[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Yes the agent does have a fiduciary obligation however that agent does work for and is employed by the seller. The obligation implies that the agent shall advise the seller, however the agent cannot make decisions that are against the wishes of the seller. I think your assumption about the agents ignoring the rules is incorrect.

[/quote]

Not sure whether you are replying to me or XBoxBoy. Just to reiterate what I said in an earlier post “my understanding was that once a house was listed with a realtor, the realtor was required (either by listing agreement, ethical rules or something else) to get it up on the MLS as quickly as possible (assuming that the seller wanted it done that way).” So I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement on that point.

Xboxboy expressed his view that sellers’ agents sometimes diverge from the what is required, and I agreed. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position – I haven’t found a profession yet that doesn’t have it’s bad apples.

Finally – the fiduciary duty requires an agent (whether real estate or otherwise) to act as instructed by the principle – that is the duty of obedience. The two can agree on whether the agent has a broad or narrow scope of discretion – but the agent’s duty is to carry out the wishes of the principle, or withdraw from the representation.

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Yes the agent does have a fiduciary obligation however that agent does work for and is employed by the seller. The obligation implies that the agent shall advise the seller, however the agent cannot make decisions that are against the wishes of the seller. I think your assumption about the agents ignoring the rules is incorrect.

[/quote]

Not sure whether you are replying to me or XBoxBoy. Just to reiterate what I said in an earlier post “my understanding was that once a house was listed with a realtor, the realtor was required (either by listing agreement, ethical rules or something else) to get it up on the MLS as quickly as possible (assuming that the seller wanted it done that way).” So I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement on that point.

Xboxboy expressed his view that sellers’ agents sometimes diverge from the what is required, and I agreed. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position – I haven’t found a profession yet that doesn’t have it’s bad apples.

Finally – the fiduciary duty requires an agent (whether real estate or otherwise) to act as instructed by the principle – that is the duty of obedience. The two can agree on whether the agent has a broad or narrow scope of discretion – but the agent’s duty is to carry out the wishes of the principle, or withdraw from the representation.

[njtosd]

[quote=EJ]I am also considering submitting an offer directly to a listing agent. Thanks for the info SDR, very helpful.

Does anyone have a template for writing an offer they would like to share, or can recommend a website?

I was going to add a comment at the end something like “this offer is pending review by buyers legal counsel” so I can have someone review details with my interest in mind before signing the purchase agreement. Do you think this makes the offer weak? If yes, how would I protect my right to independent review but get across I am willing to let the listing agent keep the entire commission?

I am really just interested in seeing if they will accept an offer at my price point. I would want to work out the details afterwards if they would consider the price. I have a pre-approval letter ready to go at the offer price.

Thanks in advance for any advice![/quote]

The legal format you’re talking about (basically including an attorney review contingency) is actually the way it is done here in NJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to include, but if your seller is one of those people who balks at anything that seems “different,” you might have a problem.

What is your motivation for not using your own agent? If you don’t expect to get a cut of the commission, wouldn’t you be better off having someone in your court? I guess I’m confused.

The other thing that you can do is go to a real estate attorney at the outset and have him/her draft up a purchase agreement that you like (or you could use the standard format that’s floating around – although you should check to see if there is any copyright protection on that).

[njtosd]

[quote=EJ]I am also considering submitting an offer directly to a listing agent. Thanks for the info SDR, very helpful.

Does anyone have a template for writing an offer they would like to share, or can recommend a website?

I was going to add a comment at the end something like “this offer is pending review by buyers legal counsel” so I can have someone review details with my interest in mind before signing the purchase agreement. Do you think this makes the offer weak? If yes, how would I protect my right to independent review but get across I am willing to let the listing agent keep the entire commission?

I am really just interested in seeing if they will accept an offer at my price point. I would want to work out the details afterwards if they would consider the price. I have a pre-approval letter ready to go at the offer price.

Thanks in advance for any advice![/quote]

The legal format you’re talking about (basically including an attorney review contingency) is actually the way it is done here in NJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to include, but if your seller is one of those people who balks at anything that seems “different,” you might have a problem.

What is your motivation for not using your own agent? If you don’t expect to get a cut of the commission, wouldn’t you be better off having someone in your court? I guess I’m confused.

