The DeLeon Insight - May 2024

Market Conditions by City

$10,000,000

$9,000,000

$8,000,000

$7,000,000

$6,000,000

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0

Average sale price for single-family homes from 4/2022 to 3/2023, compared to the period from 4/2023 to 3/2024.

Price per square foot ratio for single-family homes from 4/2022 to 3/2023, compared to the period from 4/2023 to 3/2024.

4/2022 - 3/2023 4/2023 - 3/2024 Average

Price/Square Foot Ratio

4/2022 - 3/2023 4/2023 - 3/2024

Source: MLSListings, Inc., as of April 17, 2023

Criteria: Single Family Residential

Atherton Los Altos Los Altos Hills Menlo Park Mountain View Palo Alto Portola Valley Redwood City San Carlos Sunnyvale Woodside

Atherton Los Altos Los Altos Hills Menlo Park Mountain View Palo Alto Portola Valley Redwood City San Carlos Sunnyvale Woodside

California’s High Capital Gains Tax Rate Contributes to the State’s Housing Shortage

By Ken DeLeon with graduate degrees from Berkeley Law and Stanford GSB

California has it all – a vibrant and dynamic economy, stunning beaches, picturesque hiking trails, and worldclass natural wonders such as Yosemite and Big Sur. The primary recurring drawbacks often associated with the state are its high taxes and housing prices. Yet, few have fully analyzed the strong correlation between these two significant challenges in our state. This article explores the direct relationship between higher taxes and lower housing supply, and discusses creative solutions that would stimulate more housing development in California.

A single-family home in Silicon Valley is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity with each passing year. In 2005, the earliest year for which statistics are available, there were 23,087 single-family homes sold in Santa Clara County. By 2023, this number has dwindled to just 8,496, marking a staggering 63% drop in sales volume. Notably, this decline occurred amidst a population growth of over 12% in the county. Despite the alarming nature of these figures, the trend of declining home supply for sale is expected to persist unless California or the federal government lowers the taxes due when selling your home.

What has led to such a momentous decline in the supply of single-family homes in California, and especially in Silicon Valley? The primary reason is the staggering amount of capital gains tax sellers will recognize upon selling. While there are other impediments contributing

to the reluctance to sell, capital gains tax is generally the major deterrent for many sellers considering selling their homes at this time.

Although federal capital gains tax applies nationwide, Californians pay the most state tax by far. This is due to having the highest state capital gains rate in the nation at 13.3%, coupled with the most substantial appreciation of any region. Consequently, several of my long-term clients have faced taxes on millions of dollars’ worth of capital gains at a combined rate of 37.1% (13.3% for California, plus 23.8% for Federal). I have also witnessed many clients opt not to sell their homes after learning about the significant capital gains taxes they would incur upon sale.

DeLeon Realty CEO Michael Repka, an attorney with a strong background in taxation, including a graduate law degree from NYU School of Law, often discusses the benefit of elderly clients not selling until one of them passes away - a delicate but important discussion. This strategy allows their heirs to benefit from the stepped-up basis, thereby avoiding capital gains liability at both the federal and state tax levels.

The current shortage of supply is concerning, but the ongoing trend of declining supply could lead to illiquidity in the housing market and a freezing of supply unless changes are implemented to the tax code. The decreasing supply can be attributed to the increasingly small percentage of profits that are exempt from taxation.

In 1997, President Clinton proposed abolishing the previous tax exemption for homeowners and replacing it with a new, larger exemption. Under the previous rule, sellers were not taxed if they sold their primary residence and purchased a new one that was of equal or greater value. Additionally, homeowners aged 55 or older were granted a onetime exemption of $125,000, even if they did not purchase a new home. This previous rule incentivized selling, as individuals could avoid capital gains so long as they reinvested in another property.

