Realtor under fire. Could you be next?

"Getting tough?" That is an understatement of epic proportions! 

I show my clients properties that suit their wants and needs regardless of the commission.  A happy, satisfied customer is worth more than money. 

Mmmmmm.  Interesting.  Does that mean that every time a buyer wants to write on a property with the listing agent that the agent is obliged to advise the buyer that the house could be purchased for less than the offer????   Oooops nope, that would violate the duty of confidentiality to the buyer. 

Or, does it mean that the buyer who wants a home can order an agent to manage a sale where the commission is $100.   We have them around here from time to time.

The solution to that problem is to have an agency agreement that specifies the minimum fee that agent shows.  Ooops, we're supposed to find the best house and not look at commmissions.  Mmmm.  That makes us indentured. 

The buyers will probably win and the agent was stupid not to have an agreement.  The agent is further stupid for commenting about it. 

I'd like to read that litigation.  I suspect that there's more to it.

If their was a stupidity award in CA - this agent would win that prize!

First of all, get an agency agreement that spells out minimum compensation.  If co-op fee doesn't hit this minimum, buyer pays the difference.  Should buyer not agree to sign, refer to someone else, or resign the client.

In any event, which agent would state publicly that the reason for not showing certain properties was because of compensation paid co-op.  Perhaps this guy got his CA license out of a Cracker Jack Box - he doesn't know the basics of Agency Law.

Now, if things happened differently, I might have another opinion.  Let's say, for example, the agent did do his due diligence, qualified the buyer, had an appropriate buyer's agency agreement with compensation completely spelled out, and showed properties in the client's desired price range.

Later, feeling remorsefull in a changing market, the buyer complains that the agent should have shown him less expensive properties, or should have warned him that prices might go down.  Here, the agent would have a defense, based on agreement and substantiation.

However, anyone can file a lawsuit for just about any reason these days.  The agent might be considered culpable no matter what.  That's why we all have E & O Insurance, I guess.

You agree?

DEAN & DEAN'S TEAM CHICAGO