Question 13

An attorney-in-fact acting without compensation in a real estate transaction MUST have written authority of the principal.

In real estate transactions, an attorney-in-fact must have written authority from the principal to act on their behalf, regardless of whether they are compensated. This requirement ensures that the actions taken are legally binding and recognized.

A) Have a real estate license

While having a real estate license can be beneficial for an attorney-in-fact, it is not a requirement to act in a real estate transaction without compensation. The core requirement is the written authority from the principal, not the possession of a license.

B) Be an attorney-at-law

An attorney-in-fact does not have to be a licensed attorney; they can be anyone appointed by the principal. The essential factor is that they must have the proper written authority to act in the transaction, which does not necessitate being an attorney-at-law.

C) Be related to a principal in the transaction

There is no requirement for the attorney-in-fact to be related to the principal. The key aspect is the existence of written authority from the principal, which can be granted to anyone, regardless of their relationship.

D) Have written authority of the principal

This is the correct option, as having written authority is essential for an attorney-in-fact to legally represent the principal in a real estate transaction. This written document serves as proof of the authority granted by the principal, ensuring the transaction is valid.

Conclusion

The requirement for an attorney-in-fact to have written authority of the principal is crucial for legal transactions in real estate. All other options fail to address the fundamental necessity of having this written consent, making option D the only valid choice in this context.