Many homeowners were initially excited when the previous system was replaced with a capital gains exemption on their primary home of $250,000 per person, or $500,000 for a married couple filing jointly. This change was viewed as a major concession and generally addressed the appreciation in home values, resulting in Silicon Valley sellers rarely paying taxes on capital gains in the late 1990s. However, as home prices have outpaced inflation, particularly in Silicon Valley, and the $500,000 exemption has not been indexed to inflation, sellers now face considerable tax burdens on their gains. The explosive growth of median home prices in Silicon Valley underscores the limited protection provided by the $500,000 exemption. For instance, in 2001 the median price of a single-family home in San Mateo County was $590,000. Today it stands at $2,455,421, representing a more than 316% increase, while the exemption amount has remained static. Clearly, capital gains can be substantial in affluent Silicon Valley towns, with places like Atherton experiencing million-dollar jumps in median sales prices during robust individual years.

Another example of California’s higher taxes leading to lower transaction volume can be seen in Los Angeles’ recently enacted “Mansion Tax,” which imposes a 4% tax on properties valued over $5M and escalates to 5.5% for properties over $10M. This tax has greatly reduced sales of luxury properties, as indicated by the most recent available sales data from April 2023-January 2024, which shows a 68% decline compared to homes sold during the same period last year1

This ineffective tax not only falls short of projected revenue due to the chilling impact taxes have had on transaction volume, but also results in the state losing the revenue generated from property sales, particularly from the reassessed property tax values that occur each time a California property is sold.

To bolster housing inventory and avoid excessive penalties for homeowners selling their primary residence, one solution is for the federal government (or at least California) to increase the capital gains exemption for married couples when selling your home from $500,000 to $1 million, or ideally $1.5 million. Given that the initial $500,000 exemption was set 26 years ago, it is time to adjust it to account for the significant increase in home values.

Progressives may argue that this change will primarily benefit the wealthy and result in less tax revenue. However, I beg to differ. I believe that increasing the tax exempt amount would stimulate more transactions. As a result, the state could actually see an increase in tax revenue due to the rise in transaction numbers and property tax reassessments, which would help compensate for any loss in capital gains revenue. Additionally, this change would boost liquidity and supply in the housing market, leading to more sales that exceed the new exemption amount and generating additional tax revenue.

Change may be on the horizon. California Representative Jimmy Panetta recently introduced the More Homes on the Market Act aiming to double the exemption from $500,000 per couple to $1 million. This bill is gaining some bipartisan support and might become law in the near future.

Considering the growing illiquidity of the housing market, exacerbated by limited inventory due to burdensome tax policies, it's imperative to raise the capital gains exemption amount. Failing to act will perpetuate a cycle where fewer sellers are willing to sell due to high taxes, leading to further reduced housing supply, increasing prices, higher taxes, and a disincentive for long-term homeowners to sell. We must break this cycle of diminishing housing inventory by increasing tax exemption thresholds.

1 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-01/a-year-into-the-mansion-tax-la-s-luxury-market-hasnt-quite-recovered

The Next Wave of Possible Realtor® Lawsuits

By Michael Repka, Esq.

The myriad of cases accusing the real estate industry of collusion and price fixing are expected to bring about dramatic changes to the industry. For instance, DeLeon Realty has already taken many listings where sellers opt to offer buyer’s agent commissions of $10,000 or $20,000, significantly lower than historical averages. Nevertheless, these DeLeon listings have still attracted many offers and achieved notably high sales prices. This success raises questions about why some other local brokerages are hesitant to change their approach, especially in light of a multibillion-dollar verdict in a landmark lawsuit and ongoing legal actions addressing similar issues that are still pending against some brokerages and were recently settled by Compass, NAR, Keller Williams, and the parent of Coldwell Banker, among others.

The initial explanation for their reluctance is straightforward − it would lead to a substantial loss in commission revenue. However, a deeper analysis is necessary. DeLeon Realty stands out as the only major local brokerage offering a no-commission option for buyers interested in our listings. Buyers know that they can confidently come to us if another agent refuses to submit an offer on their behalf. Consequently, we have not encountered the decrease in interest that might arise if a lesser-known listing agent were to deviate

from the traditional approach. In fact, and perhaps counterintuitively, we have seen an increase in the interest in our listings despite the lower commission paid by our sellers.

The reason for this is that many buyers are currently being asked to pay their own buyer’s agent commission. As a result, numerous buyers are gravitating towards DeLeon listings because they know that they can purchase them without any buyer-side commission being paid by them or the seller.

