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.

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

No clue
 

Absolutely no clue

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.

Incorrect
 

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Thank you. CAN and COULD is a choice. It does not mean a buyer MUST

Hmmm...Why does a buyer have to use an outside agent? Simply call the listing agent to open the house for you. It's not rocket science!
Then, negotiate a dealwith him. It is much easier that way since he represents the seller.

I don't have to be cheap and worry about paying an outside agent. A BUYER DOES NOT PAY THE COMMISSION. THE SELLER DOES! I don't sweat about ZERO dollars I owe. How could that bother me in any way?

Not true. Legally, the seller owes the commission when the broker finds a willing buyer. There have been cases where the broker has sued a seller for the commission because the seller backed out of the sale and the house was not sold. Read the listing contract. The broker earns the commission when he/she locates a willing buyer for the house, not when the closing occurs. The listing contract and the sales contract are two separate contracts.

A buyer's agent should be making sure you are paying a fair price. A buyer's agent should be making sure you have financing lined up. A buyer's agent should make sure you sign contracts on time and have the requirements met on time (so you don't lose your deposit). A buyer's agent should be searching listings for houses that meet your needs, setting up appointments, helping get the home inspection done. There are lots they should be doing and if yours did nothing (I think you posted something about that), then you didn't get a good agent.


Now, onto the lawsuit and payments etc. It should be noted the lawsuit really is bogus if you think about it this way... The seller agrees a commission payment to their listing agent. If the seller agent chooses to pay a buyer's agent part of that commission (which the seller agrees to when signing the listing contract), it's no one's business how they chose to spend their commission.

You are correct in this post. As I mentioned, just above, the seller's agent might be paying the buyer's agent from that commission. It works out to the same thing if there is a buyer's agent.

You can contact listing agents, you can see the house, make an offer, buy it, all without a buyer's agent. The listing agent will probably still get the full commission and not be giving any to a buyer's agent. But where does that leave the buyer? Paying the same amount and being unrepresented. Seller's agent has no reason to tell you if the house is overpriced, or if your inspector has a bad reputation, or your late on your mortgage commitment, etc.

You can protect yourself a bit with the real estate attorney, of course, but again, the commission isn't less. Maybe, just maybe on a deal in a bad market the seller's agent will reduce their commission if the buyer is unrepresented, but don't count on it.

???? Why would a buyer care if the commission is reduced? He is not paying it! The only negotiation made with the listing agent is a purchase price both parties can agree upon.

Wrong! The listing agent must provide comparables, provide a reputable inspector or allow a buyer to choose an inspector. The listing agent works under a broker or is a broker himself. A broker MUST
make certain the deal was closed legally with no underhanded shenanigans. Any wrongdoing and they can lose their license. An outside agent is not responsible for any of this.

Again, I hope the practice of a buyers agent is banned in every state.

Nope! A Buyer is responsible for lining up financing. An agent has nothing to do with it. It is only between the lender and the buyer. Fair price is determined by comparables in the same area. A listing agent has to use them to determine the price. If the price is overinflated, the bank will deny the loan.Buyers are adults. They know how to sign papers on time.A buyer can make his own appointments. And, an inspection can be set up by the listing agent, the broker, or the buyer. Once a home closes an outside agent is not responsible for anything. The listing agent and the broker will be held accountable. Who should you trust? The agent(s) who are legally accountable or an outside agent whose only interest is getting paid?

The lawsuit protects sellers from paying outlandish commissions. The seller owes one person when the home closes - the listing agent. Collusion to increase commissions so that a sum can be shared by several agents is the reason for the lawsuit. I agree with the outcome. The seller did not sign a contract with the outside agents. He is not responsible for paying them.

Regarding commission I meant if they pass that savings along to the buyer. For example say an offer is for 500k but the seller wants 515k. The listing agent may say “I’ll lower the commission if you want to accept this offer”. That happens all the time, especially if the home isn’t selling. I’ve had it happen to me.

Regarding the rest of your post I am not wrong. Yes, it has to be legal. But the listing agent doesn’t have to provide comps or an inspector or anything other than doing what’s in the purchase contract.

This is the problem with the internet. If we don't spell out every single thing, then people read into it. Sure the listing agent can do those things. But it helps to have a buyers agent. The price is set by the seller. Period. The listing agent can tell a seller what it should list for, offer advise, etc. But at the end of the day the Seller, not the agent, determines the price to list at.

You are right, it may not appraise. But what if it's a cash deal? Appraisal doesn't mean a darn thing. If a home is overpriced and a buyer is not educated they can easily overpay. Even if there is a mortgage, buyers can cover the appraisal gap with cash.

