Several weeks ago I took a call from a FSBO who wanted to tell us that they would pay a commission to any Realtor inside our company who would sell their home located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The home was a 3bed,2ba,2CG pool home and they were asking $365,000 for the home. As faith would have it I had a buyer who I was working with who was looking at homes in this range. I had the FSBO sign an agreement that any client we bought to their home we`d be compensated a 3% commission.

I took our buyer to the home the next day to view it. The couple who were selling the home seemed nice, they gave us a tour of the home.We partied friends and the buyer and I left.

I called the couple a few hours later and told them that the buyer wasn`t interested in their home, but the home showed very well. I told them I`d keep my eye out if we have any other buyers for their home.

I received a call yesterday from the FSBO. They wanted to ask me a few questions. They wanted to know why we as Realtors weren`t showing their home more!

The conversation is as follows:

FSBO: What do we need to do in order to get more Realtors to show our home? Besides you, we had one other Realtor show our home and that was it.We went out of our way to call every Realtor in the area. What`s wrong with you people? Don`t you like to sell homes?

Me: Interesting question, have you thought about listing your home with a Realtor?

FSBO: Why? Realtors aren`t going to do anything different than my husband and i, we can sell our home, we just need Realtors like you to help us!

Me; The market is slow, there aren`t many buyers as there once was, dealing with a professional at least insures that you`re home is being marketed properly.

FSBO: We`ve had NO BUYERS call us, my husband and I are really concerned about the way Realtors conduct business. You`re not helping us too well....

Amazing, "I`m not helping them too well".

They admit they`ve had no buyers call them directly, that i was the only other Realtor to show their home and I`m not doing anything for them!!!!

It`s hard to believe that we as Realtors need to be blamed for everything!!! Message to any FSBO who may wish to sell their home."Hire a Realtor, at least that way you can blame someone!"

Visit us @ http://www.floridalistforlessrealty.com

Published Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:58 PM by FloridaListForLess Realty Edit
Filed under: coaching realtors in pembroke pines florida [Edit Tags]

LOL

I would have told them to raise the commission might make a difference.

I might tell them something like: "I show my own listings first, I show other listings from my company second, I show listings of other MLS agencies third; if my buyer still hasn't found a home I show FSBOs last!"

Obviously this seller has some nerve. I probably would have told them not to expect a Realtor to show their home if they aren't willing to cooperate with one to list it with in the first place. I also wouldn't want to be doing twice the work for half the commission either.

I'd explain to them that there are a lot of things people can do to sell their own house. They can try any or all of them but looking at "how houses actually sell" most buyers will come out of the mls.

Really? Where I come from, that would be unethical. We show properties that fit the buyer's requirements, it's irrelevant who is listing those properties.

Loan Diva,
Can you chance show everyone where in the COE that is unethical?

I have never found anything in COE that states what order you show properties to a client.

Just explain how the MLS works, and how they are not on it! Calling a bunch of brokerages does not do the same thing.

-jeff

I would have told them flat out that agents don't want twice the paperwork for the same amount of commission.I would have also told them that with a glut of houses on the market agents search for properties in the mls and do not go looking for fsbo's.I would them tell them commission doesn't matter it's what they net and I would show them the Nar statistics where you NET more listing it with a realtor rather than getting no activity and reducing.

I would tell them if I don't sell it you pay me nothing so all the risk is on my side not yours.You have been going fsbo,how has that been working for you?If it's not working you try something else.

If they are realistic they will appreciate being straight up with them,if they aren't realistic move on.I also would have told them that without representation agents don't owe them any duty to show there home PERIOD.

It sounds like some very misinformed sellers.

Loan Diva,

It is not unethical to show FSBO's last after everything else. It is also not unethical to not show FSBO's at all! I am not required to show a FSBO to a buyer. I am not required to show any home I don't want to show to a buyer. If I were required to show EVERY home that fits my buyer's needs, I would be showing way more homes than I do. FSBO sellers can take a hike if they think that I am going to hunt down buyers for them without holding the listing. I don't work for free or "half-price".

NAR statistics say that sellers net an average of 16% more money when listed with a Realtor as opposed to selling by FSBO. I would share that with any FSBO seller. I would also tell them that when buyers are remotely interested in a FSBO home, they will be more likely to lowball the property because they know the seller is trying to save the money that would have been paid to a Realtor anyway. So there goes all their big savings now to the buyer instead with a much lower net amount.

that just doesn't make sense. as a buyer, why would I care about the seller's arrangements? I am going to offer what I am willing to pay or what I perceive the market value to be, regardless.

Unless you're representing that buyer under a buyer's agent contract, you do NOT owe that duty to a potential buyer. You would owe that duty to a seller under a listing agreement.

Ok, here's a hypothetical question for anyone. You have a buyer (no buyers agent agreement), and you are aware of two homes for sale. One home is listed with your office, the other is listed with another broker. Which one will you show the buyer first? Does it even matter which one you show first? Is it ethical to not tell the buyer about one of the homes?

A seller's home is the center of their universe. If there's a problem, it has to be someone else's fault. It's the seller's ego vs. reality.

I would show them hot sheets on both and let them choose which home they want to look at, or ask if they want to see both. Which one gets shown first depends on the location.

And I wouldn't show a FSBO to someone unless I had a signed contract with the FSBO stating that he/she will pay me commission if I bring a buyer. That's just dumb - I will not work for nothing!

There is nothing unethical in showing or not showing a FSBO`s home. The FSBO feels that because they made a "Half Hearted Effort" to contact the local Realtors in the area to show their home, nobody is paying attention to them.

Like everything in Real Estate the FSBO market has changed and many buyers are no longer dealing with FSBO`s as they once did.
Too many FSBO`s as you`re aware don`t grasp the concept of selling their home, making repairs and following the verbage of an executed contract.
Last year, we sold a FSBO`s home and it clearly stated that the Washer,Dryer and pool equipment were indeed part of the sale, yet when we did the walk through this items were blatantly missing and the FSBO`s response was they felt that they sold their home too low to justify leaving these items!
It took an additional two hours of dealing with them until they finally realized there wouldn`t be a closing unless those items were returned.
In my opinion the FSBO will eventually have to hire a Realtor to sell this home.

“Loan Diva,
Can you chance show everyone where in the COE that is unethical?

I have never found anything in COE that states what order you show properties to a client.”

