving from 10th to 7th as the number of REALTORS® per capita there grew faster than Colorado, California, and Connecticut. And although some states did not make a big rankings jump, 8 of 10 states in the top 10 (all except for New Jersey and Connecticut) now have more REALTORS® per capita than they did in 2012.
Of the “Western” states, only New Mexico and Washington fell outside of the top half and 7 of the Top 10 are Western states: becoming a REALTOR® is clearly a more common career path in this part of the country than others.
These numbers can be viewed in a number of ways. Some states with dense REALTOR® populations may look like a difficult place to make a living as a REALTOR®, but that state may have a very active housing market that is drawing people to the industry. While there is no guarantee of success, California, for example, has a strong housing market with rising prices—a good REALTOR® can capitalize on the situation. Likewise, a state with very few REALTORS® per capita may represent a golden opportunity. Just consider New York: it is the only state that is in the top ten for total REALTORS® while being in the bottom half for density (ranked 34th, while having the 4th highest population in the U.S.). With a huge population and a relatively sparse REALTOR® population, it is easy to see why one would seek financial success and choose to become a REALTOR® in the state.
Any REALTOR® reading this knows that these statistics show how competitive or open a market is, not a guarantee of success or failure. At the end of the day these stats should serve as motivation to perform better, not as a deterrent from entering a great field.
For complete rankings, questions about methodology, etc. contact Cody at cody@adhischools.com
Sources:
https://theamericangenius.com/housing-news/report-density-of-realtors-in-each-u-s-state/
http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2016/membership/03-2016.pdf
|
On the surface, solar panels appear to be a great selling feature for a home. The prospect of lower utility costs are appealing to everyone and many buyers love the idea of “going green”. Because solar Read more...
On the surface, solar panels appear to be a great selling feature for a home. The prospect of lower utility costs are appealing to everyone and many buyers love the idea of “going green”. Because solar panels are increasingly common in residential real estate, the professional REALTOR should be properly informed as to the impact these panels can have on a transaction. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association the number of homes and businesses with solar panels has exceeded 748,000 in the United States and growth is expected to continue, so this topic will only become more relevant.
Especially if you are taking real estate classes in Los Angeles you’re going to be dealing with houses with solar panels frequently and it’s important to know a few things once you are licensed.
It's important to note that the installation of solar panels on homes does not automatically equal an increase in value. In some instances solar panels can actually lower property value, even in areas that have high utility costs. The desirability of the panels is often determined by whether the panels are owned or leased. If the homeowner purchased the panels, there is evidence to suggest that the home could gain value (sometimes more than $15,000), because long-term utility bills are predictably lower and solar power is viewed as a property improvement.
However, solar leases are often viewed as less desirable. No-money-down solar lease offers have enticed some homeowners to agree to long term leases—sometimes upwards of 15 years. With the lowered bills and no upfront costs, this seems like a fiscally sound choice—and it very well may be for the original owner.
Yet problems can arise when the homeowner tries to sell their home with the leased panels. Potential buyers find themselves signing up for a solar lease with steep credit qualifications that could act as a deterrent. Although solar companies such as Clean Power Finance claim that 95% of the time the buyer either assumes the lease or the owner pays it off, that still leaves 5% of potential transactions where the looming costs or credit qualification issues break a deal. Many people simply do not want to assume the responsibilities of a deal they did not negotiate and may struggle to qualify for, particularly if they have an agent that views the lease as a poorly negotiated deal.
The result can be that a potential buyer may back out of a contract or demand that the seller pay off the lease before they leave. Homeowners with a time constraint like a job relocation may be forced to pay off a $15,000+ lease so they can close a sale and move on. These problems don’t arise on every property with leased panels, but it can happen to a substantial number of homeowners who initially thought they were improving their property. These owners optimistically invest in their homes, but when they decide to sell they find themselves in a position to lose money on their investment.
This is in no way an attempt to dissuade anyone from buying or leasing solar panels or agreeing to represent a seller in this situation. It is simply something to keep in mind: not every dollar spent is a dollar gained.
|
Drones - also known as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by the FAA - are being increasingly used for commercial purposes. Real estate professionals often want to use drones to improve their photography Read more...
Drones - also known as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by the FAA - are being increasingly used for commercial purposes. Real estate professionals often want to use drones to improve their photography and videography - it’s undeniably sexy. Drones offer amazing visual perspective on property that would basically be impossible any other way.
I know many of our real estate school students see videos on YouTube of listings and wonder how they can get cool aerial shots like this on their listings.
It's important to remember that it is currently not legal to operate a UAS for commercial purposes without a Section 333 Waiver from the FAA. Here is what you need to know about these waivers and the concept of using drones for your business.
A pilot’s license is necessary for a Section 333. A broker can’t just buy a drone and fill out a form to get permission for commercial use.
You are allowed to hire someone with a Section 333 to operate a UAS for commercial purposes for you. If you really want aerial pictures of your listing, but do not want to go through the process of getting your own pilot’s license, just hire someone who already has permission from the FAA.
You can take steps to protect yourself. UAS operators can get insurance for their aircraft to limit liability. If you choose to contract a UAS operator, ask for proof of insurance. The National Association of Realtors also points out that you can also request that the operator “indemnify you against any actions, suits, damages, losses, costs and expenses” from the operation of the UAS. If the operator crashes the drone into someone’s house (or worse, into someone), you don’t want to be liable.
Penalties
Nearly all drones must be registered now, whether they will be used for recreational or commercial purposes. There are already steep fines in place if a drone is not registered.
The repercussions become much more serious when commercial usage is involved. Consider this case, where a company was fined $1,900,000 by the FAA for flying unregistered drones without permission in an allegedly unsafe manner. The implication is that the penalties will vary (unauthorized UAS usage in big cities with crowded air traffic will result in bigger fines than flying in a small suburb) but the FAA is serious about enforcement. Some in the commercial drone industry expect fines to typically fall in the $1,000-$10,000 range, which is significantly less than $1,900,000 but still a lot of money. The FAA website asks citizens to report crashed or suspicious drones to local law enforcement and there is no reason to believe threats of enforcing these laws are empty.
The bottom line for the real estate professional is to hire a company that can legally fly UAS for commercial purposes. If you don’t know what you're doing and fly illegally you could potentially hurt someone or damage property. Even if neither of these occur you could still be in serious trouble with the FAA. It just isn’t worth it.
New rules have been proposed and will likely come into effect soon. Follow the link if you intend on operating a UAS and want to see the potential changes coming.
|
