Daniela Pfuetzenreiter has joined SCCAOR as our new Membership Coordinator. She will work alongside our Membership Team to help new members join SCCAOR and assist current members with any questions or issues about their Association membership.

“One of the most exciting things about working with REALTORS® is giving them the tools needed to help people find their homes,” said Pfuetzenreiter. “And in some way, I think I am doing a part in helping them find their homes as well.”

Daniela is no stranger to the real estate industry. She worked for the San Benito Association of REALTORS® for three years as an Executive Assistant, where she handled communications, social media, tour meetings, and other membership related activities.

“We are so happy to have Daniela on the team,” said Tracey Lee, Membership Services Manager. “Her past Association experience and positive attitude make her a great addition to SCCAOR and we look forward to having her work at our new Gilroy office when it opens.”

Born and raised in Brazil, Daniela studied Journalism and Communications in college. She then lived in London, England for a year where she worked for WA International. In 2005 she moved to the United States and has lived in California ever since. In her free time, she enjoys photography, going to the beach, boating, riding her bicycle, and looking after her dogs and cats.

The Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® would like to congratulate our incoming 2020 Leadership Team.

2020 Officers


2020 Directors

Jen Beehler
Elizabeth Monley
John Scaglione
Will Chea
Gustavo Gonzalez*
Derek Essary – 2020 SCRA Representative**

* Per SCCAOR policy, the immediate Past President is given a three-year term.

**Per SCCAOR Bylaws, one director shall be designated by the South County REALTORS® Alliance to serve a one-year term from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.

This ongoing series explores the NAR Code of Ethics through various case interpretations. Please read through the following case and try to decide if there was any Code of Ethics violations. Then click the box at the bottom to find out the answer. (These cases have been provided by the National Association of REALTORS®.)

Code of Ethics Case Interpretation – Article 8: Request for Investigation Filed by Association With the State Real Estate Commission

REALTOR® A listed Client B’s residential property and sold it to Buyer C, who made a substantial deposit subject only to Buyer C’s obtaining a mortgage on terms and conditions not exceeding a specified rate of interest within 60 days.

Realtor® A assisted Buyer C by recommending a lending institution, and after processing of his application for a mortgage, a written mortgage commitment was made by the lending institution which met the terms and conditions of the sales agreement. However, shortly after the mortgage commitment was received by Buyer C, REALTOR® A received a certified, return receipt requested letter from Buyer C, advising that Buyer C had changed his mind and would not go through with the sale. REALTOR® A discussed the matter by phone, but Buyer C said he would rather forfeit his deposit and definitely would not complete the sale, even at the risk of the seller suing for specific performance.

REALTOR® A then advised Client B of Buyer C’s refusal to go through with the sale and Client B told REALTOR® A that he did not wish to sue Buyer C, but would just accept a portion of the forfeited deposit as specified in the listing agreement between Client B and REALTOR® A.

REALTOR® A then obtained a written release from the sale from Client B and Buyer C, and promised to send Client B a check for the portion of the forfeited deposit due to Client B as specified in the listing agreement. However, REALTOR® A failed to send Client B a check and Client B filed a complaint with the Professional Standards Administrator of the Association alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics.

At the hearing, Client B stated that he had no complaint about REALTOR® A’s services to him except REALTOR® A’s failure to provide Client B with the portion of the forfeited deposit due him, and that after several telephone calls and letters, REALTOR® A had told Client B that he would provide the forfeited monies due Client B “just as soon as he could.” Client B said REALTOR® A told him he had some unexpected expenses and therefore Client B would have to wait until REALTOR® A obtained other funds which he expected to receive shortly.

REALTOR® A admitted the facts as related and further admitted that he had not placed the deposit received from Buyer C into an escrow account, but had placed it in his general funds. He said that unexpected expenditures had caused a deficit balance in these funds, and he would pay Client B as soon as he could.

The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® A was in violation of Article 8 of the Code of Ethics and recommended that the decision, when final, be forwarded to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.

