This is me from yesterday’s Arizona Republic (permanent link):
Be careful what you sign with broker
When you sign a buyer-broker agreement with a Realtor, is there some law that says you must thereafter include that Realtor in the purchase of any home he or she showed you? Once you’ve “married” your agent, are you ever really “divorced”?
No such law.
Feeling relieved? You can stop that right now.
While there is no law binding you to your someday-to-be-former buyer’s agent, you may well have signed a contract that says that someday never comes. Or at least not soon.
Consider this, from the Arizona Association of Realtors Buyer Broker Agreement:
“e. Buyer agrees to pay such compensation if Buyer, within ____ calendar days after the termination of this Agreement, enters into an agreement to purchase, exchange, option or lease any Property shown to or negotiated on behalf of the Buyer by Broker during the term of this Agreement, unless Buyer enters into a subsequent buyer-broker exclusive employment agreement with another broker.”
The blank is filled in with a number, often 30, sometimes 90, although it could be anything. If you and your agent mutually agreed to 1,001 days, it would be two and three-quarter years before you are divorced.
Unless you sign another buyer-broker agreement.
This kind of holdover language is common in real estate employment contracts. It’s there to frustrate betrayal. If you make a whispering deal with the listing agent to cut your buyer’s agent out of the deal, that language cuts him right back in.
So how long is long enough to protect the buyer’s agent without unduly hamstringing the buyer? How about 15 days?
Or how about zero?
My attitude is, if you’re done with me, I’m done with you. Whatever you do after we’re divorced is your business.
But different agents will see this issue differently, and this is why buyers and sellers need to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the contracts they are asked to sign. Very probably, the form you are looking at is not filled out to your advantage.
Technorati Tags: arizona, arizona real estate, phoenix, phoenix real estate, real estate marketing
Jay Reifert says:
Greg said, in part, “…this is why buyers and sellers need to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the contracts they are asked to sign.”
That’s all fine and well…but what about the contracts they never, ever, knew they were entering?
What about organized real estate’s best kept, dirty little secret? Take a look at the information at the following link, and help me understand how buyers can lose their right to representation without their knowledge and consent…
http://www.real-reform.org/pcnoneba.pdf
And, while I’m engaging in a little ranting that isn’t likely to be as readily seen as those penned by the named contributors on this site, here’s a link to shed more light on the problems with dual agency:
http://www.buy-madison-real-estate.com/designated_agency.html
Yes…I know…some will say that this isn’t the kind of dual agency which has been getting smacked down around here of late. Truth is, it is a yet more insidious form of the dual agency beast, in that it drives the deception ever deeper…and creates a false sense of security in the minds of the buyers and sellers who fall prey to it.
If I ever pry loose the time, I could unleash an archive of dual agency battles/information that would make the smackdown here seem like a friendly little tea party.
A few quick observations as I head for the door…
First, for Greg Swann: Bloodhoundblog is amazing. I love your topics…your content and your style. In addition to my own–anemic–blog, I have feeds to the Freakonomics blog and that of my webmaster. That’s it. When I finally do bother to take control over my own blog, it will be modeled after your method. (I hope you take that as a compliment.)
Second, to Russell: I look forward to our first disagreement. That said, while I think you’re way off base in a number of respects–not always, mind you–I do respect your ability to communicate your message.
Third, to Ardell: While I still find some of what you have to say to be misguided–with regards to the big picture–I’m impressed with how much you appear to have,
shall we say, mellowed. (Ardell and I used to lock horns in another venue.)
Now, for what it’s worth, here are a few things for your readers to know about me, for the sake of establishing perspective…
Jay Reifert:
is an exclusive buyer agent.
blew the whistle on anticonsumer changes the wisconsin realtors association, wra, made to wisconsin real estate laws in 1994. (my first experience with the concept of “juggernaut”.)
kept the wra from bringing designated agency to wisconsin in 2002. http://www.real-reform.org
hired attorney david barry to file a federal antitrust suit to break the tie between his local realtor organization and mls. (as of right now, we are seeking cert before the united states supreme court.)
fought again–in 2005–and this time lost, the battle to keep designated agency out of wisconsin.
is engaged in an ongoing battle to expose organized real estate’s best kept, dirty little secret…realtor procuring cause. (see link toward top of post.)
Final words for the day: It isn’t what you tell your prospective–or actual–clients…it’s what you don’t tell them that defines, or defiles, your relationship. True agents don’t withhold critical information, ever. Not before, or after, they’re clients. It isn’t about doing the deal. It’s about what’s right for the clients.
Jay Reifert, Broker/Owner
Excel-Exclusive Buyer Agency
true-agents@true-agent.com
November 26, 2006 — 8:26 am