Buyers Beware - Buying a Home Soon?

[APovi]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

[retiredguy123]

LOL. I don't need a lawyer to review the contract. There is no way I would ever sign it. The real estate agent may be handcuffed, but I'm not.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

have been reading about buyers agent agreements being litigated for many reasons on my socials

What I am waiting to see is how "Open Houses" are going to make it in the future. Uncertain at this time.

Many are currently defiant today, but as a buyer, will be interesting to see how the new requirements shake out. It's not all about the commissions, but about many other constraints which people won't like or will need to get used to.

good luck to the new buyers...

[retiredguy123]

have been reading about buyers agent agreements being litigated for many reasons on my socials

What I am waiting to see is how "Open Houses" are going to make it in the future. Uncertain at this time.

Many are currently defiant today, but as a buyer, will be interesting to see how the new requirements shake out. It's not all about the commissions, but about many other constraints which people won't like or will need to get used to.

good luck to the new buyers...
Open houses are very popular in The Villages. What would prevent a buyer from attending an open house and making a cash offer? That is what I would do, and it would not include a buyer's commission to an agent.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Open houses are very popular in The Villages. What would prevent a buyer from attending an open house and making a cash offer? That is what I would do, and it would not include a buyer's commission to an agent.

you may not be allowed to do so under the new rules. . . just because you think you can at the moment, you may not be able to in the future without a signed buyers agreement.

its all still in the pre execution / pre reality stage. . which is why I typed, will be interesting to see how this shakes out. .

[retiredguy123]

you may not be allowed to do so under the new rules. . . just because you think you can at the moment, you may not be able to in the future without a signed buyers agreement.

its all still in the pre execution / pre reality stage. . which is why I typed, will be interesting to see how this shakes out. .
Thanks. I predict that this arrangement will never fly because it sifles competition. It's still a free country, and no one can stop a person from making an offer to buy a house from the owner. It's just not logical. I will never pay an agent a commission to buy a house.

[Snakster66]

you may not be allowed to do so under the new rules. . . just because you think you can at the moment, you may not be able to in the future without a signed buyers agreement.

its all still in the pre execution / pre reality stage. . which is why I typed, will be interesting to see how this shakes out. .

No one is required to have a buyer's agent. An individual can absolutely walk into a house and make on offer on their own accord.

The whole thing is about buyer's agent compensation. No buyer's agent, no compensation worries.

[retiredguy123]

No one is required to have a buyer's agent. An individual can absolutely walk into a house and make on offer on their own accord.

The whole thing is about buyer's agent compensation. No buyer's agent, no compensation worries.
Thank you. I have never hired a buyer's agent and I never will.

[justjim]

Many go to open houses with no intention or interest in immediately buying that particular house. I have not seen these so called new rules for real estate but once again on the surface it smells of another overreach by government.

[retiredguy123]

Many go to open houses with no intention or interest in immediately buying that particular house. I have not seen these so called new rules for real estate but once again on the surface it smells of another overreach by government.
Maybe, but it sounds to me like real estate agents want to have their cake and eat it. They want to pretend to represent a buyer but be paid by the seller. If a buyer needs an agent to hold their hand, then they should pay them for it.

[Plinker]

Maybe, but it sounds to me like real estate agents want to have their cake and eat it. They want to pretend to represent a buyer but be paid by the seller. If a buyer needs an agent to hold their hand, then they should pay them for it.

Also, the law states that you can attend open houses and ask questions without signing anything. You don’t need an agent to buy if you prefer to DIY.
This law will reduce double dipping by selling agent and reduce seller fees by offering half of the usual 5 - 6 % commission as the buyers are on their own.

[frayedends]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

A lot of misinformation in this post.

[frayedends]

Open houses are very popular in The Villages. What would prevent a buyer from attending an open house and making a cash offer? That is what I would do, and it would not include a buyer's commission to an agent.

That isn't unusual now. But as a buyer you are entering a transaction unrepresented and since Florida doesn't allow dual agency the seller agent really has no obligations to help you out with info or anything.

[frayedends]

Also, the law states that you can attend open houses and ask questions without signing anything. You don’t need an agent to buy if you prefer to DIY.
This law will reduce double dipping by selling agent and reduce seller fees by offering half of the usual 5 - 6 % commission as the buyers are on their own.

How is the current system "double dipping"? The seller knows that their agent is paying a co-broke commission to the buyer agent.

The changes aren't going to do a darned thing. The seller agents will still recommend the seller pay the buyer agent. Buyer agents are still going to want to get paid and if you are a seller you will want your house to be shown.

I could see circumstance where seller refuses to pay buyer agent, and the buyer agrees to pay their agent. But in the end, what the buyer has to spend will have to include what their agent is paid. This is all smoke and mirrors, just shifting how it's communicated.

[vintageogauge]

Does this apply to the non-MLS sales agents of The Villages????

[CoachKandSportsguy]

How is the current system "double dipping"? The seller knows that their agent is paying a co-broke commission to the buyer agent.

The changes aren't going to do a darned thing. The seller agents will still recommend the seller pay the buyer agent. Buyer agents are still going to want to get paid and if you are a seller you will want your house to be shown.

I could see circumstance where seller refuses to pay buyer agent, and the buyer agrees to pay their agent. But in the end, what the buyer has to spend will have to include what their agent is paid. This is all smoke and mirrors, just shifting how it's communicated.

