Recently, the house next to ours was bought by a company that will be
demolishing it and building an apartment complex in that space. They have
made an offer to buy our house and have sent an agent with an offer. As
part of the closing costs, there are broker fees. My question is, are they
trying to screw us out of paying the broker's comission? Shouldn't the
buyer that hired the broker be paying this?

Thanks.

OF COURSE the person (buyer in this case) who hired the broker should
pay the broker. You wouldn't ask your neighbor to pay your doctor's bill
would you ?


So, in the CONTRACT that will be NEGOTIATED , don't agree to pay
their broker, or their doctor's bill. Just agree to pay YOUR bills.


Further, if you pay their broker, then you are paying the person who is
working for them. Does this make a lot of sense to you ?


Good luck !!


--James--

I don't believe that Muskett actually read (or understood) the original
post. See, the guy was just sitting at his home. Not doing anything,
not trying to sell his house. A real estate broker walks to his front
door, and says that his boss ( the potential buyer) want to buy his
house. The homeowner has never heard of or seen the broker. In the
offer, the proposed Contract says that the homeowner (who never hired the
broker, or listed his home for sale) must pay the BROKER. This could be
tens of thousands of dollars. He would be paying the EMPLOYEE of the
buyer !! The buyer should pay HIS OWN employee (broker).

Another point on which you are wrong. Many people WOULD sign such a
contract. All that would be need would be for someone like you to tell
them that the broker (who they have never heard of, or seen, or hired, or
had any connection with in their entire life) was working for THEM !! Of
course, if the homeowner believed this idiodic lie, he would sign the
contract !!


Now, it is entirely possible that the homeowner could indeed turn this thing
around. He could say to the broker..... Mr. broker, please become my agent,
go back to your former boss, and tell him that I want three times what is
offered in this contract. If, while acting as my broker, you are
successful in getting your former boss to agree to this counteroffer, I
will pay your broker fee !!!!! Now that would be a good deal. But
paying a stranger to work for another stranger is non-sensical, and should
not be agreed to.

Good Luck !!


--James--





On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:35:52 -0400, "James Nipper"
wrote:



OF COURSE the person (buyer in this case) who hired the broker should
pay the broker. You wouldn't ask your neighbor to pay your doctor's
bill
would you ?


The seller usually is the party that pays any commissions from the
proceeds of the sale (a separate contract with a broker/agent between
a home seeker and the broker/agent may involve payments for that
service, but not a "sales commission" since that is a payment for a
service that 'benefits' only the seller.)

So, in the CONTRACT that will be NEGOTIATED , don't agree to pay
their broker, or their doctor's bill. Just agree to pay YOUR bills.


I seriously doubt if anyone would agree to such a contract, normally a
sales contract will specify that the brokers involved in a sale will
be protected and paid their commissions from the proceeds of the sale.
If this is a problem for you include the amount of the commission in
the selling price when you set the acceptable price for the sale!


Further, if you pay their broker, then you are paying the person who is
working for them. Does this make a lot of sense to you ?


The broker is in fact working for YOU in that they brought the buyer
to you, without the broker's participation there would be no one to
buy!


Good luck !!


--James--

James,

What you state below is the exact situation. Let me ask you this:

The buyer's agent came and declared the original offer. We countered that
offer with a higher

number and he took that back to the buyer. Does this constitute a basis for
him

to charge a pretty high comission?

I wouldn't think so, but since I am not familiar with what the custom is in
a situation

like this, I'd like to hear your opinion.

Thanks again!

"James Nipper" wrote in message
...


I don't believe that Muskett actually read (or understood) the original
post. See, the guy was just sitting at his home. Not doing
anything,
not trying to sell his house. A real estate broker walks to his front
door, and says that his boss ( the potential buyer) want to buy his
house. The homeowner has never heard of or seen the broker. In the
offer, the proposed Contract says that the homeowner (who never hired the
broker, or listed his home for sale) must pay the BROKER. This could be
tens of thousands of dollars. He would be paying the EMPLOYEE of the
buyer !! The buyer should pay HIS OWN employee (broker).

