In reality, aren't real estate agents really just bookmakers? They bring 2 parties together in a transaction.In real estate, there is one party who wants to buy, and another party who wants to sell..In bookmaking, there is 1 party who wants to bet one side, another wants the otherside...the major difference is bookmakers go to jail...paying 7% is a crime,and perhaps those shylocks,err realtors should do time also? ;)

sarcasm people,sarcasm ;)

I'd like to do away with 7% also and just go to auctions where the charge is a minimum of 10%.

List with the flat fee service and offer the full 4% to the agent bringing in the buyer. That way they earn more than they would splitting the 7%

Or you can list for the full 7% and IF you get any offers, you can simply counter with an addendum or stipulation that the listing broker/agent and/or the selling broker and his agent reduce their commissions by "X" amount. (I've had this done to me a number of times. )

The offer has to be presented as written, so if the agent refuses to reduce their commissions, then they have breached their fudiciary responsibility to sell your home, and if the realtor wants to make the sale bad enough, they'll reduce the commission.

Here come the trolls. I think we can all figure out who this is.

Is everyone on these boards this nasty? Or are you angry about contingencies coming back to haunt you?

Buyers/Sellers tip #1: Make all sales contracts contingent on the brokers and agents forfieting or reducing their commissions.

Buyers/Sellers tip #1: Make all sales contracts contingent on the brokers and agents forfeiting or reducing their commissions.
Continent on what?
Why not just negotiate up front?
What good agent will sign such an agreement?

seasonedseller Is everyone on these boards this nasty?

This board is not, and never has been, for the faint of heart. The folks on this forum are generally a very helpful lot although quite blunt in their assessments. You will not usually see sugar-coating to spare someone's feelings, although most posters are respectful. Many people have strong opinions on a subject, and many agree to disagree.

The buyer has no say in the listing contract.

The listing contract is between the Seller & the Realtor;
the Buyer is not a party to the contract between Seller & Realtor, just as the Realtor is not a party to the contract for sale between Seller & Buyer.

(If that worked, though, what a deal! Then you could make your contract offer contingent upon the mortgage holder releasing their claim on the title for less than is owed on the loan, & on the taxing entities reducing the taxes, & on the ex-wife accepting less than is owed on back child support...)

"Buyers/Sellers tip #1: Make all sales contracts contingent on the brokers and agents forfieting or reducing their commissions."

Oh boy. Another one of those late night info-mercial tips.

I'm not talking about the listing contract. I'm talking about the sales contract. And the only persons needing to sign the sales contract to make it legally binding are the BUYER and the SELLER.

If the BUYER offers "X" amount and the SELLER is presented with the offer but feels they are not receiving what they want for the property, the SELLER then has the option of making a counter offer. When countering the SELLER can agree to accept the BUYERS offer of "X" amount contingent upon the broker/realtor reducing their fee.

The realtor is obligated to present all offers and/or counter offers to the other party. So if the BUYER receives the SELLERS counter offer with the contingency, and acceptS the contract as written, the sale is then contingent upon the realtor agreeing to reduce their fees.

If the realtor refuses to reduce their fee, who looks like the jerk???? and who is going to cause the sale of the home to fall through???? Ergo, most realtors will agree to reduce their fees in an effort to retain the business and close the sale.

However, I doubt any realtor will ever tell you this.

Ok, so I'm back with some HONEST FACTS.

Yesterday, I stopped & visited my SIL(she's a broker) at a large RE company. My sister-in-laws sister is an AGENT at the same company.
I told them about this discussion & interestingly the BROKER is adamant about the need for a broker additionally to the agent. The AGENT is totally comfortable with 4% commission, split with another AGENT,without the BROKER.

SIL argument: You need a broker to take on the responsibility of the agent. If there is a problem, where will the agent go? Many AGENTS are uncomfortable to work on their own. The broker has overhead to pay...BTW- there were over 50 empty desks, 5 computers in a large room with 3 agents using them. Otherwise the office was DEAD. She said she has 47 agents in the office.

The AGENT: Very happy to work for the 4% split. She says the broker only pays for 2 ads. All other expenses are the agents. Plus, when the commission is divided the BROKER takes another 6% out of her commission for "running the business i.e. adverstising...etc" Last year she was in the 55% commission bracket, but because the 6% is taken out, she actually only gets 49% of the split.
Here's how the commission split works: 20k commission on a sale of a home. A fifty/fifty split is like this: Selling office=10k, Buying office=10k.
The brokers in each office get 5k a piece, the agents get 5k a piece minus 6% (each agent gets 4,700). Plus there are other expenses for the AGENT...

