by Andrea V. Brambila | Jun 24, 2025 | Industry, News Feed
Real estate is changing fast, and so must you. Inman Connect San Diego is where you turn uncertainty into strategy — with real talk, real tools and the connections that matter. If you’re serious about staying ahead of the game, this is where you need to be. Register now!
A federal judge made quick work of signing off on the 15 combined settlements of two commission-related antitrust cases Tuesday afternoon.
On June 24, Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted final approval to deals reached in two cases known as Keel and Gibson after their lead plaintiffs.
The first hearing, for the Gibson case, lasted 18 minutes, from 1:30 p.m. to 1:48 p.m. With the final approval, six defendants in that case have now resolved the claims against them: NextHome, Inc.; The Keyes Company and Illustrated Properties; John L. Scott Real Estate Affiliates, Inc., and John L. Scott, Inc.; The K Company Realty, which does business as LoKation; Real Estate One; and Baird & Warner Real Estate.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JUNE
The second hearing, for the Keel case, was even shorter: 11 minutes, from 2:29 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. The judge’s order resolves claims against these nine defendants: Side Inc.; House of Seven Gables Real Estate; Washington Fine Properties; JPAR Real Estate Services and affiliated firms; Signature Premier Properties; First Team Real Estate-Orange County; Sibcy Cline; Brooklyn New York Multiple Listing Service (Brooklyn MLS); and Central New York Information Service (CNYIS).
A group of homesellers first filed the Keel case in January, at which time they also proposed a settlement that would see the defendants pay a combined total of $10,570,000. The case ended up on a fast-track, at least compared to other suits, and by February the proposed settlements had received preliminary approval.
Gibson is a somewhat higher-profile case because it was the first of the so-called copycat suits — or lawsuits filed immediately after a jury in 2023 agreed with homesellers that the National Association of Realtors and major franchisors engaged in anticompetitive practices.
Bough granted preliminary approval to the Gibson settlement in April.
Read Bough’s order in the Keel case here:
Read Bough’s order in Gibson here:
Email Andrea V. Brambila.
Like me on Facebook | Follow me on Twitter
by Craig C. Rowe | Jun 24, 2025 | Industry, News Feed
Real estate is changing fast, and so must you. Inman Connect San Diego is where you turn uncertainty into strategy — with real talk, real tools and the connections that matter. If you’re serious about staying ahead of the game, this is where you need to be. Register now!
A company that smooths out the many rough patches in the road to investing in U.S. real estate from overseas is now better prepared to meet that growing need, according to a June 24 press release from Waltz, the tech-enabled property investing platform.
The company said it has secured a new $25 million line of credit from Setpoint Capital that will enable it to fund up to $1 billion in loan volume.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JUNE
The capital will “support Waltz’s official launch across Latin America (LATAM), with a focus on Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina—the first three being the region’s largest sources of U.S. real estate investment,” the company said.
Waltz provides a digital on-ramp for foreign real estate investors to buy property in the United States. It helps them establish a banking presence, an LLC, gain an EIN, transfer currencies and safely wire funds. The company conducts direct marketing efforts to investors and works with real estate agents to educate them on workflow efficiencies and the financial requirements needed to assist families and investors hoping to own in the States.
“The demand from Latin America was immediate and that is not surprising — U.S. real estate is a blue chip investment for foreign nationals,” Yuval Golan, founder and CEO of Waltz, said. “The stability, rooted in the historical strength of the U.S. economy, facilitates wealth creation from financing options, the potential for passive income streams, and property value appreciation. When paired with customer-centric digital solutions, it becomes clear why digital platforms like Waltz resonate with today’s global investors.”
The National Association of Realtors found in its 2024 Profile of International Transactions in U.S. Residential Real Estate that residents of Canada lead in outside U.S. investment at 13 percent of foreign buyers. Then comes citizens from China (11 percent) and Mexico (11 percent). In total, foreign buyers account for $42 billion in total home sales, or 2.0 percent of the total $2.1 trillion market.
Waltz’s software experience was reviewed by Inman in 2024. It was recognized for how it flattened a typically convoluted process for the buyer and the other stakeholders common to the transaction.