Another point on which you are wrong. Many people WOULD sign such a
contract. All that would be need would be for someone like you to tell
them that the broker (who they have never heard of, or seen, or hired, or
had any connection with in their entire life) was working for THEM !!
Of
course, if the homeowner believed this idiodic lie, he would sign the
contract !!


Now, it is entirely possible that the homeowner could indeed turn this
thing
around. He could say to the broker..... Mr. broker, please become my
agent,
go back to your former boss, and tell him that I want three times what is
offered in this contract. If, while acting as my broker, you are
successful in getting your former boss to agree to this counteroffer, I
will pay your broker fee !!!!! Now that would be a good deal. But
paying a stranger to work for another stranger is non-sensical, and should
not be agreed to.

Good Luck !!


--James--





On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:35:52 -0400, "James Nipper"
wrote:



OF COURSE the person (buyer in this case) who hired the broker
should
pay the broker. You wouldn't ask your neighbor to pay your doctor's
bill
would you ?


The seller usually is the party that pays any commissions from the
proceeds of the sale (a separate contract with a broker/agent between
a home seeker and the broker/agent may involve payments for that
service, but not a "sales commission" since that is a payment for a
service that 'benefits' only the seller.)

So, in the CONTRACT that will be NEGOTIATED , don't agree to pay
their broker, or their doctor's bill. Just agree to pay YOUR bills.


I seriously doubt if anyone would agree to such a contract, normally a
sales contract will specify that the brokers involved in a sale will
be protected and paid their commissions from the proceeds of the sale.
If this is a problem for you include the amount of the commission in
the selling price when you set the acceptable price for the sale!


Further, if you pay their broker, then you are paying the person who is
working for them. Does this make a lot of sense to you ?


The broker is in fact working for YOU in that they brought the buyer
to you, without the broker's participation there would be no one to
buy!


Good luck !!


--James--

Well, the fact that you made a counteroffer has nothing to do with you
agreeing with a contract provision that says you should pay the broker.

We are talking about two different things. The FIRST t item we are
talking about is the final price of your house. They made an offer, you
made a counteroffer. They can accept, or reject, or make another offer.

The SECOND thing we are talking about is one of the sub-issues of the
overall contract. That issue is one of which who pays the broker. There
is no law that says you have to pay THEIR broker. You can choose to enter
into a contract whereby you DO contract to pay their broker, but you don't
have to, and should not do it , as the broker has no allegiance to you and
you did not hire him. BTW, the fact that you made a counter-offer is not
indicative that you hired the broker. You simply presented a counteroffer,
transmitted to the agent of the potential buyer , the broker. You did
not HIRE the broker, as he has already been hired by the potential buyer.
The broker acts as a conduit for the person who hired him, in this case the
potential buyer. You made your counteroffer and communicated it to the
potential buyer by going through HIS broker.

The negotiations should continue until you **think** you have the
contract the way you want it. But **before** you sign it, I would also
recommend that you have it reviewed by a competent real estate attorney in
you area. It is possible there are other cost items in the contract that
are assessed to you (by custom, not by law) that should not be your
burden. Only your attorney would know these details and customs. He might
charge $150-200 for the review, but it would give you peace of mind and also
might well save you even more money.

Good Luck !!

--James--

I certainly do know of what I speak. A broker is, by definition, an agent
of his principal.

In this case, the principal of the broker (agent) is the commercial
developer of the property adjacent to the home of the original poster.

I am glad to have been able to clear this up for you.


--James--

James,

I appreciate the explanation and your time.

Thank you.


"James Nipper" wrote in message
...


Well, the fact that you made a counteroffer has nothing to do with you
agreeing with a contract provision that says you should pay the broker.

We are talking about two different things. The FIRST t item we are
talking about is the final price of your house. They made an offer, you
made a counteroffer. They can accept, or reject, or make another offer.

