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.
And in my area, if the seller doesn't have enough money to come to the table, including the commission for the buyer, the sale is not going through. When I go to the closing, the title company makes sure that my, or rather my broker's commission, is there or everything comes to a halt. It's written in the contract.
Of course, this person chose to use a flat fee company. One of the reasons that it is good to use a real estate agent to list or buy, and not try to cut corners, is the agent is there to assist folks that may think they can handle everything when they can't.
There is a lot of talk about how agents do nothing or at least next to nothing, when in actuality they earn their money. And part of their expertise is in keeping their clients apprised of the issues and explain everything to them so they feel comfortable and informed.
Being an agent looks easy when in fact it is not. Most of us make it look simple on purpose so that our clients feel comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
The MLS is a contract to pay, not a database...which is how the consumer sees it.
So, lets say Flat Rate Company A has a listing agreement with the seller to pay $399 up front and 3% to a buyer agent if they bring in the buyer on a $200,000 house. The compensation from a consumer perspective is just how it is above. The total commission from the MLS perspective is $6399. The listing agent chooses to keep $399 and give the rest to the buyer agent, from the MLS contract perspective. So from a consumer perspective they paid the $399 and then 2.5% to the buyer agent, which they think they can do because that is how they see it. The problem is that from an MLS perspective the total received commission was $5399 from the listing agent, and they only shared $5,000 when they agreed to pay $6,000. Leaving that contract $1,000 short on payment.
That's how the MLS works. Contracts can be altered of course, but the problem is that the seller of this house altered a contract that she wasn't party to, so her alteration is unenforceable from an MLS contract perspective. I feel bad for the listing agent and I am sure that they will add a clause in their listing agreements that commissions can't be reduced without permission from them.
. . . In your flat fee service, does your seller handle the negotiations? If so, how do they report back to you and do you have instructions to the client about commission negotiations and notifying you of the change?
Thank you[/quote]
Just like any other professional service, it's 'customers choice'. We provide whatever service(s) our customers need or want.
BUT - they rely on us to take care of the 'technicalities'. Our agreement for 'commission splits' is the same for any listing. But, simply put, a Listing Realtor cannot 'guaranty' the final amount of the Selling Realtors Fee Split in any sale can they?
Reason being that any seller, at any time, can consider a commission reduction as part of contract the negotiations. Fee Listing, Limited Services, Short Sales - none of that is relevant.
Where the problems start is with the original Listing Agreement. If it allows the Property-Owner to make a deal directly with another Realtor then you have a problem.
It's not complicated at all!
If the Listing Realtor 'guarantees' to pay the Selling Realtor a 3% Commission at closing, then that's exactly what they have to do.
(To answer your last question, I use the terms "Listing Realtor" and "Selling Realtor" because, some states permit various types of NON-AGENT Realtor Relationships. Also, your listing Broker might get a buyer for your house, in which case they could not function as a 'Buyer Agent' which might conflict with their existing fiduciary to you).
. . . (To answer your last question, I use the terms "Listing Realtor" and "Selling Realtor" because, some states permit various types of NON-AGENT Realtor Relationships. Also, your listing Broker might get a buyer for your house, in which case they could not function as a 'Buyer Agent' which might conflict with their existing fiduciary to you).
Most states, probably all, refer to the seller's side as a Listing Agent or Seller's Agent and the buyer's side as a Buyer's agent. A non-agent transactor is called a facilitator.
Last I heard, only Florida and Colorado do not allow dual agents, which means that the listing agent brings in the buyer and then handles both sides of the transaction and keeps the entire commission.
So what I am gathering here is that aside from the fact that the listing agreement legally holds the broker responsible for the full 3% (I understand that completely), the majority feels that it is perfectly fine for a realtor to say she will reduce her commission in order to get the seller to sign a purchase contract, then turn around and sue/arbitrate or whatever for the remainder after closing? Is that really what I'm seeing here?
Also, having a full service selling agent is easy to say when someone else is paying the other $6,000 in commissions. Had I been making a profit I might have been able to do so. As it is, the commissions came out of my bank account. Unfortunately I bought at the high in 2007 and was forced to sell at the worst time, or ruin my credit and walk away.
So what I am gathering here is that aside from the fact that the listing agreement legally holds the broker responsible for the full 3% (I understand that completely), the majority feels that it is perfectly fine for a realtor to say she will reduce her commission in order to get the seller to sign a purchase contract, then turn around and sue/arbitrate or whatever for the remainder after closing? Is that really what I'm seeing here?
Also, having a full service selling agent is easy to say when someone else is paying the other $6,000 in commissions...
I didn't see anyone say that. Most people felt that was wrong. What was said is the mistake was not getting it in writing anywhere.
I don't see anyone knocking the type of agent you selected either. Not sure where you got that from either. The flat fee service was never an issue.
Brandon is right, we are not condoning what she did. As much as we might want otherwise, without a written agreement to change the commission, she will likely win her case.
So what I am gathering here is that aside from the fact that the listing agreement legally holds the broker responsible for the full 3% (I understand that completely), the majority feels that it is perfectly fine for a realtor to say she will reduce her commission in order to get the seller to sign a purchase contract, then turn around and sue/arbitrate or whatever for the remainder after closing? Is that really what I'm seeing here?
Also, having a full service selling agent is easy to say when someone else is paying the other $6,000 in commissions. Had I been making a profit I might have been able to do so. As it is, the commissions came out of my bank account. Unfortunately I bought at the high in 2007 and was forced to sell at the worst time, or ruin my credit and walk away.
Actually I think Falconhead is the only one who said she has a right to come after the commission and should. I think the rest of us think that what the buyer agent is doing is crappy, but unfortunately she has contracts (or in this case, the lack thereof) on her side.
Thank you very much to everyone for your thoughts, I really appreciate it. I have been advised by my attorney to contact the state commission and report her actions. If time allows this post to still exist, I will let you know of the outcome. Thanks again!
Most states, probably all, refer to the seller's side as a Listing Agent or Seller's Agent and the buyer's side as a Buyer's agent. A non-agent transactor is called a facilitator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiknapster
Last I heard, only Florida and Colorado do not allow dual agents, which means that the listing agent brings in the buyer and then handles both sides of the transaction and keeps the entire commission.
HK - I don't want to 'hijack' this thread with 'Realtor-Talk', but thanks for the info - I've been 'Realtoring' in Florida long enough to have seen them all come & go down here.
But, regardless of what the 'law' says, I just can't go along with 'Dual-Agent' - Based on the definition of an 'agent', I don't see how you can have more than one fiduciary - to me it's a dis-service to the public, because, mostly, they just don't get it. . . .
Thank you very much to everyone for your thoughts, I really appreciate it. I have been advised by my attorney to contact the state commission and report her actions. If time allows this post to still exist, I will let you know of the outcome. Thanks again!
SN - I'd interested in an update on the Selling Realtors (SR) claim against your Listing Realtor (LR).
Is there a lawsuit by the SR against your LR?
Has your LR filed a complaint with your local Multi-List against the SP?
As active Realtors we all need to know . . . .
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.
Fixed Fee Listing Service
