I was told to sign this Consumer Notice when going to check out a house in
July. The agent said I have to sign it since she represented the house and
since I didnt have an agent in that area to bring. So since she was
representing both of us.. the agent and the seller, I had to sign this
Consumer Notice... I got a copy of the notice and at the top it says "This
notice must be provided to the consumer at the first contact where a
substantive discussion about real estate occurs".

Is it true that I had to sign this? I still dont understand it fully but
basically he kept insisting that it is NOT a contract...just that he is
telling me information about the house and that he is representing the
owner..or something like that..

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

I get a headache trying to understand all this small print stuff... Its
almost like its specially coded so that only agents and lawyers can
understand it. Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

^^ BTW, everywhere that it says "he's" above should be "she's"... It would
of probably been very complicating if I didnt correct myself here.

"john" writes:

I was told to sign this Consumer Notice when going to check out a house in
July. The agent said I have to sign it since she represented the house and
since I didnt have an agent in that area to bring. So since she was
representing both of us.. the agent and the seller, I had to sign this
Consumer Notice... I got a copy of the notice and at the top it says "This
notice must be provided to the consumer at the first contact where a
substantive discussion about real estate occurs".

Generally, yup that's the way it works. When you come in without
representation, realtor ethics and state laws and all that happy
horse**** want you the buyer to understand perfectly clearly that that
realtor is not your friend, will tell the seller everything you tell
them, and does not represent you in any way shape or form, but will
perform minesterial acts to help you tender an offer if you desire.

It's not a big deal really, but given your level of understanding on
this, you're foolish to not enlist the help of a buyer's agent to
assist you in your hunt and help you with listed properties.

Then you have someone who's at least theoretically on your side and
won't tell the listing agent everything you've told them. On the
other hand, don't give all your cards to a buyers agent, because you
need to understand that the faster you buy something, the faster they
get paid too...

Is it true that I had to sign this?

If you did not, I'd be interested in how the agent would respond. The
agent may have reserved the right to not show you the house or refuse
to talk to you about it.

But in general, yeah, I'd imagine that if you wanted to see the house
that day, depending on how the agent would respond to a refusal, you
probably needed to sign that.

I still dont understand it fully but basically he kept insisting
that it is NOT a contract...just that he is telling me information
about the house and that he is representing the owner..or something
like that..

Yeah, it's an information disclosure.

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

You couldn't make a direct deal with the owner anyway. When a
property is listed for sale by a realtor, the owner and realtor are
under a listing contract. If the house sells, it sells via the agent,
and they get a commission regardless of how you ended up finding this
house.

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.

I get a headache trying to understand all this small print
stuff... Its almost like its specially coded so that only agents and
lawyers can understand it. Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

They're there because there are also ignorant consumers who can assume
that a realtor they meet this way represents them, end up getting
screwed on the deal, and then in a sour grapes fashion come back and
sue later. These notices are designed to make it crystal clear who
the agent is truly beholden to (the seller) represents and who they do
not (random buyer).

The particulars vary by state and contract, but in general, this is
the scene.

My advice: talk to your network of friend i the area nad find a
realtor familiar with the area willing to work with you as a buyers
agent. If you are looking at FSBO properties, try to strike an
agreement with the buyer's agent that specifically excludes FSBO
properties from your buyers agency agreement. Don't expect all of
them to be hungry enough to accept that though.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H ,

Even though you called me a fool, I greatly appreciate all of your advice.
Alot of informative stuff here for noobs like me. I think i'll print this up
as i'll probably forget in a year from now.

Thanks again,

John

"john" writes:

Todd H ,

Even though you called me a fool, I greatly appreciate all of your advice.
Alot of informative stuff here for noobs like me. I think i'll print this up
as i'll probably forget in a year from now.

Nah, I don't think yer a fool. :-)

Continuing to go into those transactions without some help or more
knowledge though would be foolish action, in my opinion. You know
Buffett's song "Fins?" Ya know, fins to the left fins to the right,
sharks that swim on the land, et al?

That's what I feel like out there sometimes!

