Dual Agency (agents, Realtor, seller, brokerage)

[BoBromhal]

when someone says that Dual Agency isn't allowed in their state, I wonder - do the Buyers have multiple agents helping them buy? Or does FL (example) limit the agency to the individual broker, and not the brokerage?

In NC, if you are a Buyer and your agent works for ABC Agency, then for any ABC Agency listing you would need an agent from a different company to show you if there was "no dual agency".

[2bindenver]

Agency runs through the designated agent of the brokerage. The employing or managing broker has the authority to assign a broker to a transaction.

The brokerage does not have imputed knowledge.

[DMenscha]

In my rural area, I'd be S.O.L. if I didn't do dual agency. I've never had anyone object from either side, but I go out of my way to explain my role to each side and since it's a small town, should I ever manage to "screw" someone, I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

In my rural area, I'd be S.O.L. if I didn't do dual agency. I've never had anyone object from either side, but I go out of my way to explain my role to each side and since it's a small town, should I ever manage to "screw" someone, I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

And that's where "Dual Agency" is needed the most.
There are thousands of rural small town brokers that are 1 or 2 person operations that MUST do this type of work.
There are entire counties in TX (and other states) that might have just a few licensed agents.
It's why states allow it to happen without it being a COI if it is agreed to by all parties.

The occurrences of big city Dual Agency like in DFW where 1 agent represents both parties is actually fairly rare.
Out of 14,000 agents here, the odds are someone else will be working the other side of a contract.

[jdhall1]

Agency agreements in CT go with the broker. We are a large office in my region. In my exprience, things are usually go smoother than working with some out of the company brokerages.

[onevthoki]

Here in Virginia, dual agency is where the same agent represents both parties in the transaction. DESIGNATED agency is where the same broker, but different agents, represent the parties.

Even though dual is legal in Virginia, I avoid it at all costs. If the seller hires you to represent them, how can you do that if you then represent the seller? You become Switzerland at that point, a neutral person who can only give fact (comps) as opposed to opinion.

[tomocox]

I am poster number 17 of this thread. If there is any thing clear about this thread, it is the confusion of agency. While there were posters who seemed to have a good handle on agency, I am appalled by the couple who have no clue.

Obviously every state has a different law about agency. I hope every consumer and licensee will take the time to learn how their state handles agency and what it means to them and the parties of every transaction.

[davecj]

I apologize. You would think, given the number of times that Tom has pitched Re/Max in this forum, that I would have used a better example.

[tomocox]

Originally Posted by davecj

Just a friendly PSA since I see this often:

Dual agency occurs when the buyers agent and sellers agent operate under the same broker. It could be two remax agents from different parts of the state and have never met each other. Because they are under the same broker, dual agency occurs. They may have desks next to each other and lived in the dorms together in college. Either way, a different professional represents each side.

If for some reason you consent to having the same person represent both sides, then you really ought to not buy real estate because you're not ready for it. Your agent has a fiduciary responsibility to you, and you only. There is no way an agent can simultaneously get the most money for a seller and the best deal for a buyer. It's impossible.

My response has nothing at all to do with dual agency, it is a plea for those such as the OP to realize that his expertise is extremely flawed. To point out and name a single brand in his example is not an example of a knowledge based comment.

In Kentucky, there are more than 44 offices listed on the Kentucky Real Estate Commission's website database. To my knowledge, with the exception of my office, every location in Kentucky is "Independently Owned and Operated". (My office has three locations, which means agents in each of the locations are under my brokerage.) All other offices in Kentucky have unique brokers and are therefore, by definition, not dual agencies by brand.

The OP's point has lots of accuracy when considering that of the 20 Coldwell Banker offices, any agent of Coldwell Banker McMahan Company's eight offices is a dual agent as the OP described.

Kentucky brokers also determine whether their brokerage will operate under "dual agency" or "designated agency" rules and regulations.

So, in total agreement with the OP, it is extremely important for consumers of real estate to know specifically how their agent is behaving. This must be disclosed by agents and understood by buyers and sellers.

[sponger42]

I am a buyer considering entering into a dual agency situation. I'm in a fairly hot market with only a handful of houses available. I cannot afford the asking price on the house I want, but it already appears to be priced in line with market value. I've been scrutinizing the area for years, watching the market, watching what sells, how long it sits, what price reductions happen, timing the drives, and literally pounding the pavement. I feel I have a good handle on the worth of the property

I can only afford less than 90% of the asking price, which is a big reach for the sellers. However, the market does seem to be cooling slightly, the property has fallen out of escrow several times and also seen some price cuts. There remains a threat of rising interest rates, and we are heading into the winter months, so I'm hoping that these sellers are feeling extra "motivated."

I figure the dual-agent may (or may not, I'll never know) be willing to reduce the commission to make the sale. My reasoning is that, because I've got a fixed limit to what I can pay, which I am confident is below market value, and I know the Realtor COULD afford to reduce the commission, getting 2-3% of the way to the 10% reduction I need, the sellers are more likely to go accept the remaining 7-8% to make this sale happen. With a buyer's agent, they'd have to go for the whole 10%. They may have to with the dual-agent anyway, but I should be improving my odds slightly.

More than likely this sale isn't going to happen, because most houses in the area are selling at, or 1-2% below asking. So another buyer is probably going to come in at full price. But it can't hurt to try. Or can it?


What are your opinions? I know rule 1 is to run as far and as fast from a dual-agency Realtor as you can. However, I've felt like I've been fighting with so-called buyer's agents every step of the way, anyway. They either try to sell me on the good points of the house, or tell me that "it's priced about right", or run off a list of worthless comps (because volume is so low and the geography so specific, most comps are crapola on a stick). So long as I feel like Realtors in general are the enemy anyway, why not go into a situation with a known enemy (seller's agent) with eyes open, rather than muddle through a murky grey frenemy territory with a buyer's agent?

Maybe I'm just too harsh, but I've had a GREAT buyer's agent in the past who I thought was worth every penny of 3% of the purchase price of the house. After trying out many in this area, I haven't found one who services were worth a hill of beans, let alone thousands of dollars.

So tell me what I'm doing wrong, and how I'm going to get screwed if I go forward with this. Thanks!