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.
You really want to go back through it? The initial point was and remains that the prohibitions on payments to a third party do not apply to the client. You and Captain Bill appear to take the position that they do. I claim they do not. How has this been lost? You certainly have not proven your position.
Obviously we're going nowhere with this. You are operating as you know the Nevada law, and we're operating as we know the Arizona law. It is not necessary that he or I provide any further sources because we operate in different states.
In Arizona the law clearly states that we cannot offer a commission or kickback to an unlicensed person. We can discount our commission to either the buyer or seller provided that it is in the HUD 1 and in compliance with RESPA.
That is the law that I live by. You live by what you understand the Nevada law to be. We all must live by RESPA, and it's entirely up to you how you deal with that.
There isn't anything else that I can add. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm simply stating how I understand the AZ law from reading it, and from my training, and from reading RESPA and Michele Linds (General Counsel of the Arizona AAR) book that deals with AZ real estate law and RESPA.
Obviously we're going nowhere with this. You are operating as you know the Nevada law, and we're operating as we know the Arizona law. It is not necessary that he or I provide any further sources because we operate in different states.
In Arizona the law clearly states that we cannot offer a commission or kickback to an unlicensed person. We can discount our commission to either the buyer or seller provided that it is in the HUD 1 and in compliance with RESPA.
That is the law that I live by. You live by what you understand the Nevada law to be. We all must live by RESPA, and it's entirely up to you how you deal with that.
There isn't anything else that I can add. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm simply stating how I understand the AZ law from reading it, and from my training, and from reading RESPA and Michele Linds (General Counsel of the Arizona AAR) book that deals with AZ real estate law and RESPA.
Sorry Bill but I do not believe you or GD have provided any evidence that such a law exsits in AZ. You have shown you have the same laws (approximately) that we do in Nevada with respect to payment to unlicensed non parties. But specifics that would deal with a participant allude you.
I may well be that such a payment is illegal in AZ. At this point though I doubt it...GD is very knowledgable and would have produced the law if it existed.
We as a profession have a propensity to define as law whatever we are taught or learned. Much of it however turns out to be untrue when scrutinized.
The CYA approaches of the brokerages to the fair housing laws are an example. People swear they are law though they are not.
An instructor a couple of weeks ago stated that new Nevada law requires buyers broker agreements to have a client relationship with a buyer. That would be a very large change here where buyer agreements are almost never done. Turns out however that the buyers agreement can be verbal and need not be in writing...so it is same old same old. Talk to someone about a purchase and you have a buyers broker agreement.
When GD cannot produce the law or regulation it likely does not exist.
I agree though that we have beaten it to death....
When GD cannot produce the law or regulation it likely does not exist.
A) Az law does not make a distinction with the word "client".
B) I have much better things to do than spend my time dealing with your demands. You can choose to accept what Bill and I have said - or not. Matters not to me. You continue doing what you are doing - even though, I know you are wrong - as do others. It is merely your ego that prohibits acknowledging you are wrong
A) Az law does not make a distinction with the word "client".
B) I have much better things to do than spend my time dealing with your demands. You can choose to accept what Bill and I have said - or not. Matters not to me. You continue doing what you are doing - even though, I know you are wrong - as do others. It is merely your ego that prohibits acknowledging you are wrong
That you always Greatday...can't prove your point...attack...
I'm not quite sure what you're asking capt, but if you're talking about an agent giving back part of their commission to their client, that can be done as long as it's in the HUD as a discounted commission to assist with closing costs. That's legal as long as it's in the HUD-1.
I believe the original question was whether the state of Florida allows Brokers to share commissions with their clients. The answer, according to the Department of Justice's website on this matter, is yes. With regard to the argument between AZ and NM, both of those states allow rebates, as well ( DOJ/Antitrust: Real Estate Laws in Your State).
To Middle-Aged Mom, if your Barrington is the one in Illinois, rebates are currently allowed. However, there is a Bill in the House, right now, that is proposing to ban rebates. The Judicial Law Committee has a hearing scheduled this Wednesday, on that matter.
I believe the original question was whether the state of Florida allows Brokers to share commissions with their clients. The answer, according to the Department of Justice's website on this matter, is yes. With regard to the argument between AZ and NM, both of those states allow rebates, as well ( DOJ/Antitrust: Real Estate Laws in Your State).
To Middle-Aged Mom, if your Barrington is the one in Illinois, rebates are currently allowed. However, there is a Bill in the House, right now, that is proposing to ban rebates. The Judicial Law Committee has a hearing scheduled this Wednesday, on that matter.
Some of you might profit from going through the link and reading the feds views on rebate restrtictions including banning them after escrow....
It is still amazing what we don't know about what we do...
I believe the original question was whether the state of Florida allows Brokers to share commissions with their clients. The answer, according to the Department of Justice's website on this matter, is yes. With regard to the argument between AZ and NM, both of those states allow rebates, as well ( DOJ/Antitrust: Real Estate Laws in Your State).
To Middle-Aged Mom, if your Barrington is the one in Illinois, rebates are currently allowed. However, there is a Bill in the House, right now, that is proposing to ban rebates. The Judicial Law Committee has a hearing scheduled this Wednesday, on that matter.
I am painfully aware of the current status in Illinois. Thanks for the link as it will clear up a lot of confusion.
Ah comeon we already did this one. There is no HUD1 in a cash deal.
RESPA and HUD1 deal with loan disclosure laws not the payment of rebates to clients.
You are right, sir.
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.