There are some good books out there like homebuyers survival guide and
the like. If you can find one that's specific to your state that's
cool. Not strictly necessary, but can help. I've had friends who had
buyers agents, but their buyers agents were either idiots or
charlatans, and their experience wasn't terribly positive either.
But I will say that if you manage to be recommended to find good
representation, it's a good thing!

A real estate attorney is a great thing to have too, and they're
cheap.


Good luck!


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

I walked into one real estate company and they wanted me to sign something
before they gave me any listings. I said I'm not going to sign anything
until I find something I want to buy. Bye! Then I started to walk out.

They suddenly decided to help me without me signing anything.

Also a home purchase is very complex and communication problems between
agents (phone tag, etc.) can cause the closing to be delayed.

There are last minute errors found in contracts, etc. which require both
buyer and seller to sign. Everybody needs to be contacted NOW. I used the
agent who had the listing with the seller when I bought my house and I was
glad I did.

This agent made a few mistakes on the various forms. She also told the
sellers they didn't need to sign anything more. I told the sellers to keep
in contact with her everyday - call her everyday for 3 days prior to the
closing. We both had to sign something everyday as they kept finding things
with errors. If I had another agent in the loop, my closing would never have
made it. (Because it can take an agent up to a full day to return a phone
call. Then the other agent is not in, etc.)


"john" wrote in message
I was told to sign this Consumer Notice when going to check out a house in
July. The agent said I have to sign it since she represented the house and
since I didnt have an agent in that area to bring. So since she was
representing both of us.. the agent and the seller, I had to sign this
Consumer Notice... I got a copy of the notice and at the top it says "This
notice must be provided to the consumer at the first contact where a
substantive discussion about real estate occurs".

Is it true that I had to sign this? I still dont understand it fully but
basically he kept insisting that it is NOT a contract...just that he is
telling me information about the house and that he is representing the
owner..or something like that..

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

I get a headache trying to understand all this small print stuff... Its
almost like its specially coded so that only agents and lawyers can
understand it. Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

Todd H. wrote:
Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

You couldn't make a direct deal with the owner anyway. When a
property is listed for sale by a realtor, the owner and realtor are
under a listing contract. If the house sells, it sells via the agent,
and they get a commission regardless of how you ended up finding this
house.

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.


What evidence is there that this simple disclosure document obligates
the buyer to pay any commission beyond what is specified in the listing
contract between the seller and the agent? This disclosure document
just puts the buyer on notice that the agent is representing the
seller. It would be extremely unusual and unethical for this to bind a
prospective buyer to paying a commission beyond the listing contract.
The listing contract governs the commission, period after which
homeowner is free to sell it without commission, etc. and it is the
seller who pays.


I get a headache trying to understand all this small print
stuff... Its almost like its specially coded so that only agents and
lawyers can understand it. Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

They're there because there are also ignorant consumers who can assume
that a realtor they meet this way represents them, end up getting
screwed on the deal, and then in a sour grapes fashion come back and
sue later. These notices are designed to make it crystal clear who
the agent is truly beholden to (the seller) represents and who they do
not (random buyer).

The particulars vary by state and contract, but in general, this is
the scene.

My advice: talk to your network of friend i the area nad find a
realtor familiar with the area willing to work with you as a buyers
agent. If you are looking at FSBO properties, try to strike an
agreement with the buyer's agent that specifically excludes FSBO
properties from your buyers agency agreement. Don't expect all of
them to be hungry enough to accept that though.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

writes:

Todd H. wrote:
Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

You couldn't make a direct deal with the owner anyway. When a
property is listed for sale by a realtor, the owner and realtor are
under a listing contract. If the house sells, it sells via the agent,
and they get a commission regardless of how you ended up finding this
house.

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.


What evidence is there that this simple disclosure document obligates
the buyer to pay any commission beyond what is specified in the listing
contract between the seller and the agent?

What evidence is there that I said anything about the buyer paying the
commission?

Reread.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
writes:

Todd H. wrote:
Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

You couldn't make a direct deal with the owner anyway. When a
property is listed for sale by a realtor, the owner and realtor are
under a listing contract. If the house sells, it sells via the agent,
and they get a commission regardless of how you ended up finding this
house.

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.


