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:

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

[Anonymous]

Now they just need to open up MLS access to anyone willing to pay a fee

[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.

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.

I am more confused.

Why would the number of buyers (and.hence showings).change?

[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.

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

Lol IDK but the agent is not your slave and chained to the house to show to randoms anytime. If you hire a high-end team for $$$$ sure they will be there 24/7 and do all your beckoning! But I doubt you have ever sold a house and your cheap ass anyone will run miles from you

[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.

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

Lol IDK but the agent is not your slave and chained to the house to show to randoms anytime. If you hire a high-end team for $$$$ sure they will be there 24/7 and do all your beckoning! But I doubt you have ever sold a house and your cheap ass anyone will run miles from you

Ah yes I must have missed the part in early US history where slaves had written contracts entitling them to tens of thousands of dollars for their work.

Not making your profession look too great buddy

[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:

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

Lol IDK but the agent is not your slave and chained to the house to show to randoms anytime. If you hire a high-end team for $$$$ sure they will be there 24/7 and do all your beckoning! But I doubt you have ever sold a house and your cheap ass anyone will run miles from you

Ah yes I must have missed the part in early US history where slaves had written contracts entitling them to tens of thousands of dollars for their work.

Not making your profession look too great buddy

It was the same attitude though I paid for something and they better perform come hell or high water. Thankfully laws have been passed since then..

[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:

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

Lol IDK but the agent is not your slave and chained to the house to show to randoms anytime. If you hire a high-end team for $$$$ sure they will be there 24/7 and do all your beckoning! But I doubt you have ever sold a house and your cheap ass anyone will run miles from you :D

Ah yes I must have missed the part in early US history where slaves had written contracts entitling them to tens of thousands of dollars for their work.

Not making your profession look too great buddy

It was the same attitude though I paid for something and they better perform come hell or high water. Thankfully laws have been passed since then..

Keep digging, you'll make it out of that hole

[Anonymous]

^^ just because you paid "tens of thousands" all good you can beat them to death who cares if they have any life outside but hey this is capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ just because you paid "tens of thousands" all good you can beat them to death who cares if they have any life outside but hey this is capitalism at its finest

This is not a real person. No one can be this stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ just because you paid "tens of thousands" all good you can beat them to death who cares if they have any life outside but hey this is capitalism at its finest

In other white collar professions that make six figures per year, people routinely work late nights, weekends etc., in addition to a full 40 hour workweek. You agents sound really spoiled and out of touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now they just need to open up MLS access to anyone willing to pay a fee

Totally agree. I want to do this without agents. I have my own lawyer and my own inspector

[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.

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.

I am more confused.

Why would the number of buyers (and.hence showings).change?

I'm so sick of the realtors coming here pretending that grass isn't green. The number of buyers and showing wouldn't change. The number of buyers that the listing agent would need to provide showings to would increase because fewer buyers would have buyers agents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ just because you paid "tens of thousands" all good you can beat them to death who cares if they have any life outside but hey this is capitalism at its finest

This is not a real person. No one can be this stupid.

That person is a realtor. The realtors are desperately reaching for arguments to support keeping the two-agent system with high commissions.

Now realtors are claiming that buyers and sellers are slave holders if they expect the listing agent to show the property to buyers. Their argument has no merit, especially considering that listing agents are already require to show buyers the property - without requiring them to sign a buyers agreement - due to their fiduciary duty to the seller.

[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.

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.

The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.

Lol IDK but the agent is not your slave and chained to the house to show to randoms anytime. If you hire a high-end team for $$$$ sure they will be there 24/7 and do all your beckoning! But I doubt you have ever sold a house and your cheap ass anyone will run miles from you

I hope you're not an agent because you clearly have no idea what a fiduciary standard requires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ just because you paid "tens of thousands" all good you can beat them to death who cares if they have any life outside but hey this is capitalism at its finest

In other white collar professions that make six figures per year, people routinely work late nights, weekends etc., in addition to a full 40 hour workweek. You agents sound really spoiled and out of touch.

Real estate agency is certainly not a white collar profession. The typical real estate agent only sells 6 properties per year and makes about $50-60K per year while being on call 24/7 for each Client.