The SECOND thing we are talking about is one of the sub-issues of the
overall contract. That issue is one of which who pays the broker. There
is no law that says you have to pay THEIR broker. You can choose to
enter
into a contract whereby you DO contract to pay their broker, but you
don't
have to, and should not do it , as the broker has no allegiance to you
and
you did not hire him. BTW, the fact that you made a counter-offer is not
indicative that you hired the broker. You simply presented a
counteroffer,
transmitted to the agent of the potential buyer , the broker. You did
not HIRE the broker, as he has already been hired by the potential
buyer.
The broker acts as a conduit for the person who hired him, in this case
the
potential buyer. You made your counteroffer and communicated it to the
potential buyer by going through HIS broker.

The negotiations should continue until you **think** you have the
contract the way you want it. But **before** you sign it, I would
also
recommend that you have it reviewed by a competent real estate attorney in
you area. It is possible there are other cost items in the contract that
are assessed to you (by custom, not by law) that should not be your
burden. Only your attorney would know these details and customs. He
might
charge $150-200 for the review, but it would give you peace of mind and
also
might well save you even more money.

Good Luck !!

--James--

Mr. Avoidspam:


It would be helpful if you would go back (once more) and read his original
post. This homeowner DOESN'T HAVE A BROKER!! How many times do I have
to point this out to you ? You keep talking about TWO brokers, and there
is only ONE broker, who was hired by the person that wants to buy his
property.


The handling of a commission is much more simple that your rambling on about
it would indicate. The contract will specify WHO pays the broker. That
is all there is to it, plain and simple. This homeowner has NO need and NO
obligation to pay another person's broker. Just like he would not pay the
buyer's doctor bill, he has no reason or duty to pay his broker. I
think at this point that the OP understands this, and hopefully by now so
do you.

--James--

--------------------------


An agent acting as a buyers agent in a transaction is usually paid the
same as a selling agent, from the proceeds of the sale. If there is
both a buyer's agent and a seller's agent involved the commission is
collected from the proceeds and divided between them (as specified in
the sales contract - "offer and acceptance") if you are not happy with
paying the amount the buyer's agent is getting you don't have to agree
to the sale. You of course can factor the commission into the selling
price and increase it to raise the proceeds to a level that will
result in the agent being paid as specified and you getting what you
want for the house.

It appears that you may have done this already when you made your
counter offer - what does your attorney have to say about this? Did
your lawyer review the contract of sale and negotiate the terms on
your behalf???? You do have an attorney, don't you?

I give up with Mr. Avoidspam. I feel certain the OP understands plain
English, and knows what is going on.



Anyhow, good luck to the original poster on the possible sale, and if you
have further questions, feel free to post here again.

--James--

On 15 Oct 2004 17:10:45 -0400, someone wrote:


Ask the agent, or even better your lawyer.

And be aware that they will be making every effort to pay you less.

All true - but they may be the only ones interested in buying a house
that's npow going to be next to an apartment comlex!

-v.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 06:03:06 GMT, someone wrote:

The buyer's agent came and declared the original offer. We countered that
offer with a higher

number and he took that back to the buyer. Does this constitute a basis for
him

to charge a pretty high comission?

What constitutes the "basis" for any commission due is the contract he
has - since its not with you, it must be for the other side.

What matter to you is the net funds that you receive. If a contract
says "Buyer will pay Seller $100k, Seller will pay the broker a 10%
commission", or if it says "Buyer will pay Seller $90k, and Buyer will
pay the Broker's commission", it all comes to pretty much the same.
There are actually some transfer tax implications that may make it
better for the BUYER to do the second thing, but this is relatively
trivial.

Just worry about the bottom line, why does every deal have to be
viewed as a "screwing"????

-v.

"Muskett" wrote...
Recently, the house next to ours was bought by a company that will be
demolishing it and building an apartment complex in that space. They have
made an offer to buy our house and have sent an agent with an offer. As
part of the closing costs, there are broker fees. My question is, are they
trying to screw us out of paying the broker's comission? Shouldn't the
buyer that hired the broker be paying this?

It doesn't matter how many fees there are in this case. All YOU need to worry
about is what the bottom line is on the money YOU will receive.

How much the house is worth depends a lot on how badly you want to stay/move,
what the zoning is, and what the intentions of the buyer are for the property.
You may want to enlist a realtor to give you a free market analysis...