Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various healing arts practitioners by various boards, as defined, within the Department of Consumer Affairs, and prohibits a person, company, or association from selling, bartering, or offering to sell or barter any degree that is required for licensure under the law.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to that provision.

Date of Hearing: January 9, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1059

Author:(Gonzalez Fletcher) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2017

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: DUAL AGENCY: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT BUYERS AND TENANTS OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE RECEIVE DISCLOSURE OF DUAL AGENCY SOONER THAN REQUIRED BY CURRENT LAW, SHOULD REAL ESTATE BROKERS BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND TENANTS AND OBTAIN THEIR CONSENT TO DUAL AGENCY, AS SPECIFIED, WHEN THE BROKER COMMENCES LICENSED ACTIVITY FOR THE PRINCIPAL?

SYNOPSIS

Existing law permits a real estate broker to act as a dual agent for both the seller and the buyer in a real estate transaction, as long as both parties consent to the arrangement after full disclosure is made. Disclosure of dual agency (if it is to exist) is required on at least two occasions in most transactions. First, through a standard prescribed form that discusses the duties of a dual agent generally, as well as the duties of agents that solely represent either the buyer or seller; and second, through a written confirmation contained in any contract to purchase and sell real property. For many years, these dual agency disclosure requirements applied solely to residential real estate transactions. However, since the enactment of SB 1171 in 2014, the requirements have applied equally to commercial real estate transactions.

According to the author, this bill is intended to enhance the disclosure process in order to inform potential buyers of the nature of dual agency earlier on in the process, and similarly, to ensure that disclosure of dual agency to potential tenants occurs at an earlier stage of negotiations, as opposed to the end of the transaction process. The sponsor of this bill, the Association of Commercial Tenants (ACT), is a Los Angeles-based trade association of commercial tenants; the other chief proponent of this bill is Hughes Marino, a commercial real estate consulting company that only represents commercial tenants and buyers. The bill's proponents believe quite strongly that there is an inherent conflict of interest in dual agency, and that small businesses and commercial tenants need greater protections to level the playing field in the commercial real estate industry. Although the previous version of this bill sought to outright ban dual agency in commercial real estate transactions, proposed amendments to the bill now seek additional disclosure requirements for dual agency, including a prescribed statement warning of potential conflict in interest in dual agency, and provisions seeking an earlier delivery of disclosures than are required by current law. Those amendments are reflected and included in this analysis. Specifically, the bill as proposed to be amended, would require that the disclosure would have to be delivered as soon as practicable once the licensee commences licensed activity on a commercial transaction, and be accompanied by the signed consent of the principal, among other things.

Despite recent amendments proposed by the author to try to address concerns raised by the opposition, the bill still faces continued opposition from the Realtors, the California Business Properties Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others. The opponents question the need for the bill generally, as they believe that the two existing disclosure requirements for dual agency are sufficient, and there has been no showing of any problems in the law since SB 1141 went into effect three years ago. Some opponents characterize the additional proposed disclosure as merely duplicative and unnecessary, but some believe that it seeks to "demonize" dual agency and codify a view of it that is "inherently negative." In addition, opponents contend the bill unnecessarily bifurcates agency disclosure in conflict with the policy of SB 1171—upsetting the standardization that was achieved by having uniform disclosures requirements for both residential and commercial transactions.

SUMMARY: Requires real estate licensees to provide an additional disclosure to, and obtain signed consent from, the principals in a commercial real estate transaction as a condition of acting as a dual agent. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a real estate licensee from acting as a dual agent in a commercial real estate transaction without first providing a specified disclosure form and obtaining the principal’s signed consent, as provided.
2. Specifies the content of the disclosure statement, to appear in no less than 14-point font and with no other writings or markings, as follows:

“Dual agents are those individuals and brokerage firms that represent both parties in the same real estate transaction. As such, dual agents may have a conflict of interest that limits their representation. Real estate licensees are required to immediately inform you when they are acting as a dual agent and must obtain your signed consent to such representation."

“In the event that you are not provided the appropriate disclosure and if you do not provide the required signed consent, you may make a complaint to the State of California and have the appropriate state agency investigate and discipline the dual agent, as appropriate.”