The AGENTS rebuttal to the BROKER:
1.Once the contract is signed, a copy goes to the LAWYER. You, as an ASTUTE AGENT (possibly a broker/agent), should be able to handle any crises that arises. Anything dealing with legality should be reported to the attorney, so the AGENT can deal with the attorney. NO BROKER NECESSARY.
2.The overhead that the BROKER has is all of the broker's creation to collect the split commission. The AGENT works out of her car & her home 99.9% of the time, except for running in to the RE office to get some paperwork or ONCE a month for a useless meeting.
3. AGENTS who are uncomfortable to work on their own-get out of the business. It may be above your level of competence. Weed out the dead wood. Those were her words.

So my friends, I believe there is a NEED for a RE AGENT/BROKER earning 4% split commission, but not a two-tier system, where the uselss broker gets a cut of the commission & drives the commissions up to 6-7%.

My argument was never against RE AGENTS. I believe they are necessary because not everyone once to sell/buy by themselves. However, the Agents can be better trained (become brokers)& we can lower the commission to 4%, cutting out the unecessary BROKER (fat cat). I think the change will come if enough people are informed EXACTLY how the system works.

I have been both seller's broker & buyer's broker for many years;
never have I had a client suggest including commission negotiations in a contract of sale, & if I did, I'd offer my expert opinion that it is not a good idea.

*A contract of sale is between seller & buyer & isn't the correct venue for addressing commission.*

& making commission a part of the contract also tends to get contract negotiations going off on a tangent (commission/taxes owed/mortgage balance are all *seller's* problems to deal with, they're actually none of the buyer's business & distract from the real issues, which are price, terms, & concessions between seller & buyer).

If the client insisted, I'd get written, signed instructions to that effect, & I'd get the client's signature on a document that said that I had advised against it.

If buyer wants price reduced, (s)he can offer less.

If seller wants higher proceeds, (s)he can counter-offer more.

If seller is in dire straits, (s)he can negotiate commission with the listing broker *outside the contract of sale*.

Actually, brokers are the necessities;
they have the education, the expertise, & the experience, & they're the ones ultimately responsible for adhering to the state's real estate rules.

Brokers can do business without agents;
agents cannot do business without brokers.

You list your home with a *broker*, not an agent.
The agent is a representative of the broker.
The commission is actually paid to the broker;
an agent cannot claim commission at closing.

You'll often see an agent picking up a paycheck at closing, which means that the broker has sent the title company written instructions on commission disbursement.

The agent's commission share is a contract matter between the agent & the broker.

If you find a broker who'll list your home for 4%, have at it.

As a buyer and seller, I would never include such terminology in a written offer or counter offer. I would and have suggested a reduction verbally to make a deal work. I think it can be done in the spirit of negotiation for all parties, but putting in a first offer, risks offending one party and make future negotiations more difficult.
sylviatexas, I'm sure with your years of negotiating, you been involved in negotiations, that only needed an agent/broker to concede a small amount of commission to make both the buyer and seller accept the deal.
It needn't be in writing to discuss reducing the commission split. Only after it is accepted you can endorse your contract to a new commission.
dabunch, I think we can keep brokers and still reduce commission. Brokers can reduce unnecessary overhead, there is no need for a 50% split to make money. These lean times are what weeds out bad business, over time it helps everyone.

"3. AGENTS who are uncomfortable to work on their own-get out of the business. It may be above your level of competence. Weed out the dead wood. Those were her words."

One of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard. To force all RE agents to work as a sigle entity is absurd, to say the least.
All agents in my state are Brokers, we are a single license state. With an additional 24 hour course, all bokers here can be employing or managing brokers. Attorneys here are almost never used, because brokers here have been given the rights to practice some law that traditionally has been given to attorneys in other states.

The "tiered system" is established by law for good reasons, to protect the consumer, ignoring that fact, will only increase the cost to the public and their liability. This has nothing to do with how much commission is charged, but what the laws require.
Different states have different requirements for different reasons, so blanket statement about how the RE business should be run are meaningless, without looking at the individual practices and laws that govern it.