For months, it seemed inevitable that other brokerages would follow DeLeon Realty’s lead and stop suggesting that sellers offer a 2.5% commission to the buyer’s agent. Now, following a $418 million settlement by the National Association of Realtors on March 15, 2024, sellers will no longer be allowed offer commission inducements to buyer’s agents in the MLS after July. However, even after the industry stops telling sellers to pay commission to agents representing the opposing party in negotiations (i.e., the buyers), it will not have reached the end of its legal troubles.

Given the immense size of the verdict(s) against the industry and the relative ease of identifying evidence of malfeasance, the entire real estate industry is

under heightened scrutiny. There may be further legal repercussions; namely class-action plaintiffs’ attorneys will likely target the substantial damages incurred by sellers due to the practice of selling homes off-market (a.k.a., “pocket listings”), which results in limited exposure and reduced competition.

What Are Pocket Listings?

For years, many local agents and brokerages have persuaded some home sellers to grant them a period of exclusivity, during which only the clients of that agent or brokerage are granted early access to the property. While this limited exposure reduces competition by excluding numerous potential buyers, it significantly increases the likelihood of the listing agent (or listing brokerage) earning commission from both sides of the transaction. This situation can create a serious conflict of interest and a breach of the agent’s fiduciary duty.

As an illustration, a few years ago a major local brokerage launched an advertising campaign touting that they were the number one brokerage in certain cities (e.g., Palo Alto). They encouraged buyers interested in purchasing homes in those cities to work with their buyer’s agents, promising exclusive and early access to hundreds of homes before anyone else. Implicit in this advertising was the notion that buyers working with their agents would pay less for the property due to reduced competition. While this claim was probably accurate from the buyer’s perspective, it came at significant cost to the brokerage’s sellers that trusted them.

The Clear Cooperation Rule

In the past, some agents would list a property and promote it as “coming soon.” Unfortunately, interested buyers could only obtain information about the listing by directly contacting the listing agent, as other agents lacked access to any details. This tactic allowed the agent to keep the commission from both sides, once again, to the possible detriment of the seller.

In an attempt to combat this inequity, the Clear Cooperation rule was enacted, mandating that any home marketed to the public must be listed on the MLS within 24 hours of the first public-facing advertisement. This rule had one major flaw: it allowed agents and/or brokerages to market homes to their clients without

listing them on the MLS, while prohibiting agents from sharing details with agents at other brokerages that might have interested buyers. This situation once again increased the likelihood of the brokerage keeping the commission from both sides, usually to the detriment of sellers.

Additionally, the MLS created a new category known as the “Member’s Only” section to comply with the technical requirement of the Clear Cooperation rule, which requires listing on the MLS. However, this section restricts the sharing of information with qualified and interested buyers who are not working with a local Realtor®. Importantly, it denies popular consumer-facing websites, such as Zillow, Redfin, Trulia, and Realtor.com from accessing and sharing this information.

Realtor’s Insight Regarding Off-Market Sales

Many local real estate agents, including Ken DeLeon, have witnessed countless homes selling off-market at prices significantly lower than what one of their buyers would have paid. This stands to reason − after all, what are the odds that the listing agent coincidentally knew the buyer willing to pay the highest price for the home? Further, even if the listing agent did know such a buyer, wouldn’t that buyer be willing to pay the same or an even higher amount if they were aware of possible competing offers?

Although plaintiff attorneys may face challenges in quantifying damages, the potential damage awards related to these off-market sales could be astronomical once established. It is just a matter of time before this questionable practice comes under scrutiny by aggressive class action attorneys.

Navigating the Evolving Real Estate Landscape: Selecting the Right Buyer's Agent

By Michael Repka

The real estate industry is experiencing significant shifts, especially in light of the recent Sitzer/Burnett v. National Association of Realtors (“Sitzer”) case ruling against the industry. Additionally, the ongoing scrutiny by the US Department of Justice into Realtor® conduct, and common provisions in most listing agreements, suggests that there may be significant changes to the way real estate agents are compensated and by whom.

