Jonathan Cooper

Jonathan Cooper is the President of Macdonald Real Estate Group (MREG). Based in Vancouver and with an annual sales volume of over $7.4B in 2023, MREG has 1100 staff and agents and 24 offices, offering residential and commercial brokerage, project marketing, and property and asset management for a $6B portfolio. His commentary and op-eds on the real estate business have appeared across various media platforms, including REM, Inman News, Bloomberg BNN, and The Vancouver Sun.

The post The soul of the real estate agent: Far beyond the compensation and legal background noise appeared first on REM.

Andrew Fogliato

Andrew Fogliato – The G is silent –  is the owner of Real Estate Magazine and Just Sell Homes. He mostly talks about marketing but sometimes ventures into other topics in the real estate world. Sometimes he also writes bios in the 3rd person.

The post Empire builders: The Stone Sisters’ masterclass in leadership appeared first on REM.

The case pitted the interests of a husband and wife – who were in the process of divorcing – against the interests of the estate of the husband’s late father on the land on which the couple’s home had been constructed. The property in question was a 15-acre wooded parcel of land in Caledon acquired in the late 1980s, which the father planned to sever into separate lots to sell for profit. The father gave his son a portion of the land and encouraged him to build a house for him and his family.

During the course of the construction, the father primarily treated the house as the property of his son and daughter-in law. He did not have any input in the design of the home. The construction of the home was entirely funded by the son and his wife.

Shortly after the son’s house was completed in 1989, the father attempted to sever the lot from the rest of property so that he could convey it to his son. It turned out that a severance of the lot containing the son’s house was not possible.

The father died intestate in 2004 without any formal transfer of title having been made. Following the father’s death, the son and his wife continued to reside in the home, pay taxes and make improvements to the property.

In 2011, the son separated from his wife. They were able to resolve most of the issues relating to their marriage and separation in a comprehensive settlement agreement, with the only significant issue in dispute being their ownership interest in the land, which remained in the name of son’s late father.

At trial, the son and his wife relied on principles of unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel to argue that they held a beneficial interest in the property. In that regard, the wife argued that there was both intention and agreement between her and her husband on the one hand and the father on the other to convey the house and lot to them.

In response, the father’s estate argued that the son and his wife had been invited to build their house on a portion of the property during a period when they were in a dire financial position, but that there was never any intention to gift them the portion of the property on which the house was located.

The trial judge ruled in favour of the son and his wife, finding that the father’s estate had been unjustly enriched with respect to the house’s construction, improvement and maintenance, but not with respect to the other parts of the property. The trial judge rejected the submission that there was an oral agreement between the son, wife and father that the entire property would be conveyed to the couple in the future. The trial judge observed that since the time of the property purchase, all parties had treated it as two separate units: the house lot belonged to the couple and the rest of the land belonged to the father.

However, the trial judge emphasized that the son and wife had made significant contributions to the property over the years. They had completed significant upgrades to the home, including installing the kitchen, bathrooms, flooring and a sauna. They improved the grounds around the house. In the end, as all of the improvements were funded by the son and wife alone, the court found that it was reasonable for them to expect to receive some benefit for 30 years of upkeep.

Accordingly, the trial judge held that the estate had been unjustly enriched by the husband and wife with respect to the construction, improvement and maintenance of the house, but not with respect to the acreage.

In addition to unjust enrichment, the court found that the elements of proprietary estoppel had been made out:

1. The father made implied representations to the son that he would obtain the benefit of the full 1.13-acre parcel of land;
2. The son relied on the expectation that he would receive an interest in the property, and as a result built a house for himself and his family on the property; and
3. The son suffered a detriment since he and his wife could have invested their money and time on a different property had they not believed that they would receive an interest in the house that they built.

In assessing the appropriate remedy, the trial judge noted that the only reliable and tangible evidence provided to the court was the value of the entire property – 15 acres with a large home. The trial judge relied on expert evidence to determine that the value of the property, based on a cost approach that valued the land and the house separately, was $813,000. The court granted the husband and wife joint beneficial ownership of 75 per cent of the property.