The order of showing is not the issue here.

http://www.frascona.com/resource/oef701buyer.htm

DUTIES to CLIENTS and CUSTOMERS
Article 1
When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly. (Amended 1/01)

How is showing your own company listings first dishonest?

According to our local board, you cannot choose to show only your own listings. I have no idea what other boards do but ours takes a dim view of failing to show other brokers' listings if they are suitable.

Agents hereabouts are sanctioned for that.

Your board may have different rules. Why can't folks understand that real estate really is local?

I don't show FSBOs. The seller is not part of our cooperating broker agreement.

I'm with Diva on this one - not showing your buyer _all_ homes that fit their criteria would definitely violate the COE of my local board. After all, "know your market", should go beyond doing a search on the MLS - FSBOs, for better or worse, are still part of your market.

Well I won't go as far as to show FSBO's. Buyers are free to contact them on their own, it's too much potential liabilty for me in my litigation happy part of the world. And it's getting tougher to get financing on FSBO's.

As I said if the property isn't offered via a cooperating broker it's not really one we have to mess with.

My experience w/FSBO's is also that they tend to be very unrealistic on pricing so it would be a rare case hereabouts when a FSBO property would be better for the buyer than the inventory that is offered by cooperating brokers.

“I don't show FSBOs. The seller is not part of our cooperating broker agreement.”

If you have a buyer agency agreement that says the buyer will pay you in the absence of the seller paying you, you are required to show FSBO’s, (if the buyer wants to see them).

“I'm with Diva on this one - not showing your buyer _all_ homes that fit their criteria would definitely violate the COE of my local board.”

The COE is national, not local.

Is that what we're talking about here, showing ONLY your own listings? I thought it was about showing your own listings FIRST.



What the heck inspired this comment? All I wanted to know was how it is dishonest to show your listings first to buyers. Sheesh.

There is no duty to show ALL homes that might seem to fit someone's criteria. In most markets there are far too many homes for sale to make that even remotely practical.

The COE requirement is to represent the best interests of the party you have a representation agreement with --- if that is a buyer, then the duty is to advocate on their behalf in the course of negotiating the transaction. There is no obligation to find every home that they might find interesting and show it.

Imagine if such an obligation did exist: Every buyer who was remotely dissatisfied would file a COE claim and a court action alleging that the agent failed in their obligation to show them every home. That would be silly. I just reviewed the COE manual and there is not a single reference to someone being held responsible for failure to show enough homes.

It is inappropriate for an agency to boycott another agency's listings --- that violates the general duty to cooperate with other REALTORS.

But, a FSBO, by the act of marketing their home, does not impose any duty on anyone to show their particular property. As mentioned above, it may be wise not to.

We can quote code of ethics and blah,blah,blah and then there is the REAL WORLD.

My point is in the atlanta metropolitan area for instance there is about 106,000 homes for sale not including fsbo's.Now just think if those homes are hard to sell and they are being marketed by professionals who do this for a living with extensive contacts and buyer pools what does that say for the fsbo's chances?

The reality is with a glut of homes on the market there is about a 99 percent chance on of the mls listed homes will meet there needs thereby having no use to show any fsbo properties.


Some sellers fixate on the commission too much.I have sent it where they sold 100k under value but didn't pay that 10k commission!The buyer laughed all the way to the bank.

Fsbo's often will pull a flyer out of a agent's listing int he subdvision and mimic that price.The problem is the agents price has around a 6 percent commission in there so the fsbo's home automatically becomes overpriced by 5 to 6 percent.

Alot of times also the fsbo way overprices there property because they do not know how to set correct values then what happens is even if a buyer liked the house the believe the price is so high that they couldn't get it down inthe range they would buy it at so they never contact the fsbo.The fsbo either then pull it off of the market,or sees the light and list it with a realtor,or reduces and reduces until it sell way below market value.

I have friends that don't want to list fsbo's they just go in and find some selling way below value and buy the homes.

How do FSBOs who are listed on the MLS by paying for a flat fee listing fit in here?

For the record, I had no Non Representation Agreement with this FSBO.
As i mentioned this person what out of their way contacting every local Realtor in town in hopes of having someone sell their home.
They refused to sign an exclusive listing agreement with me or any other Realtor,the home is not on the MLS and they`re attitude is that the RE community isn`t helping them just because they`re offering a 3% commission.
There is no laws broken,no harm done!
If these people refuse to hire a Realtor, that`s they`re right and we shouldn`t worry what they say or do.
I wished them alot of luck and have moved forward.

A FSBO on a flat fee MLS is a Limited Representation. They handle their own affairs and acknowledge that before hand.
Again, these people aren`t licensed agents,the agent who posted the listing has a non-rep agreement with these people as well.

I know for a fact around here agents go out of the their way to not show houses listed by any brokerage that lists for less than 3% to selling agent. There is an agency here that lists 2% list/2% sale. They also don't show houses listed in the MLS by Assist-2-Sell because they don't like losing listings to them even though the buyer's fee is 3%. I'm not sure how this serves the buyers interest, especially in an EBA situation. They only show these homes when the customer has found them themselves and have made inquiries about them.

"A FSBO on a flat fee MLS is a Limited Representation. They handle their own affairs and acknowledge that before hand.
Again, these people aren`t licensed agents,the agent who posted the listing has a non-rep agreement with these people as well."

With an Exclusive Agency listing, any agent who brings a buyer has to run the offer through the listing agent.
That's how it works where I am.

http://www.frascona.com/resource/jg-of793.htm#Q11

"There is no duty to show ALL homes that might seem to fit someone's criteria. In most markets there are far too many homes for sale to make that even remotely practical."

Normally buyers narrow homes down to within a neighborhood, and if compensation is offered by the buyer or seller in a buyer agency relationship, it would be wise to offer showing FSBOS, or a problem as my earlier link showed can happen.

"There is no duty to show ALL homes that might seem to fit someone's criteria."

Some folks here might want to reintroduce themselves to the difference between the law of agency ....and the COE... the later of which is voluntary and has (almost) nothing to do with law.

Pike,
We use a Limited Rep agreement in our area, and it`s clearly stated on the MLS as L/R.
All showing calls,contracts etc are handled by the sellers.

Even if the the fsbo uses a flat fee service to put on the mls 3 things happen.Agents avoid these like the plaugue.1.The listing agent could care less about anyone else they are trying to get buyers to sell that listing or sell them something else because they don't make any money off of listing it 2. Agents know the listing agent will be really hard to impossible to get ahold of because of limited service,knowing this the agents avoid thes eproperties at all cost 3.A common ploy of these mls listers is for them to say they couldn't sell it and refer it off to a full service company for a fee.

