Miami Developer Returns Deposits as Construction Prices Soar

Share this article: FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintShare

Could others do the same? Builders cite rising lumber prices, closed building material factories and a worker shortage for construction costs up 20% or more.

MIAMI – The developer of a Florida City residential project is giving early buyers their money back. Homestead-based Brickless Developers is returning the 5% deposit to buyers who reserved units during pre-construction sales for its Grand Palms development.

When the company launched sales in 2019, it required deposits ranging from $10,000 to $14,000 for townhouses starting at $200,000 and single-family houses starting at $275,900.

Juan David Gonzalez, director of development at Brickless Development Group, blames the closure of building material factories globally and a worker shortage for his firm raising prices by at least 20%. Other developers who sold pre-construction may soon find themselves in similar situations, Gonzalez predicts.

According to the Federal Reserve, the price of construction materials climbed almost 7% over the past year. Developers faced similar situations in the mid-1990s and in 2006-2007 as prices skyrocketed, says Florida Atlantic University professor and real estate economist Ken H. Johnson.

“The supply chain on many goods, from toilet paper to building supplies, has been impacted,” Johnson says. “If you are a developer on a timeline, you are going to pay a little more to get a project done, and your margins could disappear if you don’t [raise prices].”

Source: Miami Herald (02/12/21) San Juan, Rebecca

© Copyright 2021 INFORMATION, INC. Bethesda, MD (301) 215-4688

Which Is Cheaper: Buying an Existing Home or Building New?

It depends. Average cost of a new home in Dec. was $302.8K; it was $309.8K for an existing home. But factors like location, custom options and lumber costs affect prices.

WASHINGTON – As inventories remain tight, homebuyers may be drawn to new-home construction. But what determines whether they will pay more for buying new than for an existing home?

If the buyer takes steps to limit construction costs and omits custom finishes, building a house may be about $7,000 cheaper than buying an existing home, according to a new analysis from

Prices also depend on location and the options the buyer selects.

The median sales price of an existing home was $309,800 in December 2020, according to the National Association of Realtors® (NAR). The average cost of building a new house was $302,817, according to HomeAdvisor. However, recent run-ups in lumber costs may be adding considerably more to new home costs.

It’s not a simple calculation – a number of variables must be considered. The operating costs for a new home may be cheaper in the long run, according to the National Association of Home Builders. Homes built after 2010 tend to have operating costs of about 3% of the home’s value, while the operating costs of homes built prior to 1960 are more than 6%, according to the NAHB’s analysis.

But when buying new, homebuyers may face extra costs for upgrades, landscaping and appliances that they may not have in purchasing a resale home.

“The cost of new construction and the buyer’s moving timeline are some of the factors to consider, but also the area [and] location that they are looking to move into,” Rose Kemp, a real estate professional with RE/MAX Town Centre in Orlando, Fla., told “In some cases, there is better value in a new home for the purchaser versus resale. Also, sometimes the resale homes in an area may be older.”

Real estate agents cite several pros of buying new – such as avoiding the hassle of competing offers and eliminating the need for renovations. But they also cite some cons for buyers to consider like the extended timeline and cost overruns, which are common in new-home construction.

On the other hand, existing homes tend to offer faster move-in times and potentially more bargaining power. But market competition for a limited stock of homes in many areas is making bidding wars more common.

Source: “Is It Cheaper to Build or Buy a House?” (Feb. 18, 2021)

© Copyright 2021 INFORMATION, INC. Bethesda, MD (301) 215-4688

Anti-LGBTQ Housing Bias Illegal Based on Court Decisions

By John Lord Jr.

A Supreme Court ruling that sex discrimination includes LGBTQ now applies to housing – and the Fla. Commission on Human Relations says it will investigate complaints.

ORLANDO, Fla. – When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year (in the “Bostock” case) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status, many predicted the ruling would extend to other anti-discrimination laws in areas such as housing, health care, education and public accommodations. Those predictions are becoming reality.