1. Requires the licensee, as soon as practicable, to provide the written disclosure described above once the licensee commences licensed activity on a commercial real estate transaction for a principal, and requires the principal to sign the disclosure statement.
2. Requires the existing “Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Relationship” form (specified by Section 2079.14) to also be included immediately following the disclosure described above in # 2).
3. Provides that a licensee who is acting as a dual agent shall provide the disclosure required by this bill and obtain its principal's signed consent for each separate commercial real estate transaction. Clarifies that only one disclosure and signed consent is required for each commercial real estate transaction from each associated licensee.
4. Provides that failure to comply with the disclosure and signed consent requirements subjects a licensee to discipline by the State of California, up to, and including, forfeiture of license to the extent the licensee is licensed pursuant to the Real Estate Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code).
5. Defines “commercial real estate transaction” as including any negotiation regarding an agreement or the consummation of an agreement to lease, purchase, or sell commercial real estate between a seller and a buyer, and defines other key terms for purposes of this act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires listing agents and selling agents to provide the seller and buyer in a real property transaction with a copy of a prescribed "Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship," ("Agency Disclosure") except as specified, according to the following rules:
   1. Requires the listing agent, if any, to provide the disclosure form to the seller prior to entering into the listing agreement.
   2. Requires the selling agent to provide the disclosure form to the seller as soon as practicable prior to presenting the seller with an offer to purchase, unless the selling agent previously provided the seller with a copy of the disclosure form pursuant to a) above.
   3. Permits the disclosure form to be delivered to the seller by certified mail or by the listing agent in cases where the selling agent does not deal on a face-to-face basis with the seller.
   4. Requires the selling agent to provide the disclosure form to the buyer as soon as practicable prior to execution of the buyer’s offer to purchase, except that if the offer to purchase is not prepared by the selling agent, the selling agent shall present the disclosure form to the buyer not later than the next business day after the selling agent receives the offer to purchase from the buyer. (Civil Code Section 2079.14. All further references are to this code unless otherwise specified.)
2. Requires listing agents and selling agents to obtain a signed acknowledgment of receipt of the Agency Disclosure form from that seller or buyer, except as specified. Further provides that in any circumstance in which the seller or buyer refuses to sign an acknowledgment of receipt, the agent, or an associate licensee acting for an agent, shall set forth, sign, and date a written declaration of the facts of the refusal. (Section 2079.15.)
3. Defines “dual agent” as an agent acting, either directly or through an associate licensee, as agent for both the seller and the buyer in a real property transaction. (Section 2079.13(e).)
4. Requires that the back of the Agency Disclosure form reproduce specified provisions of the Civil Code that set forth the duties of the real estate agent, including, most notably, those relating to dual agency, and specifies content that must appear on the front of the form, relating to the type of representation or agency relationship between the agent and the seller or buyer. (Section 2079.16.)
5. Requires the selling agent, as soon as practicable, to disclose to the buyer and seller whether the selling agent is acting in the real property transaction exclusively as the buyer’s agent, exclusively as the seller’s agent, or as a dual agent representing both the buyer and the seller. (Section 2079.17(a).)
6. Requires the listing agent, as soon as practicable, to disclose to the seller whether the listing agent is acting in the real property transaction exclusively as the seller’s agent, or as a dual agent representing both the buyer and seller. (Section 2079.17(b).)
7. Requires the relationships in # 5) and 6) to be confirmed in the contract to purchase and sell real property, or in a separate writing executed or acknowledged by the seller, the buyer, and the selling agent or listing agent, respectively, prior to or coincident with execution of the contract. Specifies the form of this disclosure and confirmation and clarifies that it must be given in addition to the Agency Disclosure form. (Section 2079.17, subd. (a) to (d).)
8. Prohibits a dual agent from disclosing to the buyer that the seller is willing to sell the property at a price less than the listing price, without the express written consent of the seller. Also prohibits a dual agent from disclosing to the seller that the buyer is willing to pay a price greater than the offering price, without the express written consent of the buyer. (Section 2079.21.)
9. Requires, subject to certain exceptions, the transferor of any real property that is improved with or consisting of not less than one or more than four dwelling units to deliver to the prospective transferee a prescribed "Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement" that sets forth general safety, structural, and material conditions of the property. (Civil Code Sections 1102 and 1102.6.)
10. Provides that the Real Estate Commissioner may, upon his or her own motion, and shall, upon the verified complaint in writing of any person, investigate the actions of any person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a real estate licensee within this state, and he or she may temporarily suspend or permanently revoke a real estate license at any time where, among other things, the licensee acts for more than one party in a transaction without the knowledge or consent of all parties thereto. (Business & Professions Code Section 10176(d).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: As currently in print, this bill would simply prohibit a real estate broker from acting as a dual agent for both a seller and a buyer in a commercial real estate transaction. The sponsor of the bill, the Association of Commercial Tenants (ACT), believes quite strongly that there is an inherent conflict of interest in dual agency, and small businesses and tenants need greater protections to level the playing field in the commercial real estate industry. Following stakeholder discussions held over the legislative recess, the author now proposes to amend the bill to establish additional disclosure requirements for dual agency in commercial real estate transactions, rather than prohibiting dual agency outright.