Scott D.
Check PM
Thanks

"Some folks here might want to reintroduce themselves to the difference between the law of agency ....and the COE... the later of which is voluntary and has (almost) nothing to do with law."
The COE is not voluntary for REALTORS® (when becoming a REALTOR®, we voluntarily agree to abide by the COE) and the laws in my state are closely linked to the COE, if there is a conflict between the two, the law must take precedence.

Each local board also has it's own set of rules. That's what I mean by all real estate is local.

It doesn't make sense? As a buyer, are you not looking to get the best deal possible? If you notice, many investors go after buying FSBO's. This is because they know that the seller is trying to save the commission that they would have to pay a listing agent and now they are trying to obtain the same price for their home. Well, wouldn't it make sense to squeeze out the commission amounts from a seller off the price if you can. This makes very much sense to most people.

The NAR is who sets the COE. They are not local.

I understand who NAR is & what a COE is, good grief.

A COE is a model set of standards.

Each board has it's own rules as well.

"Good grief" - you're the one who said it was unethical.

Can you blame people for assuming you were talking about the....Code of Ethics?

Furthermore, you are the one who misinterpreted what Mr. Foreclosure said in the first place. He didn't say he wouldn't show other properties, but that he showed his first before others. That is against your MLS rules - to show your own listings first? He didn't say he wouldn't show the other listings, just that he would show them after his own.

"Good grief" indeed.

The phrase "know your market" does go beyond doing an MLS search....you are referring to listings. I dont need to know who is FSBO. It is not against COE. I only show homes listed in the MLS. Do you have plenty of time to know about all the FSBO in the area? I dont and i dont care to. FSBO are a pain in the [censored], and just like a client or potential customer who could be a pain in the [censored], I choose not to deal with them. If I choose not to deal with some who wants me to list their home, but I feel they are going to be a pain in the [censored] and waste my time, am I violating the COE? nope.

Joseph Grabowski, REALTOR®
Keller Williams Preferred Real Estate – Yardley, PA
I HOPE YOU RE-CONSIDER YOUR STATEMENT.

That has to be the funniest post ever! And that's the reason why I don't advertise my name and website.

I'll show FSBO if they seem like a fit, but man... they are ALWAYS a pain. ALWAYS. Seems like they all tended to buy that way, without a Realtor®, and didn't do their proper inspections yada yada yada and now they are trying to pass off a flawed home on someone else who isn't doing their due diligence.

They also seem to be universally priced wrong in this market.

Mostly, though, how exactly is it I'm supposed to even know about them? I'll stop in and say hi if I notice one, but they are usually unfriendly to me, the evil Real Estate Agent, and most of them around here are militant about NO COMMISSION! That, coupled with "optimistic" pricing, means that if my buyers have to pay me my commish, then it's just WAY over market.

So I don't go out of my way to keep track of FSBO's. I might if there was a convenient way to do so- but there isn't. And it's enough of a job staying on top of the MLS. I'm learning a new area right now, as homework, and that's plenty to keep a young man busy.

If a client asks me to help them with one I'm always game, of course.

-jeff

What part of my statement are you referring too?

When I show a FSBO, I have a fiduciary to my Buyer, not the Seller.

In my opinion, it's my job to get a substantial portion of the money that the owner is saving to benefit my buyer.

Buyer's want to but FSBOs for the same reason they shop on Ebay... to save money.

Also, a home with less exposure, and less experienced negotiators should sell for less at the end of the day.

Yeah, our job isnt hunting down FSBOs. the MLS is in place for a reason. there is plenty of inventory. If a client is looking for a residential property, it is available in the MLS. I dont drive around to find FSBO. It is not part of my job description.

I am still waiting for Pikes Peak to tell me why I should reconsider my statement. Does anyone else see something wrong with what I said?

I think you have a dangling predicate Joey!

:-)

-jeff

Joey,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
A FSBO who represents themselves in a Limited Rep.transaction on the MLS isn`t representing to be a licensed Realtor.

There seems to be concerns what a FSBO`s rights are by placing a home on the MLS.
When i deal with a FSBO they rep themselves or contact an attorney to rep them.
I like to have the FSBO sign a Non-rep agreement.That way,i`m fully protected from their demands and concentrate on assisting the buyer.I`ve been down this road before,word to the wise,remain a single agent when dealing in this capacity.

Yeah, if or when I get stuck in a FSBO transaction they ARE signing a letter that says I am NOT their agent. *Shudder*. That sounds like some version of hell, to be stuck in some vague dual agency with a FSBO leaning on me to do their work too...

-jeff

"I am still waiting for Pikes Peak to tell me why I should reconsider my statement. Does anyone else see something wrong with what I said?"
Here it is again!
http://www.frascona.com/resource/oef701buyer.htm

Pike,
Interesting case study. what`s your opinion of this case?

Knowing the attorney personally, I'd say, better listen to what he has to say, unless you want to stand in front of the judge like the other poor schmuck.

I don't care what some attorney had to say about a case that obviously hasn't happened very often. No where in the COE does it state that we must show FSBO homes to our buyers. We are still representing our buyers with their interest first by using our resources such as the MLS. Going beyond our means doesn't make sense in some cases, and this is one of them.

I do not believe it to be illegal or in violation of the COE to not show FSBO homes. If someone can prove it without one odd case, then I will consider believing it.

In our buyer agency agreement, you can exclude having to show FSBO's or homes in XYZ County etc. In the absence of that exclusion, you would have to show them (FSBO's) as part of finding a suitable property for your client.
The buyer agent’s fiduciary duties include “Obedience” to the buyer, and the buyer agency agreement should spell out your buyer’s expectations as mentioned above.

So does that mean that I as a buyer's agent would have to drive around the whole county looking for FSBO signs?

"So does that mean that I as a buyer's agent would have to drive around the whole county looking for FSBO signs?"
If that's what you agreed to do in your BAA.
Look at it this way. A buyer is interested to buy in a specific neighborhood, there are 5 MLS and 2 FSBO's for sale, how difficult is it to find out info. on the FSBO's and include or exclude those from the list?

