U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2012, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,885 posts, read 36,412,001 times
Reputation: 21327

Advertisements

MrRational, different states work different ways. The way that you're used to is not necessarily the best way just because you're used to it. That's actually pretty much the opposite of "rational", when you get right down to it.

The vast majority of real estate deals in states that are not lawyer states go smoothly for buyer and seller, with both sides having agents to represent their interests. There is no additional cost to either party beyond the commission; no lawyer's fees necessary. (And I used to be a legal assistant, so I have no problem with attorneys, quite like a lot of them, in fact, though that field of endeavor, just like any other, has its bad apples.) Attorneys ARE involved in states where every principal involved in a real estate transaction doesn't have to have their own attorney (though they're welcome to, of course - it says so right on the contract form used in Texas, at least, and has a place for the names and contact information of the attorneys involved to be filled in if the parties so desire, so that those attorneys can be automatically sent a copy of all documents as they occur). It's just that the attorneys are those of the real estate commission and the title companies, rather than of the individual principals to the deal.

The system works fine for everyone short of extraordinary circumstances such as those described by the OP, and there's even a system for dealing with those that has been spelled out here by several people. That it's not your personal preference doesn't change that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2012, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Needham, MA
6,324 posts, read 9,039,168 times
Reputation: 5324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Agents serve the SELLERS interests well. Some agents, maybe even most, can do well for buyers too.
Buyers still need lawyers... and they need them more than they need an agent.
I would strongly disagree with your position that buyers need an attorney more than an agent. There are certainly skills, knowledge, and experience that attorneys possess that agents do not but the reverse holds true as well.

I work in a state where every RE transaction involves an attorney and I firmly believe having a good agent and a good attorney on your side working as a team is an unbeatable combination for any buyer or seller. It's not every transaction that you must have a good agent and it's not every transaction where you must have a good attorney, but in times when you do need them they're invaluable and you just never know when those situations are going to pop up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 08:47 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,876 posts, read 57,944,657 times
Reputation: 29313
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
The way that you're used to is not necessarily the best way just because you're used to it.
That's actually pretty much the opposite of "rational", when you get right down to it.
And if that were the basis of my argument you would have a point.
It isn't... so you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU View Post
...in times when you do need them they're invaluable
and you just never know when those situations are going to pop up.
This IS the point... "Forewarned is forearmed"

To repeat... the BUYER is almost always making the largest financial transaction in their life.
Even if they have bought before... these are a rare occurrence in their lives.
They should not be expected to know the ins and outs of what is a LEGAL matter.

However often these contracts and negotiations and contingencies can be accomplished
without an attorney counseling the buyer is quite immaterial.

Quote:
I would strongly disagree with your position that buyers need an attorney more than an agent.
And you're welcome to your view. I'll get over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Lexington, SC
4,281 posts, read 10,296,677 times
Reputation: 3700
I say seller needs an agent to market the place and buyer needs a lawyer to be sure all paperwork is in order. I would be hard pressed to justify a buyers agent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 09:22 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,876 posts, read 57,944,657 times
Reputation: 29313
Quote:
Originally Posted by accufitgolf View Post
...and buyer needs a lawyer to be sure all paperwork is in order.
There is a fair bit more to their role and utility on the buyer's behalf than just that....
but to have that utility (even if it isn't ultimately needed) they have to be there.

You don't have to sign a retainer agreement before you start looking...
but absolutely have that well recommended name and their number available.

Quote:
I would be hard pressed to justify a buyers agent.
They have their place too.
The inept, the rookie and the overly busy buyer are good examples of such.
Even in general, having that insider to do for you or ask the questions of is good...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 09:38 AM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 38,328,551 times
Reputation: 16099
Quote:
Originally Posted by accufitgolf View Post
I would be hard pressed to justify a buyers agent.
But is there any justification for not having one? What are the chances a buyer will see a reduction in the price if they don't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 10:15 AM
 
936 posts, read 1,750,140 times
Reputation: 934
Your situation sounds confusing. But if I understand it correctly, it started out with you having an agent showing you a house that you want to buy, but you then changed agents after the house was shown to you? If that's correct, then in our area that original agent would have a claim for being the procurring cause.

If you don't like dual agency then you should have initially gotten yourself your own agent prior to looking at any houses.

On a related note- I too don't understand how it's not common in some states for parties to not be represented by an attorney. Our state is pretty picky about unauthorized practice of law which means that the parties to the transaction (other than attornies) are very careful to not give out legal advice at a closing. That means that if the buyer or seller has any legal questions that they are likely to not get their questions adequately answered from someone at the closing unless they have their own attorney.

Even the title company person is there to represent the lender's interest and is not allowed to interprate documents. Virtually every buyer at a closing has questions about the documents that they are signing and they're out of luck without their own attorney unless the title company staff wants to engage in UPL.

I would guess that the vast majority of buyers and sellers have legal questions at closings and that, when unrepresented, are relying upon legal advice from people who are legally not supposed to be providing it in those states where it is not common to have an attorney at closing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Florida -
8,248 posts, read 10,010,784 times
Reputation: 15120
Quote:
Originally Posted by yousah View Post
Your situation sounds confusing. But if I understand it correctly, it started out with you having an agent showing you a house that you want to buy, but you then changed agents after the house was shown to you? If that's correct, then in our area that original agent would have a claim for being the procurring cause.

If you don't like dual agency then you should have initially gotten yourself your own agent prior to looking at any houses.

I agree. The presented situation sounds too bizarre to be as simple as greedy realtors. If one realtor showed you the place and then, you changed realtors to actually buy the place, it sounds like you have actually created the situation you are in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,876 posts, read 57,944,657 times
Reputation: 29313
Quote:
Originally Posted by yousah View Post
Your situation sounds confusing.
But if I understand it correctly, it started out with you having an agent showing you a house that you want to buy, but you then changed agents after the house was shown to you? If that's correct...
No. That doesn't seem to be correct.

per the OP:
They were out looking around... and asked the listing agent to open the door to see the inside.
There is no mention of any agency agreement being signed at that time.

Once they decided they wanted to be serious... they found a BUYERS agent.
(apparently they found them under a rock somewhere with the other slugs)


Quote:
I would guess that the vast majority of buyers and sellers have legal questions at closings and that, when unrepresented, are relying upon legal advice from people who are legally not supposed to be providing it in those states where it is not common to have an attorney at closing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 10:40 AM
 
936 posts, read 1,750,140 times
Reputation: 934
That's a strange way to inteprate it. The agent just opened the door for them. Yeah right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top