“If the plaintiffs were to somehow prevail then those groups would certainly not be in a strong financial position to pay their own agent ON TOP OF the purchase price.
“What about FAIR HOUSING and CIVIL RIGHTS of the middle and lower class, the underserved, the minorities, the LGBTQ community?” Andrew Show, an exclusive buyer broker at Buyer’s Resource Realty Services, told Inman via email. And, more will purchase unrepresented, which is the unfortunate result.” “I feel like a LOT of buyers would go unrepresented when the cost is more tangible to them. Jodi Beekman, broker at Red 1 Realty, agreed. The plaintiffs in the case emphasize that, due to NAR rules, sellers are forced to offer a buyer broker commission in order to list their home in a Realtor-affiliated multiple listing service, and that moreover, due to the possibility of steering (where buyer agents avoid showing homes that pay them less than the area’s typical rate), sellers feel compelled to offer that typical rate.īut some agents emphasized that sellers are able to negotiate what they will pay. If the defendants lose, whether they decide to pass on that cost somehow, and to whom, is unknown at this point. The lawsuit has thus far not named any brokers or agents as defendants and therefore none would be responsible for directly paying any damages in the case. “What’s good for one party, has to good for the others. “If the sellers can sue the agents/brokers for money back that they paid for the buyer agent commission, can the agents then sue the buyers to recover that commission, and then can the buyers sue the seller for the money they overpaid for the house that covered the original commission?” he said. Thomas Pawlenko, an agent at Keller Williams Arizona Realty, envisioned a chain of lawsuits if sellers are able to get agents and brokers to reimburse them. Many agents and brokers seemed bewildered by the idea that sellers could get their money back for something that they signed a contract to pay. NAR and Realogy have vowed to appeal the decision, but in the meantime, the industry is grappling with its implications. The order means that the Sitzer/Burnett suit now represents hundreds of thousands of sellers who paid a broker commission in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Missouri listed on one of four MLSs - MARIS, Heartland MLS, Southern Missouri MLS, and the Columbia Board of Realtors MLS - from Apto the present. “The whole thing makes no sense,” said Laurie Weston Davis, broker-owner and CEO of Better Homes and Gardens Lifestyle Property Partners, in Inman’s Coast to Coast Facebook group, where many of the comments in this article are sourced. Known as Sitzer/Burnett after its lead plaintiffs, the suit names the National Association of Realtors and real estate franchisors Realogy, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, and HomeServices of America as defendants and alleges the sharing of commissions between listing and buyer brokers violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by inflating seller costs. District Court in Western Missouri made the ruling on Friday, just days after hearing oral arguments in the case. Real estate agents and brokers are reeling from a federal court’s decision to grant class certification in a commission lawsuit that could rock the real estate industry by recovering more than $1 billion in damages and changing how brokers and agents are paid.
0 kommentar(er)