Regarding the other items I mentioned, I'm just saying that these are things the buyer's agent can help with. That is all. You take everything I say as if I'm reciting laws. I'm not. I'm saying there are things a buyer's agent should be helping with and that they can offer guidance and help on all kinds of things having to do with the transaction. I never said anything about after the home closes.

You said this..."Who should you trust? The agent(s) who are legally accountable or an outside agent whose only interest is getting paid?"

If there is a buyers agent, that agent works for the buyer. They aren't interested in only getting paid. They are interested in having a buyer get a good deal and the house they want to buy, without issues. Do they need that agent, no. But it can be helpful and the buyers agent has an obligation to the buyer, not the seller.

You also said this, "The lawsuit protects sellers from paying outlandish commissions. The seller owes one person when the home closes - the listing agent. Collusion to increase commissions so that a sum can be shared by several agents is the reason for the lawsuit. I agree with the outcome. The seller did not sign a contract with the outside agents. He is not responsible for paying them."

I'm sorry but you really don't get it. This comment is outlandish. There is no collusion if this commission breakdown is in the listing contract. The seller understands up front that the buyers agent will get a portion. They aren't increasing the commission. The sellers agent is going to get their 6% (or whatever they agree on) and they will either pay a buyers agent a portion or keep the entire 6%. The seller does sign a contract with the listing agent that says a buyers agent gets a portion of the commission. Why don't you get that?

You think this is some hidden backdoor thing between the 2 agents and that is flat out wrong. The commission breakdown is in the contract. It's not a secret.

If comps, inspection, termite are not provided to the bank, the bank will deny the loan. Therefore, the listing agent will provide them. If it is a cash deal, the buyer may choose to have a so called "buyers agent." But, whose to say the outside agent will protect the buyer? He may be just as inclined to smudge on the details to get a higher commission.

IMHO, it is better for a cash buyer to go to the broker and have him sign off on anything that seems odd. When the deal closes, it is the broker who is legally held accountable. He will make certain the listing agent does everything correctly.

An outside agent uses the title buyers agent. This makes people believe they will be represented fairly. When in fact, once the deal closes, the outside agent is not accountable for a thing.

We all knew what you meant...............we just have a new argumentative poster in town.
Well, old poster, new sign-on.

:loco::loco:

The brokers lost in court. They were found guilty of colluding. I didn't make it up and I have no problem understanding it.

In the state of Florida, the selling agent cannot do that. They cannot represent both the seller and the buyer. When I sold my house, the commission was paid by the buyer.

I offered my opinion as to why the ruling was wrong. That’s all. It will be appealed. But again that’s just my opinion.

Regarding all this buyers agent stuff, clearly you experienced a bad buyers agent. I understand as I had an agent do the same to me. Showed me the house, disappeared and did nothing else but show up at the closing for their check. I get you are butthurt about it. But not all buyers agents are like that. I’ve seen way more good agents since my bad experience (that was over 20 years ago).

The. Buyer. Has. A. Contract. With. The. Seller.

The. Seller. Builds. The. Seller's. Agent's. Commission. Into. The. Seller's. Sales. Price.

Whatever the seller wants to get for his house, he ADDS whatever the Agent has to get, to his "best and final" bottom line. It is the number he will not go below, to sell his house. The commission is built into that price. The buyer pays that price, OR the buyer doesn't get the house.

But already the NAR and several real estate brokerages are facing another lawsuit over agent commission rules. Fresh off winning the verdict in the 2019 case, the lawyers filed a new class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri that seeks class-action status covering anyone in the U.S. who sold a home in the last five years. It names the trade association and seven brokerage companies, including Redfin Corp., Weichert Realtors and Compass Inc.

“What’s at issue nationwide is costing Americans about $60 billion in extra real estate commissions,” said Michael Ketchmark, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.

The focus of the lawsuits is an NAR rule that requires that home sellers offer to pay the commission for the agent representing the homebuyer when they advertise their property on a local Multiple Listings Service, where a majority of U.S. homes are listed for sale. This is in addition to also having to cover the commission for their listing agent or broker.

The NAR's rules also prohibit a buyer's agent from making home purchase offers contingent on the reduction of their commission, according to the complaint.

“Defendants’ conspiracy forces home sellers to pay a cost that, in a competitive market and were it not for defendants’ anticompetitive restraint, would be paid by the buyer,” the plaintiffs argued in the lawsuit filed Tuesday.
Plaintiffs also claim that the NAR requirement effectively keeps commissions for a homebuyer's agent artificially high.

If NAR’s “Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule” were not in place, then homebuyers would foot the bill for their agent's commission, which would open the door for competition — and lower commissions — among agents vying to represent a homebuyer, the plaintiffs contend.

