Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

[Anonymous]

"These new laws are designed to have the sellers harassed by unrepresented buyers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"These new laws are designed to have the sellers harassed by unrepresented buyers."

"These new laws are designed to have the sellers (and Seller agents) harassed by unrepresented buyers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

Agreed except for the parts where the agent implies that buyer agent services are "free". This is forbidden and violates a prior antitrust settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

Unrepresented buyers need to FIND and PAY a showing agent. To expect a Listing/Seller Agent to go and show a bunch of unrepresented buyers their Listing for free is ridiculous. That's what a Buyers Agent gets paid to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

Unrepresented buyers need to FIND and PAY a showing agent. To expect a Listing/Seller Agent to go and show a bunch of unrepresented buyers their Listing for free is ridiculous. That's what a Buyers Agent gets paid to do.

There is no requirement for a buyer to have representation. On the other hand, a seller's agent has a fiduciary duty to act in the seller's best interest and that would include soliciting offers and showing the house to unrepresented buyers.

[Anonymous]

I think having a buyer's agent is important for many buyers, especially first time buyers.

The ability to pay the fees for this service has not really been an issue previously because they ultimately are wrapped up in the mortgage payment/price of the house.

Buyers agents still can have an important role, but the way they are paid and who can afford them will be where it gets tricky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

Unrepresented buyers need to FIND and PAY a showing agent. To expect a Listing/Seller Agent to go and show a bunch of unrepresented buyers their Listing for free is ridiculous. That's what a Buyers Agent gets paid to do.

Are you a troll? Be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

I actually expected the worst in some random YouTube video. But I don’t really disagree with what that agent says. He says that sellers agents need to show a house to unrepresented buyers but they don’t write offers for those buyers or give them advice. That’s correct. Quite different than the stupid agents in this thread who think it’s appropriate to refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers (which will be career suicide for any sellers agent who does that without the sellers written permission).

Unrepresented buyers need to FIND and PAY a showing agent. To expect a Listing/Seller Agent to go and show a bunch of unrepresented buyers their Listing for free is ridiculous. That's what a Buyers Agent gets paid to do.

Are you a troll? Be honest.

I know, I feel like I am taking crazy pills with this stuff. The sellers agent has a contract with the seller that will result in them getting paid tens of thousands of dollars. They aren't doing anything for free.

[Anonymous]

The desperation would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

This! The realtor you're responding understands what you're saying but is trying to gaslight everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.

Why would they have to do it more frequently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.

Why would they have to do it more frequently?

They wouldn't they already hold open houses and they may have additional hours when they are available to show the house. The buyer can just hire a showing agent for some $ to open the door at the buyer's convenience if the timings don't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.

Why would they have to do it more frequently?

It may be more frequent because now fewer buyers will have their own agent so the listing agent would need to show the house to more buyers.