What evidence is there that this simple disclosure document obligates
the buyer to pay any commission beyond what is specified in the listing
contract between the seller and the agent?

What evidence is there that I said anything about the buyer paying the
commission?

Reread.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/



Well, you're right, you didn't say the buyer may have to pay the
commission because of signing a disclosure document, that's there to
inform him that the agent works for the seller.

Here's what you did say:

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.
Or some crap like that.

Which means what you did say makes even less sense, because now you're
asserting that because a prospective buyer signed a simple disclosure
document, it's now going to change the contract the agent has with the
seller to pay a commission. Whether the seller owes a commission, for
how long he's bound, exclusions, etc are covered by the contract
between the seller and the agent and aren't gonna be ammended by a
buyer signing a disclosure.

writes:

Well, you're right, you didn't say the buyer may have to pay the
commission because of signing a disclosure document, that's there to
inform him that the agent works for the seller.

Here's what you did say:

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.
Or some crap like that.

Which means what you did say makes even less sense, because now you're
asserting that because a prospective buyer signed a simple disclosure
document, it's now going to change the contract the agent has with the
seller to pay a commission. Whether the seller owes a commission, for
how long he's bound, exclusions, etc are covered by the contract
between the seller and the agent and aren't gonna be ammended by a
buyer signing a disclosure.

Wrap you mind around this scenario:

Prospective buyer Joe walks in open house held by agent

Prospective buyer Joe fills out disclosure signs. realtor now
has name and a paper trail.

Listing expires, house doesn't sell

Seller decides to try fsbo

Prospective buyer Joe looking for a deal, strikes deal with
seller as FSBO.

Months later, Realtor sees property transfer record from buyer
to Joe. Matches Joe's name to the disclosure Joe signed on
that listing.

Realtor, depending on details of the original listing
agreement, goes after Seller for commission.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:26:33 -0400, someone wrote:

Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

They are to protect stupid people (like maybe you?).

The law requires the agent to get unrepresented people to sign this as
proof the person was given proper legal notice of who is what to who.

Without these stupid laws it is people like you who come back later
and claim they were bamboozled because they didn't know or weren't
told. Now if you claim this, the bagent has you sig to prove
otherwise.

The law is to protect you, getting your sig as required by law,
protects the agent.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Todd H. wrote:
writes:

Well, you're right, you didn't say the buyer may have to pay the
commission because of signing a disclosure document, that's there to
inform him that the agent works for the seller.

Here's what you did say:

The only way around that would be to wait until the listing period
expired, and whatever grace period afterwards and if the property
weren't listed and was then FSBO, then maybe you could deal direct
with the owner. Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.
Or some crap like that.

Which means what you did say makes even less sense, because now you're
asserting that because a prospective buyer signed a simple disclosure
document, it's now going to change the contract the agent has with the
seller to pay a commission. Whether the seller owes a commission, for
how long he's bound, exclusions, etc are covered by the contract
between the seller and the agent and aren't gonna be ammended by a
buyer signing a disclosure.

Wrap you mind around this scenario:

Prospective buyer Joe walks in open house held by agent

Prospective buyer Joe fills out disclosure signs. realtor now
has name and a paper trail.

Listing expires, house doesn't sell

Seller decides to try fsbo

Prospective buyer Joe looking for a deal, strikes deal with
seller as FSBO.

Months later, Realtor sees property transfer record from buyer
to Joe. Matches Joe's name to the disclosure Joe signed on
that listing.

Realtor, depending on details of the original listing
agreement, goes after Seller for commission.


Whether the realtor is entitled to a commission depends on the listing
agreement that was signed with the seller. Whether or not a
prospective buyer signed a disclosure document that indicates the buyer
understands the agent is working for the seller, doesn't change that
fact. You are saying that signing the disclosure somehow changes
whether or not a commission is owed. That is not true. If the house
was sold to a buyer produced by the agent as specified in the listing
agreement, then the commission is owed, period.

Now the disclosure document could be one more piece of evidence to
prove that the agent was involved with the buyer and when if it came
into dispute. But that could also be established with witnesses,
phone records, a sign in sheet from an open house, etc.







Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

writes:
Whether the realtor is entitled to a commission depends on the
listing agreement that was signed with the seller. Whether or not a
prospective buyer signed a disclosure document that indicates the
buyer understands the agent is working for the seller, doesn't
change that fact. You are saying that signing the disclosure
somehow changes whether or not a commission is owed.

Um, no I'm not saying that.

Now the disclosure document could be one more piece of evidence to
prove that the agent was involved with the buyer and when if it came
into dispute.

Ding ding ding ding! Thank you for catching up with the discussion.
Yes, this is my point.

But that could also be established with witnesses, phone records, a
sign in sheet from an open house, etc.

Not nearly as well as a signed disclosure document as something
compelling to an arbitrator or civil jury than a signed document
should the Realtor go after the seller claiming a commission is due.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
Ding ding ding ding! Thank you for catching up with the discussion.
Yes, this is my point.

Catch up? Excuse me? Again, this is exactly what you posted:

"Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement. "


If the realtor is entitled to a commission, the realtor can demand
commission with or without the buyer signing a disclosure document.
The owing of the commission or the right of the realtor to collect it
is not changed by the disclosure document. But the above is worded to
say that the right of the agent to commission does depend on the
disclosure document.



But that could also be established with witnesses, phone records, a
sign in sheet from an open house, etc.

Not nearly as well as a signed disclosure document as something
compelling to an arbitrator or civil jury than a signed document
should the Realtor go after the seller claiming a commission is due.

According to you. But in reality, a sign in sheet at an open house
where the seller signed their name and phone number would work just
fine to establish that the seller was brought there by the efforts of
the agent. In fact, a sign in sheet may even be better. At an
arbitration or hearing, the agent could then produce the prospects that
signed in that day immediately before and immediately after on the sign
in sheet. That would clearly establish when and where the signature
was made. A disclosure document with only one signature can be
signed any time.



--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

writes:
Todd H. wrote:
Ding ding ding ding! Thank you for catching up with the discussion.
Yes, this is my point.

Catch up? Excuse me? Again, this is exactly what you posted:

"Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement. "

If the realtor is entitled to a commission, the realtor can demand
commission with or without the buyer signing a disclosure document.

Yes. BUT, only if the realtor figures out someone bought the place
that came in under the original listing agreement. Remember, we're
talking about a scenario when a house goes FSBO and is bought after
the original listing expired.

The owing of the commission or the right of the realtor to collect it
is not changed by the disclosure document.

I'm not now disputing nor ever have disputed this.

But the above is worded to say that the right of the agent to
commission does depend on the disclosure document.

Okay, going back and rereading something I typed inside of 10 seconds,
I can see someone of your incredibly tiresome desire to find things
wrong drawing that conclusion despite me saying 3 times now that I'm
not trying to say the disclosure changes the listing agreement.

The intent here was simply that signing anything during a showing is a
paper trail that the buyer was there while the property was listed.

But that could also be established with witnesses, phone records, a
sign in sheet from an open house, etc.

Not nearly as well as a signed disclosure document as something
compelling to an arbitrator or civil jury than a signed document
should the Realtor go after the seller claiming a commission is due.

According to you. But in reality, a sign in sheet at an open house
where the seller signed their name and phone number would work just
fine to establish that the seller was brought there by the efforts of
the agent. In fact, a sign in sheet may even be better.

Dunno about you, but a non-legally binding open house sign in sheet
(which I've never seen ask for a signature).... I have not once
written down my real name and phone number on one of those "yes I want
the agent calling me and pestering me" sheets.

Folks tend to be less hesitant to doing that on anything (such as a
disclosure) that requires a signature because technically to do that
could be construed as forgery. And since the original poster here was
concerned enough to be asking about it, I'll go out on a limb and say
that they signed their actual name ot the disclosure document. And
finally, it's really hard to deny a signature wasn't made by you.

You'll forgive me if I quit being active in this thread.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
writes:
Todd H. wrote:
Ding ding ding ding! Thank you for catching up with the discussion.
Yes, this is my point.

Catch up? Excuse me? Again, this is exactly what you posted:

"Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement. "

If the realtor is entitled to a commission, the realtor can demand
commission with or without the buyer signing a disclosure document.