If the seller refuses to pay the buyer's agent, then the buyer has to cough up the 2-3% or whatever the agreement is. If the buyer can't roll that into the mortgage, a buyer will have to save for a 20% down payment and a 3% agent fee. On the Average $450,000, that's an extra $13,000 + out of pocket. That just might change what a buyer can buy, and may reduce the potential buyers who aren't real estate savvy enough to buy it themselves.

Yes, this agreement is about eliminating dual agent roles, as well as compensation for each role. The problem is not the rules, it's always about the implementation with legal agreements and state laws.

I read one real estate agent, who was also a lawyer, mention a suit in progress:
One person bid on a house with a buyer's agent. Didn't get the house, but the buyers agent had them sign a 6 month exclusive agreement in the offer letter. Then the buyer's agent wouldn't release the buyer after the failed bid. . off to court! (and don't ask me for details or suggest that everyone would catch that! I have personal examples of lawyers not signing documents during meetings to sign documents)

Again, all in the implementation and execution of agreements. And dealing with hoomans.

[retiredguy123]

If the seller refuses to pay the buyer's agent, then the buyer has to cough up the 2-3% or whatever the agreement is. If the buyer can't roll that into the mortgage, a buyer will have to save for a 20% down payment and a 3% agent fee. On the Average $450,000, that's an extra $13,000 + out of pocket. That just might change what a buyer can buy, and may reduce the potential buyers who aren't real estate savvy enough to buy it themselves.

Yes, this agreement is about eliminating dual agent roles, as well as compensation for each role. The problem is not the rules, it's always about the implementation with legal agreements and state laws.

I read one real estate agent, who was also a lawyer, mention a suit in progress:
One person bid on a house with a buyer's agent. Didn't get the house, but the buyers agent had them sign a 6 month exclusive agreement in the offer letter. Then the buyer's agent wouldn't release the buyer after the failed bid. . off to court! (and don't ask me for details or suggest that everyone would catch that! I have personal examples of lawyers not signing documents during meetings to sign documents)

Again, all in the implementation and execution of agreements. And dealing with hoomans.
I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

Here in MA, there are only listing / selling agents.
why?
because the lawyers manage the buyer's agreement. You want to put an offer on a house?
create the offer letter, run it by your RE lawyer, and you are good to go. the buyer's lawyer will guide the buyer for unseen circumstances. For me, my mom's house is owned by my deceased dad and my dementia incapacitated mom's individual trusts. I am the sole trustee of each trust. The Buyer's lawyer will want proof of estate taxes paid or not owed, that my mom is legally incapacitated for both trusts, etc, so that the title can be passed cleanly. . .

IN FL, I am ignorant, but there was a sh!t load more papers to sign stating adult common knowledge is known.

[Jayhawk]

Does this apply to the non-MLS sales agents of The Villages????

No. They are not governed by NAR rules.

[Robnlaura]

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.
Agents defrauding buyers ?? Really what world do you live in.. what rubbish..

[retiredguy123]

Agents defrauding buyers ?? Really what world do you live in.. what rubbish..
So, you don't think that real estate agents try to convince buyers that they a working for them, when, legally, they are representing the seller? That is deceptive. Maybe fraud is too strong a word. But, you must admit that buyers often refer to the agent who sells them a house as "my agent", when they don't have a written contract with the agent.

[Plinker]

How is the current system "double dipping"? The seller knows that their agent is paying a co-broke commission to the buyer agent.

The changes aren't going to do a darned thing. The seller agents will still recommend the seller pay the buyer agent. Buyer agents are still going to want to get paid and if you are a seller you will want your house to be shown.

I could see circumstance where seller refuses to pay buyer agent, and the buyer agrees to pay their agent. But in the end, what the buyer has to spend will have to include what their agent is paid. This is all smoke and mirrors, just shifting how it's communicated.

Double dipping refers to a situation where the seller’s agent also finds a buyer and therefore does not split the 5-6% commission. In other words, they get both halves of the commission as there is no buyers agent to pay from the commission paid by the seller at closing.

[BrianL99]

Here in MA, there are only listing / selling agents.
why?
because the lawyers manage the buyer's agreement. You want to put an offer on a house?
create the offer letter, run it by your RE lawyer, and you are good to go. the buyer's lawyer will guide the buyer for unseen circumstances. .

Where do you come up with the contention there are only "Listing Agents" in MA?

MA has operated like most every other state for many years and allows "dual agency", provided it's disclosed and MA certainly has Buyer's Agents.

Just a guess, but having bought and sold 100's of homes in MA and owned a real estate agency in MA, I would be very surprised if more than 20%-25% of Buyers, hire an attorney.

Most everyone *thinks* the "closing attorney" is their lawyer, but the closing attorney is only acting as a Title Attorney and is representing the bank (mortgage holder).

How this new FTC Ruling shakes out, is still up for debate. I don't see it helping consumers as much as the FTC would have you believe it will. On its face, I think it will work against consumers, at least in the beginning.

If I were to take a wild guess, I think it's going to eventually put "Selling Brokers" out of business. The market has been moving towards that, since the advent of the Internet, Zillow, RedFin and now even the MLS allows people to list on their service.

