[GUEST] Seeing Marilyn in the Moon: When Personal Truths Illuminate the Case for Defending Real Estate

A guest post from everybody's favorite compliance expert, Summer Goralik

I assume most of my readers are already familiar with Summer Goralik. She is a real estate legal compliance expert with years of experience in California’s government. She writes for Inman News, and I interviewed her about compliance, agency, and the industry.

I happen to think she’s a delightful writer as well, and as I’ve told her, it isn’t about whether I agree or disagree with what she says. It’s more about how she says it, and how I think the industry ought to get a chance to hear it. I happen to think this piece is just beautifully written and I appreciate it as a writer, if for no other reason. Though I do appreciate the ideas as well.

This is a guest post from Summer, with the movie clip she supplied. The header image is mine, courtesy of ChatGPT.

As always, guest posts are open to the public since they are someone else’s words, not mine. And as always, I have not edited anything other than stylistically and perhaps spelling corrections.

You can find Summer on her website, on YouTube and on Instagram.

---

Seeing Marilyn in the Moon: When Personal Truths Illuminate the Case for Defending Real Estate

by Summer Goralik

Preface: Three Stories, One Lens

This piece is about real estate, but it begins and circles back through more personal places.

A childhood memory about magic and belief.
A teenage moment of harmless rebellion.
And a very adult instinct to defend something that still matters.

Each is a private story or admission; together they offer a public lens that sharpens how I see the latest swings in real estate.

Because work is life. And life, when you really look at it, is a collection of stories that shape how we see the world and the industry we work in.

If I lose you early with a little nostalgia or metaphor, don’t worry. There’s time to catch up. But if you stick with me, I hope you’ll see what I see:

The stories we live—and the ones we tell ourselves about fairness, integrity, and care—still matter. Especially in real estate.

Marilyn in the Moon

Thinking back to the origin of this story, I was probably four years old, sitting on the front porch at 2 a.m., wrapped in a blanket with a 103-degree fever, while my mom tried to distract me from the chills and discomfort. That’s the first time she told me you could see Marilyn Monroe’s face in the moon.

I tried. I really did. I’d tilt my head, squint, stare—and see nothing. Still, I believed her. Maybe because I wanted to. Maybe because there’s something comforting in trusting someone else’s version of reality. And honestly, who doesn’t love Marilyn?

Fast forward to the summer of 2024. I was in Palm Springs, alone in a jacuzzi, staring up at a full moon in 80-degree heat. And then, there she was. Marilyn. As vivid as ever. I jumped up, yelling for my family and friends to come look. As luck would have it, no one else could see her.

But I could. And I couldn’t stop looking.

Just as I had to look harder to see Marilyn, we’re now at a point in real estate where we need to look harder at how things have been done and how they must change.

That night reminded me of something else we didn’t see clearly for far too long: the widespread practice of listing brokers offering pre-set compensation to buyer brokers through the almighty MLS system, propped up by a bed of NAR rules. For decades, we didn’t question it. Didn’t even see it as a thing. We didn’t squint hard enough to notice that seller-funded compensation, offered from broker to broker, was often not disclosed to buyers at all.

And then came Sitzer/Burnett. Suddenly, the face was there. Obvious. Clear. A revelation.

Of course we should have a consumer-centric model. Of course buyers should negotiate compensation with their own representatives. How did we not see it before?

We do now. And many professionals, those who were raised in a different system, are adjusting. Because once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It changes your whole perception, forcing a deeper reckoning with purpose, ethics, and impact. Ultimately, it reshapes how you understand the value of the work itself.

The Hippie and the Gum Cigarette

In seventh grade, I performed in my school’s talent show. My friend played “Stairway to Heaven” on the piano while I sang and sat cross-legged onstage in bell bottoms and braids, fake-smoking one of those gum cigarettes that puff out powder when you blow on them (anyone remember these?).

It was the most non-compliant thing I had ever done. At least up to that point in my life.

I was a relentlessly straight-A student. A teacher’s all-time favorite. The kind of kid who returned library books early and opted in for extra credit (to everyone else’s annoyance). And yet, we got suspended. I got suspended. Just one day, but it felt like a lifetime. I had to write an apology letter to one of my favorite teachers. It was a whole thing, I assure you.

The message was clear: even a small act, with no real harm, could still have consequences.

I think about that moment often. Because every week, I talk to brokers and agents—ethical ones—who would never intentionally break the law. And yet, when it comes to trust funds, for example, some of them are doing exactly that. Not because they’re malicious, but because they don’t understand the rules. They move money too early. Deposit personal funds where they shouldn’t. Commingle. Disburse before clearance.

And then they ask me, nervously: “What’s going to happen?”

I think about the talent show. About how intention doesn’t erase impact. And how even the most well-meaning professionals can land in trouble when they miss the mark or fail to comply with the exact standards the law demands. That’s certainly true for trust fund mishandling, where the [California] Department of Real Estate (DRE) doesn’t hesitate to bring the hammer down.

I have a wealth of examples, but let’s start with one that’s evolving rapidly: how buyer representation agreements are now structured, disclosed, and enforced. Under California’s new law, a buyer agreement can be deemed void if it violates any of the statutory requirements. That’s not a gray area. That’s state law, not just a practice change born out of class action litigation. And it means non-compliance now falls squarely within the DRE’s enforcement authority.

So here’s the upshot. Without one, it all feels a little bleak. Licensees have to do their homework. Walk the walk. Compliance isn’t just about avoiding trouble or surviving an investigation or lawsuit this one time. It’s a core part of the profession, demanding, non-negotiable, and often relentless.

