Want to buy a house without an agent - the listing agent has cancelled the showing. Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percent of realtors are morons that have gone into the business because they have realized they truly have no marketable skills; their only option to feed themselves is to join the NAR gestapo. On the high end of the market around here where the buyers and sellers are both well educated (and oftentimes attorneys), realtors truly serve no purpose other than unlocking the door. My 8 year old could put together better marketing material than what you see on most MLS listings, and when a house goes under contract in 3 days, what work has the realtor actually done. All you need to buy/sell a home is a set of comparable sales (which, with a lag, are public record), an inspector, an attorney, and a bank. Anyone else involved in the transaction is simply a parasite. I just hope I live to see the day when the traditional real estate brokerage is killed off for good. Another antitrust suit from the FTC against the MLS might do the trick.

I encourage the OP to contact the seller directly; if the agent did not fulfill her fiduciary duty to the seller to the letter of the contract, go after her license. Until buyers and sellers start holding these idiots responsible for their behavior, this bullshit will continue. Best of luck.

Yes, but I make a lot more money than you do and did not have to settle for a job at the antitrust division of DOJ or FTC. Unlike you I deal with partners at big law who respect and trust me and who have first year assocaites easily answer your silly pleadings. You deal at your level, I will deal at mine. And I don't do it from my piss poor quality "million" dollar home in wherever it is government lawyers can afford to live. I don't deal with the likes of you, so I wouldn't know.

In addition to proving that you can't even competently manage the "quote" function, you've just established yourself as a monumentally arrogant and self-absorbed douchebag.

The top quality firms I'm familiar with would run a sorry-ass twit like you out the door if you copped that attitude, it shows a lack of class and manners and stupendous incivility.

[Anonymous]

p.s. I have to laugh at the arrogant preener crowing about having BigLaw partners who "respect and trust" him, because I wonder if the preener knows that many of those BigLaw partners are lining up for senior attorney positions at Federal agencies to escape BigLaw.

Just in my former agency within the past 3 yrs. we would get 300+ resumes for a GS-15 attorney position and at least a dozen or more would be from partners or senior associates in BigLaw firms.

And we would usually reject them because they lacked the specialized experience we sought ... so much for "settling", as Mr. Preen calls it.

What a maroon.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

No. The lawyer is representing herself. She is her own rep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.

If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.

If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...

what a lot of people here seem not to understand is that all OP wants is "saving" 1 or 2or more % of the sale price but getting it back as a rebate from the seller's agent. there is no law that says that OP has the right to get that money if OP does not havea an agent. the ^% (or 5% or whatever ois in the contract between seller and the agent) simply goes to the seller's agent, who will split with the buyer's agent if there is one. OP is not an agent, he has not right to the rabate. if OP contacts the seller directly, and the sale goes through, l still have to pay 6% o the sale to the seller's agent, since most agreemetns are exclusive for a period of time, so a seller who is paying an agent will still use the seller's agent even if OP contact the seller directly. this issue here is the market - getting money back was easier on the past,nnow it is a seller's marlket., super hot in some areas, houses sell super fast ion days from listing, with multiple offers, so OP's technique is not going to fly if he is trying to buy n a super hot market. and now many sellers negotiate a lower % commission to the seller's agent (I heard of seller giving 5% or even 4% to agents since the market is so hot and often a house goes under contract even before any open house), so seller's agent may not be inclined to cut their commossion even further when there are plenty of buyers and OP would makde them work more (case in point, if OP had his own agent, the seller's agent would not need to get up and gpo to open the house for him)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:99 percent of realtors are morons that have gone into the business because they have realized they truly have no marketable skills; their only option to feed themselves is to join the NAR gestapo. On the high end of the market around here where the buyers and sellers are both well educated (and oftentimes attorneys), realtors truly serve no purpose other than unlocking the door. My 8 year old could put together better marketing material than what you see on most MLS listings, and when a house goes under contract in 3 days, what work has the realtor actually done. All you need to buy/sell a home is a set of comparable sales (which, with a lag, are public record), an inspector, an attorney, and a bank. Anyone else involved in the transaction is simply a parasite. I just hope I live to see the day when the traditional real estate brokerage is killed off for good. Another antitrust suit from the FTC against the MLS might do the trick.