Background on dual agency. Existing law defines a “dual agent” as an agent acting, either directly or through an associate licensee, as agent for both the seller and the buyer in a real property transaction, and permits a real estate broker to act as a dual agent for both the seller and the buyer, provided both parties consent to the arrangement after full disclosure is made. A real estate broker, in carrying out its duties, may act either directly or through one or more associate licensees — typically salespeople who operate under the broker's license and function under the broker's supervision. Existing law expressly provides that when an associate licensee owes a duty to any party in a real property transaction, that duty is equivalent to the duty owed to that party by the broker for whom the associate licensee functions.

Because dual agency is permitted only with full disclosure to the parties, disclosure requirements are detailed and robust under existing law. Real estate brokers must provide the seller and buyer with a statutorily prescribed disclosure form (titled "Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship") that tells both buyer and seller whether the broker is acting as the buyer’s agent exclusively, as the seller’s agent exclusively, or as a dual agent representing both the buyer and seller. The disclosure form also informs the parties that a broker acting as a dual agent owes fiduciary duties to both buyer and seller, and explains in general terms the duties of the three different agency relationships. Lastly, the form must reproduce relevant provisions of the Civil Code concerning agency relationships on the back of the form. The rationale for this policy is relatively straightforward: while there may be certain circumstances in which it is appropriate for the same agent to represent buyer and seller, dual agency creates a potential conflict of interest, as the agent must attempt to serve the best interest of both buyer and seller simultaneously. Appropriate disclosure of dual agency thus is crucial, both in content and in the timing of the disclosure.

Need for the bill: The general premise of this bill is that existing dual agency disclosure requirements for commercial real estate transactions do not sufficiently protect the interest of commercial tenants and buyers. According to the author:

Dual agency is an arrangement that could potentially be unfavorable to tenants – particularly small businesses – given that agents owe fiduciary responsibility to both sides of a transaction, creating a potential conflict of interest for the agent. Despite existing requirements on brokers to disclose and obtain consent that they are dual agents– and provide certain obligations to both sellers and buyer –such disclosure is often completed towards the end of a transaction and seldom explained thoroughly.

AB 1059 would enhance the disclosure process in order to inform potential buyers the nature of dual agency early enough in the process. Particularly, this bill would standardize the underlying language of dual agency disclosure, which would allow for uniform implementation in practice. Furthermore, this bill would require an agent to provide written disclosure and obtain consent at the time the licensee is hired to engage in any sort of licensed work related to a potential transaction. This requirement would ensure that disclosure of dual agency to potential tenants occur at an earlier stage of negotiations, as opposed to the end of the transaction process.

The bill is opposed by a broad range of entities in the commercial real estate industry, including commercial brokers, real estate developers, Realtors, and small businesses. Almost without exception, these opponents contend that existing disclosure requirements for dual agency are sufficient, and question the need for the bill generally, even as proposed to be amended. For example, a group of opponents led by the California Business Properties Association (CBPA) contends "The current agency disclosure law in California protects consumers well by requiring brokers to give two separate disclosures to consumers. There is no evidence that these disclosures are in any way inadequate." In addition, the National Federation of Small Business (NFIB) states: "Our small business members tell us dual agency disclosure is not a problem they face in their business operations" and therefore "this legislation seems to be a solution in search of a problem."

