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.
Have you bought or sold a home lately? In California? Do you have the documents still?
Yes, and we talked about that on your other thread on the CA forum.
Quote:
It does not matter if you pay a flat fee or a percentage, you only pay once the home sells. Any agent can explain that to you, but they don't know, but that feature is in every form.
They do explain it to you. And I've never heard of anyone trying to sell their house with a realtor who doesn't know how commissions work. In fact, the people who try to sell without a realtor are usually doing so to attempt to avoid having to pay a commission.
Quote:
To do what I do, write a dollar amount, the agents must understand how the forms work, and they do, but not completely... Nobody except agents reads the forms or care what the forms say. Clients think the agent knows and that is why people get agents for.
I think that most clients don't care where the commission goes as long as the agent is successful in selling their house.
Quote:
The problem with the high commissions charged by agents is...
Most of us don't think 6% is high. As I said before, we paid 7% in the 1980s, and I've heard of sellers paying as low as 5% here.
Quote:
I need somebody that has the forms and remembers what happened during the initial meeting with the agent.
I have ours somewhere. The thing is, our realtor both sold our home (split her commission w/ the agent who brought in the buyer) and sold us the condo we bought (her listing, so she got the whole commission). So there really wasn't an initial meeting with the agent on the buying end....until the house sold, and we already knew how the whole thing worked. I don't feel that anyone misrepresented anything.
I have ours somewhere. The thing is, our realtor both sold our home (split her commission w/ the agent who brought in the buyer) and sold us the condo we bought (her listing, so she got the whole commission). So there really wasn't an initial meeting with the agent on the buying end....until the house sold, and we already knew how the whole thing worked. I don't feel that anyone misrepresented anything.
Thanks CA4
When you are ready, let's look at the offer you made to buy, the one with the joint escrow instructions.
If you have agency disclosure forms, let's look at those also. You probably won't have a buyer broker agreement, so the agency disclosure will say that. Like we said before, your case is not as simple as separate buys or sells, but stick with this.
Remember we agreed that your agent did a great job and you don't have complains. That is good.
You did use an escrow company? just asking.
Don't get too worked up about any of this, but stick around. Buyers like yourself get to decide how much of the cooperating broker fee your agent gets, if she is your agent. and the rest is credited to you. If you were not made aware of that, it might be an eye opener for you.Look at the attachment on my prior posts and read that clause. If not, if the cooperating broker gets paid directly by the seller's agent, that would be handled outside (after) escrow, the same as with the sales agent so Escrow would not take the listing agreement as the agency agreement. It is pretty complicated but the association put this system in place, it is a good system but it is running amok. The buyers always gets money from the seller via the listing. That is an incentive to assure the buyer will use an agent. The way it works, the agent gets paid and the buyer gets closing costs. Today, the agent grabs it all an buyers don't even notice.
I know, it is complicated with out looking at the forms. Patience.
Don't get too worked up about any of this, but stick around. Buyers like yourself get to decide how much of the cooperating broker fee your agent gets, if she is your agent. and the rest is credited to you. If you were not made aware of that, it might be an eye opener for you.Look at the attachment on my prior posts and read that clause. If not, if the cooperating broker gets paid directly by the seller's agent, that would be handled outside (after) escrow, the same as with the sales agent so Escrow would not take the listing agreement as the agency agreement. It is pretty complicated but the association put this system in place, it is a good system but it is running amok. The buyers always gets money from the seller via the listing. That is an incentive to assure the buyer will use an agent. The way it works, the agent gets paid and the buyer gets closing costs. Today, the agent grabs it all an buyers don't even notice.
I know, it is complicated with out looking at the forms. Patience.
Wow . . . just wow. This might be the most innaccurate information I've ever seen posted on this forum or perhaps even the entire internet.
I don't even know where to start refuting what you've said because it's almost all wrong.
Is your book perhaps being placed in the fiction section of the store?
Threads like this one are the reason you guys don't see me in the real estate forum very often anymore. Have fun arguing with this guy. He clearly knows this industry inside and out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
. . . or perhaps the deposit money is there to protect the seller in case the buyer defaults on the contract.
How does that old saying go? Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
Honestly, I'm not sure why you keep responding. There are just some people that will never see the truth only what they want to see. Clearly, there's a conspiracy going on here and real estate agents are at the heart of it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
Wow . . . just wow. This might be the most innaccurate information I've ever seen posted on this forum or perhaps even the entire internet.
I don't even know where to start refuting what you've said because it's almost all wrong.
Is your book perhaps being placed in the fiction section of the store?
You.Are.SO.Busted.
It's like watching a train wreck, or worrying about Snooki losing 40 pounds, isn't it?
