This question jumps into the realm of license laws, but with a little twist. This came up the other day.
Company A owns a 50% interest in Company B. Company B owns a 100% interest in a real estate development. In Ohio, there are license exclusions that allow direct employees of owners of real property to manage without a licence.
Can employees of Company A manage property owned by Company B in Ohio? Can they do it in your state?
The ruling from the court should come in next week. What do you think it should be? Why?
Do you have questions about distressed assets, receivership or bankruptcy sales, auctions? Email me at rfk@gryphonusa.com and I'll try to answer it in an upcoming post.
Richard F. Kruse is the President of Columbus, Ohio based Gryphon USA, Ltd. (www.gryphonusa.com). The Gryphon Organization includes Gryphon Asset Management providing receivership and consulting services in the distressed marketplace, United Country Gryphon Realty & Auction Group (www.ucohiorealty.com & www.ucohioauctions.com) providing real estate brokerage and auction services throughout Ohio and OnlineAuctionUSA.com (www.onlineauctionusa.com) providing commercial asset liquidations from the Midwest to East Coast.
United Country Gryphon Realty & Auction Career Opportunities Available. Call 614-885-0020 x 17
That's a very interesting scenario Rich.My guess would be "yes they can". My logic is this. The reason they don't have to be licensed is because they are managing property that they own albeit 50%. If company B buys a piece a property then company A would own 50% of it since they are 50% owners of company B, therefore, they are co-owners in the developement and can certainly hire employees to sell it. In florida they would have to be salaried employees.
I was going to comment on Florida, but I see Broker Bryant has beat me to it. And we don't have that loophole in Florida. The managers would need a CAM license or as BB stated, they would have to be salaried employees.
But, as for the other question, I'm not so sure. The key word that jumps out at me is "direct". The have to be "direct" employees of owners of real property. To me, the switch between companies A & B makes it "INdirect".
Rich,
How the heck have you been? It looks like you really got people thinking with this one - so much they avoided answering.
I'd have to go with Bryant's answer - it seemt the most logical to me - however, I have no idea wht the laws are here in California - could be anyones guess.
Why don't you post and let us know how it turn(ed/s) out.
Real quick - I'll be writing again. Changed companies in April and am heading up the REO division for one of the countries largest brokers in my market - it's exciting and very time consuming. Best news is I get to run it from home and take care of my wife. A few details are in my updated profile, but there will definately be more to come soon.
Hope to see more of you in the Rain,
John