The Board of Directors affirmed the decision of the Hearing Panel; ordered implementation of the recommended sanction; and requested that the President forward, with advice of Board legal counsel, the final decision to the State Real Estate Commission as a possible violation of the public trust.

See more case interpretations here

An important message for our Supra Keyholders that use iPhones/iPads:

Apple will release a new operating system, iOS 13, for iPhones and iPads, on Thursday, September 19. A new version of Supra eKEY app is now available in the Apple app store.

Important! Please update your eKEY app to this new version before you update your iPhone or iPad to iOS 13. You may not be able to access keyboxes if you use a previous version of the eKEY app with iOS 13.

To update to the latest version of the eKEY app:

  1. Go to your iPhone or iPad home screen and tap the App Store icon
  2. Tap the Updates icon in the bottom right of the screen
  3. Scroll to locate the eKEY app and select Update or select Update All at the top of the screen to update all of your apps. New Supra eKEY app for iOS 13

Over 500 Bay Area real estate professionals attended the REignite Real Estate Conference & Expo on September 19, 2019, at the DoubleTree Hotel in San Jose. The event featured numerous educational speakers, including C.A.R.’s Deputy Chief Economist, Jordan Levine, who delivered a keynote on the Silicon Valley housing market forecast. The event also featured an Expo Hall with over 40 exhibitors showcasing their real estate related products and services.



Links to the Speaker’s Presentations

Kenny Truong – Getting Your Social Brand to 100%
Nicole Nicolay – Stop Trying to Be Your Competition

Jordan Levine – California Housing Market Outlook
Heidi Moran – Mastering the Fundamentals is a Team Sport
Mike Bui – Market Yourself to Win Listings and Farms
John Pinto – Living Your Best Life, While Still Crushing It
Greg Simpson – Claiming Your Place in the Luxury Market
Adria Quinones-Masur – Serving the Many Faces of Silicon Valley

Thank you to all the SCCAOR Members, Volunteers, and Staff that helped make this event a success! We will see you next year!

This ongoing series explores the NAR Code of Ethics through various case interpretations. Please read through the following case and try to decide if there was any Code of Ethics violations. Then click the box at the bottom to find out the answer. (These cases have been provided by the National Association of REALTORS®.)

Code of Ethics Case Interpretation – Article 7: Acceptance of Compensation From Buyer and Seller

Buyer A engaged REALTOR® B to locate a small commercial property. Buyer A explained his exact specifications indicating that he did not wish to compromise. They agreed that if REALTOR® B could locate such a property within Buyer A’s price range, he—the buyer—would pay a finder’s fee to REALTOR® B.

Two weeks later, REALTOR® B called Buyer A to advise that Seller C had just listed a property with him that met all of Buyer A’s specifications except that the listed price was a bit higher than Buyer A wanted to pay. Buyer A inspected the property and liked it, but said he would adhere to his original price range. REALTOR® B called Buyer A three days later to say that Seller C had agreed to sell at Buyer A’s price. The sale was made and REALTOR® B collected a commission from Seller C and a finder’s fee from Buyer A which was not disclosed to Seller C, REALTOR® B’s client.

Several weeks later, Seller C learned about the finder’s fee that REALTOR® B had collected from Buyer A and filed a complaint with the Association of Realtors® charging Realtor® B with unprofessional conduct. The complaint specified that whenREALTOR® B had presented Buyer A’s offer at less than the listed price, he, the seller, was reluctant to accept it, but REALTOR® B had convinced him that the offer was a fair one and not likely to be improved upon in the current market; and that REALTOR® B had dwelt at length on certain disadvantageous features of the property in an attempt to promote acceptance of the offer. The complaint charged that REALTOR® B had actually been the agent of the buyer while holding himself out as the agent of the seller. Further, Seller C asserted that REALTOR® B had never mentioned that he was representing the buyer or intended to be compensated by the buyer.