Background on SB 1171 and disclosures in commercial vs. residential transactions. In 2014, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 1174 (Hueso), Ch. 200, Stats. 2014, which made then-existing dual agency disclosure requirements applicable to commercial real estate transactions for the first time. Prior to SB 1171, such disclosure was only required in residential property transactions. According to this Committee's analysis of SB 1171, proponents of that legislation refuted the idea that parties in commercial real estate transactions were somehow more "sophisticated" than the average homebuyer, and negotiate from more or less equal bargaining positions, thus obviating the need for disclosure requirements. Proponents of SB 1171 argued that the logic justifying dual agency protections for residential property transactions should apply with equal force to commercial real estate transactions. The new law that resulted required a real estate agent in a commercial transaction to provide the same disclosure statement (specified by Section 2079.16) that he or she would provide in a residential property transaction "for the sake of clarity and uniformity." (Assembly Judiciary analysis of SB 1171, June 17, 2014.) Although some opponents argued that the Section 2079.16 disclosure was not appropriately worded to address commercial leasing or commercial sales, ultimately it was determined that with very little adjustment, Section 2079.16 provided effective disclosure of dual agency to parties in both residential and commercial transactions without the need to bifurcate the disclosure requirement.

Proposed amendments establish additional disclosure requirements for commercial real estate transactions. As proposed to be amended, this bill would prescribe an additional disclosure statement about dual agency, and require the broker to provide it to any principal as a precondition of acting as a dual agent in a commercial real estate transaction, as defined by the bill. In opposition, CBPA notes that SB 1171 standardized these agency disclosures for residential and commercial transactions in order to increase transparency, but this bill would now bifurcate agency disclosure in direct conflict with SB 1171. CBPA contends that SB 1171 should be allowed more time to work, and its efficacy reviewed by the Legislature before being altered. Similarly, CAR writes that the bill, as proposed, "shifts back and forth between separate commercial requirements and the general disclosure rules… seeming to require, but only in some situations, a private modification of the official form." They, like other opponents, express concern that the bill will create ambiguity in the agency disclosure law, rather than clarifying it.

On the other hand, ACT, the sponsor of the bill, believes that more action is warranted to protect tenants and buyers in the commercial arena. They write:

The commercial real estate industry is tilted in favor of landlords due to the financial incentives that are found at every turn. Once you begin to see the scope of the issue, you can begin understanding the gravity of the conflict. Despite this concentration of power, wealth, and resources, tenants who lease space to operate their businesses are the ultimate consumers, which is why more must be done to educate them and help them avoid being manipulated into poor real estate deals structured by biased dual agency companies.

Content of the additional disclosure statement. As previously described, Section 2079.16 specifies the content of the "Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship" that was formerly required to be given only to sellers and buyers in residential property transactions, but is now also required in commercial transactions pursuant to SB 1171. Among other things, the disclosure generally explains the duties of a seller's agent, a buyer's agent, and an agent representing both the seller and buyer (i.e. a dual agent). The latter passage reads:

AGENT REPRESENTING BOTH SELLER AND BUYER

A real estate agent, either acting directly or through one or more associate licensees, can legally be the agent of both the Seller and the Buyer in a transaction, but only with the knowledge and consent of both the Seller and the Buyer.

In a dual agency situation, the agent has the following affirmative obligations to both the Seller and the Buyer:

(a) A fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty in the dealings with either the Seller or the Buyer.

(b) Other duties to the Seller and the Buyer as stated above in their respective sections.

In representing both Seller and Buyer, the agent may not, without the express permission of the respective party, disclose to the other party that the Seller will accept a price less than the listing price or that the Buyer will pay a price greater than the price offered.

The above duties of the agent in a real estate transaction do not relieve a Seller or Buyer from the responsibility to protect his or her own interests. You should carefully read all agreements to assure that they adequately express your understanding of the transaction. A real estate agent is a person qualified to advise about real estate. If legal or tax advice is desired, consult a competent professional.

Throughout your real property transaction you may receive more than one disclosure form, depending upon the number of agents assisting in the transaction. The law requires each agent with whom you have more than a casual relationship to present you with this disclosure form. You should read its contents each time it is presented to you, considering the relationship between you and the real estate agent in your specific transaction.

This disclosure form includes the provisions of Sections 2079.13 to 2079.24, inclusive, of the Civil Code set forth on the reverse hereof. Read it carefully.

