Is it legal for a Texas CRE broker to represent both buyer and seller?
I was a  very green property manager for a small firm based in California, maintaining a strip center in Texas. Due to declining health, the owner was already entertaining the idea of a sale when 2 brokers pounced on the opportunity. 

To keep it concise, they kept the identity of the "buyer" secret, charged a 6% fee, and closed in april. Come to find out the "buyer" was the company the 2 brokers worked for.

My hands were tied throughout this transaction, and it was heartbreaking to see all of my work into that property disintigrate into basically a loss, and I do not consider this a highpoint to say the least. No matter my opinion on the sale or the character of these 2 brokers, this *screams* unethical but I am too new in the industry to know for sure.

The property was sold at a loss. We paid these guys a little over $300k for their "services". They also scammed us out of apprx. $60k in on-site assets.

Is this legal? What agency do I report this to if not? As far as the sale and assets, what is done is done, but we were misled the entire time regarding the identity of the buyer, and I would like that ill-gotten commision returned to the owner (and a percentage to me, of course).

Any help in the right direction or at least a quell of these ill feelings I have had about this would be very much appreciated.
[{"id": "djzkxbu", "text": "While it is legal for the broker to represent the buyer and seller, they cannot also be the buyer without disclosing this information to the seller.\n\nWhen the broker represents the buyer and seller, its called Intermediary and its fairly common but there are very specific rules that must be followed: \n\n**AS AGENT FOR BOTH - INTERMEDIARY:** To act as an intermediary between the parties the broker must first obtain the written agreement of each party to the transaction. The written agreement must state who will pay the broker and, in conspicuous bold or underlined print, set forth the broker's obligations as an intermediary. \n\n**A broker who acts as an intermediary:**\n\n* Must treat all parties to the transaction impartially and fairly;\n* May, with the parties' written consent, appoint a different license holder associated with the broker to each party (owner and\nbuyer) to communicate with, provide opinions and advice to, and carry out the instructions of each party to the transaction.\n* Must not, unless specifically authorized in writing to do so by the party, disclose:\n   * that the owner will accept a price less than the written asking price;\n   * that the buyer/tenant will pay a price greater than the price submitted in a written offer; and\n   * any confidential information or any other information that a party specifically instructs the broker in writing not to\ndisclose, unless required to do so by law.\n\n\nBut even if they complied with the Intermediary relationship requirements perfectly, they violated The Real Estate License Act by acting as a broker and undisclosed principal in a real estate transaction. Even if the buyer was a relative of the broker and had their own broker, this would have needed to be disclosed to the seller. \n\nhttps://www.trec.texas.gov/public/how-file-complaint  \n\nI'm sorry this happened to your client.  Among other things, this is basic fraud and your client should consider hiring an attorney. ", "replies": [{"id": "djzmdt7", "text": "Thank you so much. I needed this bit of affirmation to castrate these guys. The entire time I dealt with these guys I kept thinking \"you can't bullshit a bullshitter\", but the owner had complete \"control\" of the situation. The possible commision from a recoup aside, the owners are like family to me, and this is yet another instance in a long line of them being screwed over. At the very least I want their license revoked. They lost $1.5mm at the sale price, plus the at least $60k in assets, plus $330k commision. Wrong on absolutely all levels. They took advantage of an elderly couple and at the very least, I want their license.\n\n~~Conversely~~ Subsequently, if we pursue this complaint, would it void the sale? would the owners have to reassume ownership or could we accept the loss but recoup the commision/sue for loss/damages?", "replies": [{"id": "djzqnw7", "text": "I am not an attorney but I don't believe TREC would have the ability to void a sale, they will reprimand, suspend, revoke a licence and/or assess an administrative fine. In order to get damages or the property returned you'd likely need to get a good attorney to file suit. \n\nI guess the most glaring thing about this is the Brokers put their interests above their clients interest and failed to disclose material facts to your friend. \n\n", "replies": [{"id": "djzsipg", "text": "Again, thank you.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "dk01yfq", "text": "Not sure about the legality but I don't understand how your company got screwed.  Your company agreed to sell at the price offered knowing commission was 6% right?  So what's the issue?  ", "replies": [{"id": "dk0lgxw", "text": "The brokers, when asked repeatedly, never disclosed that their client was, in fact, their firm.", "replies": [{"id": "dk0wkae", "text": "Yeah, I understand. Just don't see how you got screwed. Had you known it was them you wouldn't have taken the offer?  You agreed to the offer, what's the difference?  ", "replies": [{"id": "dk1xmq7", "text": "Had we known it was them, we would have known they were not, in fact, holding out for the best offer. Although the client was motivated to sell, had they known their own representation was shorting them $1.5mm on a property in a bourgeoning CRE market, they would have definitely told them to \"go to hell\", literally. I guarantee you this group will flip this property to the local CRE monopolist. You're telling me these brokers acted in our best interest?\n\nEdit: In addition, we had a suite we had taken ownership of, and they promised to find a buyer for the ~$60k in merchandise. They found a buyer, but waited until after the sale of the property to sign them up and pocket whatever purchase price for themselves. Again, you tell me this is ethical. You tell me this is what *you* want your representation to do for you.", "replies": [{"id": "dk2rag1", "text": "I think it's certainly unethical but this post may clear something up. Were these brokers the listing agents or did they come in with a one time listing as the \"hidden\" principal?  If they were the listing agents, then you probably got screwed.  If they came in as a one time listing repping a buyer then I still don't understand how you can be upset. All you had to do was turn down their offer. If they were the listing agent and held back the listing from others then you definitely got screwed and not only was it unethical but likely illegal. I was initially under the impression this was a one time listing. ", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "dk0b0go", "text": "If they were smart, They probably did a one party listing agreement or had a broker compensation agreement in place to protect their services, and only needed to represent the buyer. They can still guide the seller bc that's part of negotiations - each party uses brokers to get their point across, the owners hurt themselves by not having representation from a fiduciary broker. If the seller would've had a broker, his broker would've gotten 3% (along with proper negotiation strategy to retain the value of the property) and buyers brokers would've split the remaining 3%. \n\nThis process is legal and there isn't really much you can do as a PM. The method is actually very common in the transactions of off market multifamily properties where the owner only wants a broker to bring buyers without actually representing the owner and without actively marketing the property for sale. ", "replies": [{"id": "dk0bh51", "text": "Also, the individual brokers themselves would have to be buyers in the case that they have to disclose their positions of their licenses, not their brokerage. As if a broker owns the property he's listing, he has to disclose that. But if the brokerage is simply using its own agents to facilitate a transaction on its behalf, there's no problems bc the brokerage owner isn't actually facilitating the transaction directly.", "replies": [{"id": "dk0cu1a", "text": "I can bet they went with a strategy like this, but does that exclude a requirement to disclose just what is going on? We were floored to see their firm as owner, after the fact, and many instances the identity of the buyer was asked, only to be told \"the buyer wants to remain anonymous\".\n\nRegardless, it is up to the state and the attorneys, but I will do everything on my part to help my client shed the shame of being outright conned.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "dk61ow7", "text": "What I would do in this situation, is actually speak to an attorney that specializes in Commercial Real Estate. I can't make out 100% from your post what is actually occurring, however I can tell you that whatever you read on the internet regarding this situation will not give you the direction you need.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]