On appeal, the estate challenged the appropriateness of the trial judge’s remedy. In particular, the estate took the position that the trial judge erred with respect to the value of the land and failed to consider the contribution that the father made to the construction of the house. The estate valued the father’s contribution at $100,000. Accordingly, the estate argued that there was a mutual conferral of benefits between the parties.

Although the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred in the assessment of the land value by apportioning the full value of the house to the son and his wife, it was not persuaded that it should interfere with the trial judge’s decision.

In that regard, the Court of Appeal’s view was that the estate’s position ignored the available remedies where the elements of proprietary estoppel have been proven. Where a claimant has established proprietary estoppel, a court has considerable discretion in crafting a remedy that suits the circumstances and an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial judge’s decision evinces an error in principle or is plainly wrong: See Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, at para. 46.

In this case, there was ample evidence to establish that it was always the intention of the parties that the husband and wife would receive both the house lot and the house since that was the purpose of the father’s aborted severance application. The order of the trial judge was entirely consistent with that intended result as it awarded the value of the house and the lot.

As the father died intestate, it was up the court to decide what his intentions had been notwithstanding that it may have seemed obvious that his son and wife should have received title to the home they built. A valid will may well have avoided the trial and subsequent trip to the Court of Appeal.

Delila Bikic is an articling student at Gardiner Roberts LLP.

James R.G. Cook

James Cook is a partner at Gardiner Roberts in Toronto and has been with the firm since he articled there in 2002. As a litigator in the firm’s Dispute Resolution Group, he has experience in a broad range of commercial, real estate and professional liability litigation. Phone 416-865-6628; email jcook@grllp.com. This article is provided for educational purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the views of Gardiner Roberts LLP.

The post Unfulfilled promise to transfer family property upheld by appeal court appeared first on REM.

I once worked with family members who had a lifetime quarrel with each other because one of them received a little red wagon for their birthday while the other did not. The little red wagon started as a source of contention and grudge-holding between them that festered and grew well into their relationship as adult siblings.

One day, I got a phone call from an heir to a commercial property inquiring about the market value of a building that had been in the family for six decades. This might not sound very complicated, but the intricate web of family emotions and disagreements became very elaborate when I learned that the heir shared ownership of the building with two other cousins. All three were estranged from one another, all disgruntled with each other and in no uncertain terms were they speaking to each other. The only thing the three senior cousins could agree on was that they wanted to sell the property.

It originally belonged to three brothers who had been very close. Two of them were business partners while the third was a silent investor. They had grown their business together to acquire their own freestanding factory back in the 1960s.

The three first cousins who had inherited the factory, each an heir of the three brothers, had not spoken directly to each other in many years. They just did not like each other. After getting involved I could piece together snippets of childhood misgivings and grudges, and ultimately, the far-too-familiar theme of the little red wagon and deep-festering jealousy.

I met with the cousins and, despite their animosity towards each other, I found them to be lovely people that I enjoyed talking to. This issue should have resulted in an easy, peaceful outcome but they were closed to the concept that their cousins could be nice people as well.

In addition to family strife, there were outside complications including a long-standing tenant and some contamination in the soil. The property was not that easy to sell but I did find a strong buyer who was going to pay top dollar. The issue was getting the cousins to agree. We came to a standstill because when one signed, then the other two automatically wanted to reject it.

I decided to deal with the angriest and most difficult of the three. Unless we got into the topic of his family, we got along very well. If I mentioned the family, he went into a rant.

Thankfully, I had spent two semesters at the University of Toronto many years ago to become an arbitrator and mediator and that experience has always helped me tremendously with clients. I learned a lot and practiced what I was taught.

I sat with the angriest cousin and said, “I guess that you thrive on the anger and hate toward your cousins so much that you do not want to make this sale, as you need to wake up each morning with that anger festering.” He looked at me in a puzzled way. He was adamant that he wanted nothing to do with his cousins.