The other thing that you can do is go to a real estate attorney at the outset and have him/her draft up a purchase agreement that you like (or you could use the standard format that’s floating around – although you should check to see if there is any copyright protection on that).

[njtosd]

[quote=EJ]I am also considering submitting an offer directly to a listing agent. Thanks for the info SDR, very helpful.

Does anyone have a template for writing an offer they would like to share, or can recommend a website?

I was going to add a comment at the end something like “this offer is pending review by buyers legal counsel” so I can have someone review details with my interest in mind before signing the purchase agreement. Do you think this makes the offer weak? If yes, how would I protect my right to independent review but get across I am willing to let the listing agent keep the entire commission?

I am really just interested in seeing if they will accept an offer at my price point. I would want to work out the details afterwards if they would consider the price. I have a pre-approval letter ready to go at the offer price.

Thanks in advance for any advice![/quote]

The legal format you’re talking about (basically including an attorney review contingency) is actually the way it is done here in NJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to include, but if your seller is one of those people who balks at anything that seems “different,” you might have a problem.

What is your motivation for not using your own agent? If you don’t expect to get a cut of the commission, wouldn’t you be better off having someone in your court? I guess I’m confused.

The other thing that you can do is go to a real estate attorney at the outset and have him/her draft up a purchase agreement that you like (or you could use the standard format that’s floating around – although you should check to see if there is any copyright protection on that).

[njtosd]

[quote=EJ]I am also considering submitting an offer directly to a listing agent. Thanks for the info SDR, very helpful.

Does anyone have a template for writing an offer they would like to share, or can recommend a website?

I was going to add a comment at the end something like “this offer is pending review by buyers legal counsel” so I can have someone review details with my interest in mind before signing the purchase agreement. Do you think this makes the offer weak? If yes, how would I protect my right to independent review but get across I am willing to let the listing agent keep the entire commission?

I am really just interested in seeing if they will accept an offer at my price point. I would want to work out the details afterwards if they would consider the price. I have a pre-approval letter ready to go at the offer price.

Thanks in advance for any advice![/quote]

The legal format you’re talking about (basically including an attorney review contingency) is actually the way it is done here in NJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to include, but if your seller is one of those people who balks at anything that seems “different,” you might have a problem.

What is your motivation for not using your own agent? If you don’t expect to get a cut of the commission, wouldn’t you be better off having someone in your court? I guess I’m confused.

The other thing that you can do is go to a real estate attorney at the outset and have him/her draft up a purchase agreement that you like (or you could use the standard format that’s floating around – although you should check to see if there is any copyright protection on that).

[njtosd]

[quote=EJ]I am also considering submitting an offer directly to a listing agent. Thanks for the info SDR, very helpful.

Does anyone have a template for writing an offer they would like to share, or can recommend a website?

I was going to add a comment at the end something like “this offer is pending review by buyers legal counsel” so I can have someone review details with my interest in mind before signing the purchase agreement. Do you think this makes the offer weak? If yes, how would I protect my right to independent review but get across I am willing to let the listing agent keep the entire commission?

I am really just interested in seeing if they will accept an offer at my price point. I would want to work out the details afterwards if they would consider the price. I have a pre-approval letter ready to go at the offer price.

Thanks in advance for any advice![/quote]

The legal format you’re talking about (basically including an attorney review contingency) is actually the way it is done here in NJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to include, but if your seller is one of those people who balks at anything that seems “different,” you might have a problem.

What is your motivation for not using your own agent? If you don’t expect to get a cut of the commission, wouldn’t you be better off having someone in your court? I guess I’m confused.

The other thing that you can do is go to a real estate attorney at the outset and have him/her draft up a purchase agreement that you like (or you could use the standard format that’s floating around – although you should check to see if there is any copyright protection on that).

[njtosd]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

There is an option for the realtor to check that signals this listing is NOT to be put on the internet. That could be because the agent prefers to find a buyer and thus get both halves of the commission, or because the agent doesn’t want to hassle with internet shoppers (wanting instead buyers represented by other agents) or because the seller doesn’t want the fact they are selling or the info about the listing to be publicly available. At other times agents don’t list on the mls at all, (so called pocket listings) in hopes that they can get both sides of the deal.

