Oh, boy.  I can see both sides to this tricky one. 

Sometimes customer loyalty and long-term success is won by not counting nickels....

Derek - What is the compensation offered on the listing in MLS?  It does sound  a bit off base, but I'm not sure what is normal by you. 

Vanessa - Thank you for the comment.  I totally agree with you that loyalty and repeat and residual business is MUCH more important then $750 (in this case).

April - The MLS states 1/2 Month of rent as compensation, per transaction side, for a 1-year signed Lease.  It also states 3% to a Sub or Buyer's Agent for a closed sale.  As Vanessa says, one can probably argue either side (which I am looking forward to hopefully receiving numerous comments on), but I just don't feel it fair to pay twice ... ESPECIALLY if the Lease doesn't go an entire year until they exercise their Option!  Thank you for stopping by and commenting.

Derek. This is a tricky one. I think that I would look at it this way. What would benefit all concerned, especially the clients. Thanks, Royal..

I guess I would accept the selling fee less the lease fee at close of the sale but I would not object to the agent asking for both.

Derek: the way it's written "The MLS states 1/2 Month of rent as compensation, per transaction side, for a 1-year signed Lease.  It also states 3% to a Sub or Buyer's Agent for a closed sale."

Would mean 1/2 month of rent and 3% when it closes as a sold transaction.

Seems completely fair, especially if it does not close and the renters choose not to buy the property.

Royal - Yes, it is tricky indeed.  I could argue either side of it, but I feel the most ethical and fair side is the way I am opting to get paid.

Terry - thank you for stopping by and for your comments.  I wish you were the other Agent on this deal with me, then :)

Sara - if it doesn't close in a purchase, the Agents would have already been paid their commission for the Lease portion.  Typcially the commission on a lease is based-upon a 12 month lease.  If they purchase it inside of 12 months, and in this case likely inside of 6 months, I don't see how it is fair.  Thank you for stopping by and commenting.

Hmm..if the deal turns into a sale  in six months is there a possibility to credit the seller  a portion of the lease commission?? It will only be fair don't you think?

Good point, Mariana!  Taking it even one-step further ... Not only should the Seller not have to pay commission on both the Lease AND the Sale for the same Tenant/Buyer, but why should they pay a full Lease commission if the Lease doesn't even go 12 months?  Thanks.

I'm not sure I understand what the three percent is based upon, or what it's subtracted from, Derek? If this is a cooperating agent for the buyer then it seems as though this is a standard compensation arrangement based on 6% to your broker, which isn't discussed. I'm just assuming this based on the 3% at closing to the buyers agent. Perhaps you can recover the .5 month from the commission fee paid to the buyers agent, if allowed and if not unethical. Also, you might determine what the law requires in the case of compensation to the buyer from the seller. Even if the fee to the buyers agent from the seller is paid from the monthly rent, and as an inducement to execute the sale, it appears as though a small portion of seller financing may have occurred with the seller contribution. The rent might also be considered a debt instrument to the seller that's taken back and given to the buyers agent. Watch out ! Be sure. Good post and good thought.

Hmmm... I do not mean to upset you.

Just seems that lease commission is so different from purchase commission, that it seems fair to me. A lease is a lease and a purchase is a purchase... so they are really only making $750 more than they would on just the sale of the property right?

I guess I just don't understand your particular situation... why are you doing all of the paperwork if they have an agent? If that agent isn't doing anything then how can they be considered to be representing the renter?

a little greedy, but most people are hurting and need the extra money wherever they can find it, your pocket or someone else's

Thats a tricky wicket .. So few of lease - purchase close .. which means that you never earn a dime for all the hard work.. However I have negotiated the lease terms as well as agent commission before I put the listing out there. more often then not it is a flat fee

I would not mind doing, but I would disclose that I am making a commission to who is affected in the transaction, and if it is broker policy then I would let them know.

I guess the way I would have entered it in the multiple would be for a "lease commission" at the onset of lease and a "sale commission" being at closing with some kind of language stating lease commission to be refunded by buyer's agent at the closing of the sale. I don't think they should get "doubles" but I do think they should receive the lease commission at the time of lease. Wow that is confusing - hope I wrote that so you could understand it.

Sounds as the agent has sold the house and he deserves the commission.  And he helped lease the house for which money was promised.  I don't really see a problem with this transaction but then I don't have the whole picture.