From: Real estate industry facing pushback to longstanding rules setting agent commissions on home sales

Eliminate
 

Just eliminate the middleman gauging routine. More and more are realizing this is the 21st Century and the internet does most of the work for the realtor. Sell on Zillow for free. It’s what The Villages and others use.

Access to this page has been denied

If that class action ends up being legit I'll enter it. My house up north was listed on the MLS by a licensed agent of a known Broker in the area. Almost two weeks after he accepted the contract, we still didn't have a for sale sign on our front lawn. He said he'd hire a professional to come and take pictures - but he took them all with his cell phone and posted them on the listing - which showed up on the listing websites almost a week after he accepted the contract.

We had a buyer within the first few months, but after a month of going back and forth with them, we found out they were getting a VA mortgage and our home wasn't a qualifying home due to a couple of repairs needed that are on the disqualifying list. We knew this when we put the house up for sale, and the house was listed "AS IS". Our agent knew the buyer was getting a mortgage, and didn't ask what kind - so we didn't know the buyer wasn't ALLOWED to buy the house until 3 weeks before closing.

Another buyer was all set to sign but wanted a whole bunch of repairs. Even though the listing said AS IS. Our agent pushed us to do the repairs, or lower the price to accommodate the costs of repairs to the buyer. Even though - he knew that we had listed the home AS IS and had already lowered our selling price once so far.

A third buyer put a deposit down - a non-refundable deposit. Then he got a divorce, and backed out of the contract. He demanded his deposit back. Our agent urged us to just go ahead and give it back, because the buyer's lawyer would just stick us in court indefinitely and we wouldn't be allowed to sell the house while there was still a deposit on it in escrow.

So of course we trusted him, and gave the non-refundable deposit back.

Meanwhile, we were using up our life insurance money to pay the mortgage because hubby's department had been closed down a year before, and we had only my part-time minimum wage income to pay the bills.

I ended up taking better pictures of the rooms and features of the house. Hubby did cosmetic work on it. I also rewrote the listing description because our agent couldn't write a complete sentence to save his life.

So WE did most of the work. And our agent took his commission. Almost a year after we put it on the market, it sold, and we couldn't afford to live in a block and stucco or wood frame construction home as we had wanted to, because we had to reduce the price even more. That agent took over $8000 from us. But we did most of the work.

So yeah if there's a chance I can get some of that back, you bet I will.

First sorry you had such a crappy listing agent. But nothing you mentioned has to do with buyers agents and commissions.

But I will mention that my realtor also often has to explain the VA or FHA restrictions. She’s had sellers agents that didn’t even know the mortgage limits are different depending on the area. But that’s why she’s a top agent and many agents don’t do well at all.

Regarding the lawsuit and competition, it’s true that there may be more competition if buyers pay their agent directly. But the fact it hasn’t been done that way doesn’t make it fraudulent. I don’t see how people would have financial recourse for something they signed in the contract. The only financial recourse I could see is if a buyers agent stated there was no cost to the seller for his commission. That wouldn’t be entirely accurate.

Being completely and utterly clueless, doesn't seem to stop folks who have a need to keep their fingers busy at a keyboard or a need to publicize their ignorance. There's always the "Block Poster" option available. I've found it to be a vital tool for tolerance on this board. Particularly regarding certain clueless posters, who don't seem daunted by constant reprimands and suspensions by the Moderators.

Yeah, let's ban Buyer's Brokers, because no one needs them. Who cares that AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, Money Magazine and the Federal Trade Commission, all advocate the use of a Buyer's Broker.


Florida’s Dirty Little Secret: Transactional Brokerage Leaves Consumers as Clueless as Ever

"Ralph Nader, the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, the Federal Trade Commission, Money magazine and other media advocated that buyers should seek out and work with buyer’s brokers to assure that their interests were truly represented."

In SOME STATES that may be true. In Florida, no. A buyers agent here is not held accountable for a thing because there is no contract with the buyer. If a buyers agent can say and do as HE PLEASES without any recourse, how is the buyer being represented fairly?

A seller HIRES an agent to sell his home. They discuss a price that covers the commission and then signs a contract. In the end, the commission is paid through the seller's funds.

A buyer is not involved in commissions with an agent. The buyer agrees to a purchase price. That is his only commitment.

Since the seller hired the agent and is the only person responsible for paying commissions, it can be rationalized that all agents represent the sellers. Until the SELLER accepts an offer, an agent(s) does not get paid.