Buyer Representation/Broker Compensation Agreements

Even before the Sitzer verdict, which found collusion that inflated commission within the real estate industry, brokerages could see the writing on the wall. Not surprisingly, many have been training agents to ask buyers to sign representation agreements in which the buyers commit to paying their own agent for their services.

While the anticipated industry changes are expected to benefit both buyers and sellers in the long term, there are a number of details that buyers should consider before signing any agreement with a buyer’s agent.

Choosing the Right Agent

Many buyer’s agents will request that potential buyers sign buyer representation agreements — in fact, they will be required in July. While some agents will thoroughly explain the terms and ramifications of these agreements, others may attempt to gloss over their significance or slip it in unnoticed. It’s essential for buyers to understand the agreement fully to avoid unexpected commitments. We have already encountered several buyers who were upset to learn that they inadvertently committed to working with a particular agent from another brokerage without realizing it.

Although the notion of paying for their own agent might catch buyers off guard, this structure offers several benefits. It promotes competition amongst agents, which should enhance service levels and exert downward pressure on commissions. Further, compensation can be tailored based on the agent’s level of competency and time invested, ensuring fair remuneration for their services. For instance, a buyer who finds a home independently and receives no advice on disclosures or financing options may pay a lower rate; whereas, a buyer from outside the area who requires extensive analysis and guidance over months of house hunting may find great value in an agent’s services, justifying higher compensation. Finally, this structure reduces the risk of agents steering buyers towards less desirable properties solely because of higher commission.

However, the experience, expertise, and quality of service vary greatly among agents, making it crucial for buyers to conduct thorough interviews, akin to sellers interviewing listing agents. Steps buyers should take when searching for the perfect agent include:

1. Developing a list of priorities;

2. Researching and interviewing three to five qualified agents, making sure to ask detailed and specific questions;

3. Signing agreements with one or more of the chosen agents.

This process will enable the buyer to ascertain the pros and cons of each agent.

Limiting the Geographic Scope of the Representation Agreement

Local expertise is very important in real estate. Nevertheless, some buyers sign agreements

Continued on page 15

Continued from page 13

committing themselves to working with one agent despite considering various geographic areas. Most buyers would benefit more from working with different specialists from different regions. For example, one agent might specialize in the Los Altos to Atherton area; another in Hillsborough, Burlingame, and San Mateo Park; and a third in Saratoga and Los Gatos. Agents who claim expertise across all areas often lack in-depth knowledge of any particular locale.

Beyond localized knowledge, buyers benefit when agents are aware of competing agents searching for them in different areas. This motivates all of the agents to act diligently to find the perfect property before one of the other agents identifies a suitable alternative.

Limiting the Duration of Representation Agreement

Buyer representation agreements should strike a balance between giving the agent adequate time to showcase their expertise, work ethic, responsiveness, and value without holding the buyer hostage if they’re dissatisfied.

Generally, contract periods of 60 to 90 days suffice. If the buyer is happy with the level of service provided, they can always opt to extend the agreement.

Agent’s Access to Off-Market Homes

Properties that are sold without being listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and without marketing through other channels, such as local newspapers, TV commercials, paid online ads, and direct mail, tend to sell for less money than similar properties that receive extensive promotion. While this is typically disadvantageous for sellers, it can present a valuable buying opportunity. Therefore, an agent's ability to access these off-market properties is a significant advantage for their buyers.

Typically, buyer’s agents who handle a high volume of transactions are well-connected to off-market properties. Similarly, brokerages dealing with substantial transaction volume in specific cities or

neighborhoods often have valuable insights into these less-promoted properties.

The Value of a Buyer’s Agent

The past few editions of this newsletter have featured several articles lauding the industry changes stemming from commission collusion cases, settlements, and DOJ action. As a result, some readers might mistakenly assume that the authors of these articles do not appreciate the value of a good buyer’s agent’s services. This assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

When a seller offers $10,000 or $20,000 to a buyer’s agent, that does not mean that this amount reflects the true value of all buyer’s agent’s services, especially if the agent is exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable, worked with the buyer for a long time, and/or offered extra services. However, it’s undeniable that the beneficiary of these enhanced services is the buyer, not the seller. After all, is it logical for a seller to pay 2% to 3% of the transaction value for the buyer to have a strong advocate who will effectively strategize and negotiate for a lower sales price?