By saying you are doing all the paperwork, I assume you mean drawing up the lease.  That is pretty standard for the listing agent to do.

Once it is leased, it would come off the MLS, as being for sale.

In the lease, there should be a portion that states what compensation is due, if the tenant chooses to purchase. The buyer's agent would be entitled to a portion (typically half) of that. 

Well, I have just about had it after my latest lease purchase.  I too represent the sellers, and the buyers is being represented by another agent.  Just got sticky in that there is a home to sell contingency (which hasn't sold), and we were told it would be "aggressively marketed" (and I said in the contract and all parties agreed that it would be listed within 10 days to avoid a long FSBO-type deal).  HOWEVER, after badgering to find out why the home did not go on the market as agreed upon, I found out the husband and wife who signed everything really didn't own the home solely themselves.  There are other family members involved and his name is not even on the deed!  Needless to say, this lease purchase is NOT going to work out as they cannot afford my listing and their home is NOT going to be sold by all owners involved.  I have the home back on the active market, and will hold my 11th Open House there on Sunday.  Yes, I'm in the hole with marketing on this one, folks! 

In this case you're looking out for the best interest of your clients, and that is commendable.  If the buyers/renters are only there for 6 months before completing the purchase, then the 1/2 rent compensation should not be paid simply because the stipulation was to have a year lease signed.

If it was set up as a lease and then a purchase - you would pay a finders fee to the leasing agent and a commission to the selling agent.  It should not matter if it is the same agent or not.  They are getting the  job done.  If you accept the lease and the purchase and they follow all the guidelines - they should be compensated.  Wouldn't you expect the same - if you were on the other end - I would.

Derek, we do that out in Ann Arbor. However, I credit my sellers the amount they paid in a lease off my commission. Most of the leases have been marketed for awhile as a sale. The buyer agents write it in when a PA is attached to it, to be paid whatever the co-broke is when it closes.

I also tell them if it doesn't turn into a sale, I will re-list and deduct my commission off the new list price for what they paid me.  

Hi Derek,

I think you need to go with what it states in the MLS, yet since it's a 6 month lease as opposed to a year, it seems fair to pay one half commission offered because it's been leased for 1/2 of the time period. And I don't really see it as a matter of greed, if it's what was offered in the first place.

BTW, there is NO standard commission.

What was the compensation offered (not, what did he ask for), if any?  If you offered 50% of the monthly lease amount with a minimum of a 6 month term, then pay it.  If not, then don't. 

And what does the other broker's policy have to do with YOUR business?  Answer...NOTHING!  If you're working for your money, don't give it up too easily.   

Derek...I would expect both commissions as well. Call me greedy if you will, but that's just how I see it. But, I wouldn't expect the listing agent to do all of the work either.

I can see why this post was featured.  You bring up a question that more of us will be facing in our day to day lives.  I've read every response and hope to learn from this.  Although, I truly don't know the right way to handle it!

Hi Derek,

In my opinion....the lease is something needed to "put the deal together" just like many other requests, contingencies etc.  My feeling is that there should not be ANY commission paid on a 6 month or less lease!  In this market we need to do what we need to do to get deals together and the other agent should not be holding out their hand before a closing happens.  I agree with you!  IT IS PURELY GREED!!!!  I just put a deal together with a lease arrangement and there is no commission being paid for the lease.  Sellers in this market are sacrificing enough to sell their homes.  LET'S GIVE THEM A BREAK! 

It's interesting to see what opinions are on this one. In this market it seems that one has to do what one has to do in order to get deals done.

Greedy...maybe but hardly unconscionable.  Discount brokers would think 3% alone is greedy.  It's a matter of perspective.

Derek,

Negotiations require a clear view of the transaction.  I've made it a point all my life not to count someone else's money.  I just look at the transaction (usually I was the seller, and I was represented by a REALTOR) and if it made financial sense for MY SIDE, I said yes.  If not, I negotiated.  It's much easier on your digestive system that way.  LOL

Mike in Tucson

I does seem that the other agent is following MLS rules. It seems fair that the commission should be paid minus the lease fee. This should be addressed before an offer is accepted.

I think in this market the buyers agent deserves to be compensated.  Like you said, if it is only $750 just move on with the deal and be happy you have one.

Hi, Derek.  I agree w/ Jim & Mara.  The compensation for the lease agreement should be prorated based on the length of time the lease is in place at the time the Option is exercised.  The adjustment should be made out of the sale compensation.  Both agents should make the same and I wouldn't pay agree to pay out extra for the other agent in the deal.  Good luck.