Would it be safe to say if we looked on FSBO websites and the newspaper for FSBO ads that we have done our fiduciary duties to our clients. I have to say if we would be obligated to drive around looking for signs that I would think more agents would write that exclusion in.

This is all BS. Nobody does this and buyers know that. We are not forced to show properties that have no compensation attached to them. This makes no sense to anyone.

Well, Pikes, in my neck of the woods a lot of people are looking for a particular school district rather than "neighborhood." We are in the boonies.

My school district covers 325 square miles. How hard do you think it is to cover that entire school district looking for every last FSBO that might meet my client's needs?

And a lot of homes in this area are in gated communities, which frown on realtors trolling around looking for listings. And which also forbid the placement of signs - except perhaps in a window.

There is no way possible to know every FSBO that is available, and that's just ridiculous. I can see if there happens to be one right near some of your other listings that you know about, but to drive around looking specifically for them is absurd. The two counties I serve are HUGE. One homeowner community is actually in three school districts, it's so big.

I don't agree with the attorneys article.If it says specifically you are going to show fsbo homes than great.I know our eba doesn't.The attorney said listings,what quantifies a listing?An ad in the paper,a website,a sign plopped in the yard?When did the fsbo put the sign out?How can they prove it?The key wording is ALL properties,I would never agree to such absolute wording.

It sounds like they need to restructure your state's eba's to protect the agents and there principal brokers.

"We are not forced to show properties that have no compensation attached to them."
You are right, however, in your BAA, doesn't the buyer agree to pay you an agreed to amount in case the seller doesn't, and because of that, you are obligated to show FSBO's if asked?
How do you know a FSBO will not pay you unless you ask?
007, you really seem to have a hard time with this. It's not that difficult.

"Would it be safe to say if we looked on FSBO websites and the newspaper for FSBO ads that we have done our fiduciary duties to our clients."
I would say yes. However, I would not make it that difficult on myself, just driving around the neighborhood a buyer is interested in, will let you know if the buyer wants to look at a FSBO or not. In my experience, 99% of the time, the buyer does not want to see the FSBO house, but you have done your fiduciary duty.
I tell my buyers from the get go, if they see a FSBO, I'd be more than happy to show it to them.

"I can see if there happens to be one right near some of your other listings that you know about, but to drive around looking specifically for them is absurd."
No one is asking the agent to do the impossible. The lawsuit never implied that the agent had an obligation to drive 100's of miles in search of the illusive FSBO. They were talking within a couple of blocks or so.

The point is to be familiar with the verbiage of YOUR BAA. Ours would hold you liable for omission, unless spelled out.

We don't do that in our office. We do not charge buyers, ever.



That's a little different than hunting down FSBOs for them.

Actually, I've found around here anyway that several FSBOs I see are actually not FSBOS at all, but Exclusive Agency listings, and they have their FSBO sign up instead of the realtor sign. (I have looked up a few that I thought I'd like to try and list. LOL)

With the price of gas and the fact that everything around here is spread out by many miles (I drove 20+ miles yesterday just to go look at a piece of land to possibly list), looking on FSBO websites and online newspapers is a LOT less trouble and less costly.

I have a FSBO sign across the street from my house, and it's in the MLS (the owner told me they were going FSBO, but it's an Exclusive Agency Listing he forgot to mention).
So you'll never know, and sometimes by ignoring a FSBO sign can miss a good deal for your buyer.

Pikes,
I agree with you 100%. If you are using an EBA or BAA then you should be looking for everything that fits your clients needs. That EBA should include whatever percentage you require as a BA for compensation(Len this makes sure you get paid).

If you have 3% in your EBA then ask for 5% when you contact the FSBO seller that way you are covered for handling the entire transaction on both sides. If the FSBO seller is only willing to go the 3% then make the seller aware that he will have to hire an attorney to handle all the seller side transaction issues.
If the seller is not willing to pay a BA fee and your sellers really want the house then you still get paid for your buyers!

Pikes Peak, many agents don't use a Buyer Broker Agreement here. Therefore, we don't have a fiduciary duty to them. Even if I did have a BBA signed with compensation coming from the buyer, I still am not obligated to show FSBO properties. You are the one that seems to hard time with with this. Nobody believes you. If you can prove it without you retyping the same statement over and over, then show us the provision in the law or Code of Ethics that make this clear.

Sorry 007, this class has passed you by, end of lesson. Obviously legal precedent can be ignored in Las Vegas. Based on the fact that our Vegas Branch office has several agents there charged for criminal real estate dealings, I can understand where you are coming from.
Make it a great day!

[quote=Perky_REALTOR]

How do you pull THAT off? Just roll the commission into the offered price? In that case... they are paying you. If they could buy the home for $200k unrepresented but you offer $206k with a 3% commission to you, how is that not the buyer paying your commission?

Or am I missing something here? :-)

-jeff

Pikes Peak,

Again, show everyone what you're talking about! You keep talking about laws but you don't show anything to back it up.

On our HUD statements, the commission is always deducted from the seller's side. While the buyer technically brings the cash to the table, our commission shows up as a debit on the seller's side.

At least, that's how our particular office operates. In the year or so that I've been there, we have not sold anything to buyers from unrepresented sellers.

He already posted a link backing what he said. Here it is again.
http://www.frascona.com/resource/oef701buyer.htm

Ashley,

You do realize that the website Pikes Peak is posting links to a law firm's case. It is not a legal document or an actual law website for Realtors. Just because something like this happened and someone wrote about it, it doesn't mean that it is exactly what the law says. Find the actual law and then come back with facts.

Need to add this: my office has entered into a short term agreement with sellers in the past, if there was a buyer who might be interested in a house that is not listed with anyone...some sort of open listing agreement that expired after 60 days or something.

I think the site makes it clear that they are a law firm. But case law is based on previous cases. That is a summary of a previous case and it's ruling. I for one would rather take a few minutes looking for signs in the neighborhood where my buyer is going to write an offer then spend it talking with a judge. Or at the very least looking in the Sunday paper for FSBO's. Personally I don't like talking to judges unless they are my client and I will take steps to make sure I am not doing so.

"It is not a legal document or an actual law website for Realtors. Just because something like this happened and someone wrote about it, it doesn't mean that it is exactly what the law says. Find the actual law and then come back with facts."

Who do you think is writing our State real estate laws?
Who is teaching the mandatory real estate classes here?
Who writes the monthly legal section in our state RE magazine etc. etc. etc.?

http://www.arello.com/SrchDetail.cfm?id=%28%29%3D3K%24%25%2EH0J%3C%20%0A

http://www.frascona.com/resource/index1.htm

Ok, I read the article, and no I wont be re-considering my statement.

