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.
My family was visiting a town we will move to this summer, and on impulse wanted to see a house I liked.
We didn’t have an agent so I called the agent listed with the house and asked if she’d show it to us. She did. It was pretty informal, though I did give her my email.
It’s been a month and we’re considering visiting again and putting in an offer on that house or another one we’re looking at.
We found an agent through our bank, interviewed him on the phone and asked him to show us a bunch of houses his weekend when we visit.
We will likely make an offer on one of those using him.
I called the original listing agent of the first house, and let her know we may put an offer in on that house. I thanked her for showing it and explained we just aren’t comfortable using the same person to represent both us and the seller, and that we have another agent. It just seems like a bad idea, especially since the seller is paying her. She seemed offended. Was I really rude?? What’s the etiquette here?
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. I always thought that double ending a deal should be made illegal. there is absolutely no way to equally split your fiduciary duty. The list8ng agents fiduciary duty is ALWAYS to the seller imo.
I would never do a double ended deal
Please let the agent you plan to use know about all of this. There is a thing called procuring cause which that first agent has so the agent you want to choose should know what has happened before. And like Silver fall has already said, letting the two agents work it out is the best thing to do.
While I don't think what you did is wrong I don't think you should have to be in the middle of this trying to work it out if you have no buyers agreement signed with the first agent.
What is your basis for definitively saying that the listing agent has procuring cause? If you think it's that straight forward, you have a very poor understanding of the concept. Anyway, you need to have a sale to have procuring cause. No sale, no procuring cause. Another serious misunderstanding of the concept on your part.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. I always thought that double ending a deal should be made illegal. there is absolutely no way to equally split your fiduciary duty. The list8ng agents fiduciary duty is ALWAYS to the seller imo.
I would never do a double ended deal
Never say never.
Actually, in dual agency, there is no fiduciary duty. That absence of fiduciary role is implicit in the definition of dual agency.
It is a common misunderstanding that there is a fiduciary role, but there is not.
I don't really support or prospect for dual agency. Again, if that is what put the agent's knickers in a twist, the OP probably dodged a bullet.
I don't trust agents who aggressively seek dual agency, but there are times it serves a purpose of furthering the clients' goals.
My family was visiting a town we will move to this summer, and on impulse wanted to see a house I liked.
We didn’t have an agent so I called the agent listed with the house and asked if she’d show it to us. She did. It was pretty informal, though I did give her my email.
It’s been a month and we’re considering visiting again and putting in an offer on that house or another one we’re looking at.
We found an agent through our bank, interviewed him on the phone and asked him to show us a bunch of houses his weekend when we visit.
We will likely make an offer on one of those using him.
I called the original listing agent of the first house, and let her know we may put an offer in on that house. I thanked her for showing it and explained we just aren’t comfortable using the same person to represent both us and the seller, and that we have another agent. It just seems like a bad idea, especially since the seller is paying her. She seemed offended. Was I really rude?? What’s the etiquette here?
Not a realtor but as you seem to know it is etiquette to view and use the realtor who showed you the home to put the offer through. That said people know stuff happens. Realtors are people, some are more laid back and understanding, others will get more miffed. Its understandable to not want to look for an sign an agreement with a realtor you find on the fly.
Perhaps it would have been better to explain up front when you called - Hey we are in town, didn't plan on looking, I don't have my own agent yet but should I want to put in an offer I would do it with a different agent. Are you still willing to show me the house?
Realtor responsibilities to the buyer can vary by state. Make sure you have and fully understand your contract with your realtor. When I bought a house in Nebraska 15 years ago i was told that, actually, my realtor actually works for the seller even if not dual agency and all that although laws and practices have probably changed since then.
What is your basis for definitively saying that the listing agent has procuring cause? If you think it's that straight forward, you have a very poor understanding of the concept. Anyway, you need to have a sale to have procuring cause. No sale, no procuring cause. Another serious misunderstanding of the concept on your part.
I don't. I shouldn't have said it that way. More like, there is this thing called procuring cause and one agent may try to make trouble for the other. No, you don't have to have a sale. Are you sure you know?
I don't. I shouldn't have said it that way. More like, there is this thing called procuring cause and one agent may try to make trouble for the other. No, you don't have to have a sale. Are you sure you know?
That would be better. Not trying to be pedantic but professionals posting in their professional capacity should be more careful with what they say. Essentially your original words definitively told the consumer that the full commission would likely be due to the original agent and this is misleading and an incorrect assumption to be making.
Do you need a sale to have a procuring clause? When reviewing the complexities of a procuring cause claim you need to review back from the sale and look at the chain of events that led to it. That's my understanding of how it works. How can you have a cause of death before you even have a death! It's the way it works and it's just simple logic. You have no idea what will transpire between now and the hypothetical sale. There is no single factor that determines PC so without the whole picture leading up to the conclusion of a sale, you can't assess it. Why do you say that you don't need a sale to determine the cause of the sale? That makes no sense.
Actually, in dual agency, there is no fiduciary duty. That absence of fiduciary role is implicit in the definition of dual agency.
It is a common misunderstanding that there is a fiduciary role, but there is not.
I don't really support or prospect for dual agency. Again, if that is what put the agent's knickers in a twist, the OP probably dodged a bullet.
I don't trust agents who aggressively seek dual agency, but there are times it serves a purpose of furthering the clients' goals.
Which client?
I have yet to see a dual agent that is impartial. Hell when I was buying a house I went through quite a afew agents. Most were mediocre at best. And I’m being generous in my descriotion
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.
That would be better. Not trying to be pedantic but professionals posting in their professional capacity should be more careful with what they say. Essentially your original words definitively told the consumer that the full commission would likely be due to the original agent and this is misleading and an incorrect assumption to be making.
Do you need a sale to have a procuring clause? When reviewing the complexities of a procuring cause claim you need to review back from the sale and look at the chain of events that led to it. That's my understanding of how it works. How can you have a cause of death before you even have a death! It's the way it works and it's just simple logic. You have no idea what will transpire between now and the hypothetical sale. There is no single factor that determines PC so without the whole picture leading up to the conclusion of a sale, you can't assess it. Why do you say that you don't need a sale to determine the cause of the sale? That makes no sense.
Oh, I just realized who I replied to. Why do I bother?
Oh, I just realized who I replied to. Why do I bother?
No problem. Happy I could correct your incorrect information. Once again.
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.