And this is what I told him: “This offer that I have before you immediately cuts all ties to your family on the day of closing. Once you sign and the deal is done you never have to see them again, your choice. But, emotionally, you cannot let go, you just need that anger. So, either you detest them and want to hang on to that emotion or you cut the cord now.”

That was what he needed to move forward. He was an educated man and thought it over and told me that I may be right. It would be best to move on, to cut all contact and he agreed that the price was good. He was to receive a fair amount of dollars before taxes.

The deal was done, it closed and from what I know he has never crossed paths with his cousins again.

This experience reinforced for me that family wars are not about the here and now and often they are a result of old wounds, some going back to childhood. An experienced professional Realtor finds the root of the problem and then sells the real estate. The role of a successful agent is to identify the desired outcome from clients who do not communicate well with each other.

My best piece of advice? A Realtor is not a family counsellor and while the task may include mediation, the goal is to find the most efficient path to helping everyone feel heard and get what they want without trying to fix a lifetime of family strife, family wars and a case of the little red wagon.

Barry Lebow

Barry Lebow, FRI, Master-ASA, ABR, SRES, is one of Canada’s most recognized real estate authorities. Now in his 54th year of professional real estate, Barry has been honoured by many real estate associations for his work in the profession. He has testified in more than 500 trials across North America. He is the founder of the Accredited Senior Agent designation program. A teacher, trainer and educator, he is an active broker at Re/Max Ultimate Realty in Toronto. Visit barrylebow.com to contact Barry.

The post Family wars and the little red wagon appeared first on REM.

The lack of a written agreement may lead to years of costly litigation while a court determines what the parties purportedly decided, as shown by the result in Downey v. Arey, 2021 ONSC 2781 (CanLII).

The case involved an oral agreement between a father, his daughter and her partner, according to which the father allegedly agreed to transfer the family home in Mississauga to the couple for $850,000.

The property at issue was bought by the father and his late wife in 1978. In 2015, the father decided to downsize and move into a condominium. At that time, the daughter moved back into the home with her partner and their children. The daughter was thrilled to move back into the home, which was full of memories. She was raised in the house and nursed her dying mother in it.

There was no question that the father and the couple believed that they had entered into an oral agreement for the sale of the house with a closing date of August 31, 2016. After moving in, the daughter and her partner were to pay for the utilities until closing while the father continued to pay the insurance, taxes and mortgage. The couple also began significant renovations in anticipation of closing, which ultimately would cost them over $160,000.

However, the transaction did not close in August 2016 as scheduled. The couple took the position that the parties orally amended their oral agreement shortly before the closing date, which extended the closing to May 31, 2017. The couple began paying $1,800 per month to cover the insurance, taxes and mortgage. They called this payment “rent”.

The father’s position was that the couple asked to extend the closing to May 31, 2017, due to their financial circumstances at the time and that he neither agreed nor disagreed with the new May 2017 date. He decided to give them more time, although no final date was set.

By March 2017, however, he was tired of waiting. The market was rising and he now wanted $1.25 million for the property, thinking that his demand would start another round of negotiations given the increase in market prices. He told the couple that they had to get out of the house by July 2017 because he was going to sell it.

The couple’s response was to sue for specific performance (title to the house) or alternatively for damages for breach of contract, and special damages of approximately $166,000, comprising the amount they spent to renovate the home, and lost profit and opportunities in a business that suffered when the daughter’s partner – as a contractor – did the renovations to the house.

The father counterclaimed for rent in an amount to be set by the court from May 2017 (when he demanded that the couple vacate the home) to the judgment date, less any amounts the couple paid to date. While the father conceded that he owed the couple compensation for the work that they did on the house, he disputed the amount they claimed.

In a decision released in 2021, almost four years later, the trial judge commented that it was “astounding” that the parties had not put their alleged agreements into writing, given the significance of the property to them. They were not inexperienced or unsophisticated with real estate matters. Rather they simply relied on family trust. Given the lack of a written agreement, the decision turned largely on the trial judge’s assessment of the parties’ credibility.