[mkjelenbaas]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !
Remember the old saying - “Hello I am from the government and I am here to help you!” - REALLY

[vdelaglio]

It's really not that complicated. The buyer was always paying for both seller/buyer commissions. The seller always calculated that into the price to calculate their net. It's actually more transparent for the buyer and they have an agent that is a fiduciary in the transaction.

[donfey]

That isn't unusual now. But as a buyer you are entering a transaction unrepresented and since Florida doesn't allow dual agency the seller agent really has no obligations to help you out with info or anything.
True, but you are free to walk away. It's the best "tool" a buyer has.

[merrymini]

Collecting the entire fee is not double dipping. People always sign an agreement that agents, usually, act as sellers and buyers agents. Although it is relatively rare for the listing agent to also sell the house, it does happen. They have to put in time and effort on both ends. Would you work for nothing?

[NorineBerlinski]

Villages realtors have told me that The villages is not changing their compensation. Presently it cost sellers 5% to list a home with The villages, 3% goes to the selling agent and 2% to the buyers agent. They are not going to change that and they are NOT part of the class action lawsuit. If I was going to sell a home after August 17, I would not list with a Villages Realtor.
Right now, The villages gets slightly more listings than the MLS from people who are selling their home. I think this will change. When sellers figure out they only have to pay their broker 3%, I doubt they’d be willing to list with The villages and pay 5%. I think many more sellers will move Toward the MLS and list their properties through them.

[Topgun 1776]

What I find interesting is EVERY SINGLE ONE of these gloom and doom reports to scare people NEVER turn out to be true! They're someone else's particular take on a subject. Folks....my recommendation....don't pay attention to these negative posts that could complicate your life. If you're actually buying or ready to buy at home, I'm sure you'll find out. Don't worry about someone's negative posts on TOTV. Have a great day!

[oneclickplus]

LOL. I don't need a lawyer to review the contract. There is no way I would ever sign it. The real estate agent may be handcuffed, but I'm not.

Agreed. Plus I also say "ignore the realtors". Seriously, sellers ... offer for sale by owner. There are websites that easily facilitate this. And, even if you are not tech savvy, there are services that will help you by taking photos and posting your information. Yes, you will pay them but NOT a percentage of the sale price. Both you and the buyer will save money. Standard contracts are available regarding inspections, etc. All you really need is the title company to do the paperwork & closing. Optional warranties can still be offered by the seller. Realtors are way over paid. And, there is no reason that their compensation should ever have been a percentage of the sale price. The work to sell a $300,000 property and a $700,000 property is the same.

Think of it as a dating service. You don't need a third party in order to meet each other. And you certainly don't need to pay a third party when you finally decide to have sex (consummate the deal).

[RRGuyNJ]

Thanks. I predict that this arrangement will never fly because it sifles competition. It's still a free country, and no one can stop a person from making an offer to buy a house from the owner. It's just not logical. I will never pay an agent a commission to buy a house.

The way I see it, if you bought real estate and the seller had an agent. You paid for the house andthe realtor did get paid and they were paid with your money.

[Plinker]

Collecting the entire fee is not double dipping. People always sign an agreement that agents, usually, act as sellers and buyers agents. Although it is relatively rare for the listing agent to also sell the house, it does happen. They have to put in time and effort on both ends. Would you work for nothing?

This is common real estate terminology. Every realtor knows what it means. I agree that the selling realtor must put in time when marketing the same home to a buyer but, as a seller, I would never allow it. The reason is because there is a huge conflict of interest. How can the selling realtor ONLY serve my best interests when negotiating the terms? I have had realtors say they can but when large dollars are at stake, I have my doubts. Under the new law, a realtor would need to sign contracts to represent both the buyer and the seller. Is the realtor going to ask for the seller to cover the buyer’s fee or stand firm and represent only the seller?

[Pairadocs]

LOL. I don't need a lawyer to review the contract. There is no way I would ever sign it. The real estate agent may be handcuffed, but I'm not.

Great reply ! The poster is trying to be helpful I'm sure, but you also bring out that people ARE also responsible for their own protection.

[Pairadocs]

have been reading about buyers agent agreements being litigated for many reasons on my socials

What I am waiting to see is how "Open Houses" are going to make it in the future. Uncertain at this time.

Many are currently defiant today, but as a buyer, will be interesting to see how the new requirements shake out. It's not all about the commissions, but about many other constraints which people won't like or will need to get used to.

good luck to the new buyers...

Really interested in this topic (I'm not and never have been associated in any way with real estate sales) but not sure what you meant by "how open houses will make it in the future" ? Can you explain a bit more ? Are you thinking the new "rules" or whatever they are (?) will promote more, or fewer, open houses ? To me the whole system is a giant, confusing, mess. Seems it could be simplified IF there was any advocacy for simplification ! IMO, the Villages adds an even more unnecessary element to all of it. This is the only place/state where we've lived, including other locations in Florida, where the mind boggling ritual of having to have a mls agent actually present if we have an agent from the Villages, and vice versa. Way too complicated and unnecessary .... but it seems to have a lot of support, so, just one opinion here !

[Dusty_Star]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

Coming from, & buying houses there, a state that has had buyer's agents for a long, long time, I am not fussed. I also think, having seen both varieties, that buyer's agents are good for buyers.

