Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Real estate certainly is a white collar profession.

"Attorneys, accountants, architects, bankers, real estate agents, business consultants, and brokers are often described as white-collar positions."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whitecollar.asp#:~:text=Attorneys%2C%20accountants%2C%20architects%2C%20bankers,described%20as%20white%2Dcollar%20positions.

Six of the seven categories listed above are populated with people with a masters degree or higher. Real estate only requires a high school diploma. The only reason real estate can be seen as professional is because they, like some of the others means bring in revenue. But then again sales clerks in stores also bring in revenue.

I thought that it was common knowledge that realtors were considered white collar until your comment on this thread that they were not. It is odd that you are trying to claim otherwise because of your disdain for the profession.

[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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

[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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And real estate also have to take their states licensing course and the exam with “weird math” aka percentages.

Not quite in the same league as a four year degree and a cpa exam or a four degree, three years of law school and the bar exam.

And, yet, it still 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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed 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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

The short answer to your question is "yes". I spend an enormous amount of time coordinating all kinds of different schedules. But that doesn't mean that its always easy or that everyone gets their preferred times for things.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

DP This all started with some idiot saying listing agents will no longer be showing homes to unrepresented buyers. I think they misread the settlement and have been sunk-cost fallacy-ing themself into a deep hole of stupid.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

The short answer to your question is "yes". I spend an enormous amount of time coordinating all kinds of different schedules. But that doesn't mean that its always easy or that everyone gets their preferred times for things.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of online calendar where you could post your availability and people could book an available time? Oh wait....

[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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

Thank you. Breath of fresh air. Voice of reason. EXCEPT. The majority of Seller's agents DO NOT have showing assistants and the majority of agent's are not on a TEAM. They are independent contractors.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

DP This all started with some idiot saying listing agents will no longer be showing homes to unrepresented buyers. I think they misread the settlement and have been sunk-cost fallacy-ing themself into a deep hole of stupid.

No one said Listing agents will stop showing homes to unrepresented buyers. You misread that statement.

[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:

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.

You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.

I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.

Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.

Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.

Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.

Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.

Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?

I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).

Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.

Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.

DP This all started with some idiot saying listing agents will no longer be showing homes to unrepresented buyers. I think they misread the settlement and have been sunk-cost fallacy-ing themself into a deep hole of stupid.

No one said Listing agents will stop showing homes to unrepresented buyers. You misread that statement.

Page 11:

"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..."