I dont give a crap what your friend has to say. Me not driving around the county looking for FSBO's does not violate the COE and is perfectly legal. I think you are confused.

Besides driving around all day looking for these FSBO's, how do you want me to find them? FSBO websites? There are lots of them. What if I dont search of one site out of dozens, and a home is listed on that and my buyers miss out on it? Am I responsible? No! There is no definative way for finding FSBO in a large area. I tell my buyers to use their due diligence and drive around the neighborhood during the day and night. And if they come across a FSBO and want info on it, I get it for them. Other than that, I dont go out of my way scouring for FSBO's.

And since you quoted my name and the office i work for, are you trying to tell me something? You gonna call my broker on me? Go right ahead! While you're at it, contact the Dept. of State on me like that other shmuck did....it gave us a good laugh.
Lawyers are manipulators, and I am sure he slithered through enough stuff to try to pin something on someone. That is what they get paid for. He did it. Good for him. That buyer's agent got suckered in that article got suckered. nothing more, nothing less. Sucks to be them.

The only thing that article backs is the attorney's self marketing. He shows that they dupped some agent out of their commission and nothing else.

ok joey, you sit in the back row, until you read and comprehend my posts, you'll have to stay there.
BTW, the attorney is a REALTOR.

So what if the attorney is a Realtor. Many attorneys have their real estate license. It means nothing. Think about what we're saying here.

If you drive around looking for FSBO signs for your buyer, but you miss one. Imagine if that is the one that you later find out that your buyer has an interest on now after you close on a home that was listed in the MLS. Did you not do your job because you missed that one specific FSBO? Did you not hold up to your fiduciary duty to your buyer? THIS MAKES NO SENSE! How can anyone look for something, not find it, then get in trouble because they missed it.

Same thing about browsing the newspaper, or the internet on FSBO sites, or every real estate magazine out there. There is no way you are responsible for doing all that work to try and find FSBO's.

Like I said before, let's see a provision in the Code of Ethics that states that you are responsible for finding FSBO's in addition to the local MLS for your buyer.

One more thing. How much of a fiduciary duty do you have to your buyer without them signing an EBA or a Duties Owed form? Technically, they are not your client until then. Therefore, no fiduciary duty is owed. Thank you, please drive through.

Len,
If I`m not mistaken doesn`t Vegas have a Limited Rep agreement as well?

I did comprehend your posts. Did you understand mine? Sometimes people tell me they are hard to understand. I thought it was pretty clear.
That attorney being a REALTOR means nothing to me.
Regardless, whatever I said in my post, you felt the need to quote my info for whatever delusional reason. There is nothing unethical or illegal about the statement I made earlier.

Sit in the back row? What is that supposed to mean? i am right here.

Please play again.

Pikes,
you still never pointed out (in my statement) what was wrong. You only place a link in your response.

The concepts of common law and precedent date back to Magna Carta and predate our constitution.

Unless you went to High School and College in Louisiana exclusively you should know this.

I think we need to start up a debate team,we would kill the competition!Now only if we could beat down buyers and sellers this good we would all be millionares!LOL

super realtor that is funny! Should we start picking teams now?

super realtor, you are ready for front row.

Joey, why are you trying to play attorney, you are failing miserably. You are not ready to move from the back row.

i plead the 5th!(shrug)

Well, I'm just wondering how much is considered "enough" when searching for FSBO's for buyers. I'm not doubting that some moron will take an agent to court over this again...in a lawsuit happy world like ours, it seems like everyone is looking for someone to blame for something and get money out of 'em for it.

Trying to play attorney? How so? Does anyone else here think I am trying to play attorney.

Get your head out of your [censored].

I've no doubt either that someone will sue for some agent not checking the local Pennysaver closely enough for FSBO's.

Personally I don't even look for them b/c they are not part of our cooperating broker network.

But then I am a seller's agent anyway.

I can't imagine honestly why anyone would want to tangle w/a FSBO. My experiences w/them in the past has been that they are generally quite delusional about value (esp in this market) & already decided they don't like agents.

This thread is so dumb, but it's funny as hell. Who the hell goes around looking for FSBO's to bring to their buyers? Some of you can say as much as you want, but I can guarantee that none of you use all means necessary to search for FSBO's that might meet your buyer's criteria. I rest my case.

You are right. Everyone wants to blame everyone else.
Wahh WaHHHHHH We didn't get that house. WaHHHHHHH
It's your fault you didnt show us every house in the county. WaHHHHH
Get real.
I can't believe that attorney won that case...since it is BS. That is probably why they posted an article about it. Cause it is so ridiculous.

I don't think you were trying to play attorney, Joey.

I do think though that a valid point has been made for precedence in litigation...

but the original question I believe was if it is a current law...because something has precedence doesn't make it a law right now. it just lays the groundwork for more similar lawsuit decisions which could eventually become law.

True story: a rookie agent in my former office back when we actually had buyers & needed inventory got the idea to call FSBO's. With my then broker's blessing (DNC? What DNC? What us worry?). So she called one & snagged 3 listings.

All of which were incredible crap.

Rural hi desert dirt out in the middle of nowhere, not accessible w/o 4WD & no chance of getting water to the property.


But wait.

It gets better.

During the feeding frenzy of '05 she actually got an offer on a piece of dirt (actually sand) w/no water.

Seller has a fit b/c it's too low.

Mind you, buyer is rock solid & has proof of funds to close, all cash.

Offer dies. Buyer buys good dirt.

He strings rookie along w/the promise of getting the listing on a rental house also in a yucky area.

Can you guess the rest?

WaHHHHHHH!

Yeah, and before we know it, we will have to ask neighbors of clients if it is ok to place For Sale signs in our clients front yard.

On the topic of common law/precedent. Here in CA we are a statutory jurisdiction meaning our courts look to statutes, not prior case law. Tho they will look at case law if necessary to interpret a statute but pretty much anything to do w/real estate/business is codified.

At the appellate level, acourse case law becomes important. But in your day to day real estate matter, it's going to arbitration anyway (per standard CAR forms) & statute will be the controlling authority.

"...but I can guarantee that none of you use all means necessary to search for FSBO's that might meet your buyer's criteria."
Wow, I hear an echo (or is it what I said?).
Ready to move up toward the front row.