In addition, Section 2079.17 requires confirmation of a dual agency relationship in a contract to buy and sell real property (applicable to both commercial and residential property), and specifies the language of the confirmation as follows:

(Name of Listing Agent) _____ is the agent of (check one):

[ ] the seller exclusively; or

[ ] both the buyer and seller.

(Name of Selling Agent if not the same as the Listing Agent) _____ is the agent of

(check one):

[ ] the buyer exclusively; or

[ ] the seller exclusively; or

[ ] both the buyer and seller.

As proposed to be amended, this bill requires the following additional disclosure to be made, but only to parties in a commercial real estate transaction:

Dual agents are those individuals and brokerage firms that represent both parties in the same real estate transaction. As such, dual agents may have a conflict of interest that limits their representation. Real estate licensees are required to immediately inform you when they are acting as a dual agent and must obtain your signed consent to such representation.

In the event that you are not provided the appropriate disclosure and if you do not provide the required signed consent, you may make a complaint to the State of California and have the appropriate state agency investigate and discipline the dual agent, as appropriate.

Supporters of the bill, including ACT and Hughes Marino, characterize the additional disclosure simply as "clearer," and suggest that its discussion of "conflict of interest" (a term not used in the 2079.16 disclosure) is needed because "tenants are not aware and do not fully appreciate that their dual-agent broker is both limited and biased in the representation being provided since they are not familiar with the systemic structural problems undergirding their individual transaction. Most tenants believe they are receiving completely unbiased representation and these dual-agent brokers are happy to let them go on believing this."

Opponents of the bill maintain that there is no need for an additional disclosure. For example, CBPA writes: "A third disclosure which is duplicative of the existing disclosures, will confuse the consumer and add unnecessary complexity and time and expense to every transaction, without any benefit nor increase in transparency." The Federation of California Builders Exchanges (CALBX) expresses its concern with what it views as an effort to codify language that "demonizes" dual agency. CALBX states that "to codify in statute that (dual agency) may be inherently negative without any reason is unnecessary and bad public policy."

Timing requirements for provision of agency disclosures. According to ACT, this bill seeks "to provide a much clearer disclosure and also ensure that consumers receive it much earlier in the transaction." ACT summarizes the problem as follows: "In practice, disclosure of dual agency in real estate transactions is often not communicated effectively to potential tenants. Disclosure forms are often presented to the buyers at the end of the process, usually along with numerous other forms that are signed at the end of the transaction process."

Under current law, the seller in a transaction receives the Section 2079.16 disclosure form either (a) prior to entering into the listing agreement, from the listing agent if one exists; or (b) prior to receiving an offer to purchase from the selling agent (an agent working for the buyer). Current law mandates that the buyer receives the disclosure form from the selling agent (again, working for the buyer) as soon as practicable prior to execution of the buyer’s offer to purchase. (An exception to this rule exists if the offer to purchase is not prepared by the selling agent, in which case the selling agent must present the disclosure form to the buyer not later than the next business day after the selling agent receives the offer to purchase from the buyer.)

In summary, existing law allows real estate agents some leeway in delivery of the Section 2079.16 agency disclosure form to the buyer ("as soon as practicable prior to execution of the buyer’s offer to purchase," in most cases) and also to the seller (anytime "prior to entering into the listing agreement" or "prior to receiving an offer to purchase from the selling agent" (i.e. the buyer's agent), depending on whether a listing agent is used. It is evident that the existing time frames allow required agency disclosures to be made relatively close to presentation of an offer to purchase—which means that there is potentially very little time for consideration of the information in the disclosure statement before an offer for the property can be made and accepted.

Accordingly, proposed amendments to the bill seek to ensure that both principals in a commercial real estate transaction are provided with the existing Section 2079.16 disclosure, as well as the additional disclosure specified by this bill, at an earlier point in time than is currently allowed under law. To that end, the proposed amendments mandate real estate licensees to provide the required agency disclosures "as soon as practicable . . . once the licensee commences licensed activity" for the principal on a commercial property transaction. Whereas the existing timing requirements center around a period of time before an offer to purchase is considered (i.e. relatively late in the process), the proposed timing requirements center around the beginning of licensed activity on behalf of a principal—i.e. the start of an agency relationship. The "as soon as practicable" standard is also preserved to allow for some flexibility.

