Larry, if the onsite agents are in resale, I shudder (at least in NY) to consider the outcomes. My experience was as a builder employee- no benefit to "no" Realtor, if the customer simply made an error in visiting.

Kevin, it's accomplished ALL THE TIME- it just needs to be automatic. Not everyone that views your listing will like what you offer on that property with agency, but will respect/trust you enough to perform on their behalf as a buyers agent on another property, if the listing doesn't work for them. Right up front, and out of the way.

The problem in NY is that referring within the agency is dual agency at the onset (albeit, designated)- as long as it's disclosed, with the full comprehension of the buyer, it's available to buyers. I completely understand your professional "take", and appreciate it, Linda.

BB, back atcha- that sure is a beautiful wife you've got. 

The disclosure, while complicated (gee- an attorney state might have something to do with it) is nonetheless THE LAW. As long as that is the case, if it isn't disclosed, well, it's up to a judge.

I totally appreciate Kevin's honest comment- did you read it?

Carole, in my early AR days, I criticized a much missed "friend" here for sending (not posting) pics of kids. What an idiot I was then. Except this baby featured came out of a magazine.

The blank stares are actually somewhat intimidating. Like, if you have a big piece of pepperoni in your teeth- THAT kind of look (which makes a girl wonder about the last thing eaten, the first time). The thing is, what needs to be said is said; signed is signed; understood is understood. If I were buying or selling, a really good start.

Miriam, I want to celebrate the fact that I have someone in NY with whom to "BLEEEETCCHHHHH" over non-disclosure. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

Tim, as required by law, there's no easy way to "explain" it, but it has to be done.

Allison, Florida is ahead of the game.

Neal, no question about it- it's an added element that is confusing. As it stands in NY, to "simplify" by not disclosing agency is against the law- too many buyers getting taken advantage of, and not understanding that they can make it much more simple by having an agent disconnected to the property of interest make it happen for them.

Missy, bingo, and thank you.

Laura, I agree. It was interesting to me that somehow the feeling on the part of some of the real estate agents was that somehow (even in the likely absence of a full disclosure to a buyer) the buyer "owed" loyalty to the listing agent- makes no sense.

Margaret, no question about it- hence, the "looks" when it's diligently disclosed (as required). My "spiel" above isn't actually that- it's a bit longer for the purpose of the blog- but for those buyers that have a light bulb come on, it becomes a solid relationship (even when they choose to get their own representation). It has to come as naturally as, "are you working with anyone"- that's the challenge.

Judith, in addition to putting you at a "higher level" as a professional, it also keeps us legal- worth the effort for all involved, despite that moment of initial confusion on the part of the buyer. I'd rather have confusion addressed, then eliminated out of the gate, and clearly you agree- thanks for the comment.

Sally, while I can't disagree entirely with you (and don't) the problem is in your last remark to a buyer- often, they don't HAVE real estate agent at that juncture. It's not "gobbledy-gook" when the buyer later discovers that the uncomfortable "gut" feel, as the transaction progresses, is due to having purchased a home from an agent not able to look out for their best interest, when that opportunity was available. Here's simple: "I represent the seller. I'll meet you at the house, but please know that anything that you say can, and will, be used against you." I hope that you're wrong about the ignorance of the real estate contingent.

PCR, funny (at least in NY) how the law is treated by some in a cavalier fashion- especially given the huge investment being entered into by both buyers and sellers. Not a good thing, to ignore a state mandated requirement designed for consumer protection...

Kathy, thank you- you provide the info right up front, leaving it to the buyer to decide. I'd add to your last comment that, as well, you "cannot do or say anything that will HELP either party (at the expense of the other)", which is the downside for some buyers/sellers that are on board with the arrangement. Either way, disclosure is the key- clearly, you operate with that understanding.

Sheila, I think that some agents feel that offering the disclosure will cost them business. The reality is that in some cases, it will. Nonetheless, it's the law here. You give buyers exactly what is required, despite not having to obtain a signature- I'll bet you sleep well at night!

Roland, is it designated agency, or designated dual agency? Just curious.

Jim, it definitely varies- thanks for the info. Personally, it would seem prudent to simply eliminate dual agency as an available option- it seems to serve no one.

David, as long as buyers are aware of your status, and choose to move forward, it's legal (if arguably a problem, as indicated some with consumers that feel "duped" in the end).

Scott, I find the forms (particularly "broker agency") convoluted. Nonetheless, explaining each agency available to consumers is the law here, so I muddle through that one (without using it). That we don't offer dual agency, either, is a business decision made by us- too dicey and full of legal ramifications if it doesn't work out "just so". Thanks for the input!