LOL...This is funny!
I'm no lawyer, got straight A's in legal aspects of real estate?

I can believe one "so call attorney" went up against another "so call attorney" that fell asleep in court that day and won!
That was a frivilous case.

This doesn't mean that the loser wouldn't win in the Appellate Court!

You aren't obligated to show anything or make any money in real estate....No less hunt down FSBO's. Even if you don't make a stinking dime! Being involved is a risk.
An agents lack of selling skills, sorting out the classifieds aren't real estate law!

You are governed by The Real Estate Laws. If a court makes an error, without the proper guidance of the defendants attorney. I'd sue the attorney!! On the same grounds that I got sued!!

Next to sticking my head in an oven, I wouldn't approach a greedy FSBO unless I had it in writing and notarized! They are ungrateful ingrates.

LOL

i want to thank all of the "lawyers" on here for giving their legal advise. i have a parking ticket i need to get out of, can anyone here represent me in that case?

"You aren't obligated to show anything or make any money in real estate....No less hunt down FSBO's. Even if you don't make a stinking dime! Being involved is a risk.
An agents lack of selling skills, sorting out the classifieds aren't real estate law!"
How true.
An agent in my office is listing 15-20 FSBO's a year, so whatever one might want to call them, they can be a wonderful source of income, especially if they are motivated to sell.

An agent in my office is listing 15-20 FSBO's a year, so whatever one might want to call them, they can be a wonderful source of income, especially if they are motivated to sell.


you are dead on.

i have 3 active, competitivley priced fsbo's that will make me about 30k. i am not complaining about fsbo's. if people dont want to talk to them, great for me and other agents who will go speak with them. you just have to know what to say and how to say it. i have to call one on friday to set up an appointment for a listing presentation based on the information that i gave them. hate a fsbo all you want, they are there; either make money with them, or loose it!

"i have a parking ticket i need to get out of, can anyone here represent me in that case?"
No, but the same guys that know real estate law know about speeding tickets in Colorado. Those guys are good.
http://www.frascona.com/resource/dlc292st.htm

Dealing with a FSBO takes a certain type of personality.
I don't have.
I have come to this conclusion with good reason.
I once owned a FSBOonline.com website!
Thinking that I would get good leads, right. Wrong.
Agents all over the country pounced on the FSBO's

Then there was the crazy one that abused his wife.
I literally had to call the Folsom Police Dept on that nut.
He would call me at all hours of the day and night!

You can have all of them. Send me your numbers. When I pass a sign, I'll send it to you. (for a small referral of course)

I think the point of the link that pikes peak is posting that we all are missing is not that the agent didn't show the FSBO but the agent didn't use the FSBO's price when helping the buyer's structure their offer. I think if the agent had done that even if they never showed the FSBO the case would have had a different outcome. Of course I could still be in the back row.

you dont need a lawyer to get out of a parking ticket. you can represent yourself. do your homework. it works.

Boy, this discussion has certainly got off track.

Let's analyze Pikes Peak's argument again:

*Does the Code of Ethics require agents to show buyer clients For-Sale-By-Owners?*

No. The COE only requires that an agent show loyalty to, preserve the confidentiality of, and treat honestly their buyer clients. No requirement is imposed to show FSBOs.


*Does having an Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreement trigger an obligation to show your buyer FSBOs?*

Here, Pikes Peak references a link to a well-respected Colorado law firm web site with an article talking about a case where a judge, in mediation, indicated that the agent should have shown or at least considered a FSBO close to the home the buyers purchased.

A couple key points:

* This was mediation. It was not a court decision. During mediation, the hired judge (usually retired) will pressure both parties in order to push a settlement. The most common technique is to tell both parties that their position is weak.

* Here, the fact pattern was driven by the fact that the FSBO was offering their property below market, thus creating an exceptional deal. That is a rarity. Most FSBOs are ABOVE MARKET.

* Most state buyer rep. agreements specify that the duty of the agent is to excercise due diligence. After reviewing the realtor.org database, I don't believe their is a single court case interpreting that requirement as imposing a duty to show the buyers every property in a geographic area.

* More generally, I am unable to find cases where a buyer's agent has been held responsible for not showing particular homes in the mls. If a duty to show FSBOs existed, there would be an even stronger requirement to show particular listed properties. Why? I would suggest that the courts consider the choice of properties to show more of an art than a science.


My bottom line is still the same: An agent does not have a duty to show FSBO properties.

Here`s the real question what article inside the COE would pretain to our responsibility in showing a LR listing of a FSBO?
I believe that the COE is quite clear when it comes to defining our roles as Realtors.

Technically, I don't believe we even have a fiduciary duty to a buyer UNLESS we have some sort of written form with signatures.

Like I said before, there is no current law that states that we must show FSBO's to our buyers. Even in the article mentioned, what if the seller next door didn't even have a FSBO sign in the yard? How was the agent supposed to know the home was up for sale in order to use it as a comparable?

Pikes Peak, you will just have to admit that you are wrong in this matter and there is no current law for this issue.

"Let's analyze Pikes Peak's argument again:

*Does the Code of Ethics require agents to show buyer clients For-Sale-By-Owners?*

No. The COE only requires that an agent show loyalty to, preserve the confidentiality of, and treat honestly their buyer clients. No requirement is imposed to show FSBOs."

Putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it's in the COE? It's in our EBA/BAA agreement and part of the duties to a buyer.

"My bottom line is still the same: An agent does not have a duty to show FSBO properties."

How familiar are you with our EBA/BAA?. As I suggested, read yours and become familiar with it's verbiage to preclude anything like the case mentioned.

"Technically, I don't believe we even have a fiduciary duty to a buyer UNLESS we have some sort of written form with signatures."
I was told no written EBA/BAA required in Oregon & Washington. Would not work where I am, it's required.


p.s. I'm not an attorney, and when someone of that stature in our state says to cya, I cya. As simple as that. Maybe that's why I've never had a problem in RE in my almost 17 years.

Anyhow, I probably wont be back today, had a rough night with my min. Schnauzer of 13 years, who's had cancer for 2 years, got to take him to the vet. cross your fingers and hope for the best.
Make it a great day!

Pikes, I'm sorry about your dog. I used to have a mini Schnauzer and I loved her very much. a wonderful companion and she was a delight in my life. I still miss her, four years later. I hope all goes well with yours.