[Pairadocs]

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

To me that seems infinitely logical. If a person wants someone to FIND prospective homes/real estate FOR THEM, why even have it connected to the entire process at all ? Why not just contact and interview people in that profession (a person whose business in finding what an individual is looking for). When you find someone that suits your personal tastes, you pay the person a fee just like you pay a person who comes to fix a plumbing issue. The people who sell their services to find homes/real estate, could write their own terms; PAY ME $ --------, and if I am not able to find what you are seeking in 6 months (or 4 months, or 3 months, whatever the two of you agree on) then your payment is refunded based on a percentage withheld for the time and effort the "finder" put into the effort. If the finder found the buyer's desired property, they would of course get the the entire amount agreed on. Keep this completely separate from the event of someone contracting with an "agent" from any agency they engage to "list" (advertise, show) their property. People who don't have the time, but have the money, pay people all the time to do "shopping" and other tasks for them. Why not just "employ" a "personal home shopper" IF that's what you want, and for others who prefer to read the ads, drive through areas they desire to live and look for signs rather from a realty or OSBO, go to open houses and model home exhibitions, and so on. If you don't have the time, or the desire to go shop yourself, then go hire someone and you and that person decide on the terms !

[DAVES]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

Actually none of this is new. It is just another effort to make people aware. Real estate and real estate law is strange. First of all it is serious money. Not like you buy a wrong wrench or similar item and you say it is $20 I will use it some day.

Some strange stuff, if it isn't in writing, it is meaningless.

The broker usually works for the seller. You often forget that. IF, as is typical you ride in their car and are talking to your spouse. You say we'll offer $$$$$ but we could pay more-it is worth it. The broker has to bring any offer to the seller IF IT IS PUT IN WRITING. They go to the seller, who they work for, and say don't accept this offer they will go higher.

The code of ethics. Years ago not in Florida. I put in a written offer on a house. Later it sold for less than my offer. I contacted the real estate board. They wanted me to appear and testify. REALITY. i ASKED, any penalties go to the real estate board not to me.

Like everything ETHICS. It is serious money. Thou shalt not steal. For many they read don't steal from me but it is fine if I steal from you.

[DAVES]

Really interested in this topic (I'm not and never have been associated in any way with real estate sales) but not sure what you meant by "how open houses will make it in the future" ? Can you explain a bit more ? Are you thinking the new "rules" or whatever they are (?) will promote more, or fewer, open houses ? To me the whole system is a giant, confusing, mess. Seems it could be simplified IF there was any advocacy for simplification ! IMO, the Villages adds an even more unnecessary element to all of it. This is the only place/state where we've lived, including other locations in Florida, where the mind boggling ritual of having to have a mls agent actually present if we have an agent from the Villages, and vice versa. Way too complicated and unnecessary .... but it seems to have a lot of support, so, just one opinion here !

Everything Is a matter of OPINION. An opened house. In the Villages it seems the sales person is trying to sell to buyers. In the villages it seems to be something for bored people to do. From what I've read and what we experienced when we sold our previous home. While the listing broker will show the home to potential buyers it was mostly to show it to other brokers Perhaps part of the reason, they were all custom built not limited to this model or that model. Our home was built in 1948. You can't even buy the wood used.

[aces_04]

I’m not being disrespectful, what is your source?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Really interested in this topic (I'm not and never have been associated in any way with real estate sales) but not sure what you meant by "how open houses will make it in the future" ? Can you explain a bit more ? Are you thinking the new "rules" or whatever they are (?) will promote more, or fewer, open houses ?

I don't think it will change the quantity of open houses. I am wondering how open houses will be managed with respect to accepting offers on the spot, with respect to having a buyers agent agreement in place as a requirement, etc. .

I do not know how the rules will change or influence the process of an open house, if at all. That's why i am not sure how open houses will happen. . . If you see a house with an open house on the internet, there may not be an address. To find out and be allowed to go, some sites are assigning you a buyer's agent. not sure how that will play out, and if that continues, I don't know how open houses will continue through internet advertisements. .

if not, then through your buyer's broker, as the selling broker won't care? Again the technology disruptors always think that they know best. . just because they can envision a different solution. doesn't mean that they don't create chaos and mistrust in their solution. .

Friends in MA just signed a selling agent / broker agreement to sell their house before moving to TV. They offered 2% to the buyers agent, not sure about the total commission structure though. . The RE agent did say that they never do both, ie the transactional agent. Some do, but they don't. . .

[BrianL99]

Reading advise from folks who have bought and sold 3 or 4 homes in their lifetime, over a span of 50 years, is like taking advice from a Catholic Priest, on how to improve your sex life with your wife.

[Plinker]

Here is my plan when I buy my next home. In addition to being the buyer, I am also going to be my buyer’s agent. Then, when I put in an offer, I will write into the purchase contract that my buyer’s agent (me) requires a 3% fee to be paid by the seller for finding a buyer (me). What a wonderful bonus for me upon closing. What a nice 5-figure house warming gift!

[bmcgowan13]

Thanks. I predict that this arrangement will never fly because it sifles competition. It's still a free country, and no one can stop a person from making an offer to buy a house from the owner. It's just not logical. I will never pay an agent a commission to buy a house.

I attended a national retailer convention in 2016. The keynote speaker said "What would you think if I told you several years ago that the largest retailer in the world (AMAZON) did not own a single store. The larger hotelier in the world (Air B&B) did not own a single hotel. Or the largest rental car company in the world (UBER) did not own a single car."