An excellent buyer’s agent can, and often does, provide tremendous value for the buyer. They can help in finding the perfect home and avoid costly mistakes. A savvy buyer will interview several agents and agree to compensate them appropriately based on the agent’s experience, education, market knowledge, and time invested.

NAR Settlement of $418M Marks Turning Point for Real Estate Industry

By Francis Lopez

In the wake of the groundbreaking Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit, which found the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several brokerages conspired to inflate or maintain high commission rates, NAR has recently made a monumental announcement regarding a proposed settlement, pending court approval. This settlement promises significant changes in the buying and selling of homes across the United States.

According to the terms of the agreement, NAR will pay $418 million in damages over the next four years and has committed to implementing sweeping reforms. The settlement encompasses the Sitzer/ Burnett case and numerous other lawsuits that have surfaced nationwide, marking a pivotal moment for the real estate sector.

Among the key terms proposed by NAR, two stand out as particularly impactful for buyers and sellers alike:

• Prohibition of Compensation Offers on the MLS: NAR has agreed to implement a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). However, consumers can still explore compensation options off the MLS through negotiation with real estate agents. Seller concessions, such as closing cost assistance for buyers, can still be offered on the MLS. This change will take effect in mid-July 2024.

• Written Representation Agreements for Buyer’s Agents: Buyer’s agents will be required to enter into written representation agreements with their clients, a change also set to take effect in mid-July 2024.

Following NAR’s footstep, Compass Inc. disclosed in March of this year its intention to settle commission lawsuits for around $58 million. As part of this settlement, Compass has committed to modifying its business practices to improve transparency and clarity regarding commissions. Specifically, Compass agents will now inform consumers that commissions are negotiable, and buyer agents will disclose any compensation offers from the listing agent. The Compass settlement is awaiting court approval.

How Will These Changes Impact Sellers and Buyers?

Since the groundbreaking verdict, DeLeon Realty has proactively informed the public through various channels, including published articles and seminars, that sellers are not obligated to offer commission to the buyer’s agent. Since the beginning of this year, DeLeon Realty has sold numerous listings where sellers opted to offer the buyer’s agent commissions of $10,000 or $20,000, lower than historical averages. Nevertheless, despite these reduced commissions, DeLeon listings have still attracted multiple offers and achieved notably high sales prices.

The NAR settlement and anticipated changes can further strengthen sellers’ confidence in offering minimal to no commission to buyer agents, as offers of compensation will be prohibited on the MLS. Some agents point out that sellers who still wish to provide compensation to the buyer’s agent in the form of commission, can do so off the MLS platform. However, agents should be careful about developing new structures to recreate the problematic systems of the past—doing so would inevitably result in more losses in the court room.

Although NAR has long advocated for the use of written agreements between buyer’s agents and their clients, it will be a mandatory requirement starting in July. These agreements are likely to include provisions where buyers agree to compensate their agents for their services at a negotiated rate. Just as sellers carefully select the right agent for their listings, it will be crucial for potential buyers to interview multiple agents and select the one that best aligns with their needs and desires.

The NAR settlement represents a significant turning point for the real estate industry, ushering in a new era of transparency, fairness, and professionalism. These reforms are poised to create a more equitable and efficient real estate market for all stakeholders involved.

nothing is inhibiting free competition. This argument rests on the premise that DeLeon Realty’s resilience against industry pressure indicates that others could adopt similar consumer-friendly business models.

However, the DeLeon Team is unique. We are widely recognized and respected throughout Silicon Valley and possess an unparalleled, multi-million-dollar marketing budget for our listings. Most notably, we are the only major local brokerage offering a commission-free alternative for buyers if any buyer’s agents are unwilling to submit an offer for, let’s say, “only” $20,000. Plus, our buyer’s agents receive generous salaries, ensuring they are compensated even if we waive the entire buyer-side commission. Simply put, our prominence and reputation make it impossible for anyone to boycott our listings. Furthermore, any agent attempting such a move would find that their buyer could directly approach us, resulting in neither the buyer nor the seller paying any buyer-side commission.