Wow, glad I read this post. It certainly explains why the buyer's agents we've considered working with in the past consistently saw fit to waste our time by showing us properties that fit few if any of our criteria while hemming and hawing about showing FSBO properties.
Sure it may not breach the code of ethics, but it does demonstrate a level of greed and arrogance that isn't really appropriate for the current environment. But who am I to tell you how to run your business or conduct customer service?

Try being a buyer's agent in our market with the following fsbo website and see how many buyers you lose if you aren't willing to show fsbo's. I recommend you pray this kind of site doesn't come to your market.

http://www.qcfsbo.com

I am not unwilling to SHOW FSBO's. I am perfectly willing to do so. I am not willing to hunt all over creation to find them, trying to find them all is impossible.

Pikes, many areas do not require an EBA. If there is no EBA or Duties Owed form signed, then there is no fiduciary duty to the buyer. Even if an EBA is signed, not all of them state that you must go looking for FSBO's.

Isn't that what this thread is about? Some of you are saying that it is required to go out of your way to look for FSBO homes when it is not REQUIRED!

Yes, we like to waste your time as the buyer in addition to wasting our own time looking for homes that do not fit your criteria. Are you serious? We're not saying that we wouldn't deal with a FSBO if our buyers asked us to help with a specific one, but why should we be forced to search for something that does not have a central database? It doesn't make any sense to do so. The MLS is a central database of homes listed with cooperating real estate agents. Key word = cooperating! Many FSBO sellers make it very clear that they will not cooperate with real estate agents. For you to say that it demonstrates a level of greed and arrogance is just way out of line. Buyers that work their real estate agent to death with unreasonable requests is a strong showing of greed and arrogance. Some of us work extremely hard for our clients without having to hunt down FSBO homes. There are plenty of choices out there in the MLS. Buyers just need to be more reasonable with pricing and home sizes. If you want to search for FSBO's, then go hunt for them yourselves without hiring a Realtor. Just to point it out, buyers usually get a FREE service when hiring a Realtor to help them look for homes. I don't see how a buyer can complain about this. Unbelievable.

Sadly, it's not unbelievable.

It seems sellers expect realtors to work for next to nothing, and buyers expect realtors to work for them for nothing, going on any number of wild goose chases, wasting gas, time, and energy.

and we are arrogant and greedy because we want to earn our living?

WEll that certainly is a nice way to introduce yourself. Okay, I have no problem showing FSBOs to my buyers. I live in a huge metropolis,. How do I find a FSBO that matches there criteria? do I need to find ALL of the FSBOS that match there criteria? some of these folks hang a sign in the yard and thats it. do I need to drive the streets and look for them?
I have no problem showing FSBOS, but some of what I am reading on this thread is ridiculous.

Thanks for your best wishes for our min. Schnauzer Max.
It's pancreatitis, not the lymphoma cancer he’s had. They x-rayed, took blood, gave him drip and medication and will keep him for observation until tomorrow or Friday. He can’t keep food and liquids down and his hind legs were dragging and they thought he might have a tumor on the spine, luckily he does not. Anyhow, we are happy not having to make any other major decisions about him right now.

As to FSBO’s, don’t go overboard looking for them. If there happens to be one in the area, just ask your buyer if they are interested in seeing it and move on.
To those of you who absolutely refuse to show FSBO’s, I’d suggest to let your buyer know in advance.

There seems to be several issues at work here.

1st..in the case just sighted, the FSBO in question was geographically very close to the property that was sold - in the same subdivision.

2nd, the FSBO home was the same MODEL as the home actually sold.

If the seller of the FSBO had so much as a yard sign out or any kind of real advertising out there, it would be difficult for the buyer's agent NOT to know that there was an appropriate FSBO available.

When I am working with a buyer in a given subdivision or neighborhood, I look around and see what the competition is. FSBO and otherwise. If I have an EBA, I make sure that my buyer is aware of EVERYTHING in that neighborhood. But I don't comb the entire COUNTY for similar homes. Most of the time, fortunately, my buyers are interested in specific neighborhoods only.

I am wondering whether or not people are getting off track and comparing apples and oranges. Something that geographically close to the home that was sold, with the same floor plan is rather a unique situation in which the agent really SHOULD have been aware that the FSBO existed. The only reason the agent might not know about it would be if the FSBO was not doing ANY promotion and relying on "word of mouth" - in which case I would wonder how the law could hold the agent responsible.

Maybe I am missing something, but the scope of this scenario appears more limited then the interpretation I am seeing in the comments.

WOW SW! You get to sit in the front row AND get a Gold Star.

I would say SW summed up what some of use had been trying to say. SW just did a very nice job of it.

I concur. Reading is a powerful tool in the learning process.

How do you figure? The current environment is that there are plenty of homes for sale, and we have systems and organizations in place that we use (which we pay for) to supply use info on these properties for sale. If these homes were in the MLS, I would show them. If they are not in the MLS, I dont bother unless my buyers inquire about it. Same as if they come across a home on the MLS, an open house, newpaper, etc...

Joey what if they are listed with a limited service company that just places it in the MLS? You still contact the owner for showings, and you present the offer directly to the owner? Would you still show it then? If your area doesn't have these kinds of listings just pretend they do. Would you show it then. Even though they are a FSBO but are now in the MLS?

I just researched this not long ago, if you check the NAR web site it gives pretty clear guidelines for individual boards to require them to allow limited service listings & make a category for that. The MLS's I belong to have that option.

Basically NAR's position seems to be that having different levels of service benefits the consumer.

Personally if I take a limited service listing (and in this market that is rather appealing), I would spell out clearly in the LA exactly what the seller is going to get, ie who does the showings, etc.

We can contract it w/our sellers if we so desire.

I'm not Joey, but I would show those houses. I have no problem as long as I get paid.

So is everyone's problem with FSBO's not the FSBO per se but not having anything in writing that we will be paid? Or the having to locate them? Or is it something else? All of the above?

Perky,
If you use an EBA that says the buyers agree to pay X percentage commission you have no fear of not being paid. Should the seller not sign a contract with you it is a simple matter for your clients to make their offer and include in the offer that the seller agrees to pay X percentage commission to the buyers agent at closing. Then it is in the sellers hands to either accept the offer or reject the offer. In most cases if the price is right the seller will agree to pay the buyers agent commission.

