[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I didn't say that it mattered. But, the NAR claims that Realtors are better. Obviously, many people don't know what a Realtor is because a lot of people refer to all agents as Realtors.

Also, I didn't say that the NAR is anything more than a trade organization.

VLS agents don’t include co broker’s commission right? Meaning they won’t work with MLS buyers agent. So the lawsuit would be a moot point anyhow as it had to do with how buyer’s agents are paid. In any case the VLS agents aren’t a member of NAR (unless the keep that going for other reasons).

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

VLS agents don’t include co broker’s commission right? Meaning they won’t work with MLS buyers agent. So the lawsuit would be a moot point anyhow as it had to do with how buyer’s agents are paid. In any case the VLS agents aren’t a member of NAR (unless the keep that going for other reasons).

Buyers are never required to pay a buyer's agent commission. I would never agree to pay a buyer's commission as a buyer or a seller. If a buyer's agent wants a commission, they would need to get the buyer to pay it.

[Kevco]

Originally Posted by Craig Vernon

So, I found a home on the VLS made an offer based upon agent video walk through. Seller stated original roof on 2008 home willing to offer 10k toward replacement. I offered 5k less than price. My VLS agent calls me and says they are only going to give rebate for roof with a full price offer. I submitted a full price offer with roof being inspected within three days as contingency to make sure the home was insurable. The agent calls me and says there is another offer both cash offers btw but they were going to counter my offer with removing the contingency. I disclosed to the agent that I couldn't buy a home that I may not be able to insure she stated that because it is a cash offer and that I could. I said well I cannot have a home in another state that may not be insurable. She said so you are willing to lose this deal? I said I guess I wouldn't have a choice but have them counter and I will respond. Agent two hours later calls back and says they took the other offer. The seller never responded to my offer at full list price or countered. I have purchased ten homes in my life and I know there are 1799 more to choose from on the market but...wow. Not feeling very happy with TV listing service or agents at the moment.. Have a great evening one and all!

I know it can be upsetting when things like this happen, but maybe you dodged a bullet on this home and agent. Put it in that perspective then leave it behind you. The Villages is a fantastic place to live. keep looking and we’ll be waiting for you when you get here!

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Buyers are never required to pay a buyer's agent commission. I would never agree to pay a buyer's commission as a buyer or a seller. If a buyer's agent wants a commission, they would need to get the buyer to pay it.

Yes yes we know. You state this in every real estate thread and it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The point we are discussing is that the NAR lawsuit doesn’t apply to VLS because they aren’t part of NAR and also don’t cooperate with MLS buyers agents. The fact some sellers do offer to pay buyers agents through their MLS listing agent has zero to do with the fact you would never pay them.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Yes yes we know. You state this in every real estate thread and it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The point we are discussing is that the NAR lawsuit doesn’t apply to VLS because they aren’t part of NAR and also don’t cooperate with MLS buyers agents. The fact some sellers do offer to pay buyers agents through their MLS listing agent has zero to do with the fact you would never pay them.

Sorry. Maybe I don't fully understand the lawsuit. I will agree to pay an agent to represent me as a seller when selling a house. But, I don't think a buyer agent should have any role in a real estate sale, or to receive a commission. As a buyer, I can represent myself.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Sorry. Maybe I don't fully understand the lawsuit. I will agree to pay an agent to represent me as a seller when selling a house. But, I don't think a buyer agent should have any role in a real estate sale, or to receive a commission. As a buyer, I can represent myself.

Yeah the lawsuit was about how buyer’s agents are paid or more so about how the commission is disclosed.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Yes yes we know. You state this in every real estate thread and it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The point we are discussing is that the NAR lawsuit doesn’t apply to VLS because they aren’t part of NAR and also don’t cooperate with MLS buyers agents. The fact some sellers do offer to pay buyers agents through their MLS listing agent has zero to do with the fact you would never pay them.

As a legal matter, I believe that is untrue.

The FTC decision on Commissions, apply to every real estate Broker, regardless of their affiliation. As a practical matter, it doesn't have any impact on VLS Agents, because (I believe) all the "Agents" are working for a single Broker. The Broker of Record for VLS was H. Gary Morse, I suspect it's now Jennifer Parr.

As for the FTC decision on "Non-Compete" agreements took effect on 9/24/24. The Villages sued the FTC and got a Federal Court Judge in FL, to grant The Villages a Limited Injunction, which prohibits the FTC from enforcing their position on Non-Compete Agreements.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

As a legal matter, I believe that is untrue.

The FTC decision on Commissions, apply to every real estate Broker, regardless of their affiliation. As a practical matter, it doesn't have any impact on VLS Agents, because (I believe) all the "Agents" are working for a single Broker. The Broker of Record for VLS was H. Gary Morse, I suspect it's now Jennifer Parr.

As for the FTC decision on "Non-Compete" agreements took effect on 9/24/24. The Villages sued the FTC and got a Federal Court Judge in FL, to grant The Villages a Limited Injunction, which prohibits the FTC from enforcing their position on Non-Compete Agreements.