Amazing--but were these societal/industry changes for good or bad? Sears/JC Penny/Montgomery Wards/Staples/NBC/ABC/CBS were blockbusters for decades. Even Best Buy/Macy's are on their last legs. (PS--in all honesty though, I was glad to see BLOCKBUSTER die out--their "late" fees were crazy absurd!)

Auto sales certainly have taken a hit... It seems the internet has crushed their competition. You can easily search for the cheapest price online. I have wondered what the next industry would be to be upended by the internet.

Is it home sales? Are realtors a dying breed? Is MLS going to be replaced?

If you know the answer please DM me privately so we can discuss stock strategies...LOL

[APovi]

LOL. I don't need a lawyer to review the contract. There is no way I would ever sign it. The real estate agent may be handcuffed, but I'm not.

Thats why I posted the (very limited) info.
I wouldn't sign one either.

[APovi]

The way I see it, if you bought real estate and the seller had an agent. You paid for the house andthe realtor did get paid and they were paid with your money.

-As mentioned, if you buy through the 'listing' agent, these new buyer costs don't apply.

[APovi]

This is common real estate terminology. Every realtor knows what it means. I agree that the selling realtor must put in time when marketing the same home to a buyer but, as a seller, I would never allow it. The reason is because there is a huge conflict of interest. How can the selling realtor ONLY serve my best interests when negotiating the terms? I have had realtors say they can but when large dollars are at stake, I have my doubts. Under the new law, a realtor would need to sign contracts to represent both the buyer and the seller. Is the realtor going to ask for the seller to cover the buyer’s fee or stand firm and represent only the seller?

-My reading of the settlement says that a Realtor can only represent one party, For example, at an Open House, the Host Realtor is deemed to represent only the seller. They can still sell you the house but you, the buyer, are 'unrepresented'.

[APovi]

Open houses are very popular in The Villages. What would prevent a buyer from attending an open house and making a cash offer? That is what I would do, and it would not include a buyer's commission to an agent.

-Obviously an owner/seller has no Realtor, so no commission fees are applicable.
BUT if it's a Realtors open house, then their commission is built into the asking price.

[APovi]

you may not be allowed to do so under the new rules. . . just because you think you can at the moment, you may not be able to in the future without a signed buyers agreement.

its all still in the pre execution / pre reality stage. . which is why I typed, will be interesting to see how this shakes out. .

-The rules for the Realtors Multi List changed on August 5th. Please note that BUYERS AGREEMENTS do not have to include a fee.

[BrianL99]

-The rules for the Realtors Multi List changed on August 5th. Please note that BUYERS AGREEMENTS do not have to include a fee.

There it is folks. All you need to know.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I read the changes, effective Aug 8th as follows:

1) there will be no commission / fee data allowed on the MLS site, not for selling agents, nor buyer agents, nor agreements between buying and selling agents, in any form, such as typed, a link or with a photo.


2) for commission / fees
a) commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable
b) the commission structure, for both selling agents and buying agents, will be disclosed in a legal written agreement between parties. No assumed fees or undocumented payments splitting.

:
Section 5.1 Required Consumer Disclosure

Disclosure of Compensation: MLS Participants and Subscribers must:

Disclose to prospective sellers and buyers that broker compensation is not set by law and is fully negotiable. This must be included in conspicuous language as part of any listing agreement, buyer written agreement, and pre-closing disclosure documents (if any).
Conspicuously disclose in writing to sellers, and obtain the seller’s authority, for any payments or offer of payment that the listing Participant or seller will make to another broker, agent, or other representative (e.g. real estate attorney) acting for buyers. This disclosure must include the amount or rate of any such payment and be made in writing in advance of any payment or agreement to pay. (Adopted 8/24)

3) A buyer agent commission agreement will be in a written legal agreement.
Section 5.3 Written Buyer Agreement

Unless it is inconsistent with state or federal law or regulation, all MLS Participants working with a buyer must enter into a written agreement with the buyerprior to touring a home. The written agreement must include:

a specific and conspicuous disclosure of the amount or rate of compensation the Participant will receive or how this amount will be determined, to the extent that the Participant will receive compensation from any source.
the amount of compensation in a manner that is objectively ascertainable and not open-ended.
a term that prohibits the Participant from receiving compensation for brokerage services from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to in the agreement with the buyer; and
a conspicuous statement that broker fees and commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.
In order to enforce these new mandatory rules, the MLS Committee and Board of Directors have approved the following penalties for violations of the No Compensation on the MLS rules. These penalties will go into effect on August 8, 2024:

1st Violation – Immediate $2000 fine and the verbiage will be removed by MLS Staff
2nd Violation – $3000 fine and the verbiage will be removed by MLS Staff
3rd and Subsequent Violations – $5000 fine, 30-day suspension from the MLS, and the verbiage will be removed by MLS Staff.
Examples of violations that would incur these fines include but are not limited to:

Stating commission in any field of the MLS:
Having something in the photo displaying compensation
Mentioning compensation in a virtual tour video placed on the MLS
Including compensation on a supplement uploaded to the MLS


So the August 8th agreement for the MLS is basically:
No commission data in any form in the MLS site.
All commission fees must be in a written legal agreement, and easily able to be executed (assumed at closing)

And finally, this is where I question about the open house / schedule a showing rules:
Any MLS agent working with a buyer (assumed to be a buyer's agent) must have a written agreement prior to the showing.

