The point in this article is only relevant if the agent is being asked to perform the functions as allowed under HRS 67. In our case the owner is legitimately performing the management functions. The "agent" as defined in HB 2078 does not have this right any more than they have the right to be the property manager for any (short or long term) property. The key to all this is who is the property manager in the case of owner operated transient rentals. That would be the owner, as they offer/negotiate the rental. The bottom line is there is nothing here to enforce for an owner managed rental operation.

Owners fall under exception 1 of the clause below. In the case of an owner "managed" property, exception 3 is irrelevant, because exception has already been granted under exception 1.

"Exceptions. The provisions requiring licensing as a real estate broker or salesperson shall not apply:

1. To any individual who, as owner of any real estate or acting under power of attorney from the owner, performs any of the acts enumerated in the definitions of real estate broker and real estate salesperson with reference to the real estate; provided that the term "owner" as used in this paragraph shall not include any individual engaged in the business of real estate development or brokerage or include an individual who acquires any interest in any real estate for the purpose or as a means of evading the licensing requirements of this chapter; and provided further that the term individual "acting under power of attorney" as used in this paragraph shall not include any individual engaged in the business of real estate development or brokerage or any individual who acts under a power of attorney for the purpose or as a means of evading the licensing requirements of this chapter;

2. To any person acting as a receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, personal representative, or trustee acting under any trust agreement, deed of trust, or will, or otherwise acting under any order of authorization of any court;

3. To any individual who leases, offers to lease, rents, or offers to rent, any real estate or the improvements thereon of which the individual is the custodian or caretaker."

"Custodian or caretaker" means any individual, who for compensation or valuable consideration, is employed as an employee by a single owner and has the responsibility to manage or care for that real property left in the individual's trust; provided that the term "custodian" or "caretaker" shall not include any individual who leases or offers to lease, or rents or offers to rent, any real estate for more than a single owner."

grs wrote:

 

...

Owners fall under exception 1 of the clause below. In the case of an owner "managed" property, exception 3 is irrelevant...

That has been my conclusion too, every time I've read it... I don't see the other interpretaion at all.  Thanks for verifying that this is what everybody's been talking about... I can quit looking!

Crazy blogger, I manage my condo with no problem from 5000 miles away.  My contact person has never been called by a renter.  He is on retainer "just in case".  I do all my own rentals.  I contact repairmen, arrange for cleaning, etc., etc.  We are on call for our renters 24/7, and I can answer a phone call just as easily as my contact person.  We have dozens of satisfied renters who tell us what a wonderful condo we have and how well cared for it is.  What more would someone else do who is a manager???

As jwe said, gotta have someone there.  Reality is if we need to we can get people that are licensed to be the "on island" person for $50-$100/stay.  I get those solicitation letters all the time.  I think the law can be read how ever you want.  The reality is it only matters how Baker is reading it.  I think Baker is consumer protection so given that I can understand why she wants someone there to take care of the people and I can futher see from the existing laws how that can be deemed as a caretaker and go into license stuff.  I have read the laws 20-30 and have figured ways to spin them about 5 different ways.  I am not saying that I agree with it all 100%.  I am just saying I see the point and if I can see the point I don't think we are going to have much luck swaying them another way.  Better to choose our battles wisely.

Amen

By the way, that's not the first incorrect information I've been given by the tax department, including an incorret way of filling out the tax forms--and I still have the forms which their office filled out for me incorrectly!!!

Amen on the laws.  On a halfway positive side everything will be in one spot for us to see.

Regarding cleaning, that is an interesting topic for even the tax department.  If the guest pays the cleaning there is TAT on it and if they do not pay it there is no TAT.  Pretty interesting that something could be taxes two different ways.