Your business should already have in place anti-discrimination policies, training and practices for employees. As discussed below, depending on what type of business you have, you need to also consider anti-discrimination policies and practices for other areas – such as for tenants or homebuyers, patients, students, consumers and others who use your business’s services.

Various federal and state laws prohibit discrimination based on “sex.” In its ruling last year addressing Title VII, the Supreme Court held that “sex” also includes sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Though the Supreme Court has not yet definitively ruled that other statutes that use the term “sex” also prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity/expression discrimination, other courts, agencies and even the president have made such determinations.

As one of his first acts, President Biden issued an executive order to combat discrimination against LGBTQ people in health care, housing and education. The executive order stated:

In Bostock … the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Under Bostock’s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination – including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, …, the Fair Housing Act, … and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act … – prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.

Courts and administrative agencies have been following suit. For example, the federal court of appeals that covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia recently held that Title IX, prohibiting sex discrimination in education, also covers sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In that case, the court ruled that a school’s policy barring a transgender male teenager from using the men’s bathroom of his high school violated the sex discrimination provisions of Title IX.

Similarly, the Florida Commission on Human Relations recently announced that it will accept and investigate claims based on gender identity/expression or sexual orientation in employment and public accommodations and investigate housing violations based upon sex discrimination due to nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

If you are a hospital or health system, remember your LGBTQ patients. If you are a home builder or landlord, remember your LGBTQ purchasers or tenants. If you run a school, remember your LGBTQ students. If you are none of the above but you hold yourself out to the public, remember your LGBTQ consumers. Ensure that your policies and practices prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity/expression discrimination.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Copyright © Mr. John Lord, Jr., Foley & Lardner. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800, Orlando, 32801. Originally published by Foley & Lardner, February 2021.

Condo Q&A: Hot Water Heater Caused Damages: Who Pays?

By Steve Adamczyk

A condo unit’s water heater burst and the flooding damaged other neighbor’s units. It’s an insurable situation, but which insurance policy applies? It’s complicated.

STUART, Fla. – Question: A hot water heater burst on an upper floor and many units sustained water damage, and owners are demanding the association pay for everything. Is the owner of the hot water heater responsible? – H.R., Stuart

Answer: We could write about this situation every week. Whenever there is water loss, the first question is whether the damage was caused by an insurable event. Most hot water heater bursts are insurable events, although this is a factual question.

If insurable, responsibility to repair and restore is governed by the statutes, and specifically section 718.111(11) of the Florida Statutes. A basic reading is that the association is responsible to repair and replace property insured by the association, and owners are responsible to repair and replace property insured by the unit owner.

The association does insure a lot, but not everything, and there are also some exceptions to the general rule.

Ultimately, the board wants to take proactive measures to ensure that mold is not spreading between units and common elements. Then the association should investigate whether the damage justifies the association filing a claim with its own insurance, and further whether the hot water heater burst could have been avoided. If you have a rule, for example, that owners are required to turn off water to the unit during a prolonged absence and this burst could have been avoided if the water was off, it is possible that this breach of the rule could shift financial responsibility to the offending owners.

I should note that if the loss was not the result of an insurable event, the obligations to repair and replace would be controlled by your specific condominium documents. As a result, it is very fact specific and you should contact your attorney to help navigate the repair process because there can be significant differences between the allocation of responsibility in the statutes versus the allocation of responsibility in your governing documents.

Question: Our association levied a special assessment a few months ago for waterproofing repairs. The assessment requires monthly payments for another 18 months and owners are asking what to do if they sell their unit now. Who is responsible for the remaining payments? – P.T., Fort Pierce

Answer: The first part of this answer is that owners are responsible for assessments that come due during their ownership. If the special assessment installments come due after the closing of the home, then the new purchaser would be responsible for those future installments.

