Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Literature-South t1_isbxatk wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Real Estate Agents Caught on Camera Facilitating Mortgage Fraud for a Fee by Puzzleheaded-Bug7189

Can you explain how this would have worked? Genuinely Curious.

74

Yanlex t1_isby2q3 wrote

I'm assuming the buyer didn't have an agent, so there was only one realtor involved (OP's/the sellers). With only one realtor, OP would only have to pay one commission, but if the buyer had a realtor he would have to pay their commission too (traditionally the seller pays both commissions). So OP's realtor tried to get the buyer to sign him as his realtor, after the deal had already been made, just so he could double dip on the commission (screwing over his actual client) without doing any work.

247

[deleted] t1_isc0i7z wrote

[deleted]

94

InternationalCut2610 t1_iscoqo8 wrote

Our latest house purchase we used the same realtor. He cut the commissions in half on his suggestion. A realtor with moral integrity wouldn't pull that crap.

36

RunRevolutionary9019 t1_iscsmj8 wrote

That’s really nice and your right.

9

Weak-Rip-8650 t1_isdk0sc wrote

What you're describing, where your realtor represents both parties and takes the full commission (usually 6% sometimes 5 sometimes 7) is really common. In fact I'm surprised he let you do that as most of the time, in fact in every real estate agency contract I've seen and I've seen many, you sign away the 6% or whatever the agreed rate is to your agent right then and there and then he agrees to give half of that commission to anyone who brings a buyer. In fact on my own home sale, I negotiated a reduced rate for dual agency before signing our listing agreement. It happens ALL of the time.

Unless you're trying to say that your realtor was going to take like 12% of the sale, or double what the rate stated in your contract was, he was not trying to scam you, you just didn't understand what you'd signed and he did you a massive favor not holding you to your contract.

9

Redditbrit t1_ise9e5u wrote

6%? Ouch! My last sale (UK) was 1% commission for the selling agent.

2

[deleted] t1_isdk7ck wrote

[deleted]

1

Few_Psychology_2122 t1_isdrpvn wrote

I can tell you from experience that it’s A LOT more work for the realtor if one party doesn’t have representation (or even good representation) unless they really really know what they’re doing. The buyer repping themselves could mess something up half way through the transaction and ruin the whole thing, then you go back on market and sell for less.

I can’t say anything about your specific realtor, but just offering perspective from the industry

2

[deleted] t1_isds0ir wrote

[deleted]

1

Weak-Rip-8650 t1_isdvh8y wrote

Yeah I think the "agreement" you thought you had is totally different from the one he thought you had. You keep saying that he "agreed" to something, but yet can't even specify what was agreed. Now you're saying he "tricked" you into signing something, lol.

Im pretty sure I can guess what he told you, you saw that his commission was 6% and you asked "so then what about the buyers agents commission" and he told you that the 6% was split between the buyer and seller's agent. You in your infinite wisdom thought that meant that if the buyer didn't have an agent, there was no buyers agent commission, even though your agreement that you signed specifically said the commission was 6%.

This is not deceptive, what he does is forfeit 3% of his commission to the buyers agent in exchange for them bringing a buyer. If you want altered commission rates based on whether he's a dual agent or whether the buyer doesn't have an agent, it's on you to negotiate different rates. I can tell you that making sure a deal closes when the buyer in particular does not have an agent is NOT an easy task. There are so many things with financing that can get fucked up, and so many times a buyer will get cold feet after an inspection without an agent to tell them that an inspection saying that 50 year old hardwood floors "need refinishing" is entirely common and nothing to be alarmed about, that you definitely want a dual agency as opposed to none.

Also, if your agent is a dual agent, their sole goal is making sure the deal gets done, which is exactly what you want. So many agents will tell the buyer sweet nothings all day to get a dual agency deal done where buyers agents might tell them it's time to back out. Dual agency is almost always better for the SELLER not the buyer.

You are the scumbag. Sorry to break it to you.

1

wynnduffyisking t1_isce3gq wrote

Is that legal? Sounds like a massive conflict of interest to represent both buyer and seller. In my country the realtor would be slammed with a big fine.

17

silashoulder t1_iscflkl wrote

> The key thing to consider with a conflict of interest is disclosure. If disclosed beforehand, and the person is given the approval to continue, then the conflict of interest is not a problem – and consequently legal. However, if the conflict of interest activity was disapproved and the individual continued despite this, or never it disclosed in the first place, it could be considered illegal.

If the judge interprets the distribution of that contract, unsigned, with those terms printed in legible terms as ‘disclosure’…🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

The other thing to consider is what this gentleman did: https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/russian-man-tricks-bank-into-signing-ridiculous-credit-card-agreement-e4329f7ef4cf

14

wynnduffyisking t1_iscga5s wrote

That’s interesting. We don’t follow the same logic. In our rules the realtor is there to only represent the interests of the client and the agent representing the other party means that the agent has interests counter to the client which is a no no disclosed or not.

2

[deleted] t1_isc19uo wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_isc5z08 wrote

[deleted]

36

BaronCapdeville t1_iscaxp4 wrote

Ah. I understood that backwards. I thought you were house hunting and he found an unrepresented property. In that case, it wouldn’t be strange at all.