  In this situation, I would talk it over with the Seller and give them YOUR reccomendation, but ultimately leave the financial decission on the Seller's shoulders.

Since the commissions are normally paid by the seller should't it be disclosed ahead of time to the agent?  I have never heard of the agents determining the commssion on the fly.

Thanks for this post.  In our area we do not do too many lease options and I have yet to find an agent that knows how to write one up.  I just keep getting told an attorney has to write it up and you don't get your commission unless it closes and most never do.  So the advice I get from other agents is just don't do them. 

I think the Lease is a bridge to the purchase. Neither agent should get any on that money

Derek, for me, I would wait until the purchase was made before I sought any commission.  I think that is the most fair and equitable way to deal with it.

I personally hate lease-purchases for this exact reason.  You either BUY the property or you RENT it - not both.  I prefer to do early-possession with a delayed closing.  That way, there is no question whether or not the buyer plans to actually purchase the home. 

Tina in Virginia

i think that if the mls stated that payment structure then you should follow it, otherwise as others have mentioned what does their policy have to do with you.  good luck

Derek, I would honor what is on the MLS. BUT since it is only six months, I would consider a break to the seller and expect full comm at the act of sale.

I would think the seller and you are getting the short end of the stick.  I am betting that the option will never be exerciesed

I have put together leases both in NY and now in FL. Practiced in both states and it wasn't uncommon to add the commission in if the seller ever sells the tenant the property. We do it here as well..if your client bought the property after renting it...we should get paid for bringing them the sale as well. It protects us from them going behind our backs.

I think it is completely fair to compensate for both the lease and for the purchase.  This agent brought a ready willing and able buyer/tenant.  One transaction will take place now and the other in 6 months.  Most times with a lease/purchase there is a large deposit at the beginning to compensate agents.  If this was not the case then absolutely the buyers agent deserves to be compensated at the lease time and then again at the purchase time.  Question is:  Do you expect to be compensated at the time of purchase or do you feel this is your customer now and you deserve all of the compensation?  Yes I think there is greed here but not on the other agents part.

Derek, All of this should be based on the listing agreement with the seller and the offer of compensation in the MLS. It would be quite normal though for the buyer's agent to be paid on the lease contract and the purchase if it happens. It's not a matter of greed or who's right and who's wrong it's just a matter of what the compensation agreement states.

David - Although I firmly believe there is no such thing as a, "standard commission," this particular Lease is offering to pay 1/2 Month to each Agent, for a 1-year Lease.  The Sale listing is offering 3% to a cooping Agent.  What I was saying is that if the Lease turns into a Sale, I am choosing to credit my Seller clients that 1/2 Month worth toward the percentage they are paying me for the Sale if it consumates.  Thus, I am not being twice for the same Buyer / Tenant.  I just don't see how it is fair and I feel it is greedy.

Sara - Yes, I have never been asked by a Buyer's Agent (who is demanding payment on both the Lease and the Sale, mind you) to draft all the paperwork. 

Dave - Status of the economy notwithstanding, I don't think that a justified reason.  I respect your opinion and appreciate your time and comment.

Eric and Ryan - Thank you for stopping by and for your comments!

Jo - YES, THANK YOU!  You are saying the exact same thing as I.  We are on the same page.  Would you like to come represent these Tenants / Buyers ?  :)

Barbara and Marilyn - thank you for stopping by and commenting.

Nadine - OUCH!  Sorry to hear you are in that situation.  I hope you find a buyer yourself for the place and your efforts pay off!

Jim and Maria - Thank you!  We are on the same page!

Susan - No, I would not expect to get paid the way this other Agent is demanding to.  My #1 concern and care is my client, not myself.  Thank you for stopping by.

Missy - THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!  I was hoping you would comment on this one, as I had a feeling you and I would be on the same page ... and we are.  Have a great weekend!

"What does the contract say?" always determines who gets what.

How was the property listed?  If as a sale, the selling broker should receive the co-op offered.  If they wrote a "lease-option" that was accepted, when the option is exercised and the sale closes, they'll receive the co-op in the MLS. 

If the property was listed as a rental, they receive whatever rental fee was offered in the MLS. 