And in case you haven’t noticed, the audience has grown too. It’s not just state regulators watching anymore. It’s the Feds, the Michael Ketchmarks of the world, private attorneys, and consumer watchdog groups too.

Regulatory success has to be a real metric you meet every single day. Take it from me: good intentions only get you so far.

Defending the Profession and Choosing Trust

Fun fact: I could be mid-rant about my husband—frustrated, venting, letting it out—when my friend decides to jump in and pile on. And just like that, I snap, “Easy now. I get to complain, not you.”

If you know, you know.

That’s how I feel about real estate, too.

I’ve seen the worst of it. Dual agency disasters. Undisclosed relationships and compensation. Agents who don’t take fiduciary duty seriously. Escrow companies stealing buyer deposits. Even licensed surfers charging distressed homeowners $3,500 for fake loan modification help. I’ve testified before a grand jury. I’ve gone undercover. I’ve watched misconduct unfold up close and on paper.

But I’ve also seen the best. Agents who work weekends and holidays. Brokers who drop everything to protect their clients. Professionals who walk away from deals because they choose ethics over advantage.

I was raised by one.

My mom is a real estate agent without an unethical bone in her body. I’ve watched her coach clients through the toughest transactions. I’ve seen her show homes on Mother’s Day, only to be ghosted by buyers who closed with someone else. She didn’t complain. She just kept going.

So when someone says the entire profession is broken (see LinkedIn for more detail), that it’s just a self-serving hustle with no real value, I push back. Almost instinctively. Because I’ve witnessed real service, real care, and real commitment to fiduciary duty. I’ve also seen professionals driven not just by compliance, but by conscience. That’s why I still believe this profession is built on trust and worth defending.

Rob Hahn might say otherwise. Well, actually, he already did.

In an earlier piece, “What Does Fair Play Mean in Real Estate,” Rob obliterated (but in the nicest way possible) my baseball-and-real-estate analogy. One point he made that hit me like a sharp note in a song:

Let’s calm down with the consumer rhetoric. Nobody cares. It’s about business, it’s about money, it’s about one meaning of fairness (equal access) versus another meaning of fairness (enjoy what you have earned), and it’s about the way things used to be versus the way things are going to be.

The only thing that makes this whole charade bearable is the fact that just like the industry doesn’t actually care about consumers, consumers don’t care about the industry. It’s all just business. Strictly business.

Essentially, everyone’s looking out for themselves.

That sentiment reminded me of a scene from A Bronx Tale, a ‘90s film. Calogero (adorable Italian boy) tells Sonny (neighborhood mob boss) how upset he is that Mickey Mantle lost the World Series. Sonny, unfazed, replies: “Mickey Mantle don’t care about you, so why should you care about him?” And then, bluntly: “Nobody cares.”

And while I get the point, truly, I don’t agree. The daughter of an agent, and a former enforcement cop turned compliance consultant, won’t let me. I’ve seen too much, and I know better. Because even if we set trust and care aside and accept Rob’s premise that this is all just business, the law doesn’t.

In California, as in many other states, real estate licensees owe their clients a duty of utmost care, honesty, and loyalty. A fiduciary duty. So whether licensees or consumers care or not, the law does. And if licensees disregard that duty? Guess what—they’re still accountable under the law.

So yes, it’s business. But this business comes with rules that demand a standard of care.

And with that, let’s talk incentives, because when it comes to private listings, they’re the real engine behind every decision in this industry. At least if you ask Rob. In another post, “Incentives and the Near Future of the Real Estate Industry,” he outlined the major players’ motivations, showing how incentives shape behavior, drive strategy, and forecast what we might see next.

As Rob put it plainly,

Private listing networks are inevitable, no matter the rhetoric or the rules and policies. Incentives drive outcomes.

Yes, many incentives in this industry serve the insiders, the gatekeepers, and the status quo, reinforcing their self-interests. This is par for the course when we talk about “business” as Rob warned. Though his analysis is both thoughtful and compelling, it still overlooks one critical flare: the consumer’s place in the incentive conversation.

Let me be clear. I’m not in favor of proliferating private listing networks. I support the spirit of Clear Cooperation, even if the policy itself isn’t perfect. Zillow has stepped up where others have backed down, defending transparency and protecting public access. I also stand behind the hardworking, compliance-minded professionals who do right by the consumer. And at my core, I’ll always be a consumer advocate.

So if this really is about self-interest (as the industry keeps dissecting in headlines and online commentary), I’ll just ask the question Rob didn’t: Which incentives serve the most people?

I choose to support the players whose incentives promote transparency. I choose the ones that reward care, competence, and compliance. I choose the ones that build trust, not just between parties but within the system as a whole.

When it comes down to it, I stand behind the incentives that benefit consumers. Because I am one. We all are.

And if I have to pick a side, I’ll choose the business, and the self-interest, that still serves the greater good—and where integrity is an incentive too.

Epilogue: Seeing What Was Always There

I believed my mom when she said Marilyn was up there, even when I couldn’t see her. And now that I do, it’s an important reminder. Because sometimes, what changes everything isn’t the moment itself, but realizing it was there all along. Like Marilyn in the moon, trust was always part of this profession; though not everyone embodies it, the majority do.

While industry leaders keep their eyes on the Compass and Zillow litigation, I’m keeping mine on the professionals still doing the work with integrity. Because I still believe in this industry and its ability to evolve in the right direction.

So yes, Rob, it’s all business. But the only real business worth defending is the one built on trust—a trust that’s always been there, even if some lost sight of it or forgot to look up.

-Summer Goralik