[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

In Massachusetts there can be a contract with a buyers agent. If not there can just be an agent disclosure that one is acting as a buyers agent. If there is a contract it usually has a date set on it. Even if the buyer walks away from that agent but is under contract that buyer's agent will likely still get that share of the commission. Years ago this exact thing happened to me. I had a buyer's agent (It was my first house and I had no idea about these things). I walked away because I didn't like her. But she showed up at closing and got her money. She did nothing in the way of helping me except send me to the house the first time. But the basic ethics rules is that agent that had the contract has some rights via the board of realtors to that commission.

Even if there is no contract but that agent shows the buyer the house, that agent will get their share of the commission, regardless if the buyer then stops all contact with them. The first question an agent should be asking when they get a call from a buyer is, "Are you working with an agent." There are times buyers don't disclose this and it can cause issues with commissions.

ETA: This lawsuit will likely increase the amount of actual contracts between buyer's agents and buyers. Because it seems the buyers will have to pay their agent directly rather than from the proceeds of the sale. It doesn't really help anything. It becomes more complicated. Here's an example.

For easy math...
House is worth 500K. Old way, it is listed and sells for 500K. At closing the 2 realtors split the 25K commission (5%) that was set on the listing.

New way: Owner lists and sells for 500K. Seller pays their listing agent 12.5K. But the buyer is under contract to pay their agent 12.5K (obviously, this number is whatever they negotiate). But buyers don't always have thousands extra laying around at closing. So they will perhaps write an offer that asks for 12.5K back at closing. Similar to how buyers will ask for closing costs back at closing. In the end the seller took home 475K in both scenarios.

One benefit I could see is in competition among buyer's agents. If the commission is now set at the listing, the buyer can hire any agent. But if there is a contract with the buyer's agent that sets the commission, the buyer's agents can compete with lower commission/pay.

I did not state my so-called "buyers agent" did not receive a commission. I said he did nothing to earn it. All he did was follow me around. He didn't even negotiate the terms. Without him, I would have just contacted the listing agent and finalized the deal with him. Easy, peasy! I did not need a middle man who took it upon himself to state that he was my agent. If I wanted someone representing me, it would be a lawyer or a home inspector.

I owe the agent following me around NOTHING. If the listing agent shares his commission with him, that is a separate deal that I AM NOT a part of.

Therefore, I never had a buyers agent. Just a man following me around waiting to get paid for merely showing up.

A buyer does not have to pay an agent. EVER! He or she can contact the listing agent and proceed from there.

IMHO, This is the ethical way for agents to sell homes. If a buyer approaches or contacts you wanting to see a property that IS NOT your listing, you must say so. Then immediately contact the listing agent and tell him that a buyer is interested in seeing his listing. 'When can you meet with him?" Is that too hard? If so, give the interested buyer the listing agent's contact information. Then say, "nice meeting you!"

I tried to explain this by using a car dealership as an example. A sales representative assists you while you are looking at cars in his shop. He does not follow you to every dealership waiting for you to buy. Then say, "Hey! You owe me commission! I am her agent." If this example sounds silly to you, then the practice of a buyer's agent is just as silly.


I hope the practice of a buyers agent is banned in all states. If banned, this will save sellers quite a bit of money by not having to pay high commissions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Now that is semantics. Legally, the entire commission is paid by the seller. Just read the settlement statement where the commission is listed on the seller's side of the statement. Whatever money changes hands between the brokers is a private agreement between them. Under contract law, the buyer could never sue the broker to get back a commission because he never paid a commission.

That's because the only time the commission is paid, is AFTER the sale has closed. At that point, the buyer ceases to be the buyer and becomes the homeowner. And the commission was built into the price he paid for the home. It's in the contract. The sales price INCLUDES the commission.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Why do folks who have little or no knowledge, insist on posting about subjects they know little or nothing about?

There is no such thing as a "REALTOR®" license. A REALTOR® is simple a Broker, who joins the National Association of Realtors and agrees to adhere to their ethical requirements ... and pays their fees every year.

There is no way to be a REALTOR®, without belonging to the Association and paying dues.

In most states, there are two levels of Real Estate "professionals". Sales People and Brokers. There are no states that offer a License as a "Realtor" ... that's a made up word, by the Nation Association of Realtors.

Think of them as the difference between a Master Plumber and a Journeyman Plumber. The Journeyman can do most every job the Master can do, but he can't have any employees working under him. A Real Estate Salesperson can do most anything a Broker can do, but must work under the auspices of a Broker.

In most states, a non-licensed person can work directly for a Developer or Home Builder, selling homes or property.

Why are you calling me out for not knowing what I'm talking about, when you just said the same thing I did, but with more words?

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Yes, it is different in Florida. If it is listed in the contract as allowed by Massachusetts law, there is nothing unethical. Knowing this, I probably will never buy a house in Massachusetts. I am not going to pay someone to do something I can do myself. How hard is it to look at MLS listings to find what you like.

If you COULD look at the MLS. In most states that is proprietary to Realtors.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That's because the only time the commission is paid, is AFTER the sale has closed. At that point, the buyer ceases to be the buyer and becomes the homeowner. And the commission was built into the price he paid for the home. It's in the contract. The sales price INCLUDES the commission.