While I agree that it would be in the sellers interest to have the listing out on the internet as soon as possible, I’ve seen/heard lots of things done/said that are not in the seller’s interest by their agents.[/quote]

XBoxBoy –

You sound like you have some background in this, so forgive me if you know this already, but simply because agents commonly do things, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal. Like speed limits, the rules are ignored sometimes. I think the OP said that there were three houses in close proximity that didn’t seem to be on the MLS – it would seem unlikely to me that three different agents were listing houses and ignoring the rules (or following some unlikely instructions of their principles) in this market.

You will note that in my post I made a reference to what the seller (not the seller’s agent) wanted done. Since this is a real estate forum, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the agent has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the client’s best interest (which includes a duty of obedience, loyalty, disclosure, reasonable care and diligence and accounting). It doesn’t matter what an agent does on the seller’s behalf, it’s ok as long as they have the principle’s informed consent. And it’s also worth pointing out that a seller should look into getting a release from a listing agreement if the agent refuses to honor his/her fiduciary duties.

[njtosd]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

There is an option for the realtor to check that signals this listing is NOT to be put on the internet. That could be because the agent prefers to find a buyer and thus get both halves of the commission, or because the agent doesn’t want to hassle with internet shoppers (wanting instead buyers represented by other agents) or because the seller doesn’t want the fact they are selling or the info about the listing to be publicly available. At other times agents don’t list on the mls at all, (so called pocket listings) in hopes that they can get both sides of the deal.

While I agree that it would be in the sellers interest to have the listing out on the internet as soon as possible, I’ve seen/heard lots of things done/said that are not in the seller’s interest by their agents.[/quote]

XBoxBoy –

You sound like you have some background in this, so forgive me if you know this already, but simply because agents commonly do things, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal. Like speed limits, the rules are ignored sometimes. I think the OP said that there were three houses in close proximity that didn’t seem to be on the MLS – it would seem unlikely to me that three different agents were listing houses and ignoring the rules (or following some unlikely instructions of their principles) in this market.

You will note that in my post I made a reference to what the seller (not the seller’s agent) wanted done. Since this is a real estate forum, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the agent has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the client’s best interest (which includes a duty of obedience, loyalty, disclosure, reasonable care and diligence and accounting). It doesn’t matter what an agent does on the seller’s behalf, it’s ok as long as they have the principle’s informed consent. And it’s also worth pointing out that a seller should look into getting a release from a listing agreement if the agent refuses to honor his/her fiduciary duties.

[njtosd]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

There is an option for the realtor to check that signals this listing is NOT to be put on the internet. That could be because the agent prefers to find a buyer and thus get both halves of the commission, or because the agent doesn’t want to hassle with internet shoppers (wanting instead buyers represented by other agents) or because the seller doesn’t want the fact they are selling or the info about the listing to be publicly available. At other times agents don’t list on the mls at all, (so called pocket listings) in hopes that they can get both sides of the deal.

While I agree that it would be in the sellers interest to have the listing out on the internet as soon as possible, I’ve seen/heard lots of things done/said that are not in the seller’s interest by their agents.[/quote]

XBoxBoy –

You sound like you have some background in this, so forgive me if you know this already, but simply because agents commonly do things, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal. Like speed limits, the rules are ignored sometimes. I think the OP said that there were three houses in close proximity that didn’t seem to be on the MLS – it would seem unlikely to me that three different agents were listing houses and ignoring the rules (or following some unlikely instructions of their principles) in this market.

You will note that in my post I made a reference to what the seller (not the seller’s agent) wanted done. Since this is a real estate forum, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the agent has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the client’s best interest (which includes a duty of obedience, loyalty, disclosure, reasonable care and diligence and accounting). It doesn’t matter what an agent does on the seller’s behalf, it’s ok as long as they have the principle’s informed consent. And it’s also worth pointing out that a seller should look into getting a release from a listing agreement if the agent refuses to honor his/her fiduciary duties.

[njtosd]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

There is an option for the realtor to check that signals this listing is NOT to be put on the internet. That could be because the agent prefers to find a buyer and thus get both halves of the commission, or because the agent doesn’t want to hassle with internet shoppers (wanting instead buyers represented by other agents) or because the seller doesn’t want the fact they are selling or the info about the listing to be publicly available. At other times agents don’t list on the mls at all, (so called pocket listings) in hopes that they can get both sides of the deal.