The second part of the answer involves the contract between the buyer and seller. This is a private contract between the parties so the association is not involved in these negotiations, but buyers and sellers will frequently negotiate who will be responsible for any outstanding special assessments that are either pending or imminent when the contract is signed.

Obviously, the seller would like to avoid paying for something that he or she will never use again (the waterproofing), but the buyer has leverage to buy another home that does not have any pending special assessments.

From the association’s perspective, a critical part is disclosure through the estoppel process. When there is a real estate closing, there is almost always a request from the closing agent for an estoppel, which requests a lot of information such as whether there are any covenant violations, outstanding delinquent assessments, and whether there are any pending special assessments. If the estoppel is correctly completely and delivered, the buyer will know exactly what he or she is purchasing and there should be no surprises.

Another critical aspect from the association’s perspective is whether the outstanding balance must be due and payable at closing or whether the buyer can step into the seller’s shoes for future payments. When the board levies the assessment itself, we recommend this aspect be included as part of the resolution to avoid any ambiguities.

Steven J. Adamczyk Esq., is a shareholder of the law firm Goede, Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross, PLLC. The information provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The publication of this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Goede, Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross, or any of our attorneys.

Readers should not act or refrain from acting based upon the information contained in this article without first contacting an attorney, if you have questions about any of the issues raised herein. The hiring of an attorney is a decision that should not be based solely on advertisements or this column.

© 2021 Journal Media Group

Feb. Consumer Confidence Continues Optimistic Trend

By Kerry Smith

If consumer spending drives the economy, a rebound in confidence reflected in the Feb. and Jan. reports suggests a slow emergence from the darkest days of the pandemic. Consumers’ attitudes about their current finances rose for the first time in three months.

BOSTON – The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index reflects a growing optimism among Americans. The index improved again in February after increasing in January.

The Index now stands at 91.3, up from 88.9 in January.

The Present Situation Index – based on consumers’ assessment of current business and labor market conditions – climbed from 85.5 to 92.0. However, the Expectations Index – based on consumers’ short-term future outlook for income, business and labor market conditions – fell marginally, from 91.2 last month to 90.8 in February. 

“After three months of consecutive declines in the Present Situation Index, consumers’ assessment of current conditions improved in February,” says Lynn Franco, senior director of economic indicators at The Conference Board.

“This course reversal suggests economic growth has not slowed further,” Franco adds. “While the Expectations Index fell marginally in February, consumers remain cautiously optimistic, on the whole, about the outlook for the coming months. Notably, vacation intentions – particularly plans to travel outside the U.S. and via air – saw an uptick this month, and are poised to improve further as vaccination efforts expand.”

Current conditions: Consumers’ assessment of current conditions improved in February. The percentage of consumers claiming business conditions are “good” increased from 15.8% to 16.5%, while the proportion claiming business conditions are “bad” fell from 42.4% to 39.9%.

Consumers’ assessment of the labor market also improved. The percentage of consumers saying jobs are “plentiful” increased from 20.0% to 21.9%, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” declined from 22.5% to 21.2%.

Future expectations: Consumers, however, were marginally less optimistic about the short-term outlook in February. The percentage of consumers expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months fell from 34.1% to 31.0%, although the proportion expecting business conditions to worsen also declined, from 19.0% to 17.7%.

Consumers’ outlook regarding the job market was also mixed. The proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead decreased from 30.4% to 26.1%, but the proportion anticipating fewer jobs also declined, from 22.1% to 20.6%.

And in what appears to be a trend, attitudes regarding short-term income prospects were mixed too – 15.2% of consumers expect their incomes to increase in the next six months, down slightly from 15.8% in January. Conversely, 13.2% expect their incomes to decrease, down from 15.5% last month.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a probability-design random sample and conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was Feb. 11.