Agents who choose not to submit an offer on one of our listings may face another possible consequence: many buyers would simply submit the offer through Ken DeLeon and his buyer’s team. Ken, renowned for his expertise and with graduate degrees from both Berkeley School of Law and Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, has been a respected agent for over two decades.

The DOJ’s Involvement

The DOJ is taking a two-pronged approach in addressing Realtor® collusion. First, on February 15, 2024, they filed a

Statement of Interest in Nosalek v. MLS PIN, et al., urging the court to reject the proposed settlements of lawsuits targeting the real estate industry. The DOJ asserted that simply making substantial settlement payments would do little to protect the consumers if the real estate industry retains the ability to strong-arm or scare sellers into offering inflated, unilateral, non-negotiable compensation to the buyer’s agent.

At its core, the DOJ contends that the commission for the buyer’s agent should be subject to free negotiation between the buyer and their agent. This cannot occur if the seller is contractually obligated to pay a predetermined amount to the buyer’s agent.

Additionally, the DOJ asserts that any compensation offered by the seller to the buyer’s agent serves as an incentive for the buyer’s agent to breach their fiduciary duty and steer buyers toward listings with the highest compensation offers. As previously mentioned, it has come to my attention that numerous agents are explicitly using this argument to pressure sellers into paying 2.5% or more to the buyer’s agent.

Case in point, if one were to agree with the notion that homes offering lower commissions to buyer's agents may be boycotted by a significant number of agents and consequently sell for lower prices (assuming the listing agent does not offer a buyer’s-side commissionfree way for buyers to purchase these listings), then

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

an agent genuinely prioritizing the buyer’s best interests would concentrate on these listings due to their comparative value rather than avoid them. Similarly, all buyers should focus on finding these types of properties.

On another front, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the DOJ the authority to reopen the antitrust probe into NAR on Friday, April 5, 2024. Previously, NAR had settled with the DOJ during the Trump administration, but the Biden administration rejected the settlement and opted to continue the investigation until a lower court halted its progress in 2023. The recent court decision ruled that the case’s prior closure did not prevent it from being reopened, enabling the DOJ to proceed with its investigation into potential antitrust violations.

A recent statement released by assistant attorney general of the DOJ Antitrust Division, Jonathan Kanter, stated, “[r]eal-estate commissions in the United States greatly exceed those in any other developed economy, and this decision restores the Antitrust Division’s ability to investigate potentially unlawful conduct by NAR that may be contributing to this problem.” He further added, “[t]he Antitrust Division is committed to fighting to lower the cost of buying and selling a home. I would like to commend the staff of the Antitrust Division and our colleagues in the department for achieving this important result.”

Realtor’s Response to the Proposed NAR Settlement

The industry's response to NAR’s proposed settlement has been mixed. While some agents are exploring

ways for buyer’s agents to enhance services and lower costs to gain a competitive advantage and attract more buyers, others are focused on finding loopholes in the settlement in an effort to recreate the system that has been found objectionable and damaging to the public.

By way of example, some agents argue that they can still persuade sellers to pay 5% commission as part of the listing agreement if they simply forego listing the property on the MLS. It should be noted that keeping the property off the MLS also means the agent would be prohibited from any other public marketing, as per the Clear Cooperation Rule. Put another way, this approach could be summarized as telling the sellers, “if I dramatically limit your home’s marketing and exposure, along with reducing my advertising expense, I could charge you more.” Is that really fair, or even logical?

Another loophole proposed is to include buyer’s commission in the listing agreement and then post this commission on a website separate from the MLS. That way, the buyer’s agents could check this additional website (or even the listing agent’s website) before deciding which properties to show or promote. However, it should be noted that buyers may not be aware of these ancillary websites, so they may not understand why the agent is favoring one home over another.