The main issue was whether there was a binding oral agreement to sell the property in the first place. An oral agreement may be binding where it contains the requisite legal criteria of offer, acceptance and consideration: S&J Gareri Trucking Ltd. v. Onyx Corp., 2016 ONCA 505 at para. 7. The test of what the parties agreed to requires an objective determination rather than the parties’ subjective intentions.

Further, while oral agreements regarding the transfer of land are generally unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, “part performance” of an oral contract may avoid this rule: Erie Sand & Gravel v. Seres’ Farms Ltd., 2009 ONCA 709 (C.A.), at para. 70. In the case at hand, there was no question that the renovations undertaken by the daughter and her partner constituted part performance. The father did not challenge this point since he was aware of and had authorized the renovations.

Notwithstanding the shared position of the parties, however, the trial judge found that they had not entered into a binding oral agreement in the first place. In that regard, they had failed to agree upon a fundamental term – the price.

While the oral agreement was for the amount of $850,000, they disagreed over when and how a “family discount” was to be applied. The father said that he had valued the house at $950,000 but agreed to $850,000 due to his relationship with his daughter. Conversely, the couple’s position was that the purchase price was effectively $750,000, because at some (unspecified) point shortly before closing the father was supposed to forgive $100,000.

Given these divergent positions, the trial judge accepted that each of the parties honestly believed their version of the price of the home and that an objective, reasonable bystander would conclude that, in all the circumstances, the parties were not agreed on price, which was a fundamental term to any contract. Accordingly, the oral agreement had never been finalized.

Similarly, the trial judge found that there was no second oral agreement to extend the closing date to May 31, 2017. While the parties agreed that the couple could continue to live in the property, and they made efforts to address a second closing date, there was no meeting of the minds on the date or other terms of the alleged extension agreement.

Based on those findings, the court dismissed the daughter’s action to enforce the oral contract to obtain title to the house.

The daughter and her partner were nevertheless entitled to compensation for the substantial improvements they had made to the house. They had removed a load-bearing wall to open up the basement and put a beam to replace it. They created a bedroom and a full bath in the basement. They opened up the main floor by removing two loadbearing walls. They replaced stairs and flooring and renovated the second-floor bathroom. This work was 70 per cent complete by the original closing date in August 2016.

The father did not dispute the extent of the renovations and he had originally agreed to the couple moving in before the closing date and commencing renovations in the basement. He was present at various stages through the renovations to see what was being done.

The trial judge found that the couple was entitled to compensation for the proven cost for materials ($99,003), expenses ($25,389), labour and contracting ($38,866). However, the trial judge denied the claim of the daughter’s partner for “foregone business” while working on the home, as this was a personal choice and not something necessary under the circumstances.

The trial judge also found that the couple had failed to prove that the work that they performed on the property increased the value of the home, independent of any general market increases. An expert in valuing residential real estate agreed as a general proposition that renovations to a home increase the home’s value, with kitchen renovations and bathroom renovations contributing the most. However, the expert had not provided an appraisal of the increased value of the house due solely to the plaintiffs’ renovations.

In the result, the couple obtained a damages award for $163,259 based on the value of their proven renovations to the property. The father was confirmed to be the legal owner of the property.

The father is now free to market and sell the home. Until that time, his daughter and her family may remain in the home provided that they co-operate fully in marketing and showing the property. The couple was ordered to continue to pay “rent” in the amount of the cost to the father of any mortgage, property insurance and property tax expenses, the total of which shall not fall below $1,800 per month.

One expects, sadly, that the relations between the family members have been irreparably harmed as a result of the years of litigation resulting from the lack of a written agreement documenting their initial intentions.

James R.G. Cook

James Cook is a partner at Gardiner Roberts in Toronto and has been with the firm since he articled there in 2002. As a litigator in the firm’s Dispute Resolution Group, he has experience in a broad range of commercial, real estate and professional liability litigation. Phone 416-865-6628; email jcook@grllp.com. This article is provided for educational purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the views of Gardiner Roberts LLP.

