Real Estate Continuing Education Deadline is October 31!

 

It’s time again for all of us licensed Michigan real estate salespersons and brokers to renew our licenses since 2015 is a license renewal year.

According to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), a licensee must complete at least 18 clock hours of continuing education per 3-year license cycle before the licensee can renew his or her real estate license.   Licensees must certify they have completed the required continuing education on their license renewal application.  The current real estate licensing cycle ends on October 31, 2015, which means that every real estate agent and broker needs to complete 18 hours of real estate con ed on or before October 31.

Remember that a minimum of 6 hours must involve law, rules, and court cases regarding real estate, although you can take more than the minimum since all law/legal update hours count towards the ultimate goal of 18 hours of continuing education credit.

Have you completed your 18 hour of Michigan real estate con ed yet?  It not, the time is now!

Let 1 Stop ConEd LLC (www.1StopConEd.com) help you get your hours from the comfort or your home of office.   There is no longer any reason to sit in a conference room for hours to complete your mandatory Michigan real estate continuing hours, when 1 Stop ConEd LLC provides interesting and informative home study courses that you can complete on your own schedule and from anywhere.

1 Stop ConEd LLC is a Michigan company that specializes in Michigan real estate continuing education courses.

1 Stop ConEd LLC will also save your Certificate of Completion for you, so if for any reason you misplace your certificate, just let us know and we’ll send you a new one.   Additionally, all of our courses fully and completely comply with LARA’s requirements for real estate continuing education course credit.  Our courses were prepared by licensed Michigan attorneys, who are also licensed Michigan real estate brokers, to ensure adherence to LARA’s regulations.  We absolutely guarantee that you will receive credit for any course you complete with us should you receive an audit letter from LARA.

Find 1 Stop ConEd LLC at www.1StopConEd.com. 

SAVE 10% -- Don't Forget Your Real Estate Con Ed!

SAVE 10% on all real estate con ed courses!

Don't Forget Your Real Estate Con Ed!

www.1StopConEd.com

The Smartest, Most Convenient and Efficient Way To Complete Your Courses!

1 Stop ConEd is all you need!

Do you still need your real estate continuing education?  You've come to the right place! Our home-study courses are a fast and efficient way to complete your con ed hours -- do the courses from your home or office, on your schedule with no travel.  Because you need 18 hours by October 31, 2015, we recommend that you complete 6 hours each year.

SAVE NOW!

Use discount code MCYCLE for a 10% savings on your next order!

** Hurry offer expires 12/31/14 **

 Follow These Simple Steps!

1. Go to www.1StopConEd.com
2. Select and purchase a course
3. Download a pdf of that course
4. Read the material and take an easy 10 question multiple choice quiz
5. Send us your quiz by email, fax or mail
6. We'll email you a certificate and report your completion to LARA

Your Michigan Real Estate Con Ed (including legal update) Can Be This Simple!

1 Stop ConEd LLC is an approved sponsor of Michigan real estate continuing education by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).

Less Than 2 Weeks Left To Get Your Real Estate Con Ed!

Less Than 2 Weeks Left To Get Your Real Estate Con Ed!
The Deadline is October 31!

• Courses are 100% Michigan!
• 100% Online -- Log on anywhere, anytime!
• Work at your own pace, start/stop whenever you want!
• Pick from a wide variety of real estate topics!
• ALL Courses are State-approved
• Mix-and-match 2, 3, 4 or 6 hour courses!
• Incredible Value! $35 for 6 credits (before the 10% discount)!
• We report your course completion for you!

Save 10% LIMITED TIME!
More Credits, More Savings
It's As Easy as 1-2-3!
www.123ConEd.com

DON'T MISS THE OCTOBER 31 DEADLINE!!
10% off your total purchase of con ed credits!
DISCOUNT CODE: DEADLINE (at checkout)(discount expires on November 30, 2011)
All Michigan real estate professionals need 18 continuing education credits by October 31, 2012. How many do you have so far? Don't wait until the last minute to get your con ed credits!
Most professionals take 6 credits each year of the 3-year cycle, and 123 ConEd LLC offers an unmatched variety of courses and credit-hour ranges. You can mix-and-match courses or just take a single course for 6 credit hours. But best of all, act now and save 10% on your entire order!

Michigan Con Ed Deadline Fast Approaching!

Michigan Con Ed Due by October 31!

Halloween is scary, but not getting your continuing education credits on time is even scarier! 123 ConEd LLC values you business, and if you haven’t already obtained your required 18 hours of continuing education credits, we want to help!

www.123ConEd.com

We make Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

Plus:

10% DISCOUNT ON ALL COURSES

Discount Code: HALLOWEEN (at checkout)(discount expires on November 30, 2010)

When you're up against a deadline, 123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most efficient and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• No worries about classes being full
• No travel to/from continuing education classes
• No standing in the back of the room to get your credits
• Your home or office is your classroom
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)
• You pick the topics that interest you
• We report your course completion to the State
• Our courses are a fraction of the cost of a live class
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD

123 ConEd LLC courses are all fully approved and certified by the Michigan DELEG. In fact, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, and reliable. Simply stated, when you log onto www.123ConEd.com, you get real eduction combined with real convenience!