Yes. BUT, only if the realtor figures out someone bought the place
that came in under the original listing agreement. Remember, we're
talking about a scenario when a house goes FSBO and is bought after
the original listing expired.


So, you're really saying it's OK for the seller and/or buyer to screw
the agent out of a commission that is rightfully owed per the listing
agreement, as long as they don't get caught.




The owing of the commission or the right of the realtor to collect it
is not changed by the disclosure document.

I'm not now disputing nor ever have disputed this.

But the above is worded to say that the right of the agent to
commission does depend on the disclosure document.

Okay, going back and rereading something I typed inside of 10 seconds,
I can see someone of your incredibly tiresome desire to find things
wrong drawing that conclusion despite me saying 3 times now that I'm
not trying to say the disclosure changes the listing agreement.

The intent here was simply that signing anything during a showing is a
paper trail that the buyer was there while the property was listed.

Yes, not leaving any evidence that you were there and brought there by
the efforts of the real estate agent is of importance to anyone
dishonest that is trying to screw the agent out of a commission.




But that could also be established with witnesses, phone records, a
sign in sheet from an open house, etc.

Not nearly as well as a signed disclosure document as something
compelling to an arbitrator or civil jury than a signed document
should the Realtor go after the seller claiming a commission is due.

According to you. But in reality, a sign in sheet at an open house
where the seller signed their name and phone number would work just
fine to establish that the seller was brought there by the efforts of
the agent. In fact, a sign in sheet may even be better.

Dunno about you, but a non-legally binding open house sign in sheet
(which I've never seen ask for a signature).... I have not once
written down my real name and phone number on one of those "yes I want
the agent calling me and pestering me" sheets.


Tells us a lot about how you operate. I've always given my real name.
You must just be a Lookie Lou, who wastes realtors time at open
houses with no intention of ever buying. Otherwise, you'd look pretty
stupid when you come back again with a different name to make an offer.



Folks tend to be less hesitant to doing that on anything (such as a
disclosure) that requires a signature because technically to do that
could be construed as forgery. And since the original poster here was
concerned enough to be asking about it, I'll go out on a limb and say
that they signed their actual name ot the disclosure document. And
finally, it's really hard to deny a signature wasn't made by you.

You'll forgive me if I quit being active in this thread.

Yes, I can see why. BTW, have you figured out how bond prices and
yield work yet?





--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Chet Hayes writes:
So, you're really saying it's OK for the seller and/or buyer to
screw the agent out of a commission that is rightfully owed per the
listing agreement, as long as they don't get caught.

Chet, heh... sorry man, wrong again. But you're really good at trying
to twist words into something they're not in your fishing expeditions.

Realtors have gotten paid on every piece of property I've ever bought
(whether or not they did enough work to justify their rather large
paydays, or had anything to do with getting me to look at a given
place). So if you want to paint a negative picture of someone's
consumer character, or integrity, you're gonna need to shop somewhere
else, big guy.

But if you are keen on volunteering your correct, personal contact
information to anyone who asks (be they realtors at open houses, the
cashiers at the store asking for phone numbers, web forms for various
free online services), hey, be my guest. If you end up in every
marketing database and get nothing but unsolicited marketing calls on
your phone, knock yourself out.

And actually no, I don't have the details of bond yields, prices, and
their exact relation to home mortgage rates entirely figured out yet,
which is why I asked the question.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

If you're not out to screw the realtor, then explain this:

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)


Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if
they found out you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the
owner and demand commission because the place ultimately sold to
someone who originally came in under their listing agreement.


The only way the realtor is entitled to and can demand a commission is
if they are rightfully owed one per the listing agreement. Stating
that the governing factor is whether the prospective buyer signed a
disclosure document is advice for someone who is dishonest and out to
scam the broker by trying to lie about when and how they were
introduced to the property.

Chet Hayes writes:
If you're not out to screw the realtor, then explain this:

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

Dear Douchebag,

First, when quoting things, you could really benefit from including
attribution so you can keep track of who said what and in what
context.