A buyer DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT The commission is something the seller agreed to pay from the sales when signing a contract with an agent. It is the seller's expense.

The buyer throughout the entire process has no idea what commission was paid and to whom. They are never a part of that. It is possible there is a clause in the seller's contract that states zero commission paid if home does not sell at agreed upon price.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

If you COULD look at the MLS. In most states that is proprietary to Realtors.

I have never come across a state where this is true. I simply type homes for sale in the city I am interested in. Instantly, I have several sites to choose from: Zillow, Realtor, Trulia, Compass, etc. Each lists the homes for sale in that particular city. Not once have I encountered a city that blocks the information.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

If you COULD look at the MLS. In most states that is proprietary to Realtors.

Yes it's proprietary, but the majority of the information is publicly available in most states. Up until a couple of years ago, the commission structure wasn't generally available, but a fairly recent DOJ agreement changed that and as evidenced by the recent lawsuit, the situation is in flux.

ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

[Robnlaura]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

And, this is how a lawsuit was won. A realtor cannot be a buyer's agent. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller at all times. A potential buyer does not need to contract with a realtor.

Absolutely no clue

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Yes it's proprietary, but the majority of the information is publicly available in most states. Up until a couple of years ago, the commission structure wasn't generally available, but a fairly recent DOJ agreement changed that and as evidenced by the recent lawsuit, the situation is in flux.

ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

Still, a buyer does not have a contract. The buyer negotiated a price he is willing to pay for the home. It is of no concern what the seller does with his profit. Pay an agent 50% or none.. It doesn't matter to the buyer.

[Robnlaura]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not only can you, but you must. You don't need a "realtors license." But if you want to be employed by the Villages as a sales representative selling their homes, you must have a "real estate" license. "Realtor" is an official title. The owner of a real estate company can be a Realtor, and all his employees be "licensed real estate agents" without being Realtors themselves.

Realtors have different a different set of requirements than licensed real estate agents.

Who gave you that information?? You obviously know very little about real estate that’s a fact.. not even worth my time to correct you..

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Robnlaura

Absolutely no clue

A buyer DOES NOT have a contract with an agent. Without a contract, an agent DOES NOT represent the buyer. He is merely giving advice. A buyer, at anytime, can choose to buy by dealing ONLY with the listing agent or use any agent he chooses to assist him in the deal. He is never tied to one agent.

A seller on the other hand has a contract with an agent. They negotiate a commission and the funds for paying the stated commission are TAKEN OUT OF THE SELLER'S PROFIT.

A buyer could care less if an agent gets paid. He is not legally bound to pay an agent.THE SELLER IS! Therefore, all real estate agents represent the seller.

[PjLyness1965]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

A buyer DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT The commission is something the seller agreed to pay from the sales when signing a contract with an agent. It is the seller's expense.

The buyer throughout the entire process has no idea what commission was paid and to whom. They are never a part of that. It is possible there is a clause in the seller's contract that states zero commission paid if home does not sell at agreed upon price.

Please stop posting. You’re clueless about how real estate transactions work.

[PjLyness1965]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

I did not state my so-called "buyers agent" did not receive a commission. I said he did nothing to earn it. All he did was follow me around. He didn't even negotiate the terms. Without him, I would have just contacted the listing agent and finalized the deal with him. Easy, peasy! I did not need a middle man who took it upon himself to state that he was my agent. If I wanted someone representing me, it would be a lawyer or a home inspector.

I owe the agent following me around NOTHING. If the listing agent shares his commission with him, that is a separate deal that I AM NOT a part of.

Therefore, I never had a buyers agent. Just a man following me around waiting to get paid for merely showing up.

A buyer does not have to pay an agent. EVER! He or she can contact the listing agent and proceed from there.

IMHO, This is the ethical way for agents to sell homes. If a buyer approaches or contacts you wanting to see a property that IS NOT your listing, you must say so. Then immediately contact the listing agent and tell him that a buyer is interested in seeing his listing. 'When can you meet with him?" Is that too hard? If so, give the interested buyer the listing agent's contact information. Then say, "nice meeting you!"

I tried to explain this by using a car dealership as an example. A sales representative assists you while you are looking at cars in his shop. He does not follow you to every dealership waiting for you to buy. Then say, "Hey! You owe me commission! I am her agent." If this example sounds silly to you, then the practice of a buyer's agent is just as silly.


I hope the practice of a buyers agent is banned in all states. If banned, this will save sellers quite a bit of money by not having to pay high commissions.

Without an agent you can’t get in the house to see it unless it’s an open house. No seller with a brain will let you in the house without one. It’s a safety issue. The agent earned a commission by “following you around” because he granted you entry into those houses. You’re just too cheap to pay him for his time.

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

A buyer DOES NOT have a contract .

You could modify this to contain 'in Florida'. In other states buyers can indeed sign a contract with a buyers agent. Another poster repeatedly kept mentioning Massachusetts & they are not wrong.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by PjLyness1965

Please stop posting. You’re clueless about how real estate transactions work.

I know contract law. Without a contract, an agent DOES NOT represent the buyer. PERIOD!

I will keep posting that information because some agents try to convince buyers they cannot purchase a home without them.That is NOT CORRECT. A buyer simply has to deal with the agent who has listed the home. If he chooses to use an outside agent, he is free to do so. But, he is NEVER OBLIGATED.