Which direction is the housing market moving? (Madison, York: attorney, house prices)

[Seth Parker]

Originally Posted by TimG

Love Jimi but would likely favor Clapton for the 'All Time' category and hands down for best living guitarist. Believe it or not I think a young man by the name Johny Lang ain't bad either.

I'd give the nod for #2 to Stevie Ray. Clapton is the best living, without a doubt....and a solid #3 of all time.

Was thinking "didn't mean to take up all of your sweet time, I'll give it right back to you....one of these days.." in regards to the OP

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by TimG

When Elizabeth first came to Huntsville it was not long before she walked in the door one evening and literally stated:

"OMG Huntsville is where nerds rule. The Huntsville real estate market is almost totally made up of a bunch of nerds."

I responded, well you should know, you're married to one of them.

Then Elizabeth, with eyes wide-open, jaw dropped, and stood still for a moment.

She began to sob uncontrollably, hitting her chest and cry over and over saying "My Gawd, what have I done with MY life !!!"

[TimG]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

Then Elizabeth, with eyes wide-open, jaw dropped, and stood still for a moment.

She began to sob uncontrollably, hitting her chest and cry over and over saying "My Gawd, what have I done with MY life !!!"

literally lol ...that is pretty close ...lol

[LCTMadison]

The problem arises based on how our real estate system is based. The simple fact that I'm a Realtor automatically means that I'm representing the seller on any particular home, right out of the gate. If we were to meet for the first time at a house, I'm immediately liable for anything I say, contract or no contract. If it's a $500K house and I say the seller will take $400K, I can be held legally accountable for the difference if the seller would not make the deal.


This statement was true...until September of 1996 when the Alabama legislature passed and the Governor signed the Alabama Real Estate Consumer Agency Disclosure Act, or RECAD. That act established that agency relationships must be established in writing, or the agent is automatically a transaction broker.

Unless the seller offers subagency, thereby accepting an agency relationship through subagency with all agents, and therefore any liability for any misinformation that any agent may state about his or her property, the seller cannot be held liable for any information that any agent states that he does not have an agency relationship with. You automatically have subagency relationships within companies, as all clients are clients of the broker, thus they become clients of all the agents licensed under that broker. Agency relationships are between client and broker.

Furthermore, if an agent has knowledge about a property, and they do not have an agency relationship with the seller of that property, then they are REQUIRED by their fiduciary responsibility to their client (the buyer) to disclose that information to their client, even if it is detrimental to the seller.

In Dual Agency, you have fiduciary responsibilities to both the buyer and the seller. You can not say anything to one that could be detrimental to the other. It's like walking on a freaking tightrope, and is the main reason why I am not with a large company. I HATE dual agency.

So, in your example, if you knew (for a fact) a seller would take $100k less for a property, and you had no agency relationship with that seller, then you are required to disclose that to your buyer (assuming that you have an agency relationship with the buyer) even if it is detrimental to the seller. If the seller does not accept, you are not liable. I don't think I would ever tell a buyer "I know this seller will do this, this, or this" because you may end up eating your words and losing credibility and trust with your buyer. Better to say "we may can get the seller to accept x, y, z".

On the other hand, if you DID NOT tell your buyer, and your buyer found out that you did not disclose pertinent information (and I would say $100k is pretty pertinent) then your BUYER can hold you liable, as you have violated agency law in Alabama.

[TimG]

Originally Posted by LCTMadison

In Dual Agency, you have fiduciary responsibilities to both the buyer and the seller. You can not say anything to one that could be detrimental to the other. It's like walking on a freaking tightrope, and is the main reason why I am not with a large company. I HATE dual agency.

Yep a small company limits dual agency but does not effectively eliminate its possibility in Alabama, that is, if the small company still lists properties. Other states with dual agency have also allowed designated agency which gives a brokerage another option to manage this sticky situation but such is not the case in Alabama.

[LCTMadison]

You're right Tim, and we get into it every once in a while.....one time a few years back I had a client completely against it so we paid a referral to another agent to represent and negotiate for the buyer. It was either that, or completely lose the sale. But the agent we got is fantastic, and the buyer was extremely happy with the outcome.

I just could not imagine working for a big company like Remax or Keller Williams for that reason alone...they have to deal with that on a daily basis.

[TimG]

Originally Posted by LCTMadison

I just could not imagine working for a big company like Remax or Keller Williams for that reason alone...they have to deal with that on a daily basis.

Same in our family and was the main reason Elizabeth left ReMax

[LCTMadison]

There is some agent who has it on our April agenda (MLS committee) to completely do away with ValleyMLS.

Are you kidding me????

[Seth Parker]

Originally Posted by LCTMadison

The problem arises based on how our real estate system is based. The simple fact that I'm a Realtor automatically means that I'm representing the seller on any particular home, right out of the gate. If we were to meet for the first time at a house, I'm immediately liable for anything I say, contract or no contract. If it's a $500K house and I say the seller will take $400K, I can be held legally accountable for the difference if the seller would not make the deal.


This statement was true...until September of 1996 when the Alabama legislature passed and the Governor signed the Alabama Real Estate Consumer Agency Disclosure Act, or RECAD. That act established that agency relationships must be established in writing, or the agent is automatically a transaction broker.

Unless the seller offers subagency, thereby accepting an agency relationship through subagency with all agents, and therefore any liability for any misinformation that any agent may state about his or her property, the seller cannot be held liable for any information that any agent states that he does not have an agency relationship with. You automatically have subagency relationships within companies, as all clients are clients of the broker, thus they become clients of all the agents licensed under that broker. Agency relationships are between client and broker.

Furthermore, if an agent has knowledge about a property, and they do not have an agency relationship with the seller of that property, then they are REQUIRED by their fiduciary responsibility to their client (the buyer) to disclose that information to their client, even if it is detrimental to the seller.

In Dual Agency, you have fiduciary responsibilities to both the buyer and the seller. You can not say anything to one that could be detrimental to the other. It's like walking on a freaking tightrope, and is the main reason why I am not with a large company. I HATE dual agency.

So, in your example, if you knew (for a fact) a seller would take $100k less for a property, and you had no agency relationship with that seller, then you are required to disclose that to your buyer (assuming that you have an agency relationship with the buyer) even if it is detrimental to the seller. If the seller does not accept, you are not liable. I don't think I would ever tell a buyer "I know this seller will do this, this, or this" because you may end up eating your words and losing credibility and trust with your buyer. Better to say "we may can get the seller to accept x, y, z".

On the other hand, if you DID NOT tell your buyer, and your buyer found out that you did not disclose pertinent information (and I would say $100k is pretty pertinent) then your BUYER can hold you liable, as you have violated agency law in Alabama.

Sorry, about that. What I said was factually wrong (old timers still ringing in my head), but it's more of the principle behind the thought, there, in regards to the previous sqft/age conversation. We have to watch what we say due to legal ramifications. Not to mention, a lot of that stuff in regards to agency can turn into a massive he said/she said argument as to who knew what and when.

I agree about dual agency. I don't participate in it. It's either one or the other for me. Good write up about agency, there, though.

[Seth Parker]

Originally Posted by LCTMadison

There is some agent who has it on our April agenda (MLS committee) to completely do away with ValleyMLS.

Are you kidding me????

Wow. That will never fly.