and seeking to adopt a child from CFCS, Gilbert and Mary consented to CFCS’s representation of the other parties to the adoption. The biological mother also knew that CFCS was working with potential adoptive families. Thus, the parties were aware of, and consented to, CFCS’s multiple representation. See Marmis v. Solot Co., 117 Ariz. 499, 573 P.2d 899 (App. 1977). ¶ 21 In providing all parties with full disclosure, the fiduciary meets its obligation to act with the utmost loyalty and integrity. Id. at 502, 573 P.2d at 902 (“The undertaking of such a dual representation of conflicting interests, without the knowledge or approval of the competing principals, would, of course, not be countenanced.”); see also Warren v. Mangels Realty, 23 Ariz.App. 318, 321, 533 P.2d 78, 81 (1975) (<HOLDING>). In Ornamental, however, the court found the
holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation holding that it was up to the jury to decide whether the broker and seller understood the property to be sold where the listing agreement erroneously indicated a property description was attached but the seller testified the broker knew what property was to be sold