© 2021 Florida Realtors®

Business Liability Bill Headed to Fla. House Floor

A bill that limits COVID-19-related business liability issues can now go before the full House for a vote once the session begins – a priority issue for Florida Realtors.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A high-profile bill that would provide COVID-19 liability protections to businesses moved through its final House committee Tuesday in a 14-7 vote, after heated partisan debate and procedural maneuvering. The issue is one of Florida Realtors’ priority issues heading into the 2021 session of the Florida Legislature that begins on March 2.

Before passing the bill (HB 7), the House Judiciary Committee approved three amendments proposed by bill sponsor Rep. Lawrence McClure, R-Dover. One of the amendments caused Rep. Michael Grieco, D-Miami Beach, to withdraw support for the bill. That amendment would make it clear that if more than one set of public-health recommendations or guidelines were in effect at the time a plaintiff suffered damages, injury or death, the business would only need to show it made an effort to “substantially comply” with one of the standards for legal immunity to apply.

Because Gov. Ron DeSantis never issued a statewide mask mandate, opponents argued, businesses that didn’t require masks would get immunity.

“It essentially creates blanket immunity. It’s arbitrary,” Grieco said. “It doesn’t cite the CDC (federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), it doesn’t cite the WHO (World Health Organization). It could be an authoritative source such as one person that can be just plucked out and utilized as the basis for whatever standards a business is applying. … I am an attorney, but I am also a small business owner. I see things from both sides. I wanted to be up on this not knowing where it was going to go, but that amendment was fatal.”

Before the amendment, businesses would have had to show they made an effort to substantially comply with authoritative or controlling government-issued health standards or guidance.

The other two amendments would bring McClure’s bill more in line with a separate proposal (PCB HHS 21-01) that would limit lawsuits against nursing homes, hospitals and physicians. One of the two amendments altered a proposed statute of limitations. The other amendment changed a definition of health-care provider to include mental health and substance abuse providers.

Since the committee agreed to adopt the amendments, the House business-liability bill is no longer identical to its Senate counterpart (SB 72), filed by Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg.

The Judiciary Committee rejected six amendments proposed by Democrats. Committee Chairman Rep. Daniel Perez, R-Miami, didn’t allow the committee to debate or consider five of the six amendments, saying they were filed past a deadline. The bill is now ready to go to the full House after the annual legislative session starts March 2.

Source: News Service of Florida

Valentine’s Day, Love and Not Enough Money

By Kerry Smith

An annual Love and Money survey found that couples talked more about money during the shutdown, but many conversations focused on delaying a home purchase.

CHERRY HILL, N.J. – TD Bank’s annual Love and Money survey attempted to quantify the impact the pandemic quarantine and economic slowdown had on couples and their finances.

According to the survey, 1 in 10 American couples were furloughed, lost their job or had work hours decreased as a result of COVID-19, forcing them to put off certain financial milestones. Despite a sharp decrease in large purchases, more couples stuck at home had conversations about money. The survey polled 1,709 U.S. individuals who are married, in a committed relationship or divorced.

Of the couples, two out of three (67%) said they’re finding it difficult to achieve certain milestones as a result of the pandemic. Despite the booming real estate market, nearly 1 in 4 couples with jobs impacted by COVID-19 said they had to delay purchasing a home until they feel financially ready. The proportion of millennials putting off a house purchase is seven times that of baby boomers (30% vs. 4%).

Financial hardships and resulting delays are particularly high among millennial couples, who also worry more about repaying their current debt than other generations – 1.5 times more. Millennials also say a lack of time to research (19%) and not knowing the next steps to take as they weather a newfound financial hardship (17%) are additional barriers to reaching financial goals.

Despite financial issues, though, more than two-thirds (68%) of Americans are very or extremely happy in their relationships, and 52% say they’ve found it easier to talk about money with their partner. In the 2019 survey, 13% of respondents said they keep financial secrets from their partner; in 2020, it dropped to 11%.

