Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yanlex t1_isby2q3 wrote

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

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