I didn't say it well in my previous post, but as a buyer I don't care what the commission or split is, only if I am negotiating for my lower purchase price and the seller is not budging do I suggest "another way to meet in the middle".
I make my offer based on what I perceive as market value at that time. What the seller is getting (or paying) doesn't concern me.

sylviatexas, I can assure you good competent brokers do list for 4%.

cmarlin, I didn't mention terms or amounts or competency;
what I said was, "have at it".

cmarlin, I didn't mention terms or amounts or competency;
what I said was, "have at it".

I don't understand your response,...
I didn't imply (or did I) that you did mention terms or competency.
I was making the point that one can list for 4% in the real world, maybe easier than some think.
Also, important to me the quality of the agent/broker that will agree to list at any given %%, thus I stated the quality from my personal perspective.

"sylviatexas, I can assure you good competent brokers do list for 4%."

Hmmm.

sure reads like you're refuting something I said;
if not, sorry, I misunderstood.

*A contract of sale is between seller & buyer & isn't the correct venue for addressing commission.*

3rd party influences are commonplace in re contracts. such as contingent on another home sale, contingent on obtaining financing, contingent on the zoning commission approving or disapproving rezoning applications.

Heck I even had a buyer make a contingency offer based on the outcome of his upcoming child custody/support hearing. If he got to keep the kids and she had to pay support, he'd buy the house. If he lost the kids and had to pay her, he didn't need the larger house and wouldn't close.

seasonedseller registered June 4.

anybody heard from brickeyee lately?

seasonedseller registered June 4.

Yes I did!
everyone has to be new to the boards at some point

"3rd party influences are commonplace in re contracts."

Such clauses (for brokers to insert provisions about their commissions) that may not be enforceable by the broker as the contract form and case law make it fairly clear that the brokers are not parties to the contract.

Here is what the law says:
"Colorado Real Estate Commission Rule F-2 reads as follows:
F-2. Additional Provisions
(a) The "Additional Provisions" section of a Commission-approved form must contain only those transaction-specific terms or acknowledgments that result from negotiations or the instruction(s) of the party(ies) to the transaction.
(b) A broker who is not a principal party to the contract may not insert personal provisions, personal disclaimers or exculpatory language in the "Additional Provisions" section of a Commission-approved form."

You are correct. However, in this instance the BROKER is not inserting any personal provisions into the contract. The SELLER would be inserting tranasction specific terms into his sales contract.

Been there done that with the legal battle. It flys.

How's your wife the attorney?

still eating people alive?

Actually we're both working as consumer advocates. And we're sleeping much better, thank you for asking.

"Been there done that with the legal battle. It flys."

Not without both the agents/brokers permission.

Not without both the agents/brokers permission.

Which takes me back to what I originally said. If the broker/agent refuses to reduce commissions, they are at fault for failure to close the deal, they take the heat from the buyer and the seller, and they more than likely loose their ability to earn any commission at all.

Because in all honesty, once the agent has ruined what could've been a valid contract between the buyer and seller, I doubt the seller will even want to look at any subsequent offers the agent brings them; so it's in the agents best interest to reduce their commissions and move on.

"Which takes me back to what I originally said. If the broker/agent refuses to reduce commissions, they are at fault for failure to close the deal,..."

I must have missed that paragraph in the listing or purchase contract.
Good luck as a buyer or seller trying to enforce it without the agent/brokers co-operation.

"I must have missed that paragraph in the listing or purchase contract. "

Go back about 17 or 18 postings in this thread and re-read. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

"...once the agent has ruined what could've been a valid contract between the buyer and seller, I doubt the seller will even want to look at any subsequent offers the agent brings them; so it's in the agents best interest to reduce their commissions and move on."
About this statement? I doubt it.
You really are assuming alot without reading the contract.

I think Xamsx said it best in another post.

ITS TIME TO STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

It always amazes me how topics on REALTORS or COMMISSIONS always take on a nasty tone- angry & BIASED "fact" responses by REAs.

Berniek- Time to change the laws in your state. Obviously lots of lobbying going on to keep the RE Agencies two-tiered. Lawyers only cost $500-$700 per transaction. A broker costs thousands extra.
What extra protection does the broker bring to the consumer? How is it if ALL the agents became brokers & were better qualified & worked closer with attornies, the consumer would have less protection?
Gimme a break! Your bias is unbelievable.Some people are never open to change. Lean times call for cuts, without sacrificing the quality. Brokers out, dually licensed REAs/Brokers in. It is completely doable in my state. This way the public can be better served without extra expenses.