CCC 1624. The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party's agent: (d) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate, for compensation or a commission.
This is found in the California Civil Code.
You can find the same law in states where the statute of frauds is codified.
Montana is another example.
A contract authorizing a broker to do the things mentioned has to be in writing and signed (subscribed) by the person paying. This writing can be anything, a note between the parties or a contract drawn by lawyers. So, what is the big deal?
The forms used by agents, at least in California, take this rule very seriously and comply with it.
That is how they are written.
The forms have a commission agreement anyone can use but nobody does.
Instead, agents use the listing agreement, which is the input form for a service agents can or can not offer their clients after they have a valid agency relationship with them).
Listing agreements, a broker to broker unilateral offer of compensation will be a contract between both brokers. right? Who pays who? and is it signed? the broker and yes.
The listing agreement is a much restrictive commission agreement, but is good enough but is not intended to be used with out a prior commission agreement between the seller and the broker.
The listing agreement has to be used for the purpose of using the MLS to produce a buyer.
Let's repeat that:
The listing agreement has to be used for the purpose of using the MLS to produce a buyer.
The listing agreement cost the seller more, because the listing agent asks for additional compensation to give to the buyer’s agent but only if the MLS produces the buyer.
If the buyer is found by the seller’s agent with out the MLS, there is no reason for the seller to pay more, right?
Here we have the agency, sub agency issue we have been talking about.
The seller is willing to pay more because he believes that by exposing the property on the MLS, brokers hired by buyers will bring the buyers. The seller's agent knows (ought to know) that CCC 1624 will make it mandatory for those buyer's agents to have written contracts with the buyers and would explain that to the seller. There is a contract for that, the BRE which has a clause that addresses the additional compensation the buyer's broker would receive. It is very clear, escrow pays the buyer's agent enough money to cover the buyer's obligation entered in the BRE and credits the rest to the buyer.
That is a very clever way for the MLS to cover everybody meaning both agents, the seller and the buyer. Today, agent's don't get it. The BRE helps the agent sign up buyers by offering cash back, it realy does (see the attachments on my prior posts)
The agent for the seller knows that he cannot pay the buyer’s agent legally. If he does, the so called buyer’s agent would not be representing the buyer and would be a sub-agent for the seller instead.
If that was the case, the buyer that wants an agent (and the credit) would treat that buyer's agent as not his agent and would be free to jump around agents.
Again, if the seller’s agent finds a buyer on his own and outside of the MLS, he would get paid the commission he agreed prior to the listing. If the buyer is found using the MLS, the sales agent will get the same commission as if found a buyer on his own and the buyer’s agent would get paid by escrow, according to the listing agreement, after the escrow company reads the buyer broker agreement and follows its instructions. (pay agreed commission between buyer and agent and credit rest to buyer)
It is all in the forms and the forms were written with that intent.
Sure agents don't get any of this, and while that happens, they keep asking enough to pay for two agents, while working diligently at selling the home themselves. This hurts the seller economically by reducing the exposure.
We are going to need a jury, aren't we? Absolutely!!
Remember, the problem has been identified by experts, it exists and I agree there is a problem.
Just Google Real Estate brokerage industry. Do a PDF search and you'll get all of the reports.
The reports are about suspicion of anti trust violations. They are wrong but that is not the point.
The point is that there is a problem, how big it is and how hard people are still working at cracking it.
Let’s stop there.
I am just showing you where the problem is and what I believe needs to be done to solve it.
If I am wrong, the book won't sell right?
I'll give it a rest to give a chance to new people to jump in.
Have a nice weekend, see you on Monday?
. The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party's agent: (d) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate, for compensation or a commission.
This is found in the California Civil Code.
You can find the same law in states where the statute of frauds is codified.
Montana is another example.
A contract authorizing a broker to do the things mentioned has to be in writing and signed (subscribed) by the person paying. This writing can be anything, a note between the parties or a contract drawn by lawyers. So, what is the big deal?
The forms used by agents, at least in California, take this rule very seriously and comply with it.
That is how they are written.
The forms have a commission agreement anyone can use but nobody does.
Instead, agents use the listing agreement, which is the input form for a service agents can or can not offer their clients after they have a valid agency relationship with them).
Listing agreements, a broker to broker unilateral offer of compensation will be a contract between both brokers. right? Who pays who? and is it signed? the broker and yes.
The listing agreement is a much restrictive commission agreement, but is good enough but is not intended to be used with out a prior commission agreement between the seller and the broker.
The listing agreement has to be used for the purpose of using the MLS to produce a buyer.
Let's repeat that:
The listing agreement has to be used for the purpose of using the MLS to produce a buyer.
The listing agreement cost the seller more, because the listing agent asks for additional compensation to give to the buyer’s agent but only if the MLS produces the buyer.