NEW Distracted Driving Ordinance in Troy!

Beginning today (Thursday, July 29, 2010), you can get ticketed for "distracted driving" in Troy, Michigan, based on Troy’s newly-enacted Distracted Driving Ordinance. This is a new Ordinance is designed to improve traffic safety and reduce the number of traffic accidents. Since so many real estate professionals like to multitask while driving, it is important to be aware of this new law, especially while driving through Troy.

The Ordinance is divided into three sections, as set forth in Sections of Chapter 106, Traffic, of the Troy City Code relating to distracted driving (Section 1.20.05). Those sections cover the following topics: (1) Texting, (2) Cell Phone Use, and (3) Common Disruptive Behaviors.

1. TEXTING

The Ordinance reads: “The physical manipulation of any 2-way wireless electronic communications device used for dialing numbers; or scrolling; or typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other text; or the sending, receiving, and reading of any non-voice data in the vehicle while the motor vehicle is in motion on any highway or street or place open to the general public within the City of Troy. As used in this subsection, a wireless 2-way communication device does not include a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the motor vehicle.” Troy City Code, Chapter 106, Section 1.20.05(1).

This section addresses texting and similar behaviors related to texting, such as dialing phone numbers or scrolling for and reading messages, music, Internet information, etc. This particular section is modeled after the State of Michigan texting law that took effect on July 1, 2010, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who lives and drives in Michigan.

2. CELL PHONE USE

The Ordinance reads: “The physical manipulation or handling of any wireless entertainment or electronic communication device for the purpose of speaking into, or listening to voice data, while the motor vehicle is in motion on any highway or street or place open to the public within the City of Troy.” Troy City Code, Chapter 106, Section 1.20.05(2).

This section is specific to cell phone use. In an attempt to clarify this part of the Ordinance, the City of Troy published a document named "Clarification of the City of Troy Distracted Driving Ordinance” that explains that this is NOT a ban on cell phone use. The Clarification document explains that this portion of the Ordinance is merely meant to limit the type of cell phone you can use. If you have a hand-held device, you will need to pull off the roadway (including the shoulder) and find a safe location to place your call. This section allows for the use of a hands-free device such as a ear speaker/microphone combination plugged into the phone, a blue-tooth device, a sync system, and even the use of a speaker phone, as long as the phone can be secured without physically holding it. The operative words in this section are “the physical manipulation or handling,” which means that you cannot have a cell phone in your hand to talk into or listen to.

3. COMMON DISTRACTIVE BEHAVIORS

The Ordinance reads: “Any action by the driver of a motor vehicle that diverts his or her attention resulting in the failure to use due care and caution in the safe operation of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion on any highway or street or place open to the general public within the City of Troy. Such action can include but is not limited to: eating, reading, writing, performing personal hygiene/grooming, physical interaction with pets, passengers, or unsecured cargo, any of which is done in a manner that prohibits the driver from maintaining direct physical control of the motor vehicle steering mechanism with at least one hand that is free of all other objects and used entirely to form a controlled grip on the steering mechanism.” Troy City Code, Chapter 106, Section 1.20.05(3).

The purpose of this section is to focus the driver on driving, so it deals with a multitude of driving behaviors that often inhibit a driver from maintaining the level of due care and caution that is necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Fortunately, the City's "Clarification of the City of Troy Distracted Driving Ordinance" helps explain some of this section as follows:

READING: Whether you are reading notes for a meeting, reading a map, or reading a novel, reading takes your focus off of the roadway. Consider the fact that you may be driving at 45 MPH, which equates to traveling about 66 feet per second. If you are reading something that takes your focus away from the roadway for even one second, you have traveled 66 feet blindly! A two- second distraction leads you to travel about 132 feet blindly, which is almost half the length of a football field! Too many things can happen during that time that you will not see, let alone be able to react to.

WRITING: Writing notes is a dangerous practice. Consider the time and distance example previously mentioned. You may have one hand on the steering wheel, but your focus is on writing information on a piece of paper or on an electronic device. This behavior takes your focus away from your primary objective, which is safe driving.

PERFORMING PERSONAL HYGIENE: Putting on makeup or shaving, are types of behavior that often require the use of a mirror and/or the use of two hands to get the job done. This is dangerous driving behavior.

INTERACTION WITH PETS AND PASSENGERS: Drivers who keep pets, particularly large pets, on their laps while driving are often prevented from having a clear view of the roadway or ready access to vehicle steering mechanisms, side and rear-view mirrors, turn signals, etc. The Ordinance does not mean you cannot have a pet with you in the vehicle, but you must be mindful that depending on the size of the pet and its location within the vehicle, your interaction with the pet could constitute a distraction to safe driving.

Passengers who distract the driver of a moving motor vehicle by engaging in distractive behavior like pushing, shoving, grabbing, fighting, swaying the vehicle by movements done from inside the cabin, leaning out of a vehicle, etc., all constitute a distraction for which the driver may be stopped.

