Posted by Redline on December 21, 1998 at 19:12:24:
We still disagree, and you know what … that’s alright.
RL
Need i invove the real estate agent - Posted by Marlene
Posted by Marlene on December 14, 1998 at 21:05:19:
My husband and I looked at a home to buy for rental property this summer. We didn’t make a deal with the owner, but told her we would try to get financing.
It took us a long time, two months, to finally get the financing. Meanwhile, the owner put the home on the market for about $3,000 more than what we were willing to pay.
Do we need to involve the realtor when we make an offer, or can we cut him out because we had been talking to the owner before the realtor came into the picture.
My husband owns a locksmith business in town, and does get calls from realtors once in a while. However, he has never gotten a call from this Company.
Are there any laws involved? Or is it just sense of honor or what?
Re: Need i invove the real estate agent - Posted by george
Posted by george on December 19, 1998 at 22:09:53:
In NJ, the most common listing agreement is the exclusive right to sell listing. The broker gets paid if the property is sold by anyone to anyone during the time of the listing agreement.
actually- NO - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 15, 1998 at 12:57:51:
You are in no way required to contact, talk, deal, negotiate with the real estate agent. The listing contract, if any, is between the seller and the agent.
Personally, I would never go around the agency agreement unless I had been involved in prior negotiations, as you have, or unless I truly felt the agent to be unwilling to work with me.
You have the absolute right to contact the seller directly on your behalf regardless of any listing in this or any other transaction.
Any seasoned real estate agent would know that the commission comes from the purchase price… and the purchase price is always paid by; the buyer. In a situation like you have described, the seller would be responsible to the agent for any commission… not your problem.
David S
Yes. - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 14, 1998 at 22:05:33:
The basic answer would be:
If this realtor has an exclusive listing on this property (probable) and is listing it for sale, yes you now have to deal with the realtor (and a realtor commission must be paid by the seller) UNLESS you were initially listed as an exclusion on the listing agreement.
RL
Re: actually-YES - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 15, 1998 at 15:40:18:
I knew someone would get technical on this issue.
I say the answer is YES because, sure you could go straight to the owner and not deal with the realtor (true the listing agreement is between seller and realtor) BUT then you’ve made the realtor in this deal your enemy for no apparent reason and this could eventually kill your deal depending on what influence this realtor has with the seller. If the realtor was incompetent I could understand not dealing with him, else why cause problems?
This buyer has NOTHING to gain here by trying to bypass the realtor. The reason they were asking (I presume) is because they didn’t want to have to pay the realtor since they saw the property before it was listed. Regardless of whether or not they “talk” to the realtor now, that realtor is going to get paid.
It’s not going to save you any money, so why complicate things?
Just my .02,
RL
Re: Yes. - Posted by Doug
Posted by Doug on December 15, 1998 at 02:53:07:
Redline is correct about this… If there is an exclusive listing then the realtor is now incharge of the sale… Even if the seller finds the buyer with an exclusive listing and the owners didnt add an exclusion on there behalf they must pay the realtor a commission… In my area if the listing expires and isnt renewed with the realtor, they still can have a claim of commission if the property gets sold up to 6 months after the expiration as long as it is purchased by someone the realtor had showed it to when the listing was active
Douglas Timko
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 15, 1998 at 20:09:31:
My post was about as simple as I could make it.
As for your comment; “so why complicate things?” I agree.
It is for that very reason, I would continue to negotiate with the seller without the chance the agent would trash the deal. The seller knows the agent is due a commission. Therefore, I would not even consider waisting my time being concerned with the issue. Let the seller make good on the listing agreement.
I would go and make the deal happen.
David S
Re: Yes. - Posted by Tom Brown
Posted by Tom Brown on December 15, 1998 at 15:39:35:
Even if the Realtor has a listing, the Realtor is not in charge of the sale, the seller is. The Realtor is only an agent of the seller. You can buy a listed property without ever seeing the Realtor.
What happens after the listing expires regarding the commission is generally a matter of local or state Board of Realtors policy.
Whether the Realtor gets a commission is a separate matter.
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 16, 1998 at 09:40:19:
I see what you’re saying - however I would be wary of the realtor filling the sellers head and trying to break the deal. It happens. It depends on how RE savy the sellers are - I would judge it from there.
RL
Re: Yes. - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 15, 1998 at 15:42:02:
Whatever happens after a listing expires is usually whatever the listing agreement states. There is usually a “broker protection period” that covers the broker provided the property is NOT relisted. Other than that, the broker doesn’t get paid. Period.