I encourage the OP to contact the seller directly; if the agent did not fulfill her fiduciary duty to the seller to the letter of the contract, go after her license. Until buyers and sellers start holding these idiots responsible for their behavior, this bullshit will continue. Best of luck.

the seller will have to pay the full commission even if OP contact the seller directly, since most contracts are exclusive, any sale done whithing to time of the exclusive relationship the seller has to pay commission, even if the agent did not find the buyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, but I make a lot more money than you do and did not have to settle for a job at the antitrust division of DOJ or FTC. Unlike you I deal with partners at big law who respect and trust me and who have first year assocaites easily answer your silly pleadings. You deal at your level, I will deal at mine. And I don't do it from my piss poor quality "million" dollar home in wherever it is government lawyers can afford to live. I don't deal with the likes of you, so I wouldn't know.

Thanks for proving my point about realtors being idiots. You needed shockingly little rope to hang yourself. Furthermore, I am not a lawyer; my statement about the FTC was referring to cases brought against the MLS for acting as a cartel that illegally restrained trade. If the real estate industry wasn't full of dipshits like you, people might actually have some respect for it. As for your statement about my earnings that you somehow gleaned from my post: gag a fucking maggot. Only in DC would a parasitic broker shoot off her mouth about how much she makes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

No. The lawyer is representing herself. She is her own rep.

If she's representing herself, she'd need a real estate license. If she represents herself as a real estate attorney (i.e. does her own closing paperwork), she's free to do so, but the fact is that she still needs someone to provide access to the house. If an agent - any agent - opens the door for her, that agent has procuring cause and can claim the commission. The reality of real estate market in the U.S. means you cannot gain access to the house without someone to open the door for you. If it's the listing agent, then the listing agent will claim all 6%. If it's a buyer's agent, then the buyer agent will claim his/her share. If someone else lets you into the door (i.e. seller, open house etc.), you still need the seller and his/her agent to AGREE to rebate you part of the commission. You may not like it, but that is how the arrangement is set up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.

What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.

[Anonymous]

Where is OP? Is the house under contract or not? If it's under contract, then you just may have been too late. We listed our house Tuesday evening and by Wednesday evening had 2 offers. By Thursday evening we had 4. Our agent was getting calls for showings on Friday and over the weekend but we were happy with one of the offers we had gotten so we went with that and she did not schedule any more showings. Since OP canceled a showing with the listing agent's colleague, someone else may have snapped up the house in the meantime. The listing agent didn't do anything wrong if her homeowners told her to stop showing the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

No. The lawyer is representing herself. She is her own rep.

If she's representing herself, she'd need a real estate license. If she represents herself as a real estate attorney (i.e. does her own closing paperwork), she's free to do so, but the fact is that she still needs someone to provide access to the house. If an agent - any agent - opens the door for her, that agent has procuring cause and can claim the commission. The reality of real estate market in the U.S. means you cannot gain access to the house without someone to open the door for you. If it's the listing agent, then the listing agent will claim all 6%. If it's a buyer's agent, then the buyer agent will claim his/her share. If someone else lets you into the door (i.e. seller, open house etc.), you still need the seller and his/her agent to AGREE to rebate you part of the commission. You may not like it, but that is how the arrangement is set up.

Not if the buyer hasn't signed anything! And ESP not if the buyer just called to ask about open house and to speak to the listing agent and was instead routed to another agent at the same company without her knowledge.

[Anonymous]

13:13 here ... I agree the buyer's not likely to cut the commission here (and has no right to expect that), I was only suggesting a route to at least get the balking agent to show the house ...

[Anonymous]

Preener here. The partners with whom I work head federal agencies as political favours or remain at biglaw. It is those without a book of business who go fed