So fine, how is this buyer agreement to be stored / validated prior to showing? verbally? uploaded document?
Can the MLS site force a buyer's agent agreement upon anyone scheduling a showing via the MLS site, prior to the showing?

This is what happened to my wife's niece when she went to tour the family home which had been sold to a flipper, and the house was up for sale. The buyer's agent was assigned to her through the web site, and accompanied her to the showing, trying to get her to sign a buyers' agreement . . . (in July)

[BostonTom]

You do not need a buyers agent go to the open house tell the listing agent YOU want to make offer You do not have to pay a buyers agent fee. Realtors trying to put their spin on it to continue to get big commissions. Think when you go into a VLS pre-owned listing open house you make the offer yourself to the agent which I did and they sell way more houses in the Villages that way than any MLS agents. What's the difference walking into MLS open house. NONE. Everything the so called buyer agent have access to you also have it on the internet. The buyers / sellers agent sounds nice but the truth is they work for neither no sales, no commission for them. It's that simple. They only care about the commission. Remember travel agents everyone was utilizing them to book vacations now with the internet they are dinosaurs. You can obviously tell Realtors are posting on these sites trying to put their spin on it to save the commissions.

[BrianL99]

I read the changes, effective Aug 8th as follows:




I think folks are missing basic facts and misunderstand what's really going on here.

These supposed "new laws" are not new laws. They are part of a settlement agreement, with a Trade Organization. There are at least 25 other federal lawsuits involving the same or similar issues. Some of which have been previously settled..

The settlement agreement effects the parties to the agreement, not anyone else. The parties to this particular agreement, are the NAR and their MLS. The "rules" don't effect anyone, unless they're buying or selling a home, using the MLS or the services of a REALTOR®.

There's a very good chance this settlement is going to undermine the MLS system as we know it and things might look very different in a couple of years. There are plenty of other "listing systems" out there. I bet LoopNet is licking their chops right now.

In the short run, this might prove to be a windfall for the VLS system, because they still get to play by their own rules.

Anyone who suggests they know how this is going to play out in the long run or what's going to be required when you try to buy a home next month, is speculating. I talked with the president of a state association of realtors, this morning. They're still unsure of the implications and aren't even close to having a set of documents that comply. if they're not really sure how to comply, I doubt many posters on TOTV know.

[APovi]

..... This law will reduce double dipping by selling agent and reduce seller fees by offering half of the usual 5 - 6 % commission as the buyers are on their own.
Maybe I'm nitpicking but It's not a new 'law'. The NAR was sued and this is their attempt to placate the plaintiffs
Also Listing/Selling commissions have always been 'negotiable. It's just that, in The Villages, sellers (and buyers) seem to think that, if you 'pay less; you get less".

[APovi]

No one is required to have a buyer's agent. An individual can absolutely walk into a house and make on offer on their own accord.

The whole thing is about buyer's agent compensation. No buyer's agent, no compensation worries.

Agreed.

[APovi]

A lot of misinformation in this post.

Like what?. Everything quoted is from the proposed NAR agreement and the FAQ's.

[APovi]

This topic applies only to Realtors. Members of the National Association of Realtors and our Multi List System.
The Villages sales team are licensed by the state too, but are not members of the NAR

[APovi]

If the seller refuses to pay the buyer's agent, then the buyer has to cough up the 2-3% or whatever the agreement is. If the buyer can't roll that into the mortgage, a buyer will have to save for a 20% down payment and a 3% agent fee. On the Average $450,000, that's an extra $13,000 + out of pocket. That just might change what a buyer can buy, and may reduce the potential buyers who aren't real estate savvy enough to buy it themselves.
Yes, this agreement is about eliminating dual agent roles, as well as compensation for each role. The problem is not the rules, it's always about the implementation with legal agreements and state laws.
I read one real estate agent, who was also a lawyer, mention a suit in progress:
One person bid on a house with a buyer's agent. Didn't get the house, but the buyers agent had them sign a 6 month exclusive agreement in the offer letter. Then the buyer's agent wouldn't release the buyer after the failed bid. . off to court! (and don't ask me for details or suggest that everyone would catch that! I have personal examples of lawyers not signing documents during meetings to sign documents)
Again, all in the implementation and execution of agreements. And dealing with hoomans.

-Thanks for the example. My reason for the posting, is that, as you report, buyers are likely to be ripped off if they sign these new Buyers Broker Agreements and also that there's no need to take that risk. If you go to the Listing Broker, you don't have to. sign or pay. AND you costs of sale (fees/commissions) will be rolled into your mortgage as they always have been. Not so if you pay a Buyers broker.

[APovi]

Great reply ! The poster is trying to be helpful I'm sure, but you also bring out that people ARE also responsible for their own protection.

I agree with your comment. Perhaps only a few people need this info. But, it's said that 'knowledge is power" Maybe it is?

[APovi]

I think folks are missing basic facts and misunderstand what's really going on here.

These supposed "new laws" are not new laws. They are part of a settlement agreement, with a Trade Organization. There are at least 25 other federal lawsuits involving the same or similar issues. Some of which have been previously settled..

The settlement agreement effects the parties to the agreement, not anyone else. The parties to this particular agreement, are the NAR and their MLS. The "rules" don't effect anyone, unless they're buying or selling a home, using the MLS or the services of a REALTOR®.

