O.C.G.A.

10-6A-12 (2019)

Broker acting as dual agent

✓ O.C.G.A.: 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A broker may act as a dual agent only with the written consent of all clients. Such written consent shall contain the following:

(1) A description of the transactions or types of transactions in which the broker will serve as a dual agent;

(2) A statement that, in serving as a dual agent, the broker represents two clients whose interests are or at times could be different or even adverse;

(3) A statement that a dual agent will disclose all adverse material facts relevant to the transaction and actually known to the dual agent to all parties in the transaction except for information made confidential by request or instructions from another client which is not allowed to be disclosed by this Code section or required to be disclosed by this Code section;

(4) A statement that the broker or the broker’s affiliated licensees will timely disclose to each client in a real estate transaction the nature of any material relationship the broker and the broker’s affiliated licensees have with the other clients in the transaction other than that incidental to the transaction. For the purposes of this Code section, a material relationship shall mean any actually known personal, familial, or business relationship between the broker or the broker’s affiliated licensees and a client which would impair the ability of the broker or affiliated licensees to exercise fair and independent judgment relative to another client;

(5) A statement that the client does not have to consent to the dual agency; and

(6) A statement that the consent of the client has been given voluntarily and that the engagement has been read and understood.

(b) Upon the client signing a written consent meeting the requirements of this Code section, the consent of the client to dual agency shall conclusively be deemed to have been given and informed.

(c) No cause of action shall arise on behalf of any person against a dual agent for making disclosures allowed or required by this chapter and the dual agent does not terminate any agency by making such allowed or required disclosures.

(d) In the case of dual agency, each client and broker and their respective licensees possess only actual knowledge and information. There shall be no imputation of knowledge or information among or between the clients, brokers, or their affiliated licensees.

(e) In any transaction, a broker may without liability withdraw from representing a client who has not consented to a disclosed dual agency at any time prior to the existence of the dual agency. Such withdrawal shall not prejudice the ability of the broker to continue to represent the other client in the transaction, nor limit the broker from representing the client in other transactions not involving a dual agency. When such withdrawal as contemplated in this subsection occurs, the broker may receive a referral fee for referring a client to a broker employed by a different real estate brokerage firm.

(f) Every broker shall develop and enforce an office brokerage relationship policy among affiliated licensees which either specifically permits or rejects the practice of disclosed dual agency, which office brokerage relationship policy shall be disclosed pursuant to Code Section 10-6A-10 and paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section.

History

Code 1981, § 10-6A-12, enacted by Ga.

L. 1993, p. 376, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 929, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Wall v. Century 21 Winnerville Realty, Inc., 244 Ga. App. 762, 536 S.E.2d 798 (2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S. - 12 C.J.S., Brokers, § 125.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2016 · leading case: Wall v. Century 21 Winnerville Realty, Inc., 536 S.E.2d 798 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
Wall v. Century 21 Winnerville Realty, Inc., 536 S.E.2d 798 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “…(4) ( 450 SE2d 452 ) (1994). 4 See id. (reversing jury award of damages due to instruction on constructive fraud). 5 OCGA § 10-6A-12 (d).”
Spies v. Deloach Brokerage, Inc., 169 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 2016). “§ 10-6A-12(defining a “ministerial act” to mean “those acts described in Code Section 10-6A-14 and such other acts which do not require the exercise of the broker’s or broker’s affiliated licensee’s professional judgment or skill”); (Spies Dep.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.