Judith, facilitator is certainly better than referee!

Thanks, Jeanean-even if real estate agents don't quite get it, there's no reason for consumers not to.

Thank you for the comment, Holly-

Monika, it appeared to be the position of some that the listing agent, by virtue of agreeing to show the property to a buyer that subsequently wanted to be represented in the transaction, was somehow due loyalty from the buyer. My take is that if this occurred, the buyer was the whose gas/time was wasted- had disclosures been offered, it would have taken just one trip with a buyers agent.

Judith, a "referee" conjures up a verrrrry SHRILL whistle for me.

Thanks, Terrie- re. builders, I worked for good ones that had no problem paying real estate agents that, but for left turn, had buyers that "happened" to stop in. If the buyers wanted their agents involved, they were included. Re. agency, as a buyer or seller, I'd wonder whether or not I want to work with an agent that can't accomplish a simple required-by-law task.

Ruthmarie, I really think that some agents are fearful that they'll lose a buyer over the disclosure being properly addressed- often, the opposite is true.

Sally Jo, my point exactly: if it's addressed, it's likely not going to end up as a complaint from the agent, because the buyer will call their own. Oh, and I just hugged her a little too hard, I guess...she's defenseless until her teeth come in! Then again, it could have been the time I stuffed her into my suitcase to bring her back to NY with me-her mom caught me in the act, so I had to come home without her! Or was it the time that I wanted to wake her up, just so that she'd look around and see ME...

Patricia, your husband has obviously shared enough with you that you are clear, and I agree- the other side of the coin is the seller, who has an agent that is annoyed to have shown a property to a potential buyer! In NY, fiduciary to the seller would include putting the sellers financial gain above their own, but that's a whole 'nother blog!

Angela, the bottom line is that if they wanted representation, they should have it (as a buyer)- and, the house sold- a very good thing!

When they arrive in New York, they'll have a BONANZA- it's fines galore, just waiting to be collected.

Larry, funny how being up front and demonstrating integrity appeals to consumers- what's to misunderstand about that? Thanks for articulating a real life scenario that is a common result of proper disclosure- it's appreciated!

TC, we all need to figure out the dialogue that works best for us- we really, LEGALLY need to! Thanks for the comment.

Thanks, Lanre- unfortunately, some need to get out of that "fear" mode of explaining what is in the best interest of buyers/sellers when it may well not involve a paycheck (at least, not on a listed property) that includes both ends- scarier still is the possibility of paying a whole lot more than a buying side commission in the form of a fine!

Team D, EXACTLY. And I'm guessing that the cost of gas is the last thing on your mind.

Lenn, the rep at the builder likely has their license on "ice" and can tell you what is occurring without any ramifications. Their job onsite is to sell houses. Frankly, good on-site people have no problem explaining to the builder why the properties are sitting, and why they should take "Lenns" offer.

The above was offered for Realtors that have less experience with builders.

I don't know how your area operates, but "out west", the Realtors had a written (through the HBA- local Home Builders Association) standard form with the builders. If the original agent didn't re-register the customer within 30 days, the builder wasn't obligated to a commission.

In the case described above by you, as a buyer, I'd let the obligation to agent A lapse. Another house will come up, and you'll get them everything that they need to obtain a great property. 

With less hassle, and in my OPINION, less cost. Is there an HBA standard form in your area used by builders? I'm not even sure that all areas have an HBA.

I've never worked for a builder that didn't have an end to a registration- unless the other real estate agent backs out willingly, it's a waiting game. You may not have a local builder-Realtor council that provides the same form, so even revised, a mess of an answer! 

Jennifer, of MANY people and real estate agents, you should find a level of comfort with full disclosure. The result that you've shared is evidence that people buying and selling real estate still trust "you". As a result, they get what they're seeking, and you provide it. Do I like that a buyer went unrepresented? NO. Was it their choice? ABSOLUTELY. Would I trust you? Without question. Except, what is that warning on the dual agency "thing". :))))

Did the recipients of agency disclosure look at you as if you had a piece of pepperoni in your teeth, at FIRST?

I should add, we had a "customer" (as a result of no representation) that told us: "I don't want representation. I have an offer, and a lawyer. Here it is." It happens.

Bob and Carolin- thank you

Wayne, it's a big deal here, too, to the dept. of state. A bit less important to the real estate community as a whole in practice.

Gary, best to YOU- we're finding that it's taking much longer for buyers to arrive at a decision, as the full implication of what was happening "everywhere else" is in clear evidence here. That, and the reality that, with homes of their own to sell, too much looking makes little sense for them.