Changing clothes, changing a baby’s diaper, and having balloons float within the cabin of a moving vehicle causing a visual obstruction, are just a couple of the ways that physical interaction with cargo can contribute to unsafe conditions.

See Troy City Council document entitled "Clarification of the City of Troy Distracted Driving Ordinance"

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DISTRACTED DRIVING ORDINANCE

The Distracted Driving Ordinance does not apply to a person who is using an electronic communication device to do one or more of the following:

a) Report a traffic accident, medical emergency or serious road hazard.

b) Report a situation in which the person believes his or her personal safety is in jeopardy.

c) Report or avert the perpetration or potential perpetration of a criminal act against the individual or another person.

d) Carry out official duties as a police officer, law enforcement official, member of a paid or volunteer fire department, or operator of an emergency vehicle.

Troy City Code, Chapter 106 (Traffic), Section 5.14(c).

SOURCE: Troy City Code, Chapter 106 (Traffic), Section 1.20.05; Troy City Code, Chapter 106 (Traffic), Section 5.14(c); Troy City Council document entitled "Clarification of the City of Troy Distracted Driving Ordinance"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Please visit us at www.123ConEd.com for all of your Michigan real estate continuing education needs. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2010. All rights reserved.

$2.725 Million Settlement of Housing Discrimination Lawsuit

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit settled by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2009, the DOJ announced the largest monetary payment ever obtained by the DOJ in the settlement of a case alleging housing discrimination in the rental of apartments. Los Angeles apartment owner Donald T. Sterling agreed to pay $2.725 million to settle allegations that he discriminated against African-Americans, Hispanics and families with children at apartment buildings he controlled in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit, filed by the DOJ in August 2006, alleged that the defendants, Donald T. Sterling, his wife Rochelle Sterling and the Sterling Family Trust, engaged in discriminatory rental practices on the basis of race, national origin and familial status (having children under 18) at various apartment buildings that they owned and managed in Los Angeles. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants discriminated against non-Korean tenants and prospective tenants at buildings the defendants owned in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants. The lawsuit also alleged that the defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they owned or managed. Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children.

In court filings, the DOJ presented evidence that the defendants' employees prepared internal reports that identified the race of tenants at properties that the defendants purchased in Koreatown. Additionally, the defendants made statements to employees indicating that African-Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants. The DOJ also presented expert analysis showing that the defendants rented to far fewer Hispanics and African-Americans than would be expected based on income and other demographic characteristics.

The defendants, who manage their apartments under the name Beverly Hills Properties, own and manage approximately 119 apartment buildings comprising over 5,000 apartments in Los Angeles County. The settlement also resolves two related lawsuits filed by former tenants at one of the properties. The two families, an African-American family and an interracial married couple with bi-racial children, alleged that the defendants demolished the private yards that had been part of their apartment and took other actions against them because of their race.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are required to pay a $100,000 civil penalty to the United States. The defendants are also required to pay $2.625 million into a fund that will be used to pay monetary damages to persons who were harmed by the defendants’ discriminatory practices, including the tenants in the two related lawsuits discussed above. Any money left over would go to further fair housing education or enforcement in Los Angeles. The settlement must be approved by the court.

In addition to the payments in damages and civil penalties, the settlement agreement requires the defendants to take various steps to ensure non-discriminatory practices at their rental properties, including:

• Enjoining the defendants from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, and familial status;

• Requiring the defendants to implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employee’s compliance with fair housing laws at their properties. The testing would be conducted by an independent contractor that would report the results to the defendants and the DOJ;

• Requiring the defendants to maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and

• Requiring the defendants to obtain fair housing training through an independent contractor for their employees who participate in renting, showing or managing apartments at the properties.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release and legal complaint and settlement documents(portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Michigan Real Estate Con Ed Due TODAY!!!

Michigan Con Ed Due by October 31!

Halloween is scary, but risking your hard-earned real estate license by not getting your continuing education credits is even scarier! 123 ConEd LLC values you business, and if you haven’t already obtained your required 18 hours of continuing education credits, we want to help!

www.123ConEd.com

We make Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

Plus:

10% DISCOUNT ON ALL COURSES

Discount Code: HALLOWEEN (at checkout)

When you're up against a deadline, 123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most efficient and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• No worries about classes being full
• No travel to/from continuing education classes
• No standing in the back of the room to get your credits
• Your home or office is your classroom
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)
• You pick the topics that interest you
• We report your course completion to the State
• Our courses are a fraction of the cost of a live class
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD

123 ConEd LLC courses are all fully approved and certified by the Michigan DELEG. In fact, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, and reliable. Simply stated, when you log onto www.123ConEd.com, you get real eduction combined with real convenience!

Michigan Real Estate Con Ed Due in 5 Days!!!

TICK TOCK: Michigan Real Estate Continuing Education due by October 31!

www.123ConEd.com

DON'T FORGET: You need 18 credit hours by October 31!

Try online real estate continuing education!

You won't go back!

It's Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. Our courses are fully approved and certified by the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth. Plus, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two extremely qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, reliable and cutting-edge!