“Because Waltz is ultimately a fintech solution and the lender behind most of its customers’ deals, it’s the primary source of truth for the deal. This means agents and brokers don’t have to wade through layers of logins or voicemails to find out which conduit has held up the transaction,” the review stated.
Waltz states that it has processed more than $300 million in loan applications across four continents since its launch a year ago and to date has raised $50 million.
Email Craig C. Rowe
by Matt Carter | Jun 24, 2025 | Industry, News Feed
New offering lets existing homeowners tap their equity to buy before they sell and make non-contingent offers to better compete with cash buyers in competitive markets.
Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
After leading the nation in refinancing last year, Rocket Mortgage hopes to do more business with homebuyers with a new bridge loan product that lets existing homeowners buy before they sell and make non-contingent offers to compete with cash buyers.
Rocket Mortgage’s bridge loan, announced Monday, gives homebuyers up to six months to sell their home and make interest-only payments during that period.
Bill Banfield
The average homeowner has $181,000 in untapped equity, and providing immediate access to that money for a down payment or closing costs “removes one of the biggest barriers to moving,” Rocket Chief Business Officer Bill Banfield said in a statement.
In markets that remain highly competitive for buyers, Rocket said, the ability to make non-contingent offers can help win over sellers who are considering multiple offers.
Even in less competitive markets, bridge loans help buyers “avoid the hassle of double moves and temporary housing, while taking the time to secure the best offer on their existing property,” the company said.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JUNE
Homebuyers can also turn to competitors including HomeLight and Calque, who partner with multiple lenders to offer “Buy Before you Sell” products, and power buyers like Knock and Zavvie.
Detroit-based Rocket Mortgage is licensed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., sponsoring 3,602 mortgage loan originators working out of 57 branch locations nationwide, according to records maintained by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS).
Rocket Mortgage was the nation’s second biggest mortgage lender in 2024, with $97.6 billion in funded loans accounting for 5.4 percent of originations by volume, according to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data tracked by iEmergent.
Pontiac, Michigan-based United Wholesale Mortgage, which overtook Rocket as the leading U.S. mortgage lender in 2022, originated $139.7 billion in mortgages last year, accounting for 7.7 percent market share, according to iEmergent HMDA data.
Most of Rocket’s 2024 origination volume came from refinancing existing mortgages (56 percent) or providing home equity loans (6 percent). UWM did most of its business (63 percent) with homebuyers, iEmergent HMDA data shows.
With $44.5 billion in refinancings last year, Rocket Mortgage edged out UWM’s $43.4 billion in 2024 refi volume.
Rocket expects its pending acquisition of the nation’s biggest loan servicer, Mr. Cooper, will help grow its refinancing business, while a deal to acquire national real estate brokerage Redfin will put it in contact with more homebuyers.
Speaking at an investment conference in May, Rocket Companies CEO Varun Krishna said the lender has set a goal of handling 8 percent of purchase mortgages and 20 percent of refinancings.
After acquiring Mr. Cooper, Rocket will be collecting payments on about one in six U.S. mortgages with $2.1 trillion in outstanding balances. When those homeowners are ready to refinance, Rocket will have a leg up on “recapturing” their business, Krishna said.
Get Inman’s Mortgage Brief Newsletter delivered right to your inbox. A weekly roundup of all the biggest news in the world of mortgages and closings delivered every Wednesday. Click here to subscribe.
Email Matt Carter
by Summer Goralik | Jun 24, 2025 | Industry, News Feed
Real estate is changing fast, and so must you. Inman Connect San Diego is where you turn uncertainty into strategy — with real talk, real tools and the connections that matter. If you’re serious about staying ahead of the game, this is where you need to be. Register now!
“One lie … leads to another.” If you know the song, then you know Charles Wright (and the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm Band) weren’t singing about kickbacks, but they might as well have been.
I happened to be listening to that track when a new enforcement action landed in my lap. That was all it took to pull me off the creative writing streak I’d been riding and back onto the compliance path.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JUNE
So, with that, we might as well start from the beginning.
Several years ago, I stood in front of a packed room of escrow professionals, most of whom worked at “independent” shops, meaning escrow companies licensed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI).
