Inside the Real Estate Feud Between Austin’s Top Luxury Agents

Real estate agents are ethically obligated to leave personal interest at the door when helping their client buy or sell property, but what happens when the perfect house hits the market, and an agent involved in the transaction is eyeing it for themselves? 

This dilemma took center stage in Austin, TX, when the city’s top luxury real estate agent, Kumara Wilcoxon, was accused by a buyer’s agent of withholding multimillion-dollar offers on a luxury Mediterranean-style villa, allegedly because listing agent Wilcoxon wanted the high-priced home for herself. 

The buyer’s agent, top producer Amy Deane of Moreland Properties, earlier this year filed a formal complaint against Wilcoxon with the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC), the state’s industry regulator, alleging that Wilcoxon violated the Texas Real Estate License Act by failing to present her client’s two offers on the house to the seller.

“As real estate agents, we owe our clients a fiduciary duty to put their interests ahead of our own,” Deane tells Realtor.com®. “When an agent makes repeated statements indicating personal interest in a property she is listing, it naturally raises concerns about whether she can fulfill her duty to act objectively. By itself, expressing interest isn’t necessarily a violation, but it creates a situation where transparency and full disclosure become critically important.”

Ultimately, the villa on Foothill Terrace at the center of the clash between Austin’s luxury real estate heavyweights was sold to someone else for $8.4 million—some $1 million less than asking.

Meanwhile, Wilcoxon in June snapped up a similar mansion listed for $8.99 million, located just 2 miles away. The twist? The listing agent of Wilcoxon’s new home in the tony Pemberton Heights section was Deane herself.

TREC investigated Deane’s complaint but opted against disciplining Wilcoxon, saying it could not prove that she intended to withhold material information. Still, the panel did note in their decision that they were “concerned” about Wilcoxon’s conduct.

The president of Kuper Sotheby’s International Realty, which employs Wilcoxon, offered full-throated support for the high-flying agent. 

“Ms. Wilcoxon’s decades-long career has been built on professionalism, integrity, and exceptional service to her clients,” J. Kuper said in a statement to Realtor.com. “We take allegations of misconduct seriously and cooperated fully with the Texas Real Estate Commission throughout its investigation. The Commission ultimately closed its investigation without disciplinary action against Ms. Wilcoxon, her broker, or the brokerage, finding insufficient evidence that she intentionally withheld material information or acted outside her client’s best interests.”

Offer on $9.45 million home goes unanswered

According to Deane’s TREC complaint filed in February and obtained by Realtor.com, the dispute began in early September 2025, when Deane’s clients toured a sprawling home featuring a pool, spa, and gym on Foothills Terrace in Austin’s elite Colorado Foothills enclave.

The home was listed at $9.45 million, and Deane’s clients submitted an above-asking, all-cash offer with a short closing timeline.

Deane claimed that Wilcoxon—representing seller Mary Stanley—texted her in the evening that the owner was traveling, that there were competing offers, and that she could not respond to Deane that night. 

The following day, Deane submitted a revised, full-price offer, but Wilcoxon’s team member texted that the seller preferred to wait a few days before giving an answer, states the complaint.

Frustrated by the delays and suspecting that Wilcoxon and her team were trying to find their own buyer behind the scenes, Deane’s clients formally withdrew their second offer.

Admission and backlash

According to Deane’s complaint, more than a month after the offer was rescinded, she was talking to Wilcoxon on the phone about other listings when Austin’s premier agent casually admitted, “I tried to get [my father-in-law] to buy Foothills [for me] but then he went quiet on me,” signaling her personal interest in the property. 

Then, in mid-November 2025, the Foothill Terrace villa went under contract with a different buyer, prompting Deane’s clients to reach out to the seller directly to find out why their own offer had been ignored. 

Days later, seller Mary Stanley‘s daughter, Laura, allegedly reached out to Deane, claiming they were never presented with either of the two September offers. Instead, the sellers say Wilcoxon told them an offer was expected but “never materialized.” Laura Stanley also allegedly told Deane that she would have accepted her client’s offer “immediately.”  

Additionally, during a walk-through of a different property in November, Deane claimed Wilcoxon brought up the Stanley family’s villa again, allegedly saying, “I wanted to buy Foothill…”

When Deane later asked Wilcoxon to provide written proof that her full-price offer was submitted to the seller, both Wilcoxon and Kuper Sotheby’s refused, according to Deane’s complaint.

After the villa on Foothill Terrace officially closed to the other buyer for $8.4 million—$1.1 million less than the initial offer from Deane’s client—the seller’s family demanded $1.36 million in damages from Kuper Sotheby’s and Wilcoxon and threatened a lawsuit, the complaint states.

The ripple effect

Deane stresses that her decision to bring a complaint against Wilcoxon, Austin’s No. 1 residential agent with over $320 million in recent annual volume, was never about losing a deal.

“Once my clients became concerned about how the offer had been handled, they instructed me not to pursue the property further with Kumara,” explains Deane. “My clients ultimately found another home they love. My client and I both filed complaints, and I chose to file mine to help preserve the integrity of our profession and, hopefully, prevent similar situations from happening to other consumers and agents alike.

“In my opinion, the appropriate course would have been [for Wilcoxon] to disclose that personal interest to the client and remove herself from any role in evaluating or presenting offers by having another agent in her brokerage or on her team handle those responsibilities,” says Deane. “That would have protected the client’s interests while eliminating any question about a conflict of interest.”

The situation had significant financial consequences beyond one Austin family, according to Deane.

“The seller ultimately accepted approximately $1.1 million less than what my clients had offered and carried the property for another four months,” she points out. “That sale also became part of the comparable sales data that future buyers, sellers, agents, and appraisers rely upon. Ethical conduct in our profession isn’t just about one transaction. It can have ripple effects throughout an entire market.”

For Deane, Wilcoxon’s conduct with respect to the offers raised “serious concerns” about whether personal interests were being placed ahead of the duty to clients.

“When someone is consistently one of the top-producing agents in the market, they influence an enormous number of transactions,” adds Deane. “Their conduct doesn’t affect just one buyer or one seller. It has the potential to shape consumer confidence in our profession as a whole. I don’t believe successful agents should be held to a different standard. Rather, they should be held to a higher one.”

Deane says she decided to alert TREC because she argues that “consumers deserve confidence” that their agent is acting “exclusively in their best interest.”

“If raising these issues encourages greater transparency, stronger disclosure, meaningful accountability, and renewed confidence in our profession, then I believe it was worth doing,” she adds.

Regulator’s decision

In its two-page decision issued on May 28, the TREC Enforcement Division wrote that it would not pursue formal disciplinary action against Wilcoxon or other members of her team because it did not believe it could prove that Wilcoxon intentionally withheld material information, pointing to the fact that Deane made and rescinded two separate offers within 12 hours. 

“Ms. Kumara Wilcoxon may have considered the entire exchange immaterial. There is insufficient evidence that Ms. Kumara Wilcoxon intentionally withheld material information or intentionally acted outside the client’s best interest,” reads the advisory letter from TREC. 

However, the regulatory body advised Wilcoxon to be cautious in the future. 

“Moving forward, unless specifically limited by the client, Ms. Kumara Wilcoxon should err on the side of disclosing all and allow the client to decide if the information is material,” writes the TREC attorney.

Deane expressed disappointment with TREC’s ruling and also pushed back against some of the characterizations contained within the letter, arguing that her clients did not rescind two offers, but rather revised their initial offer.

“I also found it notable that TREC acknowledged concerns about aspects of the agent’s conduct, yet ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue disciplinary action,” says the agent. “I fully respect that TREC must operate within the standards of the law, using the evidence received, and I understand that not every concern results in discipline. However, the outcome left me questioning whether the current process places enough emphasis on consumer protection versus [agent] protection.”

What should buyers and sellers know about conflict of interest?

Deane concedes that agents and brokers often become familiar with neighborhoods through their work and sometimes buy homes there, but she argues that a line must be drawn.

“The ethical issue arises when an agent is actively competing with a client for the same property, or when the agent’s personal interests could influence the advice they’re giving,” she contends. “That’s precisely why fiduciary duties and disclosure requirements exist. Clients should never have to wonder whether their agent is advocating for them or for themselves.”

Chad Cummings, Certified Public Accountant and attorney with Cummings & Cummings Law, agrees that real estate agents must “err on the side of caution” to avoid even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

“Do not buy from, sell to, lease from, or lease to your clients,” Cummings tells Realtor.com. “Remove yourself from the equation and bring in a colleague, ideally from a different brokerage, to handle the transaction at arm’s length.”

The lawyer notes that if an agent intends to continue working with a client in a situation where a conflict of interest might crop up, a full written disclosure is mandatory so the client can make an informed decision.

Meanwhile, Deane urges buyers and sellers to interview their real estate agent thoroughly before hiring them, asking exactly how they handle potential conflicts of interest and communicate offers.

“The answers to those questions tell you far more than whether someone is a top producer,” she explains. “They tell you how we think, how we communicate, how we solve problems, and whether we truly view ourselves as fiduciaries whose job is to advance your interests above all else.”

Looking ahead, the Austin agent says she hopes this case leads to more transparency, disclosure, and accountability across the industry.

“One of the reasons I am willing to speak publicly is that I don’t believe consumers should have to wonder whether the system is working for them,” she adds. “Public confidence in our profession depends not only on ethical agents doing the right thing, but also on consumers having confidence that the regulatory process will hold everyone to the same standard.”