Joan, the face reminded me of "gas" at the time- in keeping with the blog. I would NEVER put an unrelated photo in a blog. It's just that now, the blogs are centered around the expression on her face, so that she can be the "star". What's wrong with THAT? Surely I can use the cross-eyed photo as well- hey- another blog is percolating... Did you read our broker agency definition? Hopefully, your new disclosure is a bit more CLEAR!

Thanks, Pam- hopefully, the message is clear enough.

Andy, one would think, wouldn't one? It's just not considered quite as essential in states that permit dual agency, I guess- suprise.

Randy, if the "fiduciary" thing has been agreed to with the seller (NY has that in seller/buyer agency) it is a requirement of the listing agent to put the needs of the seller before all else- all of the "procuring cause", etc. is out the window if a buyer wants representation and hasn't been informed that they are ABLE to get it, in the absence of the listing company being able to provide it (which, here, is not possible- just dual agency w/ a designated agent).

Lenn, did the onsite agent provide you with the timeline? If not, I'm sure that the buyer could request a copy of the registration, providing dates. I wouldn't proceed either without it, because the builder is pretty stuck. The regs usually include the phrase "any dispute among agents is not our problem" (obviously, not in those words), which (as you've stated) leaves the outcome an unknown for the buyer. Maybe there are only a few days left. I'd put in a call to the onsite person (as you likely have) alerting them that a renewal of the registration needs to have the buyer approval. Some agents will attempt an extension without the knowledge of the buyer.

David, while I respect your "take", it isn't about Realtors or real estate agents, and what they believe- in NY, it's about following the law. If a real estate agent can't manage even that much, it makes a person wonder who they're dealing with in a huge transaction. Until the law is changed, it's not a subjective situation- it's required, and the ability to roll with change is imperitive of any/all in the real estate arena right now. As real estate agents in New York, we don't have to like disclosure, but we DO have to offer full disclosure. May as well like it than fight it.

Although for the life of me, I can't understand why disclosure is in any way a bad thing.

David, disclosure is a good thing all the way around- that it isn't always followed here is problematic for buyers of real estate (and by extension, sellers). When buyers get an uncomfortable "feeling" about how a transaction is evolving, and don't know who is in their corner (probably no one), it makes transactions tougher for everyone involved.

Thanks, Gary- my sentiments exactly.

Lenn, I get it, and agree completely. Anything outside of the builder registration ( i.e.,a BA agreement) adds too much to the lost-gas equation. The buyer has the facts; whether he/she restricts him or herself to the BA agreement (at your expense) is outside of your control. Without assurance of compensation, that's a gamble that isn't worth worrying about. Time will tell.

I know that many are proponents of BA contracts; as I'm not, I'll add this to my reasons to discourage it. Probably, the best example possible.

Unlike yourself, who has no thoughts on the theft of maps, and dual agency...I COULDN'T RESIST.

Lisa, I'll take a transaction broker over dual agency any time!

Lisa R, yes- they don't understand it until the reality that they have essentially no representation when a "glitch" hits- then, it becomes messy.

Thanks, Laura.

TH, it's pretty straightforward- if they're hearing horror stories, all the more reason to be as concise as possible. Sometimes it just takes more time than others. Thanks for your input!

Mitchell, the purpose of mentioning the 4plex rule was targeted at NYC- it was pointed out to me that (without a good reason) NYC is exempt from the New York Department of State parameters for full disclosure of agency for that reason- mostly condos/apartments/coops, whatever they're called.

Your professionalism and knowledge of the inner workings are HIGHLY VALUED, and an explanation or opinion would be very clarifying.

Here's the RUB: in being exempt, NYC buyers and sellers, but for agents who deem the agency relationship a part of the process beneficial for ALL consumers, encounter a laxness that permeates. As a huge city with a huge real estate profit, it seems odd to confuse things by exempting NYC, regardless of the type of homeownership vehicle. If NYC ignores it, and the broker/owners in the city have outer offices that are obligated NOT to ignore it, those of us that most definitely DON'T ignore it deal with the lack of disclosure by extension. It's perplexing, because I really don't view it as the real estate agent-salesperson's "fault".

I don't know of places that exclude an entire city from a disclosure form, due to the types of real estate offerings.

Non disclosure is against the law here; we have to deal with it on Long Island, and it would be a good thing, for those that support a NY law in our profession, to have it come from the Big Apple not as "a" way to do business, but in support of the justice system here- THE way to conduct real estate with buyers and sellers of property here.

You know this area is relatively new to me in the real estate arena in NY, so your opinion is significant. 