Instead of the straightforward compliance talk I had planned, the session quickly turned into a venting forum. Many attendees took the mic to voice frustration and outrage, sharing stories about real estate brokers steering business to their own escrow companies — allegedly offering illegal perks to secure it. Many were angry. Some felt hopeless. And more than a few had simply lost faith in regulators.
After listening, I countered with one simple question: “How many of you have actually filed a complaint with the California Department of Real Estate?”
Silence.
I quickly filled the void with something along the lines of, “Don’t assume they know. Regulators are busy. You have to bring these issues to their attention. Make it a big deal. Let them get to the bottom of it.”
In other words, you can’t claim that nothing is being done if no one’s shining a light on the problem.
Fast forward to the present, and before diving into this fresh regulatory filing that’s bound to turn a few licensed heads, we need to zoom out and take a look at the broader escrow landscape.
How brokers fit into the escrow equation
Ever wondered how a real estate broker can handle escrow in a California transaction? The Escrow Law provides an exemption outlined in California Financial Code §17006 that allows them to step into both roles, acting as broker and escrow holder in the same deal.
There are two primary types of escrow operations in the state:
- Independent escrow companies licensed and regulated by the DFPI may offer escrow services to the general public.
- Exempt entities, such as real estate brokers, title companies, banks and attorneys, may handle escrows as part of their regular services, as long as certain conditions are met.
Under this framework, a real estate broker may operate an in-house escrow division regulated by the Department of Real Estate (DRE). These broker-controlled escrows are limited in scope. They may only handle transactions in which the broker is acting as a party and performing licensed real estate activities.
That said, some brokers cross the line by handling escrows where they aren’t a party or fail to perform a licensed act. That’s considered third-party escrow activity, and it can trigger action from the DRE — or even DFPI.
Alternatively, a brokerage may own an independent escrow company or hold ownership in a title company that operates a title-controlled escrow division, offering both title and escrow services.
Regardless of the structure, the frustration I heard in that room years ago was the same: Brokers were allegedly offering their agents financial incentives to route transactions through escrow companies they controlled or owned. And for the escrow professionals in attendance, this raised serious concerns about fairness, legality and market manipulation.
One kickback (leads to another)
In my years as a compliance consultant, I’ve encountered my fair share of unlawful kickback arrangements. Some brokers simply didn’t know the law. A few were unapologetic and willing to risk it. But the majority of brokers I’ve worked with want no part of this. They’re careful, cautious and committed to doing the right thing.
Still, for those who cross the line, the red flags are all too familiar. As a former DRE investigator and now a consultant, I’ve seen the same patterns repeat:
- Brokers offering to reduce office fees (transaction coordinator fees are a common enticement) if agents use the in-house escrow. And by “use,” I mean steer.
- Promising better commission splits for agents who “keep it in the family.”
- Subsidizing agent marketing costs (flyers, 3D tours, staging) to capture escrow volume.
These patterns aren’t hard to trace: Just follow the closing statements, the escrow holders, the agents and the money. It’s not subtle. In fact, the paper trail often paints a pretty blunt picture.
Let’s just say, I have investigative mileage in this area. I’m not bluffing.
Listen, when you get into this kind of unlawful activity — just like Charles Wright warned about lying — a kickback is rarely a one-off. It almost always leads to another. The broker offers an incentive, the agent steers the client to the broker-owned or controlled escrow, the reward gets paid, and the cycle feeds itself.
It starts as a pattern and quickly becomes a business strategy, one that writes its own story for regulators. All they have to do is read it.
Escrow compliance has been a constant throughout my career, from my early days as an escrow officer to my time as a DRE investigator and now as a consultant. I’ve contributed articles on the subject that still appear on the Department’s website, and I regularly work with brokers on understanding prohibited referral fee arrangements.
In other words, when it comes to unlawful kickbacks, I’ve been on both sides: enforcing the rules and helping brokers avoid pitfalls through education and guidance.
And honestly, I want real estate brokers to get this right. Although I believe most of them do, I also don’t want to stand in another room full of frustrated escrow professionals, disheartened by what they’re seeing out on the street. In many ways, this goes beyond compliance. It’s a matter of credibility.