In this case, he’s already negotiated with the seller (you) for his compensation. He should not be bothering the buyer for anything else.

If he isn’t newish (only a few transaction) or working for a shady broker, this would be unexpected behavior.

It’s worth calling his broker to complain, if he put the deal in jeopardy. If the broker doesn’t make it right, or is dismissive, I would escalate it to the real estate commission.

State real estate commissions don’t fuck around. It is nothing like a police union. One bad apple spoils the bunch, and bad realtors get hit with $10,000 in fines for stuff that’s just standard procedure in other business sectors.

If something was done to hurt your deal, the real estate commission would want to know that. It would also STRONGLY dissuade this realtor from ever fucking with anyone else again. Second offense is usually a lifetime ban, or some huge fine.

Coming from someone with a brokers license: fuck this dude.

11

Blenderx06 t1_iscg6ir wrote

Otoh, kinda shows why an agent would've been smart for the buyer, if they were tricked so easily into signing something they shouldn't. I wonder where else they were screwed over? (not saying you had any intentions there, but there're just so many details that go into home buying.)

−1

hertzsae t1_iscr46s wrote

The buyer wouldn't be out money, so they weren't tricked. The seller pays the commission.

4

Blenderx06 t1_iscziap wrote

>My real estate agent attempted to scam me out of $8000 by tricking the buyer into signing something saying he was representing both of us.

The op used the word, so I did too.

0

RunRevolutionary9019 t1_iscuxqx wrote

Or maybe it was because they buyer didn’t give a Fuck and I should have trusted him and fired the scummy realtor in the first place.

2

Blenderx06 t1_isd03c4 wrote

>My real estate agent attempted to scam me out of $8000 by tricking the buyer into signing something saying he was representing both of us.

You're the one who said they were tricked my dude.

−1

GirlPMurPersonality t1_iscc1dr wrote

Actually, as a dual agent you still do a good amount of extra work most of the time. You have to do all the work on the buyers side that a buyer's agent would normally do. It also brings on a lot of liability. That being said, I'd still give my seller a very nice discount but I wouldn't expect to do all of the buyers side work for free. I have done this many times.

−3

RunRevolutionary9019 t1_isccay2 wrote

He didn’t have permission. He didn’t ask. He wasn’t transparent. He lied.

12

GirlPMurPersonality t1_isce4ee wrote

I don't know what all transpired in your situation. I don't doubt it either there are a lot of shitty real estate agents. I was just pointing out that there is extra work if you dual end it. Like you said you have to be transparent and make sure both parties are fully aware of what's going on. I hate real estate agents tbh, everyone does their own shit and there is very little oversight

1

Tiabb t1_isc648h wrote

It's also illegal in many states to have duel agency, for reasons exactly like this.

8

NeverShortedNoWhore t1_isc7529 wrote

I just finished the real estate class in Oregon. It’s legal here. And they teach how to do it legally.

4

BFdog t1_isc9sqj wrote

I don't think dual agency is allowed in Texas.

2

Few_Psychology_2122 t1_isds69n wrote

It is, it’s not super common as it’s seen as honorable to refer one client out to another realtor (unless both parties are established clients and all parties agree).

1

suggestiondude t1_isdjgsw wrote

Found the mom who doubles as a real estate agent and thinks $50k is a reasonable amount to count bathrooms.

1

Literature-South t1_iscf7qb wrote

I can literally do what they do on zillow in 5 minutes. It's not hard.

−3

BaronCapdeville t1_isci7c8 wrote

You are a prime candidate to never hire a Realtor.

You’re paying for experience doing the thing, not the “work” itself.

I’ve had clients that didn’t need me at all, but wanted another set of eyes, even after me explaining exactly why they didn’t need us.

I’ve had other clients who I’ve saved 100k+ worth of mistakes because me and my guys have experience they simply don’t have.

Folks Don’t generally keep track of zoning ordinance changes, basic code conformity, etc. People are also very frequently looking for property that will not, in fact, meet their needs, and don’t realize it until they speak with someone who does know.

10% of folks need no help at all with how simple their needs are. Another 50% could just use a real estate attorney, and have the vast majority of their needs met. In my experience, it’s that remaining 40% that truly benefit from using a realtor.

That said, the act of simply “hiring a realtor” is meaningless unless you are are reasonably convinced the agent has experience in what you are needing. You can hire the best agent in the city, but if you’re buying farmland, this realtor may have minidress about the laws surrounding “usufruct” of the crops currently growing on the land.

A homeowner may be buying out “in the country” to fulfill their dreams of owning chickens, only to find that they’ve purchased a home in a restricted area that doesn’t allow livestock of any sort, regardless of size, while less than a mile a way, it would have been no issue.

A buyer may have no idea that just across the street from their target property, the property tax drops by 2/3 because it’s no longer a historic district.

These are all just quick and dirty examples of where expertise is beneficial. It’s often what you never saw coming that hurts the most.

I assure you, Zillow does nothing a good realtor does, except allow you to see a house and throw some inaccurate numbers at you.

Zillow is fine for a great many people. I personally find Zillow’s numbers to be inaccurate, it’s service to be near non-existent, and to contain a lot of misleading estimates on payments, taxes, etc.

You are correct though. Not everyone needs an agent. Those who do, are wise to seek outside opinions.

12