Feeling Misled on Home Price, Buyers Sue Agent – NY Times

[OtterPops]

This is apparently the first, although I suspect definitely not the last, time a buyer has sued their agent for, basically, they buyer having paid too much for their home:

http://tinyurl.com/yvnf85

This is a great article, and unless I missed it in the UT, it always amazes me how a newspaper 3,000 miles away can “scoop” the local paper…I guess when you have as many layoffs as the UT has had recently, it has an effect.

[Anonymous]

A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.

The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.

Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.

Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.

A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.

[Anonymous]

A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.

The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.

Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.

Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.

A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.

[Anonymous]

A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.

The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.

Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.

Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.

A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.

[Anonymous]

A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.

The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.

Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.

Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.

A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.

[Anonymous]

A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.

The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.

Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.

Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.

A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.

[Bugs]

There were 2 apparent model matches that sold in this time frame on this street. One property that is 3 doors down and had a pool/spa combo that the Ummmel’s home lacked – it was listed prior to the contract date for the Ummel’s home at $100,000 less and it closed escrow on the same day as the Ummel’s sale for $105,000 less.

The other recent model match closed in 04/2005 for $175,000 less. Except for not having the “area view” (neighboring rooftops), this one looks on paper to be a dead ringer for the Ummel’s home.

There were also a couple other relevant sales in the subdivision during that time frame that appear to indicate to similar trends.

[Bugs]

There were 2 apparent model matches that sold in this time frame on this street. One property that is 3 doors down and had a pool/spa combo that the Ummmel’s home lacked – it was listed prior to the contract date for the Ummel’s home at $100,000 less and it closed escrow on the same day as the Ummel’s sale for $105,000 less.

The other recent model match closed in 04/2005 for $175,000 less. Except for not having the “area view” (neighboring rooftops), this one looks on paper to be a dead ringer for the Ummel’s home.

There were also a couple other relevant sales in the subdivision during that time frame that appear to indicate to similar trends.

[Bugs]

There were 2 apparent model matches that sold in this time frame on this street. One property that is 3 doors down and had a pool/spa combo that the Ummmel’s home lacked – it was listed prior to the contract date for the Ummel’s home at $100,000 less and it closed escrow on the same day as the Ummel’s sale for $105,000 less.

The other recent model match closed in 04/2005 for $175,000 less. Except for not having the “area view” (neighboring rooftops), this one looks on paper to be a dead ringer for the Ummel’s home.

There were also a couple other relevant sales in the subdivision during that time frame that appear to indicate to similar trends.

[Bugs]

There were 2 apparent model matches that sold in this time frame on this street. One property that is 3 doors down and had a pool/spa combo that the Ummmel’s home lacked – it was listed prior to the contract date for the Ummel’s home at $100,000 less and it closed escrow on the same day as the Ummel’s sale for $105,000 less.

The other recent model match closed in 04/2005 for $175,000 less. Except for not having the “area view” (neighboring rooftops), this one looks on paper to be a dead ringer for the Ummel’s home.

There were also a couple other relevant sales in the subdivision during that time frame that appear to indicate to similar trends.

[Bugs]

There were 2 apparent model matches that sold in this time frame on this street. One property that is 3 doors down and had a pool/spa combo that the Ummmel’s home lacked – it was listed prior to the contract date for the Ummel’s home at $100,000 less and it closed escrow on the same day as the Ummel’s sale for $105,000 less.

The other recent model match closed in 04/2005 for $175,000 less. Except for not having the “area view” (neighboring rooftops), this one looks on paper to be a dead ringer for the Ummel’s home.

There were also a couple other relevant sales in the subdivision during that time frame that appear to indicate to similar trends.

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts