Selling agents in DC asking to sign a dual agency agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

Asked for what? The actual rule - that if a buyer wants a BUYERS agent to show a house, they need to sign a contract to properly define their representation?

Or this nonsense BS that sellers agents are trying, in order to maintain their cartel driven overly high fees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

Asked for what? The actual rule - that if a buyer wants a BUYERS agent to show a house, they need to sign a contract to properly define their representation?

Or this nonsense BS that sellers agents are trying, in order to maintain their cartel driven overly high fees?

The BS is from a federal court. Time to take it to SCOTUS if you don’t like it

[Anonymous]

OP here: I re-read the linked NAR rule and it clearly states that a representation is not required. The buyer (who doesn't have an agent) and the seller should just sign an agreement stating clear fees to the buyer, if they decide to bid on the house. including if the buyer should pay anything to view the house . If no fees or representation, then it's just zero.

What local agents seem to be doing is trying uninformed buyers sign a "representation" agreement. I received 2 of them: they were for a year, with that agent, and I would only be viewing houses through that agent. Moreover, the representation would not expire even if the seller rejects the offer. What a BS! The market is frozen partly due to this emerging practice.

I am literally unable to view properties. I was able to find one owner and they agreed to show, but the other elderly owner's phone number is disconnected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

JFC. So, the industry broke antitrust laws, so now agents need to violate fiduciary duties. You know, because the corrupt practices of the industry.

This is the sort of illogical and unethical thinking we've come to expect from DCUM REALTOR®

Bravo on this embarrassingly stupid contribution.

[Anonymous]

OP here: fiduciary duties is actually what I asked the agents about right away. I as a buyer don't want the seller's agent represent me. The NRA ruling is just the opposite: it's about disclosures to the buyer about who the agent is. It's just for showing the house! I of course don't mind to sign a disclosure agreement about one showing without a representation.

I had many cases when the person showing the house was not the selling agent but some friends of theirs, and then tried to get me sign a representation agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

Asked for what? The actual rule - that if a buyer wants a BUYERS agent to show a house, they need to sign a contract to properly define their representation?

Or this nonsense BS that sellers agents are trying, in order to maintain their cartel driven overly high fees?

The BS is from a federal court. Time to take it to SCOTUS if you don’t like it

Yeah. You do that.

Thank you Your Honor. And may it please the Court.

The Moehrl V NAR settlement violates the constitution, on basis of Weird Law.

I reserve my time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

Asked for what? The actual rule - that if a buyer wants a BUYERS agent to show a house, they need to sign a contract to properly define their representation?

Or this nonsense BS that sellers agents are trying, in order to maintain their cartel driven overly high fees?

The BS is from a federal court. Time to take it to SCOTUS if you don’t like it

Yeah. You do that.

Thank you Your Honor. And may it please the Court.

The Moehrl V NAR settlement violates the constitution, on basis of Weird Law.

I reserve my time.

Stop nonsense. The settlement has nothing in it requiring dual agency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

Asked for what? The actual rule - that if a buyer wants a BUYERS agent to show a house, they need to sign a contract to properly define their representation?

Or this nonsense BS that sellers agents are trying, in order to maintain their cartel driven overly high fees?

The BS is from a federal court. Time to take it to SCOTUS if you don’t like it

Yeah. You do that.

Thank you Your Honor. And may it please the Court.

The Moehrl V NAR settlement violates the constitution, on basis of Weird Law.

I reserve my time.

Stop nonsense. The settlement has nothing in it requiring dual agency

PP I was criticizing the agent respondent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an interesting buying shopping and I purchased two properties directly from the seller's agents before (in 2010). However, it's already a second case when the selling agent of a property refuses to show it, unless I sign also a "buyer" agency agreement with them. They are referring to some legal case or a new Board rule from 2017 and last year's law suit. This in my view is BS, as it basically entitles them to collect double commission from the seller.

Is there indeed a Board rule or legal case that changed the rules or they are bull shitting?

Yeah this is one effect of the NAR settlement. You asked for it.

The misinformation and stupidity from agents is astounding. Day by day, they reveal themselves to be money-grubbing liars, and statements like this show their true colors. Either they haven't read the settlement, or they are purposefully misrepresenting it. In either case, they don't deserve your trust, nor did they ever deserve tens of thousands of dollars for what they do.

If NAR doesn't aggressively fine its lying realtors, they'll be back in court in no time. And next time, when a jury awards billions (as they did this time), I hope the plaintiffs' lawyers don't settle for less, and that the NAR is bankrupted and never exists again.

[Anonymous]

OP here - I asked the agent to share the rule and said I contacted the association and they asked for the agent’s name. She quickly reverted 2 hrs after offering to show the property without any agreements

[Anonymous]

You should have filed a complain without giving agent a chance. There are lots of stupid agents and some you can see in this thread itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should have filed a complain without giving agent a chance. There are lots of stupid agents and some you can see in this thread itself.

I was actually interested in the property so I wouldn’t want to create a big fuss. She corrected herself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP that suggested reporting them to your local real estate commission. And if they are realtors, you can also report them to the local realtors association. Finally, if you can find the contact information for the sellers (elderly people often have landlines that are easy to track down through google), I would call those sellers, let them know what's going on, and ask them to allow you to view the houses.

+1 Contact the sellers to let them know that their agent is violating their fiduciary duty by refusing to show the house without adding additional barriers like required agreements or additional fees.

We have a house for sale right now. If a buyer told us that she pulled this stunt, then we would fire her for breach of contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP that suggested reporting them to your local real estate commission. And if they are realtors, you can also report them to the local realtors association. Finally, if you can find the contact information for the sellers (elderly people often have landlines that are easy to track down through google), I would call those sellers, let them know what's going on, and ask them to allow you to view the houses.

+1 Contact the sellers to let them know that their agent is violating their fiduciary duty by refusing to show the house without adding additional barriers like required agreements or additional fees.

We have a house for sale right now. If a buyer told us that she pulled this stunt, then we would fire her for breach of contract.

The sellers are elderly people in both cases. These are shell properties for development/demo. This is why the agents are able to exploit this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I asked the agent to share the rule and said I contacted the association and they asked for the agent’s name. She quickly reverted 2 hrs after offering to show the property without any agreements

Ha good work!