SkyBlue wrote in message
...
JD,

Curious about your statement regarding procuring cause. In the days before
buyers agents, the procuring cause determined which of several brokers
claiming
a seller's commission was due the commission. "Who talked to the buyer
first?"
Who showed the property first?" Sometimes it took courts to figure out the
procuring cause in large commission disputes.

This is a very complex issue and I probably overstated it to the OP.
However, in his situation, with no other agent in sight, if the listing
agent has created a situation with a showing, advice, comps, etc. that puts
the buyer into offer mode, this would make a strong case in a procuring
cause dispute. Which leads me to the point on who makes the detemination.
Procuring cause is not a matter of law in my state. It is handled by the
local board of realtors using the state association's guidelines.

My comments to the OP are cautionary in nature. It's very easy to tell an
agent at an open house that you are working with an agent (a smart agent
will ask,) but it's a different story if you call for a showing -- which was
his intent.

When buyers agents enter the picture, is it not true that the buyer agent
writes the offer, includes themselves as the selling agent with provision
for
their commission to be paid by the listing broker or seller at time of
closing,
presents the contract offer to the listing agent, and when the sale
closes,
there is no argument that there is a listing share and a selling share.

The agency relationship doesn't matter. First, let me tell you that
contracted buyer's agency is very rare in my state. Virtually all
transactions are cooperative via the MLS. In the OP's scenario, the issue
would come up at the presentation of the offer. If the listing agent does
not question agency at that time, he weakens his case for procuring cause
since the offer form covers commission sharing.

It
would seem to be the buyer's right to introduce a buyer's agent at any
time in
the process because otherwise, the buyer has no representation.

Not true. Our law states that if the listing broker prepares an offer, they
become an agent in fact and therefore a dual agent. This must be disclosed
to all parties and I suppose that the seller can refuse to agree, however I
cannot recall ever hearing of such a case. Dual agency in CA is quite
common. Which leads to an important point. "Agent" and "broker" are
essentially interchangeable inthis discussion. What we must remember is that
two salespeople can be involved in a transaction but if they are with the
same broker, a dual agency exists. Contrary to many comments made in
newsgroups, our law mandates that dual agents have a fiduciary
responsibility to both parties.

And if a
Realtor writes the offer as buyer agent, even after not being there at all
for
the showing, it seems fair to assume they will get the seller's share of
the
commission. If the listing agent insists on the full commission because
the
buyer did not have a buyer agent at first seeing the property, what does
the
Association of Realtors say about that when the agents are both Realtors
and
the other wrote the offer?

As I said, it depends on local rules, but I dare say that if a buyer calls a
listing agent for a showing and discusses a potential offer, it would be
difficult to bring in a different agent to prepare an offer. That said,
these disputes are avoided for a number of reasons. For one, it's bad form
to put a deal in jeopardy over a commision sharing dispute. If I were in
that situation, I would try to settle it before presenting the offer.