I think some of your confusion stems from the fact that you do not understand buyer-broker agreements. I have been using them since the late 1970's. I call mine Right-to-Locate Agreements. The buyer and I agree, in writing, on what we are searching for and a commission amount to be paid by the buyer.

If I receive part of the Seller/Seller Agent's commission than I must subtract that from what the buyer owes

and yes I do rep the buyer with that agreement and I make it very clear to the Seller/Seller's Agent from the very first contact. I also receive a retainer when the R-T-L Agreement is signed. I have an abundance of repeat business and all of my repeat buyer clients require the R-T-L. I am very good at what I do and very knowledgeable so I have no need to search for buyer clients. I, also, get a lot of referrals. I have a reputation for resolving difficult and "impossible" transactions.and accomplishing more than my clients expect. Most of my buyers recognize this and are eager to sign a contract and pay the retainer so that I can rep them.

I would also like to add something. This Class Action suit covers an area that includes about 30,000 Realtors. If the judge OK's the request for treble damages then it would be approximately $5.4 billion. If my math is correct that would be $180,000 per agent. How do they expect to collect this? At best every agent would refuse to pay and quit and the real estate industry would collapse. NAR is a trade organization. The attorneys would have to chase all 30,000 agents individually. Please explain to me again... who gains from this other than the Class Action attorneys. Also, remember that the taxpayers are paying for this trial.

Do you work as an agent in Florida? I am a contractor who has bought and sold homes throughout Florida. I have never come across a buyer who had a contract with his buyers agent. When selling my remodeled homes, I was responsible for paying ALL of the commissions.

A buyer in Florida does not NEED to use a buyers agent. It is a choice. A buyer can deal with the listing agent direct, or use the help of a knowledgeable friend or relative, hire a home inspector to look at the home before signing the contract, get an attorney to close the deal, etc.

The buyer DOES NOT have to rely on an outside agent who is a stranger to him. He can ask for help from anyone he is comfortable with to get fair representation. If he chooses to use an outside agent, aka buyers agent, the SELLER pays the buyers agent commission. The buyer IS NOT responsible for those fees.

I suspect once the rules are changed in the real estate profession due to this lawsuit, a Know Your Rights fact sheet will have to be given to every buyer. Most buyers are unaware that they DO NOT HAVE to use a buyers agent to represent them.

Real Estate agents chiming in on this thread trying to convince readers a buyers agent is necessary is alarming to me. I have not read the lawsuit, but I believe this practice should be stopped. Brokers and agents insisting that a buyer cannot close a deal without a buyers agent is part of the reason commissions are highly inflated.

Clueless is in the eyes of the beholder. I suppose you believe a buyers agent is necessary. Your belief doesn't make it a fact. I have closed real estate deals with MANY intelligent adults who did not need a buyer's agent holding their hand throughout the process.

Curious question. How do you know a poster has gotten reprimands or suspensions from a moderator? Are you a moderator? Are you personal friends with a moderator? It seems the post you have made is direct insults to another poster. Strange that it has not been deleted by a moderator.

Realtor status has nothing to do with obtaining a license. The NAR is a trade organization not a state licensing organization. It is like the AMA for doctors or the Bar Association for attorneys. You can be licensed by the state and not belong to the NAR. You cannot use the designation "Realtor" unless you belong to NAR (joining after you get your license).

Who Wants It
 

Yes, if you are a designated certified “realtor” then you are now considered a registered crook. The term is a bit disparaging, kind of like a “landlord”.

Just found out from a prominent villages real estate agent (MLS) that there can indeed be a contract for a buyers agent in Florida (though she rarely uses one). Also the agent can act as a transactional agent representing both buyer and seller. But that can get tricky if issues arise. Her video is on YouTube. Her name is Robyn Cavallaro. The video title mentions what buyers agent can do. She basically confirmed everything I’ve said in this thread.

You must have misunderstood her. A dual agency in Florida is prohibited. Read the Florida real estate law. No one on this thread stated a buyer could not have a contract in Florida with an agent. We all stated it is a choice. You DO NOT have to use a buyers agent to close a real estate transaction.

Yes, most buyers agents in Florida do not use contracts. The reason? The buyer would have to pay the purchase price of the home PLUS A FEE to the buyers agent.

A buyers agent does not get paid until the SELLER accepts an offer. The buyers agent then receives his commission through the SELLERS FUNDS. This is the reason for the lawsuit. It causes inflated commissions for THE SELLER.

Once real estate laws change due to this lawsuit, a buyer will HAVE to pay his agent out of his pocket. I highly doubt a buyer is going to pay his buyers agent an additional $12,500 on top of the purchase of a $500,000 home. They will deal direct with the listing agent where they will have no additional cost. See? Inflated commissions gone!