What isn't in you post is how the property was offered, sale or rent.  If it was offered as a "lease-purchase", whatever is in the MLS rules.  Who cares what the other broker's policy is?  They don't control the listing broker's policy.  If the other broker's policy is that they receive the rental commission and then the sales commission, then that agent shouldn't be wirting on properties with other co-op offers without FIRST having a change in commission for that renter/buyer. 

The bottom line is that it matters not what anyone wants, or policy, or anything other than was was offered and accepted by showing the property.

Finally, be glad you're doing the lease.  However, the buyer's agent should be writing the offer.  This thing has got to get down to offer/counter/counter/acceptance on the documents.  Too much talking and not enough documents.   The judge is only going to want to see the documents. 

Lynda - Yes, I understand there is no such thing as a, "standard commission."

Natalie - Thank you for stopping by and for your comment!  Yes, I felt this was a good topic and seem to have hit a few buttons with it...

Dean, and Bob & Carolin - THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!  Will you come work in my market, please?  :)

Joe - Thank you for stopping by and commenting.  I agree .... greedy

Mike - Thanks for commenting!  Can I trade you our Michigan weather for your AZ weather?  :)

Wayne - I, "believe," you and I are on the same page if I read your comment correctly.  Thank you.

Shelby - Thank you!  I agree with you!

Doug - Thank you for your time and comment.

Whatever is posted in the MLS should be paid.  I feel if his broker has a policy about compensation then a BBA should be signed and he should collect whatever his office is demanding from the renter or buyer.

As far as lease options go, it is normal to get lease compensation plus closed sale compensation in my neck of the woods

Robert - This is an ad-hoc situation.  Commissions on Leases, in my market anyway, are earmarked as what would be paid based on a 12 month Lease.  In this situation, we have Tenants who will likely Buy in less then 6 months.  There is issue #1 - should the Agent get paid based on a 12 month lease if it is only for 6 months?  THEN, if they purchase, why wouldn't the Seller get credit for already having paid commission on the Lease side?  Why should they then pay a full commission for the Sale with NO credit for the Lease commission that they paid?

Donna - Thank you for the comment.  Leases are common here, but this is my first Lease Option that has a high probability of becoming a sale in less then 12 months.

Tony and Darcy - It is common practice for the Agents to get commission when a Lease is consumated.  That is not the issue here ... the issue is once it becomes a purchase.

Tina - Early possession and a delayed closing?  UGH!  Our Broker would never allow that to happen, and I would never allow my clients to accept.  WAY too much legal liablity ... but I understand that may differ in your market.

Frank - Thank you for stopping by and commenting.  I believe you and I are on the same page.

Russ - I am not concerned about myself ... my concern is the Seller.  There happiness, future business, and referral business is MUCH more important to me then a few hundred bucks...

Neal - Thank you, but I think you are missing the point a little bit.  Of course if the sale closes the Agents should be compensated ... I am saying though that IF the commission offered to a cooping Agent was 3% of the sales price, it should be 3% LESS what commission was already paid for the Lease.

Sara - Sorry you must have read my post entirely wrong.  If you go back and re-read my comments to others, you may get a more clear direction.  I am CLEARLY not being Greedy ...

Bryant - Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

Lenn / Renee - This property has TWO different MLS postings ... one for Lease, one for Sale.  The Lease is offering to pay 1/2 Month worth of rent to EACH Agent for a 1-year signed Lease.  The Sale is offering to pay 3% to a Buyers or Sub Agent (and another percentage to me, the listing Agent).  I feel that when the Lease is signed, the Agents should be compensated for that piece obviously.  IF the Tenants exercise their option and the Sale closes, then yes, both Agents should be compensated.  BUT, why should the commission that the Seller has already paid not be credited toward the Sale commission??

That is my question.  Also, if the Lease commission were to be based upon a 12 month period, and they exercise their option after only 6 months, then what?  Shouldn't they get credit for that?  Seems they would have paid double.

It depends on the lease agreement, but on every one one that I've ever used it clearly stipulated that the tenant has Right of First Refusal to purchase the property if it became available for purchase and that the "selling" agent would be compensated 3% or the agreed upon commission. The LEASE is one compensation, the BUY side is a another at a completely different time. I would imagine if you are an agent and you represented the lessee, you should probably stay in touch with your client, especially if they indicated they might want to buy at the end of the lease, (option in place or not)! Greedy, no, I don't think so. Two entirely separate transactions...

Michele - Thank you for your time and your comment...

