Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

I thought PP explain this well:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the same a refusing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 that’s what the open houses are for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

No. They shouldn't open up MLS access. Licensing fees are enormous and licensing must have some singular privileges. mls already syndicates to zillow redfin and trulia, the instigators and disruptors, which likely caused the entire class action issue, basically invalidating seller agent contracts agreed to in advance by people like you and ultimately invalidated buyer agents value by delivering too much open source information. Why do you also need MLS access. Soon you'll be arguing that real estate agents should not exist at all and no one should be represented in real estate, except by lawyers, a very elitist and likely more expensive for consumers proposition.

Economists are aghast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would show my listings to an unrepresented buyer if they are qualified. They would have to send me a pre-approval first. Also happy to write a contract for them to sign on behalf of my client who is the seller.

Yeah. I don’t see why there has to be an offer especially if the seller accepts the buyers terms. When you buy a car the dealer writes the contract and buyer signs. Same deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?

Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!

Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.

This will also reduce the casual shopping.

Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.

Why would I pay a realtor by the hour to show me a house? I can call the seller's agent to open the door for me. I'll then pay a lawyer to draft the offer and review the contract.

Honestly opening doors sounds like something the nearest Uber driver could eventually handle for $10/house and yes people could pay an agent or attorney to write an offer contract

While we are at it, why not have the uber driver bring an unhoused person/s to live in the house while its for sale? Seller gets to house someone in need and the unhoused does the showings. Win-win for everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

I thought PP explain this well:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the same a refusing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 that’s what the open houses are for

Not just open houses. The listing agent is responsible for providing showings to unrepresented buyers. It's part of the listing agent's fiduciary duty to the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."

As a teacher with an advanced degree (who makes less than half of that), I cannot pay someone with a high school diploma (which is what many of them have) $200 an hour. I don't think it's rocket science to get the RE licensure.

It’s harder than you think and actually involves a lot of weird math

Provide examples.

Sure. Try the 50-question practice exam here: https://realestatelicensewizard.com/real-estate-math/

Be sure to post your score.

Yikes. Lmao how do I take this seriously?

Question 42: Jon buys a property and closes on March 1st. The seller prepaid the properties annual taxes of $6,000 for the year. How much does Jon owe the seller in real estate taxes?

A. $1,000.00
B. $3,000.00
C. $4,000.00
D. $5,000.00

Well in Arlington VA the tax rate is not set until April, so there could be additional taxes due from the seller who paid the tax based on the old rate. Did Jon’s buyer agent add a provision to the contract making the seller reimburse the buyer for the higher taxes due between Jan 1 and March 1.

Yeah and none of this is done by the agent. The title company obviously handles prepaids and prorations, they do it all the time. You don't need a special provision in the contract. By definition you get reimbursed for any taxes paid up to the closing date. If the rate changes that is fine, the title company does it on a daily rate.

Y'all seriously need to try harder with your dumb hypotheticals.

I'm not an agent but put that provision into the contract for a new home. When we closed, the builder only had to pay his share of the taxes based on the house's assessment as a tear down. When the property was re-assessed with the new house on it, the taxes increased substantially and the builder had to pay us for the extra taxes he owed. I put the provision into our contract because friends who had bought new houses were stuck for paying the extra tax owed by their builders.

Just trying to help people like "Y'all."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?

Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!

Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.

This will also reduce the casual shopping.

Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.

Why would I pay a realtor by the hour to show me a house? I can call the seller's agent to open the door for me. I'll then pay a lawyer to draft the offer and review the contract.

Honestly opening doors sounds like something the nearest Uber driver could eventually handle for $10/house and yes people could pay an agent or attorney to write an offer contract

While we are at it, why not have the uber driver bring an unhoused person/s to live in the house while its for sale? Seller gets to house someone in need and the unhoused does the showings. Win-win for everyone!

Please make sure the homeless person at least flushes the toilet after use and lowers the toilet seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."

As a teacher with an advanced degree (who makes less than half of that), I cannot pay someone with a high school diploma (which is what many of them have) $200 an hour. I don't think it's rocket science to get the RE licensure.

It’s harder than you think and actually involves a lot of weird math

Provide examples.