The "uneducated statement" came from an agent who would be very happy to keep more of her commission & cut out the manager/broker because there is no need for one for HER. BTW- she's not some dummie. She has an MA in Education-lol

Personally, I see how the profession needs overhauling. Many of the agents cannot comprehend a simple premise of my suggestion. Yup, dead wood.

Cmarlin- Unfortunately, when you have extra middlemen, it's difficult to keep the commissions down. The overhead like in any profession is atronomical. I know this from having a couple of businesses. The minute you bring in office space, a lot of liability & expenses mount. That is why I suggested cutting out the broker. Less people, better educated (REAs all being brokers, working with attornies- 4% commissions split)is the key to get better service with less costs.

"You really are assuming alot without reading the contract."

I've not only read the contracts, but I've worded the contracts. And I'm not talking about filling in the blanks on a standard NRA contract, but editing the wording of contracts to favor the consumers rather than the broker/realtors.

What you don't like hearing is that a brokers commission can become a contingent factor that can make or break a deal between the buyer and seller, thus putting the responsibility of compromise on the brokers/realtors.

Why should the consumers constantly be the ones taking the financial hits in an unfavorable market? If the buyers and sellers have to give up something, perhaps the brokers should be forced to "feel their pain" with them.

"I've not only read the contracts, but I've worded the contracts. And I'm not talking about filling in the blanks on a standard NRA contract, but editing the wording of contracts to favor the consumers rather than the broker/realtors."

You must be naïve to think that agent/brokers will expose themselves to the liability of a customer or client writing their own real estate contract. First, E&O would not cover it, second, the companies RE attorney would shoot it down.
I think itÂs just wishful thinking on your part, but not doable where I am.
If it's about the commission, deal with that up front with your agent and don't blindside him unfairly as you seem to suggest.

The minute you bring in office space, a lot of liability & expenses mount.

I agree, that is why I question the office you just went to, why a big office with lots of empty desks.
I haven't seen an office like that in years. As you said most, agents don't work in their offices. One agent I just worked with was affiliated with a big house, but he really worked out of his home. That is what I'm seeing in my area. No need for lots of overhead. A broker needn't cost much, but again each agent can also be an agent/broker. But that would cut out newbies. Sharing one broker can cut costs; ads, insurance, etc. is cheaper in volume.

"Berniek- Time to change the laws in your state. Obviously lots of lobbying going on to keep the RE Agencies two-tiered. Lawyers only cost $500-$700 per transaction. A broker costs thousands extra."

What a crock. Competition is alive and well here. Many agents charge 3+1%, we are at the forefront of some of the most successful HUS and A2S franchises in the US. There is no need to change any laws to stifle competition as you would like to see.
With 100's of thousands of inexperienced agents coming into the market, you, or your MA degreed friend want to do away with the brokers supervision, how ridiculuos, for someone hyping education to do away with just that.

As a seller, I would not negotiate a commission, then add to a contract,
"contingent on the brokers and agents forfeiting or reducing their commissions". I would not be dealing in good faith with my agent. No agent in my town would deal with me again, and I wouldn't blame them.

As I buyer, I would not add such a contingency to my offer. I am only concerned about my price, not the details between the seller and his agent.
As I usually go directly from the LA, if the deal is close I will personally suggest it, but would not write it in a contract, my goal is to get the house, not anger the agent. I can achieve my goal in a better way.
I always try to pay the least amount of commission, but there are better wasy to achieve that.
As a seller, if I received an offer demanding the agent reduce his commission, I'd think the buyer is a difficult person, I'd think twice before responding to that offer. Why is the buyer getting involved?
As a seller I only pay the commission I agree to, can't get mad at an agent if I call them to list my house and agree to their terms. I made that decision.
I do agree if I get a lower offer, and I'm giving up some money, I will ask both sides to give up some commission. I won't demand it, but I may not agree to a lower price, if I see the agent's are not working with me.

In a perfect world, working out the reduction of a commission outside of the sales contract would be the noble way to handle the situation. However, too many times, consumers find themselves on the losing end of any verbal conversations not documented in either the original listing contract or the subsequent sales contract; and it's those two documents which the Broker/Agent will produce in the legal arena. So it's in the best interest of the buyer/seller to document the additional stipulation in one of these two documents.

Now the Broker/Agent is definitely not going to allow you to go back and alter the original listing agreement, so what other option do you have besides adding the contingency in the sales contract?

"Now the Broker/Agent is definitely not going to allow you to go back and alter the original listing agreement, so what other option do you have besides adding the contingency in the sales contract?"