Among my admitted weaknesses is trying to rehabilitate the mentally
challenged. Sometimes this frustrates me. Now is one of those times.
So i'll apologize for the douchebag comment straight away, but you
certainly have earned it.

Now this supposed plot to circumvent/screw the realtor that you'd like
to pin on me was not mine. The words you quoted above (and their
suggested desire to be able to deal directly with the owner "minus the
agent") were the words of the original poster "John"
who posted with address

Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if they found out
you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the owner and
demand commission because the place ultimately sold to someone who
originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.

Yes, these are my words--one paragraph in a rather long initial reply
that was rather informative and helpful to John's question, hastily
typed I might add. And in that reply to John--the original poster-- I
was telling him that if he had any aspirations of dealing with the
owner without the agent was now doubly screwed because not only would
the listing agreement preclude such direct dealing while the listing
is being actively managed by the agent, but also, if later the house
went FSBO and he had the hairbrain idea to approach the owner at htat
point, the paper trail he's left behind with the agent would leave the
seller/owner exposed to the agent coming after the seller for a
commission.

Go back and reread it Chet. Also keep in mind the reply was made in
about a minute or two, and the moral microscope you've put this one
paragraph under might have burned a hole through the screen at this
point.

The only way the realtor is entitled to and can demand a commission
is if they are rightfully owed one per the listing agreement.

What part of "I've never disputed this" don't you understand?

Stating that the governing factor is whether the prospective buyer
signed a disclosure document is advice for someone who is dishonest
and out to scam the broker by trying to lie about when and how they
were introduced to the property.

Tsk tsk. Now you're making **** up again Chet. I never stated that.

Step away from the keyboard. Get outside. Interact with the real
world. You've created a momentous pointless thread to nowhere based
on selectively forgetting the context in which things were offered.
Put away your pitchfork. Maybe your diet is making your crabby. Who
knows.

No one was saying it'd be a good idea for John to try to screw the
listing agent out of any commission.

If you go back after you clear your head and reread things without the
pitchfork in your hand headed in my direction, you might see that in
my reply to the original poster, I was telling John he was screwed if
he had any intent of dealing directly with the seller because a) it's
a listed property currently and b) even it it went fsbo later, there
was a paper trail tying him to having seen it while listed, so there'd
be complications even if he wanted to try to do the sneaky approach.

Can you let it rest and quit inventing new ways to twist things? Once
you quit doing that, I can quit setting the record straight when you
invent new ways to misunderstand simple english sentences.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
Chet Hayes writes:
If you're not out to screw the realtor, then explain this:

Does signing this mean , I cannot make a direct deal with the owner now?
(minus the agent)

Dear Douchebag,


Figures that someone that advocates using false names with realtors and
lacking in ethics would also have name calling in their repertoire



First, when quoting things, you could really benefit from including
attribution so you can keep track of who said what and in what
context.

Very easy to understand who said what.



Among my admitted weaknesses is trying to rehabilitate the mentally
challenged. Sometimes this frustrates me. Now is one of those times.
So i'll apologize for the douchebag comment straight away, but you
certainly have earned it.

Now this supposed plot to circumvent/screw the realtor that you'd like
to pin on me was not mine.


BS. The OP asked if signing the disclosure provided by the realtor
meant he could not deal direct with the owner now. The obvious answer
is that his signing or not signing the disclosure document is not the
governing factor. He was introduced to the property by the realtor and
whether the realtor is owed a commission is determined by the listing.
The only one who would focus on the evidence trail rather than the
legality is someone out to screw the realtor.



The words you quoted above (and their
suggested desire to be able to deal directly with the owner "minus the
agent") were the words of the original poster "John"
who posted with address

Hoewver, by signing this agreement, the realtor if they found out
you ultimatley bought the place, could come back to the owner and
demand commission because the place ultimately sold to someone who
originally came in under their listing agreement.

Or some crap like that.

Yes, these are my words--one paragraph in a rather long initial reply
that was rather informative and helpful to John's question, hastily
typed I might add. And in that reply to John--the original poster-- I
was telling him that if he had any aspirations of dealing with the
owner without the agent was now doubly screwed because not only would
the listing agreement preclude such direct dealing while the listing
is being actively managed by the agent, but also, if later the house
went FSBO and he had the hairbrain idea to approach the owner at htat
point, the paper trail he's left behind with the agent would leave the
seller/owner exposed to the agent coming after the seller for a
commission.