123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most time and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• Classes are 100% online
• Log on anywhere, anytime
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)
• Interesting and informative
• Pick from wide variety of real estate topics
• All courses are State approved
• Mix and match 2, 3, 4 or 6 hour courses
• Economical
• 6 credits for only $35
• We report your credits for you

Plus, get 10% discount on ALL courses

Discount Code: HALLOWEEN (at checkout)

www.123ConEd.com

Michigan Real Estate Con Ed Due in Less than One Week!

Michigan Con Ed Due in Less than One Week!

Halloween is scary, but risking your hard-earned real estate license by not getting your continuing education credits is even scarier! 123 ConEd LLC values you business, and if you haven’t already obtained your required 18 hours of continuing education credits, we want to help!

www.123ConEd.com

We make Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

Plus:

10% DISCOUNT ON ALL COURSES

Discount Code: HALLOWEEN (at checkout)

When you're up against a deadline, 123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most efficient and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• No worries about classes being full
• No travel to/from continuing education classes
• No standing in the back of the room to get your credits
• Your home or office is your classroom
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)
• You pick the topics that interest you
• We report your course completion to the State
• Our courses are a fraction of the cost of a live class
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD

123 ConEd LLC courses are all fully approved and certified by the Michigan DELEG. In fact, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, and reliable. Simply stated, when you log onto www.123ConEd.com, you get real eduction combined with real convenience!

Michigan Con Ed Due in 8 Days!

Michigan Con Ed Due in 8 Days!

Halloween is scary, but risking your hard-earned real estate license by not getting your continuing education credits is even scarier! 123 ConEd LLC values you business, and if you haven’t already obtained your required 18 hours of continuing education credits, we want to help!

www.123ConEd.com

We make Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

Plus:

10% DISCOUNT ON ALL COURSES

Discount Code: HALLOWEEN (at checkout)

When you're up against a deadline, 123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most efficient and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• No worries about classes being full
• No travel to/from continuing education classes
• No standing in the back of the room to get your credits
• Your home or office is your classroom
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)
• You pick the topics that interest you
• We report your course completion to the State
• Our courses are a fraction of the cost of a live class
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD

123 ConEd LLC courses are all fully approved and certified by the Michigan DELEG. In fact, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, and reliable. Simply stated, when you log onto www.123ConEd.com, you get real eduction combined with real convenience!

Flagrant Violations of the Fair Housing Act in Recent Lawsuit brought by the DOJ

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

Last Friday (October 16, 2009), the DOJ filed a lawsuit against TK Properties L.L.C., its owner, and two employees (property managers), for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing and making discriminatory statements to an African-American family residing at Lakeport Village Apartments (located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota). In addition, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants intimidated white tenants who came to the family's defense.

Lakeport Village Apartments is a 48-unit apartment complex that is comprised of three buildings, each with 16 units. The complex is home to many families with children. On December 1, 2008, TK Properties hired Ann Wagner (hereinafter “Manager Wagner”) and Corey Anderson (hereinafter “Manager Anderson”) as on-site property managers.

On January 5, 2009, Michelle Chevalier, a white tenant at Lakeport Village, complained to Manager Wagner about noise coming from an apartment being rented by Charlotte and Untoma Gadsden (who lived there with their three minor children and one adult child). The Gadsdens are African-American. Tenant Chevalier and Manager Wagner went upstairs to speak to the Gadsdens. Charlotte Gadsden explained to Manager Wagner that her husband Untoma had just returned from the hospital and that the noise had been the result of his dialysis machine falling to the floor. Manager Wagner nevertheless yelled, "That's it, you're done, you're out of here, I've had enough," or words to that effect.

Following that confrontation, Manager Wagner urged Tenant Chevalier to file a false police report stating that the Gadsden's 17-year old son had attacked Tenant Chevalier. Tenant Chevalier refused to do so. Manager Wagner nevertheless stated she would file such a report, and told Ms. Chevalier that she needed her help in evicting the Gadsdens, whom she referred to as "nigger" tenants. When the police arrived, Tenant Chevalier denied that she had been threatened by the Gadsdens’ son and therefore no charges were filed.

Manager Anderson told Tenant Chevalier that, with regard to the maintenance requests of African-Americans, "them fucking niggers can wait, I'll get to them when I get to them," or words to that effect. Manager Anderson made the comment in the presence of Tenant Chevalier's children.

On February 11, 2009, Manager Anderson called the Sioux Falls Police Department and falsely reported that the Gadsdens' 15-year old son was attempting to steal change from the apartment complex's laundry machine. Scott Terveen (an owner of TK Properties) insisted that charges be filed. The charges were later dismissed.

On numerous occasions, white tenant Jenny Johnson heard Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner use the word "nigger" to describe black tenants, including the Gadsdens. On February 19, 2009, Tenant Johnson told another white tenant that she believed that Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner were racist. Manager Anderson, who learned of Tenant Johnson's allegations, responded by sending Tenant Johnson a text message that said, "Who in the hell do u think u r if u want 2 bitch about me and b nosy u know where I live." Manager Anderson also told another tenant that he would "punch [Tenant Johnson] in the mouth to shut her up," or words to that effect. The tenant told Tenant Johnson about Manager Anderson's threat.

