Real estate question for anyone with experience in dealing with agents

[+ purplekow]

>

>>If the seller had an agent, the agents split the fee from

>the

>>seller.

>

>Not sure what you are saying here. The agents split the

>commission when both buyer and seller are represented by their

>own agents.

And that commission is paid by the seller. That was the only point here.

 

>

>>Never thought the buyer paid the fee, but as i said, I would

>>have paid him had that been the arrangement made prior to

>the

>>sale.

>

>This is meaningless since you don't seem to have made any

>arrangement. What were you thinking when you made your first

>offer? If it had been accepted who would have paid the agent?

 

You are correct in that no formal arrangement was made about a fee for services. Are you saying that the agent should not have gotten a fee? Before a finalization of the sale, it would have been determined who paid the fee. I always thought it was the seller but if the seller was not the one obligated to pay in this case, I would have paid the fee. Of course that would have raised the price I was paying for the property and would have had to have been factored into the entire deal's budget.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Who gives a shit how much

>he's making on the deal? Frankly, it's none of your business

>how much he's making off the deal anyway.

 

That would depend on the rules in the state in which the transaction takes place. For example, in British Columbia (Canada) the law is that an agent representing a buyer, regardless of whether he has a buyers agent contract with the buyer or not, the agent MUST DISCLOSE to the buyer the commission he will be receive. Failure to do so is grounds for cancellation of his real estate license.

 

>Real estate is filled with crooks, however buyers are the

>biggest whhores. They have zero loyalty and will fuck over

>their broker in an instant if they can get a better deal

>through another broker.

 

So true!

[Guest zipperzone]

>I was a "real estate" attorney for many years. Very few were

>the realtors with any sense of ethics. They are more like a

>starving roach or rat. Makes no difference if they screw

>their client or the other party. The only rule they know is

>to get the money.

>

>the Cajun

 

And you're suggesting that lawyers are any different?

[Guest zipperzone]

>As an aside, is it usual for a real estate agent to have a

>contract with a buyer?

 

It is becoming more and more the case. It is the only way a realtor acting for a buyer can be sure of the buyers loyalty. The contracts state that even if a buyer buys a property from another agent, he still owes you the commision.

 

>And just to be clear, as mentioned in the original post, on

>our last meeting, I had asked (and he had agreed) to keep

>looking for suitable properties and to keep me informed of

>events about this property.

 

Well, from what I have read so far, he DID keep you informed of events about this property. He informed you that he had an exclusive listing. What more do you want?

[Guest zipperzone]

>Not that this matters, but, unless someone has told you

>specifically otherwise, it is quite possible that the agent

>never pursued the conversation after that and that owner

>called the agent, not the other way around, because the owner

>remembered the agent bringing in your earlier offer.

 

Very good point.....

[Guest zipperzone]

>Interesting point. Just thought the seller always paid the

>agent.

>If the seller had an agent, the agents split the fee from the

>seller.

>Never thought the buyer paid the fee, but as i said, I would

>have paid him had that been the arrangement made prior to the

>sale.

 

If the buyer has an exclusive buyer's agent contract in place with his realtor, that would spell out the amount of $$$ the buyer would pay to his realtor.

 

That would be a reason for the buyer to offer X $$$ less than asking price as the seller would only have to pay commission on the selling half.

 

The bottom line is still the same, the only differance is in how one does the math.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The seller only pays the commission if he has hired the agent.

 

Not necessarily - P's agent was free to make an arrangement with the seller re commission prior to the offer being presented.

 

>>If the seller had an agent, the agents split the fee from

>the

>>seller.

>

>Not sure what you are saying here. The agents split the

>commission when both buyer and seller are represented by their

>own agents.

 

Why are you confused here? I think he said the same thing as you.

[FinFangFoom]

>>Who gives a shit how much

>>he's making on the deal? Frankly, it's none of your business

>>how much he's making off the deal anyway.

>

>That would depend on the rules in the state in which the

>transaction takes place. For example, in British Columbia

>(Canada) the law is that an agent representing a buyer,

>regardless of whether he has a buyers agent contract with the

>buyer or not, the agent MUST DISCLOSE to the buyer the

>commission he will be receive. Failure to do so is grounds for

>cancellation of his real estate license.

 

 

In NYC, if the agent is representing the seller, the financial agreement between broker and seller is a private contract. The buyer has no right to know who's getting paid what.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

[Luv2play]

At the beginning of this discussion I thought the agent had acted unethically, based on what you originally said, but after you filled in more details and I read the Code of Ethics cited above I concluded otherwise. I think the problem is that you never really entered into a buyer's agreement with the agent other than your verbal request to convey an offer on a property that wasn't even for sale.

 

In the subsequent developments you assumed that you were not going to have to pay your agent. It is clear that the only way the agent was going to make money on the deal was if the seller would pay him. To ensure this, he entered into an agreement with the seller.

 

I don't see why you would be offended. It would have been different if you had had an explicit agreement with your agent to act on your behalf exclusively but you did not and you acknowledge as much. Once you expected the agent to be paid by the seller you were in effect recognizing him as a dual-agent and you have no grounds to complain about.

 

Art 1.5 cannot be read alone and if you read the other articles, especially Art1-13(2), you will see that the agent only had to disclose to you that there was a potential for him to act as a disclosed dual agent if you had entered into a buyer's agreement with him, which you did not. I really think you are being unfair to the agent in this case.