REALTORŪ A was approached by Client B who engaged him to make an appraisal of an apartment building located in a proposed public redevelopment area. Client B explained that he had recently inherited the property and recognized that it was in a neglected condition. Client B also explained that he wanted the appraisal performed in order to have a definite idea of the property's value before discussing its possible sale with negotiators for the redevelopment project. REALTORŪ A and Client B entered into a contractual relationship whereby REALTORŪ A promised to perform the appraisal of Client B's property.
Client B, at REALTORŪ A's suggestion, agreed to compensate REALTORŪ A for his appraisal services based on a percentage of the amount of the appraised value to be determined.
Several months later, Client B complained to the Board of REALTORSŪ against REALTORŪ A, specifying that he had been overcharged for the appraisal. Client B explained that the appraisal fee he had agreed upon with REALTORŪ A was based on a percentage of the valuation shown in the appraisal report. Client B's letter to the Board stated that his attempt to negotiate with the redevelopment agency on the basis of REALTORŪ A's appraisal had broken down and that the redevelopment agency had gone
into court, under eminent domain proceedings, and that the award made by the court was approximately one-fourth of the amount of REALTORŪ A's appraisal. Client B contended that by making his valuation so unrealistically high, REALTORŪ A had grossly overcharged him. He added that the experience had been embarrassing to him, since in his attempts to negotiate with the redevelopment agency it had not been his intention to seek an unreasonably high price. By relying on REALTORŪ A's appraisal, he had been placed in a position of seeming to have sought an excessive price for his apartment building. Client B said that it was his opinion that REALTORŪ A had overvalued the property to obtain a higher fee.
Client B's complaint was considered by the Board's Grievance Committee which, upon review, referred it to the Board's Secretary to be scheduled for a hearing before a Hearing Panel of the Board's Professional Standards Committee. The appropriate notices were sent out and a hearing was scheduled.
At the hearing, REALTORŪ A defended his actions stating that he was unaware of any prohibition in the Code of Ethics prohibiting a REALTORŪ from charging a percentage of the valuation of a property as an appraisal fee. REALTORŪ A stated that the client had freely agreed to the arrangement; that he felt that his appraisal was a fair one; and that he was not shaken in this view by the award made by the court since he felt that the court's award was unreasonably low.