“Even with the clear financial setbacks imposed upon Americans by COVID-19, we’re seeing money conversations increasing among couples, and the stigma around discussing finances diminishing,” says Mike Kinane, head of consumer deposits, products and payments at TD Bank. “This silver lining creates a unique opportunity to educate couples about managing their money in the short-term, and how they can maintain an open dialogue about finances.”

Agree to disagree?

While American couples are talking about money more – 86% say they do so at least monthly – the discussions aren’t always positive. Among those discussing finances every month, 30% admit to financial arguments.

Prioritizing costs seems to be a particular point of tension: 44% of couples admit to disagreements about which expenses are “needs” and which are “wants,” with baby boomers more likely to agree (62%) and millennials (50%) least likely to agree.

Another sensitive topic: The perception of financial ownership within relationships. While 62% of men claim their household’s everyday financial decision-making is shared between them and their partner, 61% of women claim they’re the sole decision-makers, indicating a lack of alignment on who’s “in charge.”

Future expectations: Cautiously optimistic

Most Americans are staying optimistic, with 75% of those with a job impacted by the pandemic saying their financial confidence hasn’t declined. In fact, two out of five (39%) expect to bounce back from financial disruption within a year.

When asked about financial fears, 19% don’t have any – another sign that Americans seem to remain financially confident. Among other fears, 17% feared not being able to retire (significantly higher among baby boomers at 28%) and 11% about not being able to provide for their family.

While many remain confident, it’s likely because they acted quickly to curb spending in the early days of the pandemic.

More than half of all American couples say they quickly cut their budgets and spending habits to offset the impact of the pandemic: 58% reduced spending on nonessential items, 43% cancelled travel plans and 36% delayed larger purchases – unless you’re a millennial. Of that generation, 25% of couples engaged in excessive or frivolous spending behavior over the course of the year, further contributing to their financial setbacks.

“Aligning on a set of goals – especially around sensitive subjects like money – can be challenging when people have differing priorities and perceptions, but the pandemic has made many of these conversations unavoidable for couples and families who have been impacted with job loss or reduced earnings,” says Kinane. “Couples can use today’s financial challenges as a catalyst to discuss near- and long-term financial goals. While debt and bills may have been hard to talk about before, the pandemic has made it easier – and necessary – to have an open conversation on these topics.”

© 2021 Florida Realtors®

SentriLock Unveils New Home-Showing Service Option

By Wendy Cole

Over a year ago, “our board directed us to develop a solution to address the growing lack of choice in this technology sector, given the natural fit with our current lockbox business,” says Scott Fisher, founder and CEO of SentriLock, a wholly owned NAR subsidiary.

CHICAGO – Many brokers and agents will soon have a new showing-service option. SentriLock LLC, a real estate tech provider, announced that it will launch SentriKey Showing Service for all of its current lockbox customers on March 31, 2020. It will be widely available to all Realtor® associations and multiple listing services (MLSs) later in the year.

The service will be available to all agents and brokers, regardless of which lockbox provider their MLS uses.

SentriLock, a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Association of Realtors® (NAR), says it’s been assessing the need for a new product over the past year in light of growing industry consolidation in the showing service space.

“Our board directed us to develop a solution to address the growing lack of choice in this technology sector, given the natural fit with our current lockbox business,” says Scott Fisher, founder and CEO of SentriLock. “With recent industry acquisitions, this validates the decision that a trusted partner is needed more than ever to ensure Realtors have a choice in showing service solutions. We did this with great success in the lockbox space 18 years ago and look forward to extending this approach into showing services.”

Zillow’s announcement Wednesday that it’s acquiring the ShowingTime platform raised concerns for some real estate professionals about the security of their data. SentriKey says its commitment to safeguarding data entered into the system will be just as vigorous as the measures that SentriLock uses to protect clients’ homes.

For those who use SentriLock, the showing system will be accessible via the same secure, easy-to-use mobile app and website that customers already use to open and manage their lockboxes.