The post Oral agreement results in years of litigation between father and daughter appeared first on REM.

In the last few years, Tomanelli-Allin of Allin Real Estate Group, part of Royal LePage Your Community Realty in Richmond Hill, Ont. says she has put together a team and has seen “incredible growth” for her business.

She’s pregnant with her first baby and like all self-employed professionals, is embarking on the trip without maternity leave. She says the thought of making the transition was “scary at first” but she’s been planning for 2.5 years so she’s ready.

“What I’ve done is change my business model,” says the soon-to-be mom, who is often approached by other women who want to know how she handles the life/work balance and how she’s preparing to be a mother.  “I’m getting ready to balance life when the baby comes.”

She has created guidelines and checklists to set parameters for herself so she’s not on call 24/7. She’s being more efficient with her time – for example if a client is looking for four bedrooms, “we won’t look at three-bedroom homes.”

She is planning five years out, determining the goal then moving backwards to figure out how to reach it. The secret, she says, is to break the big task into chunks and making sure everyone on her team achieves their goal. She will help her team on the backend, for example, to leverage social media and come up with organized plans for advertising.

She has also been coaching working moms and plans to take her own advice – sleep whenever you can, she says, and “lean on people if they offer (help), even if you have to pay them.”

In the next couple of months, she and her husband will be moving into the home they’re building. To make life easier, she hired a decorator because she says her husband doesn’t have the same taste as she does. And she will hire a caregiver or a cleaning lady.

Tomanelli-Allin is also talking to clients and setting expectations. For other soon-to-be moms, she says, “Tell your clients you may not be as available for the first couple of months. Most people are okay with that.” However, she cautions against promising you’ll be back then not returning when planned.

She will be allocating business to her team. “It will be a financial loss, but I will gain more time. And it will mean more experience and business for the team so they can build businesses that are sustainable.”

She says her team will continue to be there for their clients during this uncertain world we’re living in. She says people were panicking and thinking their house wasn’t worth anything, or that they might lose their job. Providing timely information ensured the team’s clients were not left in the dark about the real estate market.

Another of Tomanelli-Allin’s goals is to expand the team. The goal: six or seven new members by the end of 2021.

Connie Adair

Connie Adair is a contributing writer for REM.

The post Desiree Tomanelli-Allin: Planning for business when a baby is on the way appeared first on REM.

As someone who worked in many law firms, it never ceased to amaze me as to how seemingly happy siblings from functional families squabbled over the scraps of their parent’s estate. Buried feelings of “mommy treated you better” invariable surfaced when it came to money and, more importantly, what to do with their parent’s home.

If you are a parent of more than one child, you may want to consider the potential disputes that will invariably arise if you decide to sell or “gift” a home to one child and not the other. To prevent disputes over whether or not the non-receiving child was fairly compensated or whether or not the sale was fair, it’s imperative that the property be evaluated by at least three different independently chosen appraisers.

With several appraisers providing an independent opinion, it would be difficult for the siblings to claim that the property was undervalued. What’s more, if the child is actually paying the fair market value for the home, several appraisals will help refute future claims by the taxman that the value of the home and, therefore the adjusted cost base (an important component of determining the child’s capital gains, as discussed below), was lower than what the child paid.

If you give or sell an asset to a child, you’ll be deemed to have sold the asset for fair market value. This is true even if you sell the property for much less. For example, if a parent “sells” to their child a property that isn’t a principal residence for $1, and the true value of the property is $1 million, then the parent will have to pay tax as if the home sold for $1 million and not the $1.

The parents may use the principal residence exemption to shelter the tax on the sale to their child, however, this only “pushes” the tax issue down the line. Using our earlier example, the child who “bought” the property for $1 will be hit when she sells the house.

Assuming she sells the home for $1.1 million, she will pay a capital gain on $1,099,999, which is the difference between the amount paid ($1), also called the adjusted cost base, and the sale price ($1.1 million). This is in stark contrast with the amount that would’ve been taxed – $100,000 – if she actually bought the home for its fair market value (the difference between what the house was truly worth at the time it was sold to the child ($1 million) and what it sold for ($1.1 million).