I'm not sure what that really means in regards to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was against NAR, which the VLS agents are not part of and VLS agents don't pay out to MLS (NAR) agents. They won't even show houses to MLS agents. Whatever they do with commissions internally from VLS to VLS agent is not really relevant. But I may be misunderstanding the FTC info you posted as how it relates.

[Craig Vernon]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

... so let me see if I have this correct.

The "Roofing Contingency" was partially motivated by a desire to give yourself a "3 day window" in the contract, so you could go look at the home and make sure you really wanted it?

Or the roofing contingency was to see if the home was insurable and the three day window in any legal contract would allow me to see if the house was as represented to me by an agent that works for the seller. You are an antagonist I will give you that. Have a wonderful day.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

... so let me see if I have this correct.

The "Roofing Contingency" was partially motivated by a desire to give yourself a "3 day window" in the contract, so you could go look at the home and make sure you really wanted it?

Originally Posted by Craig Vernon

Or the roofing contingency was to see if the home was insurable and the three day window in any legal contract would allow me to see if the house was as represented to me by an agent that works for the seller. You are an antagonist I will give you that. Have a wonderful day.

There is no "3 day window" in "any legal contract".

[retiredguy123]

It seems to me that whether or not a house is insurable is a pertinent fact that could be important to a prospective buyer. As a buyer, I would just include that as a contingency in the offer, or just include a 3-day delay for any reason. The seller can decide to accept or to reject the offer as presented. But, I don't see any reason to hide the purpose for the contingency.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

It seems to me that whether or not a house is insurable is a pertinent fact that could be important to a prospective buyer. As a buyer, I would just include that as a contingency in the offer, or just include a 3-day delay for any reason. The seller can decide to accept or to reject the offer as presented. But, I don't see any reason to hide the purpose for the contingency.

But doesn't it stand to reason, as I've posted earlier, that the seller already knows the roof is a problem. They were offering 10K toward the roof. That basically means, "the roof needs to be replaced, we don't have the money to do it, but we will discount the house price so you can do it after you buy." I can't understand why the buyer would want proof the roof is fine if the seller already said it is not fine.

[Retoline]

Try using Peggy Shafer
352-801-0041
Tell her Robin Toline gave you her name.
If you need Village agent try Katie Crane 352-446-2317.

Originally Posted by Craig Vernon

So, I found a home on the VLS made an offer based upon agent video walk through. Seller stated original roof on 2008 home willing to offer 10k toward replacement. I offered 5k less than price. My VLS agent calls me and says they are only going to give rebate for roof with a full price offer. I submitted a full price offer with roof being inspected within three days as contingency to make sure the home was insurable. The agent calls me and says there is another offer both cash offers btw but they were going to counter my offer with removing the contingency. I disclosed to the agent that I couldn't buy a home that I may not be able to insure she stated that because it is a cash offer and that I could. I said well I cannot have a home in another state that may not be insurable. She said so you are willing to lose this deal? I said I guess I wouldn't have a choice but have them counter and I will respond. Agent two hours later calls back and says they took the other offer. The seller never responded to my offer at full list price or countered. I have purchased ten homes in my life and I know there are 1799 more to choose from on the market but...wow. Not feeling very happy with TV listing service or agents at the moment.. Have a great evening one and all!

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by frayedends

But doesn't it stand to reason, as I've posted earlier, that the seller already knows the roof is a problem. They were offering 10K toward the roof. That basically means, "the roof needs to be replaced, we don't have the money to do it, but we will discount the house price so you can do it after you buy." I can't understand why the buyer would want proof the roof is fine if the seller already said it is not fine.

If a Buyer is offering rebate/discount to replace the roof, as you point out, obviously the roof needs replacing.

Often Buyers want Sellers to believe they're making a "all cash, no contingency offer", come up with some seemingly innocuous "inspection" or something to give them a few days to arrange the money or decide if they really want the property.

In this case, it's very clear what happened in my opinion. The Buyer was making an offer, sight unseen. Buyer knew (or suspected) that the Seller wouldn't accept an Offer with a Contingency that the Buyer has a couple of days to come view the property in person ... so they came up with an idea that might work ...

The potential Buyer made an Offer, with a seemingly logical contingency ... "I just need a couple of days to make sure I can get insurance". Such a contingency might fly under normal circumstances, but when the Seller already knows the roof is bad and he's got a real "no contingency" offer coming in, he did what any savvy Seller would do ... take the Offer without conditions.

What I would have done in the Buyer's situation, was to be more surreptitious. If I wanted to make a "Full Price, no Contingency" Offer, but really wanted 48-72 hours of leeway to back out, I would have made the offer subject to "receipt/review of all Rules, Regulations, Covenants & Restrictions" affecting the property (or some such language as that).

The Buyer obviously knew the roof was bad, but wanted some "back out time", without being obvious about it.

[MplsPete]

Originally Posted by Craig Vernon

So, I found a home on the VLS made an offer based upon agent video walk through. Seller stated original roof on 2008 home . . .

I poked around and the only villages I could find that were developed ~ 2008 were Amelia, Hadley, Hemingway, and Duval. Am I close?