I went back and re-read your comments and in most of the following comments you defend your rights to keep the commission for the sale for yourself.  Put yourself in the other agents shoes and compensate as you would like to be compensated!  The difference could be thousands not simply $50 or a small amount.  Yes I do think you are looking through this glass skewed!

Sara - no, no, no.  That is not at all what I am saying at all.  I think you are the only person reading it that way.

#1 - As the Listing Agent, I am charging the Sellers 2%, and the Buyer's Agent is getting 3%

#2 - As the Listing Agent, I am charging the Sellers $750 for a 1-year Lease, and the Buyer's Agent is getting $750 for a 1-year Lease

#3 - I am saying that the $1,500 the Seller already paid in commission for the Lease should be a CREDIT toward the commission on the sale piece.  Thus...

Buyer's Agent = sales price * 3% LESS $750 = TOTAL COMMISSION FOR THE SALE TRANSACTION
Listing Agent = sales price * 2% LESS $750 = TOTAL COMMISSION FOR THE SALE TRANSACTION

Now please tell me ... How am I greedy here???

  I think you should act according to the MLS, if it states you would compensate a buyer with 1/2 months rent @ signing and .03 @ closing why would you consider it greedy that is the agreement. If the role was reverse with the same conditions, would it be greedy?

In a situation like this, we would not be paying the buyer's agent twice.  However, you are most likely bound to pay whatever compensation was posted in the MLS.  We have had similar situations where a property sold for a certain amount, say $300,000 and the seller contributed say $6000 towards the buyers closing costs, so the seller only netted (before costs) $294,000.  We argue that the seller should not pay commission or tax stamps (transfer tax) on the overage.  Only once were we forced to pay because of the compensation posted in the MLS.  I would recommend talking to your managing Broker about this and have him/her handle it with the buyer agent's Broker.  Hopefully they can come to an agreement.  I wouldn't just take it.  You are looking out for the best interest of your seller client and it's not in his/her best interest to over pay.  Good luck.

This seems very clear to me.  You don't have an agreement with the tenants' agent.  So, you don't have an agreement with the tenants' agent.  Do what you've agreed to, and nothing else.  Somebody else is trying to change the rules on you.  You don't have to accept.

The other agent is correct, and that is not too much compensation.  The fact of the matter is that probably over 85%of lease purchases never close.  Experienced agents get what they can on the front side, and know better than to hold their breath and wait for their portion of the commission on the other end.  The differenced is that most agents today do not have enough experience to know the ropes. 

Look at it as two different transactions, If you were to lease a property you would expect to get compensated and if you sold a property you would expect to get compensated.  If the other agent brought the people to the table i would not have any problem splitting (or whatever the arrangement was) both the fee for the lease and the sale with them.

Kevin - if the role was reversed, NO, I would not expect double-payment.  I would expect to be paid for the Lease upon Lease signing, and then when the sale closes I would gladly take X% LESS what I was already paid on the Lease.

Katherine - Thank you!  Yes, I NEVER expect to be paid commission on concessions.  Why should a Seller have to pay commission on money they never realized??  That to me is Greedy, as well.

Tony - Thank you for stopping by and for your comments.

Jim - I respectfully disagree with you.  I think, "experienced Agents," first and foremost represent their clients' interests above and beyond their own interests.  If an, "experienced Agent," is defined as one who is more interested in their own paycheck than the interest of their client(s) ... well, then maybe I will never be one.  Thank you for stopping by and commenting. 

C.T. - Thank you for stopping by and commenting.

Derek,

 To me these would be to separate transactions. For the purchase aspect the 3% sounds fine to me, but regarding the lease aspect I would only offer 25% of the first months rent. If it was a 12 month lease I would have offered 3% of the yearly amount.

I think you've got a good handle on it. 

The MLS listing for the lease is 1/2 month for a 12 month lease and it's pro-rated.  Actually, since the seller is taking the risk that the buyer may not buy, i.e., lease-option, the rental commission should really be paid monthly as the rent is collected and then nothing when the buyer exercises their option.

I'm not fond of options anyway.  What might have made more sense and simplified things would have been to do a purchase contract with a Pre-settlement Occupancy Agreement.  That way, there is no rental commission and if the buyer doesn't settle, the buyer's agent is not going to be paid unless there is an agreement for a fee in case of a default on the part of the buyer.   

Bottom line, I don't believe that the buyer's agent is owed a full commission for a parties year rental, especially not in advance. 