If the real estate industry continues along this path of looking for loopholes, the lawsuits and DOJ scrutiny we have witnessed so far will likely be just the beginning.

bemoan this, we turned it into a moment of bonding and empowerment. My friends playfully shaved my remaining hair, styling it into a bold Mohawk for a day. In that moment, I felt incredibly resilient, strong, and even a bit sexy!

After my head was completely shaved, my 2- and 4-year-old daughters would wake me up in the morning by playfully banging on my bald head, giggling while proclaiming, “Daddy drum, daddy drum!” I chose not to share the seriousness of my condition with them, preferring to shield them from sadness and uncertainty as long as my prognosis remained positive.

After completing six rounds of chemotherapy, I underwent 40 days of daily radiation targeting my tumor. The intensity of the radiation caused the skin near the tumor to turn dark red and brown, resembling a severe sunburn, despite the protective copper shield.

I stayed positive throughout my treatments, as I firmly believe in the mind-body connection and how optimism can improve one’s chances of recovery (which is now empirically proven). With the dedicated care of my exceptional doctors at Blake Wilbur Stanford Cancer Center, the tumor gradually shrank, and after nine months of treatment I was declared cancer-free. I didn’t survive cancer; I BEAT cancer.

While nobody anticipates developing cancer at a young age, overcoming the disease ultimately brought more positives than negatives into my life. This second brush with death taught me that love and the legacy we leave behind are the most important aspects of life.

While I was very thankful to have defeated lymphoma, my doctors warned me the heightened risk of developing thyroid cancer due to the radiation treatment I underwent, as these conditions are closely linked. To address this concern, my doctors performed bi-annual, full-body scans.

Armed with this knowledge, coupled with the resilient fortitude I had gained from overcoming my first three tragedies, I faced the diagnosis of my metastasized thyroid eight years later with a prepared mindset. I reminded myself that no matter the outcome, I had already lived the life I had wanted with my children, and I hoped that my volunteer speeches on resilience and overcoming tragedy had positively impacted others. I felt I had already left a legacy and accepted the idea of death. Regardless, I vowed to fight on for my family, and again dedicated myself to being the best patient possible. After two surgeries in 2017, the cancer was successfully removed and has not returned since.

During my battle with lymphoma and thyroid cancer, I gained valuable life lessons. I learned the importance of accepting and optimizing my medical condition by focusing on what I could control, such as maintaining a positive attitude, following a healthy diet, and seeking the best medical care possible. This mindset allowed me to direct my recovery efforts effectively.

After losing my sister, I realized the importance of family and the eternal bonds we share. My perspective shifted and I began living for my children, understanding that they were my driving force. I also learned to prioritize what truly matters—my family, friends, and clients. I discovered that by focusing upon getting my clients great homes in appreciating neighborhoods, I could positively impact their lives, giving my career a deeper meaning beyond mere financial success. Additionally, beating cancer provided me with a profound perspective on life, leading me to a state of peace. This inner peace reflects in my work, enabling me to remain calm and solutionoriented, especially during challenging transactions for my clients.

I am deeply grateful to the Blake Wilbur Stanford Cancer Center for saving my life not once but twice, offering Silicon Valley cutting-edge medical care, innovative research, and treatments. My gratitude towards the Blake Wilbur Cancer Center is immeasurable; it’s so profound that my upcoming child with Alexandra Wilbur DeLeon will be named Blake Wilbur DeLeon. Overcoming these cancers and other tragedies has enriched my life, making me wiser and more fulfilled.

I encourage readers to recognize their inner strength and power. While life events like accidents or illnesses are beyond our control, our response to these events is within our power. Our reactions shape our outcomes, giving us control over our lives despite the chaos around us. By embracing and savoring life, taking calculated risks, and striving to reach our full potential, we can lead a life so fulfilling that the fear death will no longer hold sway over you.

When other agents ask how I can stay so calm and focused on my clients while the real estate industry is undergoing such changes, I can’t help but think that my brushes with death have made me a better person. Fundamentally, I care more about helping people and leaving a legacy than I do about maximizing every dollar of commission. After all, my family, friends and clients are the most important things to me.

ATHERTON

LOS ALTOS

LOS ALTOS HILLS

MENLO PARK

MOUNTAIN VIEW

PALO ALTO