Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there an honest difference between dual agency compared to neutral agency? If so, please enlighten me.
I've never heard the term "neutral agent" in my area - the "agency" part of the term might be a bit confusing - the Real Estate Broker is actually the "agent" in a "dual agency" agreement here - both the buyer and the seller would still have "salespeople" representing their sides of the deal & the salespeople are free to negotiate in a death-match style, claw each others eyes out, trade offers, counter-offers & addendums back & forth.. the Broker can't favor one over the other though, or allow info favorable to one agent (salesperson) to get to the other (salesperson).
some states allow "transaction coordinators", which might be more "neutral", the legal theory behind transaction coordinators is more like, "you two hash out the details, & I'll push the paperwork through"..
With either style of representation, there's an implication of "fairness", I.E., the broker is supposed to make sure the sellers disclose everything they're required to by law, neither party is allowed to hide material facts, etc.
I've never heard the term "neutral agent" in my area - the "agency" part of the term might be a bit confusing - the Real Estate Broker is actually the "agent" in a "dual agency" agreement here - both the buyer and the seller would still have "salespeople" representing their sides of the deal & the salespeople are free to negotiate in a death-match style, claw each others eyes out, trade offers, counter-offers & addendums back & forth.. the Broker can't favor one over the other though, or allow info favorable to one agent to get to the other..
some states allow "transaction coordinators", which might be more "neutral", the legal theory behind transaction coordinators is more like, "you two hash out the details, & I'll push the paperwork through"..
Considering your suggestion (emboldened) is correct, then that would, in a sense, nullify the need of the agent when a real estate attorney could fill the position for a lesser sum and essentially rendering the transaction a FSBO. The only real difference, I imagine, would be in marketing exposure- broker vs. FSBO program.
Not sure about Alaska, but our state has a few dual agency forms that explicitly list what the dual agent can do. So all parties know upfront what sort of services will be provided under dual agency and the buyer and seller can act appropriately with respect to things like confidentiality that might otherwise not have been a problem with single agency.
Considering your suggestion (emboldened) is correct, then that would, in a sense, nullify the need of the agent when a real estate attorney could fill the position for a lesser sum and essentially rendering the transaction a FSBO. The only real difference, I imagine, would be in marketing exposure- broker vs. FSBO program.
I wouldn't argue that point from a legal perspective, except to point out than in many/most states an attorney is allowed to "practice" real-
estate with little/no practical "real world" training & no continuing education specific to real-estate. In my area, our "standard" purchase contract is actually a time/court-tested jewel, that gets updated & revised all the time as legal issues & court cases get resolved. Theoretically, "any" attorney could write a "better" purchase contract themselves, but in practice, unless they do it all day long & all they do is real-estate, they're not going to get all the details themselves on the first try.
If the buyer & seller are sincere & have the best of intentions, all you "need" to transfer a property is a very simple "quit claim" deed & a stack of hundred-dollar bills to effect a painless, quick transaction. The wrinkle is, when things don't go as planned & a 9-page contract with all the common sticking points addressed smooths the process out considerably. An attorney or a fsbo can't just photocopy the "standard" purchase contract in my area, and even if they did, they wouldn't have the benefit of specific education on that particular contract to use all of it to the best advantage/ protection of everyone involved.
As for doing it at "lower cost", I really don't believe that myself - an attorney is just as likely to create issues in a transaction as to prevent them, unless they do it every day. In my state, attorneys can get a real-estate salesperson's license simply by attending (not passing) real estate classes. The attorney who sat next to me when I was taking classes played solitaire the entire time on his laptop, maybe he already knew everything, lol, but I wouldn't want to hire him based on that performance.
I generally don't think very highly of the real-estate industry & I jumped through the hoops to get my own license, mostly to protect myself & avoid paying those who don't add much "value" to the process. That said, having seen both sides of the issue, I can certainly see the value of even "transaction coordinating" - it might not be "worth" 5% of a deal, but it is "worth" more than $0. And rule #1 in real estate is that all things are negotiable. I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a "transaction coordinator" for pretty darn cheap if you looked around a bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