At the hearing, REALTOR® B’s defense was that he had served both buyer and seller faithfully; that he had not accepted Seller C’s listing until after he had agreed to assist Buyer A in locating a property; and that in his judgment the listed price was excessive and the price actually paid was a fair price.

A Hearing Panel of the Association’s Professional Standards Committee, which heard the complaint, concluded that REALTOR® B had acted in violation of Article 7 of the Code of Ethics. His efforts to represent the buyer and the seller at the same time, and the fact that he intended to be compensated by both parties, should have been fully disclosed to all parties in advance.

See more case interpretations here

This ongoing series explores the NAR Code of Ethics through various case interpretations. Please read through the following case and try to decide if there was any Code of Ethics violations. Then click the box at the bottom to find out the answer. (These cases have been provided by the National Association of REALTORS®.)

Code of Ethics Case Interpretation – Article 6: Advertising R​eal Estate-Related Products and Services

Realtor® X, a principal broker in the firm XY&Z, developed a robust, interactive website that he used both to publicize his and to serve the firm’s clients and customers electronically. REALTOR® X maintained positive business relationships with providers of real estate-related products and services including financial institutions, title insurance companies, home inspectors, mortgage brokers, insurance agencies, appraisers, exterminators, decorators, landscapers, moving companies, and others. Given the volume of business REALTOR® X’s firm handled, several of these companies purchased banner advertisements on the XY&Z website and some, including the Third National Bank, included links in their banner ads to their own websites.

Buyer B, who had earlier entered into an exclusive buyer representation agreement with XY&Z, received frequent e-mail reports from REALTOR® X about new properties coming onto the market. Hoping to purchase a home in the near future, he explored Realtor® X’s website to learn more about the home buying process and familiarize himself with the real estate-related products and services advertised there. Understanding that pre-qualifying for a mortgage would ensure he presented the strongest offer, Buyer B went to REALTOR® X’s website and clicked on the Third National Bank’s link. Once at the bank’s website, he found a mortgage to his liking, completed the on-line application process, and learned in a matter of days that he was qualified for a mortgage loan.

In the meantime, Buyer B’s property search proved fruitful. REALTOR® X and Buyer B visited a new listing on Hickory Street several times. Buyer B decided it met his needs and made an offer which was accepted by the seller.

A few weeks after the closing, Buyer B hosted a housewarming attended by his friend D, a website designer who had, coincidentally, been instrumental in developing REALTOR® X’s website. Buyer B told D how helpful the information from REALTOR® X’s website had been. “You know, don’t you, that each time a visitor to REALTOR® X’s website clicks on some of those links, REALTOR® X is paid a fee?”, asked D. “I didn’t know that,” said Buyer B, “I thought the links were to products and services REALTOR® X was recommending.”

Buyer B filed an ethics complaint against REALTOR® X alleging a violation of Article 6 for having recommended real estate products and services without disclosing the financial benefit or fee that REALTOR® X would receive for making the recommendation. At the hearing, REALTOR® X defended himself and his website, indicating that the advertisements for real estate-related products and services on his website were simply that, advertisements, and not recommendations or endorsements. He acknowledged that he collected a fee each time a visitor to his website clicked on certain links, regardless of whether the visitor chose to do business with the “linked to” entity or not. “In some instances I do recommend products and services to clients and to customers. In some instances I receive a financial benefit; in others I don’t. But in any instance where I recommend a real estate-related product or service, I go out of my way to make it absolutely clear I am making a recommendation, and I spell out the basis for my recommendation. I also disclose, as required by the Code, the financial benefit or fee that I might receive. Those banner advertisements on my website are simply that, advertisements.”

The hearing panel agreed with REALTOR® X’s rationale, concluding that the mere presence of real estate-related advertisements on REALTOR® X’s website did not constitute a “recommendation” or “endorsement” of those products or services, and that the “click through” fee that REALTOR® X earned when visitors to his website linked to certain advertisers’ sites was not the type of financial benefit or fee that must be disclosed under Article 6.

See more case interpretations here