The legal lines are clear
In California, the rules are not ambiguous. The DRE, which regulates real estate brokers and agents, enforces the following anti-kickback statute:
Business and Professions Code §10177.4 prohibits real estate licensees from receiving any fees, commissions or other consideration as compensation or inducement for referring customers to specific settlement service providers, including any escrow agent or controlled escrow company.
The DFPI, responsible for the regulation of escrow agents, enforces a parallel restriction:
California Financial Code §17420 makes it illegal for escrow agents to pay any commission, fee or other consideration in exchange for referrals.
And then there’s the elephant in the room: the federal government.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose waning authority and power have been a hot topic in the industry lately, regulates illegal referral activity under federal law:
RESPA (12 U.S.C. §2607) prohibits the payment or receipt of kickbacks for referrals of settlement services on a broader, national scale.
Even marketing perks and reimbursements may raise compliance concerns when tied to referral arrangements. While certain statutes — particularly RESPA — do allow for limited exceptions or safe harbors, those carve-outs are narrowly construed. Regulators often pay close attention to how these exceptions are applied in practice, especially when the line between legitimate collaboration and inducement becomes blurred.
Enter a newly filed case drawing attention.
A new DFPI case pulls back the curtain
I’ve always said that one of the most valuable and free forms of education for any practitioner is reading enforcement actions issued by regulatory agencies.
Earlier this month, the DFPI filed an Accusation to revoke the escrow license of a company it alleges offered unlawful consideration for referrals. According to the Accusation, the escrow company paid over $44,000 to cover photography and videography services used by real estate agents to market their listings. Roughly 82 percent of those listings ended up closing escrow with the same company.
In addition to the Accusation, DFPI issued an Order to Discontinue Violations and a supporting Statement of Facts, both of which provide further context for the agency’s concerns.
DFPI alleges this wasn’t a coincidence. It was a calculated effort to steer business by subsidizing agent marketing costs, which is a clear violation of the escrow law. The company is also accused of sponsoring broker preview events that led to escrow referrals, misrepresenting office locations without proper licensure and misleading DFPI about service contracts with affiliated marketing vendors.
These aren’t minor clerical oversights. On the compliance scale, they’re serious — and potentially costly. Notably, the Accusation outlines an alleged systematic effort to generate business through impermissible means.
While the allegations are significant, it’s important to note that the case remains pending, and the escrow company has the opportunity to file a notice of defense in accordance with due process.
Why this matters now
Public enforcement actions like this are not rampant in the escrow space. In fact, part of the reason I was put on the spot so many years ago is likely because there weren’t many public enforcement actions — or at least not enough of them — taking place against alleged bad actors.
DFPI’s action sends a clear message: Regulators are watching, and the tolerance for pay-to-play practices is fading. After all, that’s their job: to protect consumers, maintain a level playing field, and uphold both compliance and the integrity of settlement services.
Putting aside this particular enforcement action, which is far from final, I think it’s important for brokers to hear the following: When escrow is treated like a commodity to be traded for perks, trust suffers. I’ve seen it firsthand.
At their core, illegal referral fees can limit consumer choice, quietly drive up transaction costs and operate in ways that lack transparency. And let’s not forget, this kind of activity is not just a California issue. It can also create exposure under federal RESPA.
When the government bites
Most real estate professionals aim to do the right thing, and I can still say that — even after seeing some of the most egregious violations over the course of my career. But aiming isn’t enough if it’s paired with poor practices. Not knowing the law, or not meaning to break it, isn’t a defense either.
And regulators can’t take action without complaints, audits or evidence. Years ago, I told that room full of escrow professionals: “Change doesn’t happen in silence.” I still believe that.
This case is one to watch. It serves as a warning shot for those actually engaging in similar conduct, and a timely confirmation for others who consistently speak out against unlawful kickback arrangements. It’s worth noting that illegal referral fee activity almost always involves a network of players, including brokers, agents and affiliated businesses. And of course, participating in these schemes often comes with the assumption that no one is watching.
Well, I think it’s safe to say they’re watching. Where this goes, we’ll have to wait and see.
And while this action focuses on one company, similar investigations may follow, whether by the DRE for potential broker or agent misconduct or under RESPA at the federal level.
