The Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) is playing it safe by asking the Texas Office of the Attorney General what the possible state and federal anti-trust laws might be on the proposed rule that it felt would set a minimum service standard for Texas real estate brokers.

In its meeting on Monday, April 25, 2005, TREC decided to "postpone taking final action on the proposed amendments to 22 TAC section 535.2."

In a release, TREC stated, "After taking public testimony from interested persons and further deliberation, the Commission decided not to take final action to adopt the revisions that would have set a minimum service standard for Texas brokers who represent a client in an agency relationship. The Commission instead decided to request another opinion from the Texas Office of the Attorney General, regarding the possible effect of state and federal anti-trust laws on the proposed rule, and to respond on behalf of the Commission to the opinions expressed in the comment letter from the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice."

"The Commission also took action to direct staff to request clarification from the Texas Legislature, in light of new business models that are in operation, of an existing statutory provision that prohibits a real estate licensee from engaging in negotiations with a person who is represented in an exclusive agency relationship. Finally, the Commission requested staff to draft an interim disclosure statement to discuss and take possible action on at the June 13, 2005, meeting."

Loretta Hay, counsel to TREC, says, "TREC will ask the OAG to review the proposed rule. In addition, since the commission can only propose and adopt rules, I assume that any lobbying effort by either side to change the statute would take place at the legislative level."

Further along in the process, SB673, sponsored by the Oklahoma Association of REALTORS®, passed out of the Oklahoma House of Representatives yesterday with a 92-5 vote.

"We are very pleased with this vote, which demonstrates the legislative support this bill has had throughout the process," OAR Chief Executive Officer Lisa Yates said. "We did support taking the title off the bill, which will give us more time to adequately address some questions raised by the Department of Justice's letter." With the title off the bill, SB673 will now appear before a Conference Committee before consideration by the Senate and the House.

The Association says it was "surprised when the DOJ, in an unexpected and unusual move, issued a letter urging the members of the Oklahoma legislature to oppose SB673. The letter was issued by, without the DOJ contacting the Association or either legislative sponsor of SB673, Senator Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, and Representative Doug Miller, R-Norman." Since that time, both legislative authors and OAR staff have discussed SB673 with DOJ attorneys in the anti-trust division, and the bill is proceeding to the Conference Committee where it will be reviewed and approved or modified and sent back to the Senate and House.

"This gives us more time to work with those concerned with certain aspects of the bill. While we are hopeful that a consensus will be reached, we continue to support the original intent of the bill and aim to move forward with our goal of protecting consumers while upholding the original legislative intent of Oklahoma's Broker Relationships Law," Yates said.

"Legislative support for this bill has been strong to date, and we expect that support to continue," Yates said. "We feel certain SB673 could have passed the House yesterday with the title on and now be on the way to the Governor for consideration. However, we feel the responsible thing to do is to allow more time for further study on this issue. We are confident SB673 will move forward as the legislative session continues."

Why the difference in outcome?

Charla Slabotsky, director of Government & Public Affairs for the Oklahoma Association of REALTORS® suggests, "Texas is doing it in a rule and ours is a law, so it's a different process."

Published: April 28, 2005

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.