Funny then that you didn't just tell him it was a hairbrain idea to try
to get around the listing agreement and screw the broker, but instead
only found a problem with him having signed the disclosure, which could
be used as evidence.

And BTW, there's nothing wrong with approaching the owner after the
listing has expired. You don't need to sneak around. All you have to
do is go talk to the owner and find out per the listing agreement after
what time period he's free to do business with a prospect introduced by
the real estate agent without owing a commission.

Now the real prescription for disaster here is following your methods,
which are to use a false name when going to an open house and telling
people the thing to worry about is whether you signed a disclosure
document, instead of what's legal and moral. Let's follow this to
it's logical conclusion. You use a false name at an open house that
is listed with a broker, like you said you always do. Few months
later, the realtor sign is gone, replaced with FSBO. Now, you show up
and make an offer under your real name. Neither the owner nor the
realtor would know that you were introduced a couple months ago by the
realtor. So, the issue of commission or realtor involvement never even
comes up. The owner could check a list of prospects that still would
involve owing a commission and your name wouldn't be there.

So, you make your deal, buy the place and 2 weeks later, while you're
mowing the grass, the realtor drives by and recognizes you. And she
says, wait a minute, I found that guy and the listing says that for 6
months after the listing expires, if someone I had produced during the
listing period buys the property, I'm still due a commission. So, now
she wants her commission. And who do you think is gonna pay it?
She's gonna come after both the seller and the buyer. And the buyer is
gonna wind up paying it, because the buyer is the one that committed
the fraud, which the seller had no knowledge of.




Go back and reread it Chet. Also keep in mind the reply was made in
about a minute or two, and the moral microscope you've put this one
paragraph under might have burned a hole through the screen at this
point.

The only way the realtor is entitled to and can demand a commission
is if they are rightfully owed one per the listing agreement.

What part of "I've never disputed this" don't you understand?


The part where whether he signed a disclosure leaving an evidence trail
that he was there is mentioned as affecting whether a commission is
owed, while the fact that it's the listing agreement that determines
this and it's illegal and immoral to screw the broker.



Stating that the governing factor is whether the prospective buyer
signed a disclosure document is advice for someone who is dishonest
and out to scam the broker by trying to lie about when and how they
were introduced to the property.

Tsk tsk. Now you're making **** up again Chet. I never stated that.


It sure reads that way to me. Why the hell didn't you just say,
whether you can deal direct with the owner without the realtor depends
on the listing agreement, not the simple disclosure document?




Step away from the keyboard. Get outside. Interact with the real
world. You've created a momentous pointless thread to nowhere based
on selectively forgetting the context in which things were offered.
Put away your pitchfork. Maybe your diet is making your crabby. Who
knows.

No one was saying it'd be a good idea for John to try to screw the
listing agent out of any commission

No, you just told him signing the disclosure document might present
obstacles for him doing it.



If you go back after you clear your head and reread things without the
pitchfork in your hand headed in my direction, you might see that in
my reply to the original poster, I was telling John he was screwed if
he had any intent of dealing directly with the seller because a) it's
a listed property currently and b) even it it went fsbo later, there
was a paper trail tying him to having seen it while listed, so there'd
be complications even if he wanted to try to do the sneaky approach.

Can you let it rest and quit inventing new ways to twist things? Once
you quit doing that, I can quit setting the record straight when you
invent new ways to misunderstand simple english sentences.

Your record is pretty clear. Maybe you should stick to trying to
figure out how bond prices and yields are related.




Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Alot of people get all wrapped up in the technical aspects of buying a
house...and eventually say "Screw it , were not buying a new house..were
staying here."


"v" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:26:33 -0400, someone wrote:

Ridiculous...our stupid laws.

They are to protect stupid people (like maybe you?).


Yeah, you may be right there.. But maybe stupid people like you would sell
more houses if the Literature they had these days would be more
understandable & truthful to the general public. But then again, its crooks
like yourself that earn a living this way.