Following Manager Anderson's text message and threat of assault, Manager Wagner and Tenant Johnson saw each other on the balconies of their respective units. Manager Wagner yelled, "Do you know the difference between a black person and a nigger? . . . They're niggers. They're niggers upstairs in 306," or words to that effect, referring to the Gadsden's unit.

On February 20, 2009, Tenant Chevalier, Tenants Gadsdens and Tenant Johnson went to the Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission ("Housing Authority") to complain about the discriminatory conduct of Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner. Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner saw them leave the property. Later that day, Tenants Gadsdens and Tenant Johnson returned to their apartments to find that they and other tenants on their floor did not have heat.

The following day (February 21, 2009), Manager Wagner sent Tenant Chevalier a text message asking, "is it true you were with Jen [Tenant Johnson] yesterday at housing [Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission]. we have never done anything 2 u or your family -- y r u against us?”

On February 22, 2009, Tenant Johnson received a voice mail message from Manager Wagner in which she yelled vulgarities and stated that she would use "every ounce in my body" to "take you out of here." Tenant Johnson felt threatened by the message and called the police the following day.

Defendants TK Properties and Scott Terveen (an owner of TK Properties) knew about Manager Anderson’s and Manager Wagner's discriminatory conduct, but failed to take corrective action. In February 2009, Tenant Johnson met with Michael Terveen (another owner of TK Properties) to complain about Manager Anderson’s and Manager Wagner's discriminatory conduct. Michael Terveen relayed Tenant Johnson's complaints to Scott Terveen.

Despite these complaints, Defendants TK Properties and Scott Terveen failed to curtail Manager Wagner’s and Manager Anderson's authority over the management of the complex and allowed them to continue on as managers. Both managers continued to live at the property rent-free and continued to serve as managers of the property until at least May 2009.

On February 26, 2009, Charlotte Gadsden, Untoma Gadsden, Chevalier, and Johnson, on behalf of themselves and their minor children, filed three discrimination complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). Following an investigation, HUD determined that that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants had engaged in illegal discriminatory housing practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, HUD issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination against Defendants.

On September 15, 2009, Tenants Gadsden, Tenant Chevalier, and Tenant Johnson timely elected to have these charges resolved in a federal civil action. As a result, the DOJ filed this lawsuit, on October 16, 2009 ,which is pending in the United State District Court of South Dakota.

The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that defendants' actions violate the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, awarding monetary damages to all persons harmed by the defendants' discriminatory practices and assessing a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest. The complaint is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proven in federal court.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release and legal complaint (portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Man Convicted of Criminal Interference with the Right to Fair Housing (Hate Crime)

Here is another summary of a recent legal case involving a fair housing issue. This case is a little different than the typical fair housing case because it involves the criminal interference with the right to fair housing instead of the usual civil violation. Although this case doesn’t provide much guidance about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act for real estate professionals, I thought it was nevertheless interesting and worth posting.

On Tuesday (October 13, 2009), a Louisiana man plead guilty to firing three shots from a shotgun at the home of three Hispanic men and, after they fled, entering the home and setting a fire that burned it to the ground.

Johnny D. Mathis plead guilty to three criminal counts, including (1) criminal interference with the right to fair housing; (2) use of fire to commit a felony; and (3) use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each count carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both. Furthermore, the ten year penalties for use of fire to commit a felony and use of a firearm during a crime of violence are mandatory, meaning that Mr. Mathis now faces a maximum sentence of 30 years and a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for January 13, 2010.

Testimony presented at the plea hearing established that on June 15, 2008, Mr. Mathis fired three shots from a shotgun at the home of three Hispanic men who shared the residence in a rural area of western Louisiana. Mr. Mathis’ home was across the street from the victims’ house. After hearing two shots, the victims fled their house. Once outside, the victims watched as Mr. Mathis fired a third shot into the trees and then entered the house, left briefly, and then returned. Minutes later, the house was engulfed in flames as Mr. Mathis exited the house. Subsequent investigation determined that the fire started in the kitchen where the victims had seen Mr. Mathis. Mr. Mathis admitted that his crime was motivated by the victims’ race and national origin and was intended to interfere with their right to live in their home.

Although this matter did not involve a real estate professional or a real estate transaction, it is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. Real estate agents who violate the Fair Housing Act face only civil (monetary) damages and not prison time. The case against Mr. Mathis was different for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release (portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

$5,650 Settlement in First Landlord-Tenant Case under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

Here is another example of a recent legal case involving a real estate issue. I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals on important issues.

On September 24, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had reached a settlement with a Virginia landlord to resolve allegations that she violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”). The lawsuit alleged that the landlord failed to return prepaid rent and security deposits to a tenant who had terminated her lease early in order to comply with military orders to relocate to Georgia.

The SCRA provides certain protections to active duty servicemembers who must terminate residential leases to comply with military orders for a permanent change of station or for deployment. The lawsuit represented the first lawsuit involving a landlord-tenant matter brought by the DOJ under the SCRA.

