Quote:
Originally Posted by frayedends
Again, maybe different in Florida? In Massachusetts there can be a buyer's agent contract that states the agent is representing the buyer and it also discloses the commission being paid.
When I mention semantics, I mean how it's paid. If the house is 500K and the commission is 50K (for easy math) you could pay 50K at closing to the listing agent who then gives the buyer's agent 25K. Or you could pay each agent 25K at closing from the proceeds. Or the seller could give the listing agent 25K, the buyer could give the buyer agent 25K and the house could close at 450K. My point, it all comes out in the wash. That's why I say the lawsuit results change nothing but the semantics...
A buyer's agent should not be telling the buyer that it cost them nothing to be represented. There is a cost, and it can be buried in the commission structure. That is why the lawsuit was won. So in the future it won't necessarily save the buyer money (or make the seller more) because the agents will both want to get paid. They just have to disclose it differently.
|
I don't know about Massachusetts, but in Florida, what you are describing would be illegal. A licensed agent cannot represent the buyer and the seller in the selling phase. After a sales contract is executed, an agent can sometimes act as a transaction agent to facilitate the closing. But, when showing and selling a house, the agent represents the seller only, if the agent intends to collect a commission from the seller per a listing contract.