In order to avoid significant tax implications, parents could sell the properties to their children for fair market value and take back a mortgage on the property and waive all payments. This approach allows for the deferral of a capital gain on the properties of up to five years. The parents may also revise their wills to state that these loans be forgiven upon their death. This approach further means that the adjusted cost base is higher, causing the capital gain to be reasonable for the children if they sell. Despite this more favourable approach, there are several other estate and tax issues that may arise. Professional advice is advisable.

When selling property to family members, it’s also imperative to stipulate how the property will be shared and maintained. Parents and siblings may assume that its current use will continue, leading to certain feuds. Consider a family cottage, for example. What happens on weekends? Are all family members able to continue to show up announced? If so, who will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the home? What are the costs involved? These questions must be answered and put in writing to ensure a smooth transaction and avoid the old cliché that one should never mix money and family.

Natalka Falcomer

Natalka Falcomer is a lawyer, real estate broker and Certified Leasing Officer who started her real estate career in private equity. She created, hosted and co-produced a popular legal call-in show on Rogers TV and founded and recently sold Groundworks, a firm specializing in commercial leasing law. She is currently the Chief Real Estate Officer of Houseful.ca, leading the development and expansion of the company’s personalized home buying and selling experience for the Canadian market. She sits as an advisor on NAR REACH Canada and is the former multi-year board member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

The post Pitfalls of gifting a home to your child appeared first on REM.

Throughout my career, whenever I was asked for service by a relative or close friend, unless unusual circumstances prevailed, I normally accepted the agency and charged my usual fee. They typically agreed without argument because they appreciated the value of our trust relationship.

Occasionally, however, after calling me for professional advice, a couple of them proceeded to hire a hungrier agent who readily acquiesced to their demand for a chopped fee. Did I find this disturbing? Oh yes. Did I ever forget this betrayal? Nope. Have I forgiven them? The jury is still out, but I’m working on it.

If you’re asked for a discount, without raising an eyebrow, calmly refuse and without missing a beat, move to the next step. At that point, they might drop the issue and the problem is resolved. However, if they persist, ask them why they asked you to represent them.

If they reply that they thought you’d work for free, then it might be time to fetch your hat and head for the door.

But if they say they trust you, ask if they know another agent they trust as much. In most cases, they’ll say no. What’s that trust worth? What’s the value of being represented by someone with whom they share a familiar loving relationship, someone they completely trust to protect them unequivocally and who’ll conscientiously do absolutely everything in their power to fulfill their wishes? In my book, that’s worth a lot.

If they refuse to drop the issue, tell them to begin interviewing agents. They’ll likely respond by saying they don’t want to go to the trouble or wouldn’t trust them as much. Point made. Hold your ground. Or to preserve the relationship, you can fold, take a hit in your income and do your best in the following years to suppress your resentment or better yet, forgive them.

Their motivation isn’t that they don’t love and respect you. They may suffer from the virulent and increasingly common disease of Money Madness and be driven by a fear of scarcity. And that fear may be stronger than their innate ability to love.

It may be hard for you to handle, but you must accept that they’re hard-wired to think that way. If you allow yourself to violate your customary fee policy, then you’ll be aligning your own loving higher vibrational frequency with their lower fear frequency. (More on this topic in The Happy Agent.)

By strictly following this protocol, most prospective clients, whether family, friend or trusting stranger with whom you have a solid mutually respectful relationship, will be satisfied. If not, then consider what you may have lost as you walk out the door. Remember – relationships are more important than money.

In the next and last of this series, I’ll discuss the topic of boundaries.

[quote_box_center]“Treasure your relationships, not your possessions.” Anthony J. D’Angelo[/quote_box_center]

Ross Wilson

Ross Wilson is a retired real estate broker with extensive experience as a brokerage owner, manager, trainer and mentor over a highly successful 44-year career. His book, The Happy Agent – Finding Harmony with a Thriving Realty Career and an Enriched Personal Life is available where print and e-books are sold, including the TREB, MREB, RAHB and OMDREB stores. Visit Realty-Voice.com.