Sure. Try the 50-question practice exam here: https://realestatelicensewizard.com/real-estate-math/

Be sure to post your score.

Yikes. Lmao how do I take this seriously?

Question 42: Jon buys a property and closes on March 1st. The seller prepaid the properties annual taxes of $6,000 for the year. How much does Jon owe the seller in real estate taxes?

A. $1,000.00
B. $3,000.00
C. $4,000.00
D. $5,000.00

Well in Arlington VA the tax rate is not set until April, so there could be additional taxes due from the seller who paid the tax based on the old rate. Did Jon’s buyer agent add a provision to the contract making the seller reimburse the buyer for the higher taxes due between Jan 1 and March 1.

Yeah and none of this is done by the agent. The title company obviously handles prepaids and prorations, they do it all the time. You don't need a special provision in the contract. By definition you get reimbursed for any taxes paid up to the closing date. If the rate changes that is fine, the title company does it on a daily rate.

Y'all seriously need to try harder with your dumb hypotheticals.

I'm not an agent but put that provision into the contract for a new home. When we closed, the builder only had to pay his share of the taxes based on the house's assessment as a tear down. When the property was re-assessed with the new house on it, the taxes increased substantially and the builder had to pay us for the extra taxes he owed. I put the provision into our contract because friends who had bought new houses were stuck for paying the extra tax owed by their builders.

Just trying to help people like "Y'all."

You wouldn't need that in the contract. If you get a retroactive tax bill from before you owned the property, by definition it's the obligation of the previous owner. You could have just sent the bill to the builder, no matter if you had that provision in the contract or not.

[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: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.

Typical real estate agent scamming. That isn't the law but it's so funny how you have chosen to interpret it to the benefit of the scammer agents. You're proving our point.

Con artist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Fiduciary duties aren't relaxed or waived just because the person doesn't feel compensated. The remedy is find a new job.

The remedy is to commit to a Buyer Agent to ensure your interests as a Buyer are protected.

And make said "required" Buyers agency for one day or one 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: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.

Typical real estate agent scamming. That isn't the law but it's so funny how you have chosen to interpret it to the benefit of the scammer agents. You're proving our point.

Con artist.

Don't trust anything that agents are telling you. No need to be in contract to see a property. They are just trying to trap you and that's why this profession will thin out. Average total commission is already 3-3.5%

[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: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.

Typical real estate agent scamming. That isn't the law but it's so funny how you have chosen to interpret it to the benefit of the scammer agents. You're proving our point.

Con artist.

Don't trust anything that agents are telling you. No need to be in contract to see a property. They are just trying to trap you and that's why this profession will thin out. Average total commission is already 3-3.5%

If you don't sign an agreement (which, as noted above, can be limited to that single house), then the agent showing you the home will not be representing you, but instead will be working for the seller. Just be careful what you say to the agent.

[Anonymous]

Then he don't have to work. There are tons of them around; dime a dozen. They can't fool people anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

I thought PP explain this well:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typical real estate agent scamming. That isn't the law but it's so funny how you have chosen to interpret it to the benefit of the scammer agents. You're proving our point.

Con artist.

Don't trust anything that agents are telling you. No need to be in contract to see a property. They are just trying to trap you and that's why this profession will thin out. Average total commission is already 3-3.5%

If you don't sign an agreement (which, as noted above, can be limited to that single house), then the agent showing you the home will not be representing you, but instead will be working for the seller. Just be careful what you say to the agent.

DP here but it's not like buyers agents look out for the buyers. All realtors are just trying to close the deal and get their commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

I thought PP explain this well:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typical real estate agent scamming. That isn't the law but it's so funny how you have chosen to interpret it to the benefit of the scammer agents. You're proving our point.

Con artist.

Don't trust anything that agents are telling you. No need to be in contract to see a property. They are just trying to trap you and that's why this profession will thin out. Average total commission is already 3-3.5%

If you don't sign an agreement (which, as noted above, can be limited to that single house), then the agent showing you the home will not be representing you, but instead will be working for the seller. Just be careful what you say to the agent.

You need to be careful regardless. Agents want to close a deal. Plenty of people were misled thinking a buyer’s agent is working for the buyer.