Using our contract, do you have an example what possible changes you would make?

Here is a link that might be useful: Listing contract

In a perfect world, working out the reduction of a commission outside of the sales contract would be the noble way to handle the situation. However, too many times, consumers find themselves on the losing end of any verbal conversations not documented in either the original listing contract or the subsequent sales contract; and it's those two documents which the Broker/Agent will produce in the legal arena. So it's in the best interest of the buyer/seller to document the additional stipulation in one of these two documents.

Now the Broker/Agent is definitely not going to allow you to go back and alter the original listing agreement, so what other option do you have besides adding the contingency in the sales contract?

Of course you can amend the commission agreement. Have you ever tried, I've never had a problem with the agent/broker putting into writing our verbal agreement.

"Of course you can amend the commission agreement. Have you ever tried, I've never had a problem with the agent/broker putting into writing our verbal agreement."

I agree! I don't know of any agent who has been in business any amount of time, who has not contributed financially to assist in closing a transaction, primarilly with inspection related items. When it comes to rebates and such, lenders usually have to get involved and give their ok and show it on the HUD 1.

Yes. Every Broker will smile, shake your hand, and promise that if this situation or that situation arises they will be more than happy to work with you on commissions; and I'm sure they instruct their agents to do the same. That is good salesmanship.

However, out of the thousands upon thousands of complaints filed with our offices regarding Brokers/Agents and promises to work with consumers on commissions, it is a rare few which result in a commission reduction for the consumer. Usually if the consumer does get something in writing to that effect, it is determined to be a separate agreement or contract and is not enforceable as part of the original listing agreement or sales contract. Brokers usually have very good attorneys working on their behalf, which know all the ways to sever the two contractual obligations.

Consequently, the consumer ends up having to fight two battles. By the time they are finished paying for the first battle, they don't have the means to continue to afford counsel for the second battle and tend give up. The brokers know this and their attorney's know this.

Which is why we recommend the commission reduction be included in the sales contract or instruct our clients to get an unconditional release on the original listing agreement and have a new listing agreement drawn up. Unfortunately, thats just way business works.

seasonedseller, you may indeed have problems working with agents on commission.
In my experience buying and selling many properties, I have not had that problem. When selling, I negotiate upfront, a commission rate I will pay.
If/when I receive an lower offer, I may again re-negotiate the commission rate before I counter to a new sales price. That new price and new commission handled together at that time.
I live in CA, my RE experience is only in that state. Here we use escrow, the escrow docs dictate to the officer the amount of commission to withold.
As a consumer, I've never had to battle after the fact, it is all stipulated before entering escrow, the escrows docs then reflect this.
No terms, no sale. I'm not talking about a "future" promise to work with consumer on commissions.
I'm talking about a business agreement in writing. Are you referring to vague verbal promises.
In your experience how many sellers have a commission agreement in writing, which the broker refuses to honor?
I really don't see the problem you are discussing.
I still don't know why you suggest the buyer demand the agent reduce their commission in their offer, please explain.

"Yes. Every Broker will smile, shake your hand, and promise that if this situation or that situation arises they will be more than happy to work with you on commissions; and I'm sure they instruct their agents to do the same. That is good salesmanship."

Unless itÂs in writing, any verbal promises not kept will come back to bite you. Good salesmanship? No way, it's a quick way to get out of the business!

"Which is why we recommend the commission reduction be included in the sales contract or instruct our clients to get an unconditional release on the original listing agreement and have a new listing agreement drawn up. Unfortunately, thats just way business works."

Commission reduction asked by whom from which agent, the buyer asking the listing agent? The buyer and their agent have no clue how much the seller is paying their agent. theyÂll get a big surprise in my location when itÂs not what they expected. The buyer asking their agent in the purchase contract to reduce their commission by a specific amount once the contract is accepted? This all just sounds like the buyer is asking their agent to practice law by not just filling in the blanks, but writing financial demands for his benefit. ItÂs just the wrong place to do it like that and illegal here.
All my sellers and buyers have the choice of unconditional release of any agreement with me and my broker, it's just good business practice to work with people who want to work with me and vise versa.

berniek,

Did you ever go back and read that post like I suggested? The buyer is not who we are talking about, it is the SELLER in his counter offer.

"Unless itÂs in writing, any verbal promises not kept will come back to bite you. Good salesmanship? No way, it's a quick way to get out of the business! "

C'mon, lets be realistic. Most people do not buy and sell homes on a repeat basis. If a Broker/Agent breaks his word or misleads someone in some way, it doesn't really come back on him until the local newscast does a story on an individual with repeated ethics issues.

