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 are the one advocating for this position regardless of how often it has happened to you.
Our agency laws are different. We represent the party we are working with unless the parties agree otherwise. So that buyer would be my client unless the waive that.
You are the one advocating for this position regardless of how often it has happened to you.
Our agency laws are different. We represent the party we are working with unless the parties agree otherwise. So that buyer would be my client unless the waive that.
You make way too many assumptions. I already stated that if I felt an agent or firm was being gamey, I'd send them a letter letting them know they were getting a reduced compensation. The difference is I do it upfront and you're willing to put the buyer and seller into an uncomfortable position with a commission dispute.
It is fine that Illinois has implied agency, but you still have to give them an agency disclosure form, right?
We give the client a notice of who their designated agent is. It is assumed that we are representing the party we are working with unless the parties agree otherwise. If that buyer, for instance, doesn't want representation then they're given a notice of ministerial acts which means were basically filling out paperwork for them without having a client relationship.
A big problem that we have is far too many brokers do not provide that notice and start to work with someone without formally establishing this relationship. The disclosure is supposed to be made as soon as the broker starts to 'work on behalf of the consumer'. It's at that time that the compensation practices are disclosed; and that's a legal requirement to d so. If a broker fails to provide this paperwork and/or have this conversation then that's the start of confusing the buyer as to how things work. That's the first step in how a buyer then goes off on their own without understandign the implications of their actions.
Our state actually has some very good rules in place, it's just that too many brokers ignore them.
Okay so I saw a property for sale on the Internet. I called the realty company and asked for a viewing. Agent met us and showed us property.
We liked the property so got an agent (because we did not want dual agent) and we didnt want an agent earlier because we are always looking for good deals to buy. So we got an agent (to be protected) put an offer in for us. Our buyers agreement states buyer responsible for 6% commission at closing. Also states that commission is authorized negotiable with sellers agent.
Well on the Internet listing commission stated: 2.5% split.
So we put an offer in and listing agent counter offered us stating That commission would be 75% to him/her ( listing agent, sellers agent) and 25% to our agent (buyers agent). Well our agent isn't satisfied with that and countered for a 50/50 commission split. This has been going back and forth for 1.5 months. Yes one and a half months.
We offered to throw in an extra 15k to our realtor to makeup for the 25% loss if we decide to buy after due diligence.
Our realtor then stated that his/herbroker ( who is now involved due to commission problem) will go after us (sue)for the other 25% because in our buyer agreement they said it states that we are responsible for the commission.
The listing agent said since he/she showed us the property he/she deserves the 75% instead of 50%.
This whole ordeal has disgusted me now because all the focus is on the commission so now our attorneys are doing the negotiations of the purchase agreement.
So please any comments, suggestions?
My friend told me to call the real estate commission tomorrow to get advice.
Thank you
This is in New Orleans and it is commercial property. I live in Los Angeles but family in new Orleans are looking for commercial there and I am basically the family secretary
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.
Now the sellers attorney and our attorney are working out the deal.
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)
Yes you are correct. I was looking through loopnet.com for commercial property and saw something of interest. So called listing real estate company office and asked for a viewing. They would not show property without an approval letter from bank. So our bank emailed them one and they let us view. Never a question if we had a realtor, etc. just wanted to know qualified. No agent agreement at that time. Then after viewing property we got a realtor because the listing agent said we could not see the books (financials) of property unless we put an offer in.
First of all commissions are not part of real estate transactions between buyers and sellers. What your buyer agent needs to do is close the transaction for you and then file a complaint with the MLS regarding their compensation. If the listing says 2.5% then that is what they are legally entitled to by MLS rules. This needs to be handled outside the transaction. The listing agent will lose. They can be slimy all they want but showing a property is not procuring cause and that has been established legally. Even if they aren't a REALTOR, they are still bound by the rules and by-laws of the MLS. The listing agent will lose membership rights if they don't pay what they said they would.
I think the issue is that in CA, you actually write the commissions in the purchase and sale agreement which is insane. Ours aren't part of the purchase and sale agreement because they aren't relevant to it. Personally, I'm not impressed with your agent and their brokers handling of this.
Well the listing agent is the broker too.
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.
