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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
What a con artist you are. You get paid so much to do so little and yet here you are whining that unlocking a door to let a potential buyer see a house is too much. You are the reason most of us hate real estate agents.
No, I am not required to have a contract with a real estate professional to see a house I may be interested in buying. If you refuse to show me a house because I do not have a contract with a real estate professional I will sue you and your company. What you are doing is actionable.
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.
Not with this whiner. A good agent wants as many people as possible seeing their listing. This agent is butthurt about the changes coming and, in effect, wants to take their ball and go home.
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.
+1 One or more realtors have been insisting that showing unrepresented buyers the home is some sort of new (impossible to execute) responsibility when it's not.
Then they kept digging deeper and deeper insisting that if the buyer couldn't make it to the open house then they won't show the house and the buyer needs to go pay for a buyer's agent (a clear breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), or that suddenly there's a myriad of security issues (not true - agents show buyers houses all the time so use whatever existing protocols), or that now the unrepresented buyers must be represented by the listing agent to see the house (another breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), an more inane arguments.
Anytime posters prove why buyers agents aren't necessary, realtors flock to undermine with more gaslighting.
Resistance is futile. You are in denial. Also from the web: "Effective August 17th, a Realtor CANNOT show you a home unless you have signed a representation agreement with them. This INCLUDES calling the listing agent...This will be non negotiable for any real estate agent with a Realtor designation."
Yet again, complete misrepresentation of the new rule. That only means you as a BUYERS agent can't show a home to your BUYER unless you have an agreement with them, as discussed a few pages back.
There is not, and won't be, a rule against a LISTING agent showing the home to a buyer without an agent.
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.
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.
What a con artist you are. You get paid so much to do so little and yet here you are whining that unlocking a door to let a potential buyer see a house is too much. You are the reason most of us hate real estate agents.
No, I am not required to have a contract with a real estate professional to see a house I may be interested in buying. If you refuse to show me a house because I do not have a contract with a real estate professional I will sue you and your company. What you are doing is actionable.
+1 And as a soon-to-be seller, please contact me if my listing agent ever tries to breach their fiduciary duty to me by refusing to show you my property. It would be grounds to cancel the listing agreement and I'll sell it to you direct with a discount since I wouldn't be paying realtor commission.
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.
Not with this whiner. A good agent wants as many people as possible seeing their listing. This agent is butthurt about the changes coming and, in effect, wants to take their ball and go home.
A good agent won't put unnecessary barriers in place to selling the home. There's no need for any sort of signed agreement or other hurdle to make it harder for buyers to see and purchase the home without using a buyers agent. In fact it would be illegal for a listing agent to add these barriers that result in price fixing.
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.
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.
What a con artist you are. You get paid so much to do so little and yet here you are whining that unlocking a door to let a potential buyer see a house is too much. You are the reason most of us hate real estate agents.
No, I am not required to have a contract with a real estate professional to see a house I may be interested in buying. If you refuse to show me a house because I do not have a contract with a real estate professional I will sue you and your company. What you are doing is actionable.
+1 And as a soon-to-be seller, please contact me if my listing agent ever tries to breach their fiduciary duty to me by refusing to show you my property. It would be grounds to cancel the listing agreement and I'll sell it to you direct with a discount since I wouldn't be paying realtor commission.
Bet you you are not going to have a listing agent Sit in your home and show the lookie loos who are going to come by and who are never going to or able to buy a house. Good luck!
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
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.
Can you let me know where that provision was located in our builder's contract?
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.
Not with this whiner. A good agent wants as many people as possible seeing their listing. This agent is butthurt about the changes coming and, in effect, wants to take their ball and go home.
I am so looking forward to the change. I mostly list houses and would be delighted to deal with the buyers myself. Most buyer agents dump the buyers on the listing agent, particularly with new homes. I would rather deal with the buyer than let a buyer agent muck up a transaction.
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
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.
Can you let me know where that provision was located in our builder's contract?
It's not needed because it's a basic concept of any property transfer. Any charges related to before you took ownership remain the obligation of the previous owner. With or without that clause, you would get the bill from the tax agency, do the calculations of what was owed related to the previous ownership period, and send the bill to the builder.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Sit in your home and show the lookie loos who are going to come by and who are never going to or able to buy a house. Good luck!