There's a very good chance this settlement is going to undermine the MLS system as we know it and things might look very different in a couple of years. There are plenty of other "listing systems" out there. I bet LoopNet is licking their chops right now.

In the short run, this might prove to be a windfall for the VLS system, because they still get to play by their own rules.

Anyone who suggests they know how this is going to play out in the long run or what's going to be required when you try to buy a home next month, is speculating. I talked with the president of a state association of realtors, this morning. They're still unsure of the implications and aren't even close to having a set of documents that comply. if they're not really sure how to comply, I doubt many posters on TOTV know.

- It's encouraging when a poster, like this, provides researched facts over speculative opinions. On or about August 17th the presiding judge in the NAR case is expected to accept (or reject) the proposed NAR settlement.
Unfortunately the Realtors have mandated that their members use new forms which includes, what I consider to be terms which threaten buyers, and could cost a seller a sale (because their potential buyer is 'scared off'.

[Bonanza]

Also, the law states that you can attend open houses and ask questions without signing anything. You don’t need an agent to buy if you prefer to DIY.
This law will reduce double dipping by selling agent and reduce seller fees by offering half of the usual 5 - 6 % commission as the buyers are on their own.

There is no "usual 5-6%" in real estate.
To express that is against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

[BrianL99]

There is no "usual 5-6%" in real estate.
To express that is against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.


Don't let the fact that federal courts have consistently disagreed with you through the years, get in the way of your opinion.

Hyland v. Home Services of America, Inc ? Re/Max, Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc ?

[Bay Kid]

Government control coming to your business soon.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Anyone who suggests they know how this is going to play out in the long run or what's going to be required when you try to buy a home next month, is speculating. I talked with the president of a state association of realtors, this morning. They're still unsure of the implications and aren't even close to having a set of documents that comply. if they're not really sure how to comply, I doubt many posters on TOTV know.

Totally agree!

That's what we are all spinning and hashing about on TOTV, like the pub/club gathering of friends all arguing their own interpretations of events as personal experts from their own non professional experiences.

[Plinker]

There is no "usual 5-6%" in real estate.
To express that is against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Really? Every home I have sold, the realtor wanted 5 or 6%. Have these realtors all violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?

[Donegalkid]

No one is required to have a buyer's agent. An individual can absolutely walk into a house and make on offer on their own accord.

The whole thing is about buyer's agent compensation. No buyer's agent, no compensation worries.

The settlement with NAR is designed to provide more transparency in real estate transactions. Simply, more complete disclosure of fees associated with transactions. Some experts believe — once the rules are in place and the market adjusts — that 1) the pool of buyers (particularly first time buyers) will be reduced (for the obvious reasons mentioned in many of these posts, specifically: many/most buyers will be paying up front buyer’s agents fees; 2) there will be some downward pressure of real estate commissions (that incidentally have always been negotiable) and 3) the rule changes may serve to depress real estate prices (e.g. market forces due to less buyers). So, greater transparency…perhaps leading to fewer buyers, depressed real estate prices, and perhaps less $$ for sellers despite the fact they may be paying slightly less in real estate commissions. Be careful what you ask for … if the above is not to your liking and you expected your real estate nest egg to keep appreciating (as was the case prior to the rule changes).

[bshuler]

For the layman, I suppose the CNN story below sums it up. There are class action lawsuits in the works (https://www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com/) to compensate some of those who bought homes. They (National Association of Realtors) have to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars per the settlement


CNN March 15: The 6% commission on buying or selling a home is gone after Realtors association agrees to seismic settlement (https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/economy/nar-realtor-commissions-settlement/index.html)

[Lea N]

That isn't unusual now. But as a buyer you are entering a transaction unrepresented and since Florida doesn't allow dual agency the seller agent really has no obligations to help you out with info or anything.

Would hiring a real estate attorney make sense?

All of this seems to be going over my head. I'm missing something. It "was" that the percentage was paid for by the buyer and then the two real estate agents split the money, correct? So the commission was, prior to the new law added to the sale price of the home and paid for by the buyer. Now the seller pays a lesser percentage to his agent and the buyer pays a lesser percentage to their agent. Doesn't it really come out to the same thing in the end?

Forgive me if this sounds too simplified, but I'm not quite understanding it.

If a buyer contacted the seller directly as someone suggested then the buyer would not be represented by an agent. Would it benefit the buyer to have an attorney to look at the paperwork if they went this route? How would the seller's real estate agent respond to this? Is this really allowed?

[retiredguy123]

Would hiring a real estate attorney make sense?

All of this seems to be going over my head. I'm missing something. It "was" that the percentage was paid for by the buyer and then the two real estate agents split the money, correct? So the commission was, prior to the new law added to the sale price of the home and paid for by the buyer. Now the seller pays a lesser percentage to his agent and the buyer pays a lesser percentage to their agent. Doesn't it really come out to the same thing in the end?

Forgive me if this sounds too simplified, but I'm not quite understanding it.

If a buyer contacted the seller directly as someone suggested then the buyer would not be represented by an agent. Would it benefit the buyer to have an attorney to look at the paperwork if they went this route? How would the seller's real estate agent respond to this? Is this really allowed?
If you hire an attorney, hire them before you sign the sales contract. After that, they won't be able to provide much help. The title company will ensure that the deed is clean and legally transferred. That being said, most buyers do not hire an attorney.