The post Working with kith and kin: Part 2 appeared first on REM.

Why do you invest so much time and expense staying connected with people in your business network? Because you want the ideal real estate practice, where people remember to contact you for real estate service. Right? Why would they call you and not the neighbourhood “specialist” or another agent who happened to serendipitously cross their path? Two reasons – familiarity and trust. By diligently staying in regular contact, you hope to establish and maintain a familiar, durable and trusting relationship. Simply expressed, your goal is to be their friend in the business.

Here’s the thing, though, about family and close friends. You obviously share at least semi-regular contact, so familiarity and trust are hopefully ingrained. You’d presuppose they’d seek your services, if for no other reason than your close relationship. Naturally, they’d anticipate extra-special care while having a great time working together, and trust that the potentially stressful process of home relocation would be secure and more relaxed. Since they must pay somebody anyway, you’d expect they’d agree to your usual fee. After all, keeping the wealth in the family rather than paying a stranger makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, as you might attest, this isn’t always how things turn out.

In many cases, they suffer from the belief that you should perform your skilled services – surprise – for a reduced fee or even free of charge. Why? Because you’re family! They conveniently ignore the fact that unlike them, you don’t enjoy the benefit of a regular weekly paycheque. They fail to appreciate that the sometimes-considerable investment of time, money and expertise puts food on your family’s table, a roof overhead and fuel in your car. They fail to grasp that for you, time is money. While you’re labouring for them and critically, not for other paying clients, they’re at work earning their daily bread. To a somewhat lesser extent, it’s not unlike their volunteering to help build your new sundeck, unless of course, they happen to be a carpenter by trade. In such a case, to avoid a double standard, you should probably offer to pay them for their skilled assistance, or at least barter services.

To impress a new stranger prospect, you don your best clothes and professional (hopefully genuine) behaviour and strive to get to know them, to gain their trust and bond as quickly as possible. Since relatives already know you, you’d think the process would be easier, but it ain’t necessarily so. There’s usually no need to convince them to trust you personally, but professionally may be an entirely different matter.

When it comes to serving loved ones, particularly for the first time, you may still have to jump through a few credibility hoops to earn their professional trust. It won’t necessarily be easier just because of your personal long-term blood relationship, which could actually become a hindrance when crossing over from auntie to agent. Though serving family may be more relaxed, keep in mind they’re still clients for whom you’ve undertaken a solemn responsibility, including associated agency risks.

Representing relatives can be more stressful because, I suppose, of the dynamics of long-term relationships. It could be argued that you should be charging a higher than normal commission rate since they’ll probably expect a superior level of service because you’re related. Since they’re comfortable with you, don’t you think they’d contact you with questions, concerns or complaints more often than a non-related client – and at any hour of the day or night?

If your sibling believes you’re failing them, you can watch any chances of a commission fly out the window. And since emotions are difficult to avoid in family situations, maintaining professional decorum can prove problematic. Firing can be as easy as hiring. Compounding the problem is the resulting family gossip, ridicule, conflict and enduring hard feelings within a potentially polarized family. Rumours can travel like a grass fire and family won’t be vanishing after the business relationship is over.

When offered family business, it can be a tough call whether to hold or fold. In my next column, I’ll offer more on the subject for your consideration. Or if you can’t wait, check out my book, The Happy Agent.

Ross Wilson

Ross Wilson is a retired real estate broker with extensive experience as a brokerage owner, manager, trainer and mentor over a highly successful 44-year career. His book, The Happy Agent – Finding Harmony with a Thriving Realty Career and an Enriched Personal Life is available where print and e-books are sold, including the TREB, MREB, RAHB and OMDREB stores. Visit Realty-Voice.com.

The post Pitfalls of working for kith and kin appeared first on REM.