Over 350 MLSs and Realtor associations – and over 350,000 users – currently use SentriLock. The new lockbox system will be integrated into the showing scheduling platform, a first for the industry, to create a seamless access experience. According to SentriLock, the new platform leverages artificial intelligence to create a virtual assistant that frees agents from administrative tasks associated with setting up showing appointments.

“Consumers rely on the assistance of a trusted real estate professional to guide them through one of the most complex and consequential transactions of their life, and the development of SentriKey is part of our ongoing effort to ensure our members have the tools they need – best-in-class solutions – when working with buyers and sellers,” says NAR CEO Bob Goldberg. For decades, the embrace of disruption has been a central tenet at NAR. That principle guided not just the creation of Sentrilock but also the founding of, the country’s first listing portal, 25 years ago, Goldberg says.

“Now, of course, free online listings are a foregone conclusion for anyone selling or buying a home,” he adds. “Ultimately, we took a potential disruption and turned it into an opportunity. I’m confident SentriKey will have the same effect.”

Source: National Association of Realtors®

© 2021 Florida Realtors®

HUD Prohibits Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Discrimination

FEBRUARY 11, 2021Share this article: FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintShare

By Kerry Smith

HUD now considers sexual orientation and gender identity to be protected classes under the Fair Housing Act, calling its change “the correct reading of the law.”

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) made the announcement in a memorandum, which says HUD interprets the Fair Housing Act to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and direct HUD offices and recipients of HUD funds to enforce the Act accordingly.

The memorandum implements policy in President Biden’s Executive Order 13988 on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, which directed executive branch agencies to examine further steps that could be taken to combat such discrimination.

HUD “will fully enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation,” says Acting Assistant Secretary of FHEO, Jeanine M. Worden. “Every person should be able to secure a roof over their head free from discrimination, and the action we are taking today will move us closer to that goal.”

Why the change?

In making the announcement, HUD said that “a number of housing discrimination studies … indicate that same-sex couples and transgender persons in communities across the country experience demonstrably less favorable treatment than their straight and cisgender counterparts when seeking rental housing.” However, it’s been “constrained” due to legal uncertainty about whether this type of discrimination was “within HUD’s reach.”

HUD says it legally believes the Fair Housing Act covers LGBTQ and transgender discrimination because it’s “comparable in text and purpose to those of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars sex discrimination in the workplace.” While the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the Fair Housing Act, it did hear a court case (Bostock v Clayton County) about the Civil Rights Act and ruled that workplace prohibitions on sex discrimination include discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

HUD says it’s extending that ruling to Fair Housing Act protections.

“Enforcing the Fair Housing Act to combat housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s the correct reading of the law after Bostock,” says HUD Principal Deputy General Counsel Damon Y. Smith. “We are simply saying that the same discrimination that the Supreme Court has said is illegal in the workplace is also illegal in the housing market.”

Planned enforcement actions

The memorandum directs actions by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and HUD-funded fair housing partners to enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Specifically, the memorandum directs the following:

  • HUD will accept and investigate all jurisdictional complaints of sex discrimination, including discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation, and enforce the Fair Housing Act where it finds discrimination occurred.
  • HUD will conduct all activities involving the application, interpretation and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination consistent with its conclusion that it includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • State and local jurisdictions funded by HUD’s Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) that enforce the Fair Housing Act through their HUD-certified substantially equivalent laws must prohibit discrimination because of gender identity and sexual orientation.
  • Organizations and agencies that receive grants through the Department’s Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) must also prevent and combat discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity in HUD-funded activities.
  • FHEO Regional Offices, FHAP agencies and FHIP grantees are instructed to review, within 30 days, all records of allegations (inquiries, complaints, phone logs, etc.) received since Jan. 20, 2020, and notify anyone alleging discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation that their claims may be “timely and jurisdictional for filing under this memorandum.”

© 2021 Florida Realtors®