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.
I see your point, but it's been my experience that what one thinks is viable another doesn't. And then arbitration decides whats what if it gets ugly. She should let her agent know up front.
Except for the fact I was posting facts based on how procuring cause is defined and determined in my state and you weren't. Therefore, it wasn't what I thought would happen but what the definition of procuring cause is to the best of my knowledge with a disclaimer it may different in other locations.
When I was selling real estate 30+ years ago, it was common practice in my community that the first agent to show a property to the eventual buyer got the sales commission. I'm sure there were a few agents who showed up late, got the sales contract and the selling commission, but it was just easier to assume that the first one to show the property to the buyer got the sales commission -- if the question came up. I'm from a small city, which was even smaller back then, and agents tried to all get along with each other. (Works better that way for everyone.) I can't recall ever having a dispute about who earned a commission that I was involved with, or for that matter, who was the "procuring cause".
Back then there was also no question of who had the fiduciary loyalty of agents. Unless the buyer contracted with and paid an agent directly, the agent owed loyalty to the seller. I always made that clear when dealing with buyers but never did have one say, "Oh, in that case we'll pay your commission so you can represent us." Never heard a buyer complain that I wasn't fair either. I personally sold many of my own listings. There were a handful that sold for more than what I knew the seller would take, but I only knew that because I was the listing agent. No other agent knew it. Had I mentioned it to a buyer, now that would have been bad. Illegal too. If the buyer thought the price was too high I could suggest they offer what they were willing to pay with the hope the offer would be accepted, but that's as far as I would go, and I'd do that with anyone for any property. If there were later problems with the closing, I wanted what both the buyer and seller wanted, a fair deal for both, and I think I was able to do that just fine with my duty to the seller. After all, it wasn't going to do the seller any good to have the buyer walk.
I've never worked within the "buying agent" and "selling agent" format. Seems like a good idea, but I wonder if it just gives a false sense of security to buyers. Dunno, just wonder.
What seems odd to me though is that in the last of the three scenarios, there is no mention of getting agreement from the seller. The seller was represented exclusively by the agent and then it morphed into a dual agency situation. I thought that the seller had to agree since a large part of the value for the fees that they are paying for (i.e. being represented exclusively) has just evaporated. i understand that there needs to be some simplification in these videos but I would think that this is an important point in determining who the agent represents.
Oh JB - I hope you're not asking me to clarify something Annie said. She's much better at this than I am. We just had a live continuing ed class with her this week... 7.5 hours. A long day with any speaker, but she's worth it. She speaks very plain and clearly.
Don't feel bad, agents have their own weird rules they think people should follow to protect their cartel. They are clinging to a model that flourished before people could use the internet to find homes. Nobody is worth 3% of a house just to talk to the selling agent and help you fill out some forms once you found the house you want.
Eh, if you wanted a buyers agent you should of gotten one to show you the houses.
Bringing in an agent just to write an offer is pretty bad form IMO once you've already been shown properties by another agent, her listing or not.
Not properties, one house. The listing agent's JOB is to sell their listing, and sometimes that means showing it even if they don't get both sides of the deal. If the listing agent did not ask to be their buyer's agent, and explain the potential conflicts that implies (we're required by law to do that here in Texas on first discussion of real estate, by the way), she has no business being offended. Actually, she has no business being offended, period.
OP, let your agent handle this from now on. The listing agent should not be speaking to you now that you have an agent, in any case. Think of it as having an attorney - everything from the "other side" is referred to your attorney and they handle it.
Both clients.
One wants to divest the property. One wants to acquire it.
Helping them meet those goals.
And, the agent has plenty of knowledge that each wants kept confidential from the other party.
And, the clients are adults.
Stable. No language barriers. Knowing that I am neutral.
In 12 years, I have done dual agency as the sole agent two times. I am satisfied that both times were appropriate for those specific clients, and the specific transactions.
I don't care if I never do it again, but under repetition of those two specific sets of circumstances, I would not run from it, either. As said, I don't trust agents who aggressively pursue dual agency to cash in on a big check. Stupid.
I agree. While I understand they work on comission, if their first priority is the paycheck that tells me volumes about the agent
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM
Don't feel bad, agents have their own weird rules they think people should follow to protect their cartel. They are clinging to a model that flourished before people could use the internet to find homes. Nobody is worth 3% of a house just to talk to the selling agent and help you fill out some forms once you found the house you want.
The real estate selling landscape is changing. And it’s changing pretty fast. I foresee some people using agents regardless of other options, but I bet commissions are going to start changing because as prices get higher in the in demand areas the commissions do too. But the paperwork and sales tactics are pretty much the same.
If people dint want to pay those commissions they can negotiate or they can diy. You don’t need a agent to sell a house. Most use a agent ecause “that’s how it’s done” but eventually people will attempt to start saving some money.
Right now if I sold a property I could be paying anywhere from 35-100,000 in commission. I could hire a lawyer to write the contract and offer to pay 1/2 or all the closing costs if I do a FSBO and still be ahead. Considering houses out here sell with pretty quickly I don’t see why I should pay 35,000 up to 100,000 in commission. I don’t have a problem paying a commission but 6% is pretty high.
Last edited by Electrician4you; 03-11-2018 at 09:41 AM..
Don't feel bad, agents have their own weird rules they think people should follow to protect their cartel. They are clinging to a model that flourished before people could use the internet to find homes. Nobody is worth 3% of a house just to talk to the selling agent and help you fill out some forms once you found the house you want.
and no one is worth an extra 3% for opening the door and letting a prospective buyer look at the place for 30 minutes or less.
Guess which one has to do more work if there is a mortgage involved and deal with the bank, etc or any problems that arise, show up to the inspection etc etc.
You know what the selling agent has to do, play golf until the day of the close once the contract is signed.
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.
She's much better at this than I am. We just had a live continuing ed class with her this week... 7.5 hours. A long day with any speaker, but she's worth it. She speaks very plain and clearly.