The tenant in this lawsuit, Colonel Debra Bean, was a highly decorated member of the armed forces. Colonel Bean currently serves as Vice Commander for the 78th Air Base Wing at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia.

On June 11, 2007, Colonel Bean and her husband signed a two-year lease for a home in Fairfax, Virginia. Under the terms of the lease, the monthly rent was $3,000, payable on the first day of each month beginning with July 1, 2007. The Beans also gave the landlord a $3,000 security deposit and a $500 pet deposit. Under the terms of the lease, the Beans had the right to terminate the lease if Colonel Bean was transferred more than thirty-five miles from the rental home by the United States Air Force. In the event of early termination, the lease required the Beans to pay a $1,500 early termination fee.

Also under the terms of the lease, the landlord was required to, within thirty days after the termination of the tenancy, provide the Beans with a statement, if applicable, showing all charges paid against the Beans’ $3,000.00 security deposit, and return to the Beans any remaining amount of the security deposit not used for repairs and/or unpaid rent and utilities.

The Beans moved into the rental home on July 1, 2007. They made all rent payments in a timely manner from July 1, 2007, through May 2008.

On April 14, 2008, Colonel Bean received permanent change of station orders from the United States Air Force transferring her from the Pentagon to Robins Air Force Base in Robins, Georgia. Under the terms of the orders, Colonel Bean was required to report for duty at Robins Air Force Base by no later than May 30, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, Mr. Bean sent a certified letter to the landlord informing her that his family intended to move out of the rental home on June 19, 2008. Included with Mr. Bean’s letter was a check for $1,900 for rent for the time period from June 1, 2008, to June 19, 2008, a second check for $1,500.00 for the early lease termination, and a copy of Colonel Bean’s permanent change of station orders.

The Beans moved out of the house on June 19, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the landlord sent the Beans a message in which she stated that she had visited the rental home and noted that everything looked fine at the property. Nevertheless, the landlord refused to return the Beans’ $3,000 security deposit and $500 pet deposit.

After the landlord refused to return the security deposits, the Beans were forced to pursue their rights under the SCRA. This case was handled on their behalf by the DOJ.

Under the terms of the settlement, the landlord was required to pay $5,650 in damages to the Beans and was enjoined from engaging in future violations of the SCRA. The landlord must also undergo SCRA training and submit compliance reports to the government.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release (portions of press release used with permission)

------------------------------------------------

To learn more about a variety of real estate topics, please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan online real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online. DELEG Sponsor No. 373.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

FRIDAY FUNNY -- Terry Tate: Office Linebacker

I just rediscovered the very funny Terry Tate: Office Linebacker videos, which were a series of short television commercials from a few years ago. If you’ve ever worked in an office environment, and I know that many of you have, then you’ll really appreciate how Terry Tate enforces office policies and rules. I wish that Terry had worked in my office to help with all of the people who just can't seem to follow common office courtesy. Every office needs a Terry Tate!

Enjoy!

------------------------------------------------

To learn about a variety of real estate topics, please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan online real estate con edu. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online. DELEG Sponsor No. 373.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Real Estate Professionals Arrested in Mortgage Fraud Scheme

Here is another example of a recent legal case involving mortgage fraud. I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals on important issues.

On June 3, 2009, five people were arrested for their roles in a mortgage fraud scheme in the Washington State that bilked banks and property sellers out of more than $18 million. The arrests came as a result of an extensive investigation by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

Humerto A. Reyes-Rodriguez, Alexis Ikilikyan, Micki S. Thompson, Mario Marroquin, and William S. Poff were indicted by a federal grand jury last month on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud (they were arrested on June 3, 2009). The indictment alleges that over a three-year period starting in 2004, they were responsible for 80 fraudulent loan transactions in communities throughout King County and Pierce County, Washington.

Mr. Reyes-Rodriguez and Ms. Ikilikyan were licensed real estate agents and mortgage loan originators. Mr. Poff is Ms. Ikilikyan's ex-husband and was a licensed notary and loan originator. Mr. Thompson was employed by Great American Escrow and acted as the closing officer for many of the fraudulent sales. Mr. Marroquin acted as a straw buyer and oversaw fictitious home repair companies.

According to court documents, the five defendants worked together to obtain financing from banks to purchase homes. At the same time, they convinced innocent home sellers to extend private loans to the buyer of the home to cover a portion of the purchase price.

The sellers did not know that the conspirators had already obtained financing from commercial lenders to cover the full cost of the home. When payments were not made, the properties fell into foreclosure. The homes were then sold for less than the total of all loans secured for the property. The sellers who had extended private loans to the buyers were left with nothing.

The conspirators also used straw buyers to purchase and resell properties and then submitted false information to the banks such as employment, income, citizenship status, assets and liabilities. They submitted bogus appraisals and hired fictitious home repair companies to do repair work on the properties. Proceeds from the home sales would go to the fake companies that had, in fact, done no work.

This case uncovered a group of real estate professionals who manipulated home sales for pure profit while some of the properties went into foreclosure and innocent private citizens were defrauded.