I'd send anyone to you, Mitchell, in a heartbeat. It's not your problem that you have a "world unto your own", but it IS a Long Island problem. I am SO SICK of the "blank stare", and the lack of responsibility behind it. That integrity exists with real estate agents is absolutely the case. That it doesn't is also the case.

Miriam, while it won't happen, it would just simplify a mess on Long Island if the brokers that are based in the city provided consistency to their LI offices (at least, out here). It smacks of  arrogance, not ignorance. Either way, not good. I guess it's going to take a huge fine, or many- OK for them, but really annoying for those of us that simply want to play by the law until they are willing to do so as well. Buyers and sellers are confused enough in this market; this is just one more aspect that shouldn't be added to the confusion. Thanks, Miriam!

Now THAT would provide consistency, Miriam, but no, not what I'm saying. I can only assume that the agents on Long Island are very poorly trained in disclosure, and the practices in the city offer no support for those offices out our way. Who is ultimately responsible for this? Broker/owners. That NYC is a different cat doesn't make it purr. Really, though, to have coops and condos exempt is ridiculous- who thought of THAT exemption for full disclosure? I'm really curious to understand the reasoning. I guess I see it as  behavior infecting how branch offices view the importance of just letting buyers and sellers know whose side of the fence they're on, particularly those offices that have that NYC-Hamptons connection.

Hi, Sylvie. My experience outside of Long Island provided a similarly consistent MO, and real estate agents did it with all transactions- it wasn't something that a professional played around with. You'd likely find it as shocking here as I am finding it. I just cannot imagine that a class actiion lawsuit among consumers, aimed at brokers, is not around the corner. Leave me out of that one!

Lisa, personally, that set up would be fine with me. As long as it isn't the case, though, following the law is something that we have to do, like it or not. Thanks for the comment!

min- I think that buyers would have an easier time respecting the time of the agent if they had a clue who the agent represented- thank you!

Thank you for the comment, Lamar, although I'm not certain quite what "been there, done that" means.

Referring buyers out doesn't make the sense that informing them does- payment to another agent suddenly representing the buyer in the form of a referral is what I would think would be sticky (as a listing agent).

It's funny- I've never run into a situation where I've had to prove to be the "procuring cause". While I'm sure it happens,  it's hard to imagine bothering. Stephen, for clarification: IT'S NOT THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY'S FAILURE- IT IS A LONG ISLAND PROBLEM. This place is unlike any I've ever heard of, or experienced.

Stephen, the "old" rules with new construction were somewhat legit in theory- the expectation, after all of the advertising, etc. that builders do, is that the real estate agent bring the buyer in themselves (much like a listing agent at an open house might view an unaccompanied visitor). Buyer agency has certainly opened up a can of worms, even for those (builders, on site sales) that are outside of the rules followed by the real estate community- it's pretty appalling to prevent a customer of the builder from having their own representation, if they so choose. Thanks for the article link- the author provided great advice.

Sandra, it may not be a requirment with the buyer, but the instructions here are pretty cut-and-dried. If an agent doesn't explain each type of agency, they're in violation of the NYDOS. I don't mind a buyer buying a property if it's been explained, and they decide that they will go unrepresented- as long as they're VERY clear that we represent the seller only if it's our listing. Most don't want that kind of transaction; some don't care. All, however, are clear.

Mitchell, what a mess- except, the NYDOS requirement supercedes any real estate entity. That is hasn't been figured out by REBNY is simply incompetence on the part of that entity, and appallingly unfair to buyers/sellers. That's where the feeling of "arrogance" enters my perception- they can't possibly be that stupid...can they? Yikes- scary.

Mitchell, very interesting. Following that reasoning, should an agent find themselves getting sued by a buyer or seller for non-disclosure, the go-to to pick up the legal "tab" would be the REBNY, as it is their own policies that create the confusion. Clearly, they are a liability for consumers. *edit: they've released themselves from liability with their coe, which states that members of REBNY must follow all state regulations. Except, who's minding the store on THAT one?

I wonder who perpetuates the notion that they'll get a "better deal" negotiating with the seller's agent? It's certainly not the actual buyer. And I'm sure that a double ended commission has nothing to do with it, from a listing agent's perspective.

What a disaster.

And they didn't before because....WHY?

Ugh. Thanks, Mitchell- your insight is very interesting. I appreciate it!

My opinion? It is NEVER in the best interest of either the buyer or the seller to perform for both in the same transaction. However, as long as it puts more money in the pocket of the agents, those that participate will continue to find ways to justify it. Interestingly, it was actually the NAR who sought to eliiminate such a transaction years ago- didn't succeed.