Opponents have raised some concerns that it is unclear how to comply with the timing disclosure requirements, as currently proposed. Subdivision (a) forbids a licensee from acting as a dual agent "without first (emphasis added) providing the following disclosure form . . . as described in subdivisions (b) and (c)." Subdivision (c), on the other hand, spells out a seemingly different timing requirement on the subject of when the disclosure must be given, namely "as soon as practicable once (emphasis added) the licensee commences licensed activity for a principal." Does the word "once" imply "after"? If so, then a question arises whether the proposed amendments command the disclosure be given both before and after the point in time that an agency relationship commences (i.e. the time that licensed activity for a principal typically starts.)

According to the author's statement of purpose on the Committee background sheet: "This bill would require an agent to provide written disclosure and obtain consent at the time the licensee is hired to engage in any sort of licensing work related to a potential transaction." (emphasis added.) To reflect this stated intent and resolve the question, the author may wish to consider a clarifying amendment to be taken in the next committee. For example, she may wish to strike the word "first" from the underlying rule stated in subdivision (a), which continues to refer the reader to subdivisions (b) and (c) for specific details on what form the disclosure must take and when it must be provided, but eliminates potential confusion on the latter question.

Possible discipline by the Bureau of Real Estate for violations. As proposed to be amended, the bill provides that the State of California may discipline the licensee, including the brokerage firm, broker in charge, broker, and any associated licensee, up to, and including, forfeiture of license to the extent the licensee is licensed pursuant to the Real Estate Law, for failure to provide the required disclosure or failure to obtain the principal’s signed consent. No other penalties or remedies are specified in the bill.

In opposition, CBPA writes:

The suggested penalties for violation in the proposed amendments are overly harsh and inappropriate as the real estate broker laws and regulations already have extensive provisions for violations. CalBRE, whose mission is to “safeguard and promote the public interests in Real Estate matters through licensure, regulation, education, and enforcement,” already has the authority, expertise, and experience to determine penalties to protect consumers. There is no need to codify the revocation of a broker’s license, as that can already be a remedy, if the circumstances merit that outcome. CalBRE is the appropriate venue to review any complaint and determine the penalty for any violation, and we believe that removing their discretion on penalties is not warranted.

Committee staff notes that although the bill refers to the State of California, it is in fact the Real Estate Commissioner, the head of the Bureau of Real Estate (CalBRE), that possesses the authority to issue discipline to or revoke a broker's license for violations of this bill. Furthermore, CBPA's concern that the bill removes CalBRE's discretion on penalties or somehow mandates automatic license revocation for violation of these provisions is a misplaced concern because the bill plainly authorizes but does not require CalBRE to take disciplinary action. In fact, subdivision (d) of the bill is arguably unnecessary to include because CalBRE has inherent authority to regulate the actions of real estate brokers and licensees under the chapter where these provisions are located.

Pending related legislation. AB 749 (Irwin), among other things, revises and recasts many key real estate-related definitions applicable to provisions in the Civil Code, and consolidates them in the Business & Professions Code (BPC). AB 749 also makes numerous substantive changes to the Real Estate Law in the BPC, including provisions related to the authority of the Real Estate Commissioner and licensing requirements for real estate brokers. AB 749 is currently being heard in the Assembly Business & Professions Committee.

AB 1289 (Arambula) revises definitions of several key terms appearing throughout portions of the Civil Code governing the transfer of real property and associated disclosure requirements, and makes various other technical and clarifying changes. AB 1289 is set to be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee in the same hearing as this bill.

AB 1626 (Irwin) would describe when dual agency exists and would specify, with respect to certain provisions of existing law, some of the duties of licensees in conducting dual agency transactions. The bill would also revise the mandatory disclosure form used in dual agency transactions, as specified. AB 1626 currently sits in the Assembly Judiciary Committee as a two year bill.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association of Commercial Tenants (sponsor)

Hughes Marino

Opposition

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Association of Realtors (CAR)

California Business Properties Association (CBPA)

Commercial Real Estate Association (AIR)

Commercial Real Estate Developers Association (NAIOP of California)

Federation of California Builders Exchanges (CALBX)

International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)

National Federation of Independent Business, CA (NFIB)

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334