The conspiracy and money laundering charges are punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine. An indictment is merely a formal charge by the grand jury. Each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

I will try to keep following this case and post an update when the case is ultimately resolved, hopefully with all of the defendants getting long prison sentences.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release (portions of press release used with permission)

------------------------------------------------

To learn more about a variety of real estate topics, please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

When and How a Tenant Must Request a Reasonable Accommodation or Permission to Make a Reasonable Modification

Under the Fair Housing Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.

Similarly, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable modification request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the premises because of her disability. She should explain that she has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known to the housing provider, the type of modification she is requesting, and the relationship between the requested modification and her disability.

An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation or modification unless she requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make the reasonable accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation or modification request does not need to mention the Act or use the words “reasonable accommodation” or “reasonable modification.” However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability or that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.

Although a reasonable accommodation or modification request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation and modification requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider’s preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.

Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even though the tenant would not use the provider’s designated form.

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

******************************************

To learn more about Fair Housing issues (and many other treal estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. 123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of continuing education courses to real estate professionals in Michigan. Our online Michigan real estate con ed courses are fully approved and properly certified by the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Time's Running Out! -- Michigan Real Estate Con Ed is Due by October 31!!

TICK TOCK: Michigan Continuing Education due by October 31!

www.123ConEd.com

DON'T FORGET: You need 18 credit hours by October 31!

Try online real estate continuing education!

You won't go back!

It's Continuing Education As Easy As 1-2-3!^TM

123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. Our courses are fully approved and certified by the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth. Plus, 123 ConEd LLC courses are prepared by two extremely qualified licensed attorneys and real estate brokers. 123 ConEd LLC courses are interesting, informative, reliable and cutting-edge!

123 ConEd LLC online continuing education is the most time and cost effective way to meet your real estate continuing education needs. With 123 ConEd LLC, you are in control:

• Classes are 100% online!
• Log on anywhere, anytime!
• No special software, no downloads, no CD/DVD
• Work at your own pace (start/stop whenever you want)!
• Interesting and informative!
• Pick from wide variety of real estate topics!
• All courses are State approved!
• Mix and match 2, 3, 4 or 6 hour courses!
• Economical!
• 6 credits for only $35!
• We report your credits for you!

Plus, get 10% discount on ALL courses

Discount Code: ENDOFCYCLE (at checkout)

www.123ConEd.com

Sexual Harassment under Fair Housing Laws

Every real estate professional should already know that the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of sex. What many real estate professionals do not realize, however, is that that includes sexual harassment.

Courts throughout the country have consistently recognized sexual harassment as a form of discrimination that violates the Fair Housing Act. In order to sustain a claim of sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act, an individual must show that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. Nonetheless, if an individual submitted to the sexual conduct, that conduct still may have been unwelcome and a claim may be tiled.

Courts recognize two types of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment (i.e., when a housing provider, or his/her employee, agent or contractor conditions access to or retention of housing or housing-related services or transactions on a victim's submission to sexual conduct); and (2) hostile environment sexual harassment (i.e., when a housing provider or his/her employee, agent or contractor, or in certain circumstances another tenant, engages in sexual behavior of such severity or pervasiveness that it alters the terms or conditions of tenancy and results in an environment that is intimidating, hostile, offensive, or otherwise significantly less desirable). Claims may be filed even if the alleged victim did not experience the loss of a housing opportunity or some tangible economic loss. Complaints alleging sexual harassment involve one or both types of harassment.

Sexually harassing conduct can be verbal (derogatory remarks, slurs, jokes, intimidation, and even threats of violence), physical (body gestures, whistling, ogling, unwelcome touching or physical violence), or visual (inappropriate sexually-oriented written materials or pictures). Sexual harassment also occurs when a resident’s housing is conditioned on agreeing to sexual favors. For example: A manager demands a date in exchange for a rent reduction. The legal term for this type of harassment is quid pro quo – “this for that.” Again, the treatment is considered harassment if it rises to the level of “severe or pervasive” conduct.

With respect to harassment in the rental context, a property manager has a duty not to engage in sexual harassment. Additionally, property managers have a duty to prevent or stop sexual harassment committed by employees, agents, or contractors and that they may be liable for acts committed by such persons. If a property manager knows or should have known that an employee, agent or contractor is sexually harassing applicants, tenants or residents, he/she has the duty to take action to stop the harassment. For example, if an apartment manager authorizes a maintenance worker to enter a tenant's home to make a repair, and the maintenance worker sexually harasses the tenant, the management company may be held vicariously liable for the maintenance worker's actions. A property manager may be held liable if any of his/her employees, agents, or contractors sexually harass an applicant, resident or tenant.

In recent years, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") has been looking more closely at sexual harassment in housing in its Fair Housing enforcement efforts. Women, particularly those who are poor, and with limited housing options, often have little recourse but to tolerate the humiliation and degradation of sexual harassment or risk having their families and themselves removed from their homes. The DOJ's enforcement program is aimed at landlords who create an untenable living environment by demanding sexual favors from tenants or by creating a sexually hostile environment for them. By this, the DOJ is seeking both to obtain relief (usually large monetary fines) for tenants who have been treated unfairly by a landlord because of sex and also deter other potential abusers by making it clear that they cannot continue their conduct without facing repercussions.