[Villager1234]

I am in contract to purchase a house It seems to be simple
I made an offer, they countered, I agreed. Signed contract, got inspection. Everything went smooth
The broker that I met at the house handled all of the paperwork. She said that she represented me but I think I represented myself.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

She said that she represented me but I think I represented myself.

So since she represented you, she gets to keep the entire commission if the seller agreed to giver the buyer's broker a percentage as your buyer's broker?

sounds sleazy, like getting in the dual compensation prior to the deadline. .

And then if I have a real estate license, can I be a buyer's agent for myself and save some money? I think someone else had that same idea, so I am stealing nefarious ideas here.

[Plinker]

So since she represented you, she gets to keep the entire commission if the seller agreed to giver the buyer's broker a percentage as your buyer's broker?

sounds sleazy, like getting in the dual compensation prior to the deadline. .

And then if I have a real estate license, can I be a buyer's agent for myself and save some money? I think someone else had that same idea, so I am stealing nefarious ideas here.

You are more than welcome to steal my nefarious ideas anytime you like! This is exactly the conclusion I came to after reading the post. A prime example of DOUBLE DIPPING that one realtor claimed wasn’t a term. This is why the FTC stepped in. Realtors have been far from transparent for decades and the terms of engagement needs to be clearly disclosed to both buyers and sellers and will save them big bucks. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that the majority of sellers and buyers will be current on this ruling and take advantage of the savings.

[BrianL99]

You are more than welcome to steal my nefarious ideas anytime you like! This is exactly the conclusion I came to after reading the post. A prime example of DOUBLE DIPPING that one realtor claimed wasn’t a term. This is why the FTC stepped in. Realtors have been far from transparent for decades and the terms of engagement needs to be clearly disclosed to both buyers and sellers and will save them big bucks. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that the majority of sellers and buyers will be current on this ruling and take advantage of the savings.

I'm shocked that this thing gone so far and made so complicated.

In MA, NAR essentially uses a "2 step process", consisting of an "Offer/Acceptance" form, which clearly list the commission structure and who's getting what. Then you move to Purchase and Sale and anyone with a brain, has an attorney review/amend that, from the Standard Form NAR supplies. Also, any "conditions" are added. While the Offer Agreement says it's a "Binding Contract", it really isn't all that binding, but actually only an "agreement to agree" (subsequent P&S).

Commissions have ALWAYS been negotiable, in total and in "split". I would typically pay 5% and 3% would go to the Buyer's Broker, as they're doing the hard work in my opinion.

The Settlement "solution" seems way more complicated than it has to be.

[SoCalGal]

That is what I would do, and it would not include a buyer's commission to an agent.

Then your pool of potential buyers will be considerably reduced.

[Pairadocs]

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

My advice, calm down. If all these things you are fearing have you that upset, just hire a local attorney (not a villages attorney), to look over what YOU wish in your search for a home. Sorry, not trying to disparage you or disrespect you in any way, I KNOW it pays to be cautious, but in some ways your frantic "tone" seems to suggest you are getting way too upset over many things that you CAN prevent happening to you. Calm down (hope you don't resent this, I am not a "snarky" person who posts to admonish others) and take a deep breath, and you might find out this will be a huge benefit to you and not the "sky falling" as you fear.

[MightyDog]

Would hiring a real estate attorney make sense?

All of this seems to be going over my head. I'm missing something. It "was" that the percentage was paid for by the buyer and then the two real estate agents split the money, correct? So the commission was, prior to the new law added to the sale price of the home and paid for by the buyer. Now the seller pays a lesser percentage to his agent and the buyer pays a lesser percentage to their agent. Doesn't it really come out to the same thing in the end?

Forgive me if this sounds too simplified, but I'm not quite understanding it.

If a buyer contacted the seller directly as someone suggested then the buyer would not be represented by an agent. Would it benefit the buyer to have an attorney to look at the paperwork if they went this route? How would the seller's real estate agent respond to this? Is this really allowed?

Let me help you out - some of your info quite wrong. I'm speaking about how things have been for ages (not talking about the new stuff). Regarding bolded, above...the home SELLER pays all commissions, it comes from the proceeds of their sale. Also, commission IS NOT added to the sale price (that would obviously mean the buyer paid all the commission) And, to clarify, it's not always "a 50/50 split". The seller, when hiring their agent negotiates what the total commission will be and what the "split" of that fee will be.

People really need to think about that when listing their home and hiring their selling agent. Because if a buyer appears with no agent on their side (like I do when buying) then why should that selling agent get the full 5 or 6%, typically? That's nuts but, if a seller didn't consider that at the start, their agent will likely want them to stick to the contract as written which gives them the full $$ commission stated.

If a buyer contacted the seller directly as someone suggested then the buyer would not be represented by an agent.
I will be doing this in the next couple months. If the home is listed with an agent, I will contact the agent, if it's For Sale by Owner, I will contact the owner and I will work directly with either of those. I may contact an attorney to give the contract a look-over, just because I haven't bought in FL before. I MUCH prefer to negotiate myself and it has also saved me solid money on my buy prices in the past for the fact there is no agent to pay on my side.

[keepsake]

I expect 'for sale by owner' to flourish.