Sherry Rioux

Sherry Rioux, a broker with Clairwood Real Estate Corporation in Collingwood, Ont., strives to keep her 30-year marriage strong “I try to keep my husband involved in my work. He is friends with the other agents in my office and their spouses, so he understands how the business works. This has helped him to understand the demands and deadlines that we come up against. We also try to get two to three nights per week where we can watch some of our favourite TV shows or movies, or go out to dinner, even if it is just a quick meal in between appointments.”

Ron Stettner

Ron Stettner, a real estate consultant with Premier Canadian Properties in Kelowna, B.C. has also been married for 30 years. Stettner and his wife have found a way to make it work, “My wife happens to be my best friend. She supports me 100 per cent, especially in busy times like we are having in Kelowna right now. It is vital. Because it is sometimes hard to set a schedule as I am hands on and offer quick responses for my clients, I (jokingly) tell my wife, Lise, that I am like a doctor on call and sometimes have to go in a moment’s notice. Her job is very demanding as a computer programmer but she can be flexible and when time allows, we always try to have at least one or two spontaneous date nights per week.” The couple also has a standing dinner date every Sunday with their extended family.

You’ve probably heard this suggestion but actually give it a try. Schedule dates or blocks of time for your partner directly into your calendar (iPhone app, paper day-timer, whatever you use.) Once your personal times are scheduled in your calendar, your real estate career can work around them. Treat the level of importance of appointments with your spouse as you would any real estate client. If a buyer or a work meeting comes knocking, stand strong and keep that time sacred for your partner. Tell the person you have a previous appointment and leave it at that.

Things that have worked for other agents:

• Use the flexibility of the hours to your advantage, taking into account your partner’s schedule.
• If you are having communication problems with your significant other, a third party such as a professional marriage counsellor can help get things back on track.
• Consider working with a real estate partner to give you more time at home, if you need it. You’ll be giving up some of your earnings but you’ll be gaining quality relationship time.
• To get more time together, involve your partner in some of the work chores that you can do together such as previewing houses, cruising around looking for FSBO homes or putting up signs.
• Encourage your spouse to share concerns and ask questions so your loved one feels like he or she has a voice in your career.

Darcy Powlik

Darcy Powlik, a real estate agent with Re/Max Real Estate in Leduc, Alta., has been married since 1988. “Our marriage has been solid throughout my career and I am very fortunate for that. It has allowed me to work hard and be successful. In order to make our life work, I have to work hard to make everything stay together. I try my best to pick work times that will not interfere with family and other planned events. I go to work early (even on weekends) so I can be available when everyone wants to do something. My wife and children have been very accommodating and have put up with lots of phone calls when we are together as a family, at home and on vacation. They understand that if I don’t take care of my career, it would be hard to keep a solid income stream that makes our family life work.”

Powlik continues, “There have been many stressful days when I should be at home or with my family and I am out working. My wife and kids have stuck with me and understand that in most cases I have no choice. I reward my family when I can for their understanding ways, both with my time and by providing activities and vacations together. I take my job very seriously and customer service is very important but I recognize my family is everything to me.

“I have seen many cases where real estate agents have gone through breakups and it is hard on them. I try anything I can to avoid that type of problem. My advice to anyone would be to pick what is the most important thing to you. Then try everything you can to keep that one thing going.”

Rioux offers some final advice, “Stop and smell the roses. You have to take time to realize when the demands of the career are overtaking your family life. You don’t have to take every listing or work with every buyer. If you are that busy, it may be worth it to refer some of your business to another colleague. If you find the hours are too long, consider teaming up with someone or joining a team so that the time commitments can be spread out. Don’t take your spouse for granted. Take the time to have meals together so you can hear about their day. Remember…it’s not ‘all about me’.”

Being in real estate can take over your life financially and emotionally and that will impact your significant other. But doing whatever it takes to have a strong relationship that embraces your career will be a win/win for everyone.

Toby Welch

Toby Welch is a contributing writer for REM.

The post How to balance a relationship and a career in real estate appeared first on REM.