I still don't believe that "what the buyer's broker policy" is material.  Unfortunately, you may have committed to paying it in your e-mail. 

What the buyer may do in 6 months is not relevant. If they signed a one year lease, then the agent is entitled to the commission. If they buy the property, then the agent is entitled to the commission. The fact that the buyer may exercise their option early should be viewed as a good thing. In a declining market, the longer they lease, they greater chance that the property value drops below the option price and the buyer decides that they are over paying and elect NOT to exercise their option. 

Look at the big picture. 

Hi Derek. I have set up loads of L/O's and have bought and sold many myself using L/O's. I don't like their set-up on this one. I set my commisions up as follows: 2% of the price at option fee payment and another 5% at closing. This works great. So on a $300K house, I get $6K upfront and then $15K at closing. I may have to wait up to 3 years to get the second half but that is OK. It is taking a chance, but I figure even if only half of my L/O's close, I will do really well.

Seems like the agent is asking within the means of what was offered on the MLS???

I would take the lease fee now and when it closes take the commission minus the lease fee.

Hate to be picky (and possibly echo a previous comment), but it sounds like you should revamp your MLS listings to include more detail.

Derek, I would ask to see a copy of the buyers rep!!

I used to live in Livonia MI, many many moons ago!

On a lease in this area (metro Atlanta) we get 10% of each months rent and NO upfront money - you can see why I don't pursue that part of the business at all!    Your buyer's agent request does seem over the top to me.

If you offered in the MLS both the 1/2 months rent for a 12 month lease and a 3% for a closed sale and I'm assuming that the actual full lease is for 12 months and that would trigger the 1/2 rent compensation.  If the buyers are fortunate enough to be able to close before the end of the rental agreement period, such as 6 months in, I would be thrilled to have a confirmed closing and as per the agreement in the MLS now give the closing commission. 

We have seen rent w/ options where after the full year has passed, even if the renters now wanted to buy, the value of the property has dropped considerably below the original offer from the prior year, that potential buyer will be walking away or renegotiating the sales price rather than taking the option.  I'd just be happy if they could close in 6 months and be glad they didn't wait the full 12 months, even if it makes you feel the buyer's agent is profiting beyond your intentions. 

If you didn't write into the commission comments that the rental portion would be pro-rated back from the closing commission for each month less than the full 12, I think you need to stand by what was presented in the MLS.  Its just expecting what the MLS offered, not greed. 

If in the other hand, this wasn't what you offered in your MLS listing, but what the buyer's agent would ask for if they were in charge of the commission struture, tough luck to them, its whats in the MLS that counts not what their Broker wants.  I'm not thrilled when I show a property that is offering 1.5% less than what most others are giving, but if I write an offer, I don't email the other agent and ask for more just because I don't like the pay scale. :)

I haven't read all of the comments so this may be a repeat but in this area the tenant pays a 1 month (lease amount) equivelant for a lease, NOT the seller!

So maybe you can suggest the same in this case. The owner will pay the negotiated commission at the closing when it closes.

Good Luck with that!

Tere

This is like a glass half full or half empty kind of scenario. In its simplest form, if you look at the situation and your conscience says "greedy pig" then you know your answer! 

Hi Derek,   I was in a similar position, but I did not have my listing advertised in the mls as a rental, just the sale. I only charged the commission on the sale, not the what turned out to be a year long rental.  I too had a problem w/ charging the seller twice and the buyers agent never even brought up the rental commission so I guess she felt the same way. However, since you have it advertised both ways I would think that if the other agent wants both of the commissions than you would have to oblige?

I like Missy's idea of getting paid for the lease upfront and then deducting it off of her commission. That way you get something now and in case it does'nt sell you did'nt do all of that work for nothing. Wish I would have thought of that! 

Sorry for the double comment. I was'nt logged in on the first one and I want my points cuz I'm GREEDY! 

Hi Derek,   I was in a similar position, but I did not have my listing advertised in the mls as a rental, just the sale. I only charged the commission on the sale, not the what turned out to be a year long rental.  I too had a problem w/ charging the seller twice and the buyers agent never even brought up the rental commission so I guess she felt the same way. However, since you have it advertised both ways I would think that if the other agent wants both of the commissions than you would have to oblige?

I like Missy's idea of getting paid for the lease upfront and then deducting it off of her commission. That way you get something now and in case it does'nt sell you did'nt do all of that work for nothing. Wish I would have thought of that!