Here’s the deal: Whether or not the allegations in this DFPI case are ultimately proven, they underscore ongoing challenges in the industry that need cleaning up. With class-action litigation now etched into its résumé, real estate doesn’t have the luxury of looking the other way.
Unethical and unlawful practices, alleged or not, have to be put to rest. If we’re going to champion the value that licensees bring (and they absolutely do), we need to face the problems, no matter how uncomfortable and commit to fixing the cracks that weaken the foundation.
NOTE: The opinions, suggestions, and recommendations contained in this discussion are based on Summer Goralik’s experience working for the California Department of Real Estate and as a real estate compliance consultant. They should not be considered legal advice or relied upon as such. You should consult with your brokerage and/or appropriate legal counsel in your jurisdiction for further clarification.
by Matt Carter | Jun 24, 2025 | Industry, News Feed
After pilot tests in 11 markets, iBuyer expands its Key Connections program that puts partner real estate agents in touch with “high intent” sellers who want to explore their options.
Real estate is changing fast, and so must you. Inman Connect San Diego is where you turn uncertainty into strategy — with real talk, real tools and the connections that matter. If you’re serious about staying ahead of the game, this is where you need to be. Register now!
IBuyer Opendoor is hoping to reach more sellers by “flipping the script” and giving them the option of listing their home with an Opendoor preferred agent with an all-cash backup plan.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JUNE
Opendoor’s new Key Connections program connects partner real estate agents with high-intent sellers in their market who want to explore their options.
After pilot tests of Key Connections in 11 markets, Opendoor announced Tuesday that it’s expanding the program and will invite more vetted agents to reach sellers in additional markets.
“Today, a meaningful percentage of our acquisitions come to us through an agent who is bringing their customer to Opendoor and requesting a cash offer,” Opendoor CEO Carrie Wheeler said on the company’s May 6 earnings call.
Carrie Wheeler
“We are taking our existing vibrant partnership with agents and flipping the script, so to speak, by sending Opendoor customer referrals to embedded agent partners,” Wheeler said of Key Connections. “Those agents are able to talk through the options that a customer has to sell, from an Opendoor cash offer to a full listing.”
In pilot tests of Key Connections, Wheeler said customers have been receptive to having a local expert explain their options.
“Agents benefit from high-intent seller referrals from our marketing engine and are able to bring all options to the table in assessing the smartest move for the customer,” she said.
The program can help Opendoor improve its conversion rates, whether sellers accept a cash offer or opt to list with a partner agent, which generates “asset-light” revenue without the need for Opendoor to buy and sell the property itself.
The Key Connections program has also allowed Opendoor to deliver final, underwritten offers faster, because partner agents do an in-home assessment in their first meeting with prospective sellers, Wheeler said.
Since launching in Phoenix in 2014, Opendoor has expanded into 50 markets as of March 31 and sold more than 13,500 homes last year.
But the company has been operating in the red, racking up a $392 million 2024 net loss and cumulative losses of $3.81 billion through March 31.
The Nasdaq Stock Market notified Opendoor on May 28 that the company could be delisted from the exchange after its price per share fell below the minimum $1 per share requirement for 30 consecutive business days. Shares in Opendoor, which over the past year have traded for as little as 51 cents and as much as $3.09, closed at 53 cents Monday.
To get its share price back above $1, Opendoor will ask shareholders on July 28 to approve a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-10 and 1-for-50, at the discretion of the company’s board.
If Opendoor were to execute a 1-for-10 reverse stock split, the number of issued and outstanding shares would decrease from 729 million to 72.9 million, and the company’s price per share would rise above $5, based on Monday’s closing price.
But because a reverse split would not decrease the number of shares of common stock the company is authorized to issue, the number of shares authorized but unissued would increase from 1.78 billion to 2.88 billion, shareholders were informed on June 16.
“The board believes that a higher stock price, which may be achieved through a reverse stock split, could help facilitate the company’s ability to raise new equity capital,” shareholders were told.
In addition to allowing Opendoor to land more funding — privately, or by issuing more shares — a reverse stock split could stimulate investor interest in the company and help attract, retain and motivate employees, the company said.
Email Matt Carter