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 16, 1998 at 11:44:51:
so why would the RE agent want to break the deal if he/she is entitled to a commission…? just another reason why many investors try to stay away from agents.
David S
Re: Yes. - Posted by Tom Brown
Posted by Tom Brown on December 15, 1998 at 15:49:44:
Yeah, I know. The broker protection period is whatever the local or state Board thinks that they can get away with without too many complaints.
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 16, 1998 at 12:39:33:
A realtor may try to break this deal because he/she feels like they’re about to get screwed because the buyer and seller are cutting them out. Nobody wants to have to go to court to get paid.
“just another reason why many investors try to stay away from agents.” - this statement is totally out of place here. In the example we’re talking about, the agent has done nothing wrong. The buyer simply is upset about the fact that they didn’t act fast enough before it was listed. That’s their problem. I would suggest that ANYONE involved in a deal where they feel they were getting the shaft would attempt to sabotage that deal - or atleast look upon it critically. That goes for investors too.
The bottom line here is: this person is interested in a property that is listed through a broker. I say play fair, deal with the broker, pay the broker or find another property if that doesn’t suit you.
RL
Notta… - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 15, 1998 at 20:16:12:
actually, the Broker protection period, as you call it, is whatever the seller and the listing agent negotiate, all of which should be spelled out in the listing agreement.
Some of you guys forget that EVERYTHING is negotiable whether it be a contract for sale or a listing agreement.
David S
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 17, 1998 at 19:09:35:
I guess you missed the point RL. The Buyer is in no way contractually obligated to the Broker/Agent as the listing agreement is between the Seller and the Broker/Agent.
If the B/A has an exclusive listing agreement, and the seller is required to pay a commission even if they choose to sell their own property, the B/A may be in violation of his fiduciary obligation to the seller if he tried to sabatage the deal. After all, that duty is to see that the seller gets what the seller wants, based on the listing contract, and with that listing, the seller has the right to sell or convey their property if so desired, but is required to pay a commission to the B/A.
So, if the seller decides to sell their own property and it so states in the exclusive listing agreement that the seller is contractually obligated to pay a commission to the B/A (IF) they make that decision, then the obligation of that commission is that of the seller, NOT THE BUYER.
The buyer has done nothing wrong here either RL. The buyer has the right to do anything the buyer wants, even if it seems to step on the B/A’s toes. As I stated in my original post in this thread, I would never cross the line, nor would I reccommend that the buyer do so in this case, but I felt the need to make sure the buyer knows that they are in no way required to deal with the B/A… that was their question.
David S
Re: Notta… - Posted by Tom Brown
Posted by Tom Brown on December 16, 1998 at 08:24:03:
In a perfect world everything would be negotiable. When it comes to residential listings, unless the property is a trophy property or the owner has several properties for sale which represents the possibility of repeat business, most if not all brokers will not negotiate on the listing agreement terms in any significant way.
When I lived in Oklahoma, there was an understanding (nothing in writing, just an agreed upon policy) that all brokers would adhere to the Board’s approved listing agreement. Listings were not taken with changes made to them. I am talking about residential listings only, commercial property is another matter entirely.
Re: actually - NO and with good reason - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on December 17, 1998 at 22:06:14:
Actually David - I got the point 3 messages ago. I know the buyers don’t HAVE to deal with the broker but since in this case there isn’t a good reason NOT to, I think they should and make life easier for everyone. That was the point I was trying to make.
RL
Re: Notta… - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 16, 1998 at 12:04:56:
I can’t imagine a Broker not accepting a listing on a property with a fair market value or price.
Let’s face the facts here… most, look at the numbers, Brokers are just that… broke. There is always a Broker that will accept a listing perhaps just out of your (so called) norm.
I would have a good laugh at any agent that tried to tell me that I would have to conform to some silly listing agreement without negotiating and agreeing to almost (more flexible with age) anything I want.
The fiduciary capicity of the Broker requires that he/she actually works for the seller and when you work for me, I call the shots.
David S
last time - Posted by David S
Posted by David S on December 18, 1998 at 17:34:51:
so you would suggest that they bring in an incompetant agent in this case. I say incompetant because if the agent were a true professional, they would have already known about the previous offer and would try to bring that to the closing table.
So the agent in you says bring in the listing agent. I wonder what the investor, knowing it doesn’t take 3 legs to walk, would advise?
Why take the chance that the agent may cost the deal just to passify yet another agent?
David S