72 F.4^th 353 (D.C. Circ. 2023)

This matter focused on the specific language and intent of the Washington D.C. Brokerage Act (Act) as it pertained to dual agency. The broker in this case acted as dual agent for the landlord and the tenant. The landlord was subsequently sued by the broker for nonpayment of the agreed commission. The lower court found for the landlord when it held that the broker was not entitled to commission due to its failure to use the required formatting specifications as noted in the Act regarding dual agency. However, the D.C. District Court reversed that holding and remanded the case back to the district court to allow the broker to prove that it fulfilled the duty of obtaining informed consent even without using the exact formatting as laid out in the D.C. Act for dual agency.

Takeaways:

Always follow state license law concerning disclosure and obtaining the consent of both parties when engaging in dual agency. To avoid disputes concerning disclosure, follow specific statutory formatting and content provisions.

The requirements for dual agency disclosure, informed written consent and written confirmation of that prior informed consent are provided in the Illinois Real Estate License Act in Section 15-45, and likely differ somewhat from D.C. law, but the concepts are instructive.