Generally. The term “dual agency” has multiple applications. Technically, in Oregon, at least, the term is not defined by statute. This is not to say that the concept of dual agency doesn’t exist. It does, but under the name of “disclosed limited agency.”[1]
ORS 696.800(4) defines disclosed limited agency as “…a real property transaction in which the representation of a buyer and seller or the representation of two or more buyers occurs within the same real estate business.”
Oregon Administrative Rule 863-015-0205 gives a more detailed explanation of disclosed limited agency, and requires that it must be agreed upon in writing at the commencement of the relationship. Oregon Administrative Rule 863-015-0210 sets forth the full text of the Disclosed Limited Agency Agreement. Here is how it is explained:
“The Parties to this Agreement understand that Oregon law allows a single real estate agent to act as a disclosed limited agent — to represent both the seller and the buyer in the same real estate transaction, or multiple buyers who want to purchase the same property. It is also understood that when different agents associated with the same principal broker (the broker who directly supervises the other agents) establish agency relationships with the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction, the agents’ principal broker shall be the only broker acting as a disclosed limited agent representing both seller and buyer. The other agents shall continue to represent only the party with whom they have an established agency relationship, unless all parties agree otherwise in writing.” Got all that?
Dual agency, or disclosed limited agency, in Oregon, includes any of the following three principal-agent relationships licensees may have with their clients:
1. Where a single agent represents both seller and buyer in the same transaction;
2. Where two agents from the same office each represent a seller and buyer in the same transaction; and
3. Where two agents from different offices of the same company each represent a seller and buyer in the same transaction.
Let’s Go To The Numbers. So how many disclosed limited agency transactions are real estate licensees engaging in today? In 2014, according to the RMLS™ records, there were a total 52,609 transactions.
Here are the RMLS™ numbers based upon the following three categories:
- Statewide Numbers;
- Portland Metro numbers (Clackamas, Clark, Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill); and
- The rest of the RMLS™ members outside of the Portland Metro Area.
RMLS™ Statewide PDX Metro Outside PDX Metro
Sold Listings: 100% (52,609) 71.6% (37,663) 28.4% (14,946)
Same Agent: 12.3% (6,461) 8.4% (3,152) 22.1% (3,309)
Same Office: 19.2% (10,099) 13.2% (4,966) 36.9% (5,133)
Same Firm: 20.1% (11,026) 15.3% (5,761) 35.2% (5,265)
Conclusions. What is immediately apparent is that licensees outside of the Portland Metro area are far more likely to engage in disclosed limited agency transactions. This should not be surprising, since the number of Realtors® in those areas are smaller, as are the number of firms. So the likelihood of a broker or firm being on both sides of the transaction rises.
The number of Same Agent and Same Office disclosed limited agency transactions is approximately three times higher outside the Portland Metro area; for Same Firm transactions, it’s nearly double. Since “dual agency” transactions can bring with them a greater incidence of consumer vs. licensee disputes, it would be interesting to see if that corollary holds true outside, as opposed to inside, the Portland Metro area.
The RMLS™ is composed of approximately 70% of all Oregon Realtors®. Although the remaining 30%, who belong to other MLSs in Oregon, could have different percentages of disclosed limited agency transactions, there is little reason to believe that is the case. In fact, since the other 30% are also outside the Portland Metro area, and also consist of smaller boards, it’s likely the higher incidence of disclosed limited agency transactions is comparable to the Outside PDX Metro RMLS™ numbers. ~PCQ
____________________________________
[1] I was not a part of the discussion in arriving at the term “disclosed limited agency.” Undoubtedly, the title does reflect what the law is attempting to do. I suspect it was preferred over the more simplistic, and perhaps more pejorative sounding “dual agency,” which in other professions, such as law, would be regarded as a prohibited and non-waivable conflict of interest.