------------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Michigan Laws Related to Mold

Are there laws in the State of Michigan related to mold issues?

It might seem surprising, but the State of Michigan does not have laws that require anyone to cleanup, remove, or report mold in any indoor environment. Also, the State of Michigan does not have a program to address issues related to mold, other than to provide people basic information about mold clean-up. Moreover, the State of Michigan does not certify or license contractors for mold removal.

However, laws do exist that cover certain situations that involve indoor mold. The following is a list government agencies that may be able to provide guidance if your house or apartment has indoor mold.

Landlord and tenant relationships: If a tenant is renting an apartment or house, that person has the right to expect certain minimum standards referred to as "warranties of habitability" that provide minimum standards of decent, safe, sanitary housing specified in the state or local housing code. For more information on landlord-tenant relationships go to: http://www.tenant.net/Other_Areas/Michigan/index.html.

Fraud in mold remediation companies: If you believe you are a victim of fraudulent business practices from a company involved in mold remediation, contact: Michigan Attorney General's Office, Michigan Consumer Protection Division, P.O. Box 30213-7713, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373-1140

Legal issues related to new home construction and mold: If you have questions about laws regarding new housing construction and contractors actions related to mold, contact: Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Bureau of Commercial Services/Enforcement Division, P.O. Box 30018, Lansing MI 48909, (517) 241-9202

For more information on mold:

• Michigan Department of Community Health Toxics and Health hotline and website: 1-800-648-6942, www.michigan.gov/mdch-toxics
• Your local public health department, find it at http://www.malph.org/page.cfm/108/
• Centers for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/mold/
• National Center for Housing and the Environment: http://www.stopmold.org/

********************************

To learn more about a variety of real estate topics, please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Operation Home Sweet Home

Ever heard of the Fair Housing testing program, where someone visits rental communities to observe customer service? HUD and local fair housing agencies use such a testing process to assess a specific complaint or to check a random market for fair housing compliance. Any applicant could be a fair housing tester.

Fair housing testing is a tool used to measure the practices of housing providers relating to the Fair Housing Act. Some unlawful housing discrimination practices can only be discovered through fair housing testing. Information gathered through fair housing testing can be used as evidence to support a client’s administrative housing discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or a private lawsuit against a housing provider. The United States Supreme Court has recognized and affirmed the important of fair housing testing in fighting housing discrimination.

In order to enforce fair housing laws, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), brings suit to enforce the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. The Fair Housing Act authorizes the DOJ to bring suits where investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.

In 1991, the DOJ established a fair housing testing program and commenced testing in 1992. Testing refers to the use of individuals who, without any bona fide intent to rent or purchase a home, apartment, or other dwelling, pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate for the purpose of gathering information, which may indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair housing laws. The primary focus of the fair housing testing program has been to identify unlawful housing discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, or familial status.

The DOJ employs various means to accomplish testing in local communities, including contracts with private fair housing organizations, contracts with individuals, and by using non-attorney DOJ employees throughout the country. The DOJ employees are volunteers who have been trained to participate as testers. Since 1992, the testing program has recruited and trained over 1,000 employees from various DOJ components throughout the nation to participate as testers. These are in addition to the numerous individuals retained by private fair housing organizations. The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section conducts numerous investigations simultaneously at any given time.

Testing is a method to determine whether or not a home seeker is treated differently in his or her search for housing. A person’s race or national origin, for example, would be impermissible factors upon which to base a denial of an opportunity to purchase a home. Testing for housing discrimination involves individual testers posing as prospective home buyers or renters. Testers are paired and assigned profiles so that they are equally qualified to rent or purchase an apartment or home in question. They are similar in all respects except for one of the protected classes, such as race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, age, or marital status. The experiences of testers are used to compare the treatment of one home seeker (protected class) to another (non-protected class). In this context, testing measures the difference in treatment afforded a home seeker as determined by the information and services provided by real estate firms, property management firms, rental agents/brokers and others.

If differences are found that relate to race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, age, or marital status, a housing discrimination is filed. The vast majority of testing cases filed to date are based on testing evidence that involved allegations of agents misrepresenting the availability of rental units or offering different terms and conditions based on race, and/or national origin, and/or familial status.

In February 2006, the DOJ launched Operation Home Sweet Home, which is a fair housing testing program that employs individuals who pose as renters for purposes of gathering information about possible discriminatory apartment rental practices. The initiative was inspired by the plight of displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina who were suddenly forced to find new places to live. Operation Home Sweet Home, however, is not limited to the areas hit by Hurricane Katrina, but targets housing discrimination all over the country.

So remember that any applicant could be a fair housing tester. And, contrary to what most real estate professionals think, it is not easy to spot a tester. You likely will never know that you were visited by testers unless, of course, a discrimination complaint is filed against you.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.