The Broker/Agent has his advertising circle well established through their local area and the average consumer does not. Granted, there is something to be said for word of mouth, but people rarely talk about the scandal for very long and the Broker/Agent isn't harmed for any length of time, if at all.

Even if a complaint is made to the real estate commission, the commission is staffed by who??? Brokers and Agents. Just like any other heirarchy, they protect their own. IF the offending Broker/Agent is punished in some way, it is usually in the form of a real estate publication of agent sanctions which goes out to licensed brokers/agents only. The average consumer never has a chance to see it.

Even if your average consumer is in the habit of visiting their state's website of professional registrations, the Real Estate Commission has lobbied to keep the list of complaints filed off the web. The consumer is usually instructed to write the commission and request information on a specific realtor. And who has time to request individual information on the hundreds of realtors which probably serve their area?

The Broker/Agents don't want people to be able to access that kind of information online. Just like they lobby to prevent websites like "Rate Your Realtor" from being established. They don't want that available to the masses either. Why else would so many powerful Brokers own domains such as:

realestatehorrors.com
horriblerealtors.com
realestatenightmares.com

I would almost bet if you did a domain name search on any of these, they would be owned by a licenses real estate broker who doesn't want someone else to publish information about him online. And before I'm accused of it: NO, I haven't checked any of them out.

Look. It's nothing personal, I just have this need to speak out for the less advantaged. However, I have to ask you: If the brokers/agents are so willing to negotiate reductions on their commissions, then why is there so much objection to the seller making a counteroffer contingent on the broker/agent reducing their fee?

"Look. It's nothing personal, I just have this need to speak out for the less advantaged. However, I have to ask you: If the brokers/agents are so willing to negotiate reductions on their commissions, then why is there so much objection to the seller making a counteroffer contingent on the broker/agent reducing their fee?"

Because they are not party to the contract and any involvement on their part addressed in the contract can land them in hot legal waters. That is quoted by our RE commission, and there are better ways to do this as was suggested.
Also, in some states it's not legal sharing a commission with unlicensed persons.
On our RE commissions website does show disciplinary actions taken by the commission, no secrets there.

Here is a link that might be useful: Real Estate Broker 2008 Disciplinary Actions

"The realtor is obligated to present all offers and/or counter offers to the other party. So if the BUYER receives the SELLERS counter offer with the contingency, and acceptS the contract as written, the sale is then contingent upon the realtor agreeing to reduce their fees.

If the realtor refuses to reduce their fee, who looks like the jerk???? and who is going to cause the sale of the home to fall through???? Ergo, most realtors will agree to reduce their fees in an effort to retain the business and close the sale.

However, I doubt any realtor will ever tell you this."

WRONG...whether I represent a buyer or seller I have a contract. It states what I am going to get paid. In our states neither agents or interested parties may add contingencies to the purchase and sale to attempt to change those contracts. In fact the terms of those contracts are confidential. But if someone did I would not feel like a jerk and would say no thanks I think I'll stick to our original arrangement that's what I agreed to.

Ditto to what newgardenelf said. This is what our RE commission says:

"Contracts drawn by the principals: Real Estate Commission Rules do not prohibit the buyer and seller from using a contract that has been prepared by either them or their respective attorneys. A real estate licensee is not a party to the transaction and is not authorized to assist in contract preparation except for the preparation of Real Estate Commission approved forms."

So why bother involving an agent if the principals want to write their own contracts? Why, as an agent should I risk losing my license to be party to something like that?

seasonedhomeseller, if you don't want to pay agents, don't use them! And using is what you seem to be promoting.

As someone said above, time to stop feeding the troll.

seasonedseller used to be brickeyee (brickeyees?), who claimed to be married to an attorney, who he now claims is no longer an attorney but a "consumer advocate", as he is.

Every time he mentioned something "my wife the attorney" said or did, it was totally off the wall & nonsensical, the kind of thing that an uninformed person acting as his/her own attorney might have *fantasized* about trying, but would have been shot down by any other attorney or judge, & he always says his "wife the attorney" chewed people up, or "ate them alive" or something....

for having done something that they were perfectly entitled to do & for which they would have won any case that actually went to court.

He doesn't make sense, he loves conflict, & he's particularly vengeful about real estate practitioners.

I doubt that he could get a date with a real attorney.

or a Realtor.