While I agree that it would be in the sellers interest to have the listing out on the internet as soon as possible, I’ve seen/heard lots of things done/said that are not in the seller’s interest by their agents.[/quote]

XBoxBoy –

You sound like you have some background in this, so forgive me if you know this already, but simply because agents commonly do things, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal. Like speed limits, the rules are ignored sometimes. I think the OP said that there were three houses in close proximity that didn’t seem to be on the MLS – it would seem unlikely to me that three different agents were listing houses and ignoring the rules (or following some unlikely instructions of their principles) in this market.

You will note that in my post I made a reference to what the seller (not the seller’s agent) wanted done. Since this is a real estate forum, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the agent has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the client’s best interest (which includes a duty of obedience, loyalty, disclosure, reasonable care and diligence and accounting). It doesn’t matter what an agent does on the seller’s behalf, it’s ok as long as they have the principle’s informed consent. And it’s also worth pointing out that a seller should look into getting a release from a listing agreement if the agent refuses to honor his/her fiduciary duties.

[njtosd]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

There is an option for the realtor to check that signals this listing is NOT to be put on the internet. That could be because the agent prefers to find a buyer and thus get both halves of the commission, or because the agent doesn’t want to hassle with internet shoppers (wanting instead buyers represented by other agents) or because the seller doesn’t want the fact they are selling or the info about the listing to be publicly available. At other times agents don’t list on the mls at all, (so called pocket listings) in hopes that they can get both sides of the deal.

While I agree that it would be in the sellers interest to have the listing out on the internet as soon as possible, I’ve seen/heard lots of things done/said that are not in the seller’s interest by their agents.[/quote]

XBoxBoy –

You sound like you have some background in this, so forgive me if you know this already, but simply because agents commonly do things, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal. Like speed limits, the rules are ignored sometimes. I think the OP said that there were three houses in close proximity that didn’t seem to be on the MLS – it would seem unlikely to me that three different agents were listing houses and ignoring the rules (or following some unlikely instructions of their principles) in this market.

You will note that in my post I made a reference to what the seller (not the seller’s agent) wanted done. Since this is a real estate forum, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the agent has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the client’s best interest (which includes a duty of obedience, loyalty, disclosure, reasonable care and diligence and accounting). It doesn’t matter what an agent does on the seller’s behalf, it’s ok as long as they have the principle’s informed consent. And it’s also worth pointing out that a seller should look into getting a release from a listing agreement if the agent refuses to honor his/her fiduciary duties.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico]Rustico happens to have a very fun 4 year old and a bag of marshmallows. He did five minutes no problem but played with the thing for the last three minutes. First is was a prosthetic nose, than a thumb ring etc. When he got the second one he just kept playing with them and finally shoved both of them in his mouth in one last great burst of goofiness.[/quote]

How fun! My kids are 7, 9 and 11 are beyond the allure of marshmallows. I think the version for them would involve putting them in the car and telling them not to tweak/bug each other for 10 minutes. The question is what reward would be offered? Allowing them to bicker without intervention for 20 minutes? I don’t know if I could stand it. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico]Rustico happens to have a very fun 4 year old and a bag of marshmallows. He did five minutes no problem but played with the thing for the last three minutes. First is was a prosthetic nose, than a thumb ring etc. When he got the second one he just kept playing with them and finally shoved both of them in his mouth in one last great burst of goofiness.[/quote]

How fun! My kids are 7, 9 and 11 are beyond the allure of marshmallows. I think the version for them would involve putting them in the car and telling them not to tweak/bug each other for 10 minutes. The question is what reward would be offered? Allowing them to bicker without intervention for 20 minutes? I don’t know if I could stand it. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico]Rustico happens to have a very fun 4 year old and a bag of marshmallows. He did five minutes no problem but played with the thing for the last three minutes. First is was a prosthetic nose, than a thumb ring etc. When he got the second one he just kept playing with them and finally shoved both of them in his mouth in one last great burst of goofiness.[/quote]

How fun! My kids are 7, 9 and 11 are beyond the allure of marshmallows. I think the version for them would involve putting them in the car and telling them not to tweak/bug each other for 10 minutes. The question is what reward would be offered? Allowing them to bicker without intervention for 20 minutes? I don’t know if I could stand it. . .

[Author]

Posts