If the buyer is found by the seller’s agent with out the MLS, there is no reason for the seller to pay more, right?
Here we have the agency, sub agency issue we have been talking about.
The seller is willing to pay more because he believes that by exposing the property on the MLS, brokers hired by buyers will bring the buyers. The seller's agent knows (ought to know) that CCC 1624 will make it mandatory for those buyer's agents to have written contracts with the buyers and would explain that to the seller. There is a contract for that, the BRE which has a clause that addresses the additional compensation the buyer's broker would receive. It is very clear, escrow pays the buyer's agent enough money to cover the buyer's obligation entered in the BRE and credits the rest to the buyer.
That is a very clever way for the MLS to cover everybody meaning both agents, the seller and the buyer. Today, agent's don't get it. The BRE helps the agent sign up buyers by offering cash back, it realy does (see the attachments on my prior posts)
The agent for the seller knows that he cannot pay the buyer’s agent legally. If he does, the so called buyer’s agent would not be representing the buyer and would be a sub-agent for the seller instead.
If that was the case, the buyer that wants an agent (and the credit) would treat that buyer's agent as not his agent and would be free to jump around agents.
Again, if the seller’s agent finds a buyer on his own and outside of the MLS, he would get paid the commission he agreed prior to the listing. If the buyer is found using the MLS, the sales agent will get the same commission as if found a buyer on his own and the buyer’s agent would get paid by escrow, according to the listing agreement, after the escrow company reads the buyer broker agreement and follows its instructions. (pay agreed commission between buyer and agent and credit rest to buyer)
It is all in the forms and the forms were written with that intent.
Sure agents don't get any of this, and while that happens, they keep asking enough to pay for two agents, while working diligently at selling the home themselves. This hurts the seller economically by reducing the exposure.
We are going to need a jury, aren't we? Absolutely!!
Remember, the problem has been identified by experts, it exists and I agree there is a problem.
Just Google Real Estate brokerage industry. Do a PDF search and you'll get all of the reports.
The reports are about suspicion of anti trust violations. They are wrong but that is not the point.
The point is that there is a problem, how big it is and how hard people are still working at cracking it.
Let’s stop there.
I am just showing you where the problem is and what I believe needs to be done to solve it.
If I am wrong, the book won't sell right? :smack
I'll give it a rest to give a chance to new people to jump in.
Have a nice weekend, see you on Monday?
TGIF
:hamd BB
I wasn't going to bother responding to your posts anymore but this one was just ridiculous. It is obvious you have never been party to a real estate transaction nor ever spent any time dealing with civil law or code.
Here is the entire 1624 not edited because when you deal with law the whole section of code is relevant.
1624. (a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some
note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the
party to be charged or by the party's agent:
(1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a
year from the making thereof.
(2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in Section
2794.
(3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one
year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein;
such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be
charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing,
subscribed by the party sought to be charged.
(4) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any
other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to lease real
estate for a longer period than one year, or to procure, introduce,
or find a purchaser or seller of real estate or a lessee or lessor of
real estate where the lease is for a longer period than one year,
for compensation or a commission.
(5) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during
the lifetime of the promisor.
(6) An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay an
indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust upon the property
purchased, unless assumption of the indebtedness by the purchaser is
specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.
(7) A contract, promise, undertaking, or commitment to loan money
or to grant or extend credit, in an amount greater than one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000), not primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, made by a person engaged in the business of
lending or arranging for the lending of money or extending credit.
For purposes of this section, a contract, promise, undertaking or
commitment to loan money secured solely by residential property
consisting of one to four dwelling units shall be deemed to be for
personal, family, or household purposes.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a):
(1) An agreement or contract that is valid in other respects and
is otherwise enforceable is not invalid for lack of a note,
memorandum, or other writing and is enforceable by way of action or
defense, provided that the agreement or contract is a qualified
financial contract as defined in paragraph (2) and (A) there is, as
provided in paragraph (3), sufficient evidence to indicate that a
contract has been made or (B) the parties thereto by means of a prior
or subsequent written contract, have agreed to be bound by the terms
of the qualified financial contract from the time they reached
agreement (by telephone, by exchange of electronic messages, or
otherwise) on those terms.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, a "qualified financial
contract" means an agreement as to which each party thereto is other
than a natural person and that is any of the following:
(A) For the purchase and sale of foreign exchange, foreign
currency, bullion, coin or precious metals on a forward, spot,
next-day value or other basis.
(B) A contract (other than a contract for the purchase of a
commodity for future delivery on, or subject to the rules of, a
contract market or board of trade) for the purchase, sale, or
transfer of any commodity or any similar good, article, service,
right, or interest that is presently or in the future becomes the
subject of a dealing in the forward contract trade, or any product or
byproduct thereof, with a maturity date more than two days after the
date the contract is entered into.
(C) For the purchase and sale of currency, or interbank deposits
denominated in United States dollars.
(D) For a currency option, currency swap, or cross-currency rate
swap.
(E) For a commodity swap or a commodity option (other than an
option contract traded on, or subject to the rules of a contract
market or board of trade).
(F) For a rate swap, basis swap, forward rate transaction, or an
interest rate option.
(G) For a security-index swap or option, or a security or
securities price swap or option.
(H) An agreement that involves any other similar transaction
relating to a price or index (including, without limitation, any
transaction or agreement involving any combination of the foregoing,
any cap, floor, collar, or similar transaction with respect to a
rate, commodity price, commodity index, security or securities price,
security index, other price index, or loan price).
(I) An option with respect to any of the foregoing.
(3) There is sufficient evidence that a contract has been made in
any of the following circumstances:
(A) There is evidence of an electronic communication (including,
without limitation, the recording of a telephone call or the tangible
written text produced by computer retrieval), admissible in evidence
under the laws of this state, sufficient to indicate that in the
communication a contract was made between the parties.
(B) A confirmation in writing sufficient to indicate that a
contract has been made between the parties and sufficient against the
sender is received by the party against whom enforcement is sought
no later than the fifth business day after the contract is made (or
any other period of time that the parties may agree in writing) and
the sender does not receive, on or before the third business day
after receipt (or the other period of time that the parties may agree
in writing), written objection to a material term of the
confirmation. For purposes of this subparagraph, a confirmation or an
objection thereto is received at the time there has been an actual
receipt by an individual responsible for the transaction or, if
earlier, at the time there has been constructive receipt, which is
the time actual receipt by that individual would have occurred if the
receiving party, as an organization, had exercised reasonable
diligence. For the purposes of this subparagraph, a "business day" is
a day on which both parties are open and transacting business of the
kind involved in that qualified financial contract that is the
subject of confirmation.
(C) The party against whom enforcement is sought admits in its
pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract was made.
(D) There is a note, memorandum, or other writing sufficient to
indicate that a contract has been made, signed by the party against
whom enforcement is sought or by its authorized agent or broker.
For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of an electronic
communication indicating the making in that communication of a
contract, or a confirmation, admission, note, memorandum, or writing
is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states one or
more material terms agreed upon, as long as the evidence provides a
reasonable basis for concluding that a contract was made.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, the tangible written text
produced by telex, telefacsimile, computer retrieval, or other
process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or
otherwise shall constitute a writing, and any symbol executed or
adopted by a party with the present intention to authenticate a
writing shall constitute a signing. The confirmation and notice of
objection referred to in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) may be
communicated by means of telex, telefacsimile, computer, or other
similar process by which electronic signals are transmitted by
telephone or otherwise, provided that a party claiming to have
communicated in that manner shall, unless the parties have otherwise
agreed in writing, have the burden of establishing actual or
constructive receipt by the other party as set forth in subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (3).
(c) This section does not apply to leases subject to Division 10
(commencing with Section 10101) of the Commercial Code.
You don't have a freaking clue, your book won't sell and I am certain you are not a broker as previously claimed.
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,311,234 times
Reputation: 6471
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.13
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.14
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.15
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.16
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.17
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.18
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.19
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.20
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.21
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.22
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.23
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.24
Which more appropriately defines agency as it relates to the real estate business. If you don't want to look it up online, it's on page 2 of the agency disclosure form. Sheesh!
May I suggest that you read the CA Civil Code sections 2079.13
through Civil Code sections 2079.24
Which more appropriately defines agency as it relates to the real estate business
How is it more appropriately defined? I don't want to be confrontational, but you did not make the point.
CCC 2079 talks about disclosures of an valid written agency agreement but one of the points of this thread is that the agency needs to be established first (so it can be disclosed, once there is one) according to CCC 1624.
Am I missing something?
I have a correction to make. The real estate sales agent is not a sub agent of the supervising broker like I said before. Real estate sales agents are not considered real estate agents, only brokers are.
click on link for complete paragraph. CCC 2079.13. (a) "Agent" means a person licensed as a real estate broker. (again, edited for brevity)
Complaining that you don't agree with or understand the argument is understandable, please excuse the redundancy. So, you don't get it. What is the big deal.
“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
Galileo Galilei
Let's talk about the forms, one by one, in order.
Remember, we are doing California first.
Focus...... Transaction forms!!!!!
BB
Last edited by bubbleboy; 03-08-2013 at 10:57 PM..
Reason: typo
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.
Double ending the transaction, an example
.
BB