Why do you have it in your head that it is a "bad" thing for the buyer to possibly pay a commission. Over the last few years I have had several buyers that have had to cover between .5% and 1.5% that was not covered by the co-op fee. They were aware of this from the very beginning and the concessions I helped them negotiate more than made up for the extra money needed to close.

Yes. If you read my previous post, I stated "if these homes were in the MLS, I would show them." Which I have shown FSBO and limited service company's listings. That is not the point. The point is, I dont hunt for FSBO specifically and I am not obligated by any law or the COE to do so.

[/quote]

Paul,
I agree with this, but what happens in the siuation where you find a potential buyer who will only sign the EBA says "Buyer to pay __0_% if....." Sometimes buyers wont sign it if it says they will have to pay.
Of course you have more experience than me. Maybe I need to negotiate the EBA better with some buyers. Our EBA states "Buyer to pay___% or to be included in the agreement of sale for seller to pay commission. I figured putting 0% would be OK. It would just be paid by seller. I would just make the cooperating broker comensation letter part of the agreement of sale.

I do my best to give each property a fair shake; I don't ever look at the co-op in an MLS listing until I've already decided yay or nay on whether it warrents letting one of my clients know about it. But I will say, again, that in my limited experience FSBO's are an absolute PAIN, they tend to be overpriced, and if they do lower themselves to involve a Realtor® then it's like they assume that the Realtor® is now there to do ALL the work. I mean, they are getting a commission, right? It's incredibly frustrating.

So I avoid them. If I happen to notice one, I'll pass it on to my (non-EBA, don't use 'em) buyer(s), or if they want to look at one we of course do so. But it's pretty much impossible to even begin to try and figure out all the FSBO's, and I am severely dis-incentivized to do so. It means more work, more stress, probably more money for my buyers because they'll have to pay the commission probably, or part of it, and if that happens I can only really insist on the lower of the two commissions common around here, 2.5%.

So if there's a $350k FSBO that I have to deal with all that and scrape and beg to get paid 2.5%, verses a $350k MLS listing that pops up on my computer, has an agent on the other side to handle their share of the work and shield me from the emotions of their client, AND it's a 3% co-op right there in writing from the get-go.... well... it's not hard to see how I'd lean.

Ultimatly, of course, it comes down to what my clients want. We got in pretty deep with one FSBo that turned out to have major foundation issues. the woman had bought it FSBO herself (unrepresented), had failed to do her due diligence, and was now trying to pawn off the problem on someone else who was unrepresented and wouldn't do their inspections. She was condescending and rude to me and once my walk-around saw the problem, she was like, oh well... guess YOU guys won't be buying this home. Damn right!

-jeff

Yup, Jeff. You said it well.

[/quote]

Paul,
I agree with this, but what happens in the siuation where you find a potential buyer who will only sign the EBA says "Buyer to pay __0_% if....." Sometimes buyers wont sign it if it says they will have to pay.
Of course you have more experience than me. Maybe I need to negotiate the EBA better with some buyers. Our EBA states "Buyer to pay___% or to be included in the agreement of sale for seller to pay commission. I figured putting 0% would be OK. It would just be paid by seller. I would just make the cooperating broker comensation letter part of the agreement of sale. [/quote]

I think are trading the unpleasantness of getting them to sign that EBA with 2.5% (or whatever) written in there, for the larger unpleasantness of explaining after they found their dream home, and it's a FSBO, that you need to add $6000 to your offer so that you get paid...

It's better to just get it over with at the table when the EBA is signed.

That said, *I've* never used one, so I'm sure it's a tense moment sometimes explaining that part of the EBA!

-jeff

I never have had a problem explaining that part of an EBA to a client before. It just doesn't seem to be an issue for me. But then I tend to find my clients are as concerned about me and my money as I am theirs. I have clients insist that I receive xyz commission and sellers telling me not to do certain advertising after realizing it was coming out of my pocket and not the companies.

Paul,
I agree with this, but what happens in the siuation where you find a potential buyer who will only sign the EBA says "Buyer to pay __0_% if....." Sometimes buyers wont sign it if it says they will have to pay.
Of course you have more experience than me. Maybe I need to negotiate the EBA better with some buyers. Our EBA states "Buyer to pay___% or to be included in the agreement of sale for seller to pay commission. I figured putting 0% would be OK. It would just be paid by seller. I would just make the cooperating broker comensation letter part of the agreement of sale. [/quote]

I think are trading the unpleasantness of getting them to sign that EBA with 2.5% (or whatever) written in there, for the larger unpleasantness of explaining after they found their dream home, and it's a FSBO, that you need to add $6000 to your offer so that you get paid...

It's better to just get it over with at the table when the EBA is signed.

That said, *I've* never used one, so I'm sure it's a tense moment sometimes explaining that part of the EBA!

-jeff [/quote]

Well, I have a close friend whos mother used to be a RE agent, who advised her son on this topic and for him not to agree to anything in an EBA that would hold him liable for paying me a commission. Which I think is OK if it is written for the seller to pay the commission. We are looking for homes in the MLS who state the commission and can write it into the agreement of sale for the Cooperating Broker Compensation letter to be part of the agreement of sale. Am I wrong by putting in 0% to be paid by buyer?

I have used an EBA for many years and 100% of them sign it (maybe one slipped by as a Transaction Broker). I spell out that I will be paid a 3% minimum, or as offered in the MLS or either by a FSBO, or Builder, but no less than 3%.
Buyers understand that I need to get paid (just thinking of my sick dogs vets bill), and I have no problem having them sign the EBA.
I never had a buyer pay any part of my commission, however, they understand (I hope), that they might have to pay me if the seller (FSBO) refuses.
It really is not that difficult to use, and done in many states quite successfully.

If a buyer was to refuse to sign an EBA I would have have them sign a Transaction Broker Agreement which still assures me getting paid without the agency/fiduciary obligations.
The point is, I do not work for free and every buyer wants me to get paid, or I walk.

What if the seller is not a FSBO though?
You said that a buyer has never paid part of your commission; my mentor said the same thing a while back. I understand protecting our commission, but if the home is listed with a broker, doesnt the commission stated in the MLS sheet and getting a cooperating Broker Compensation Letter protect us?

"...that I will be paid a 3% minimum, or as offered in the MLS"

If less than 3% is offered in the MLS, the EBA assures the minimum I will be paid.

p.s. the percentage or $ amount used in the statement above, are examples only, and gold, silver, euros or any other valuables can be substituted in it's place if agreed to by all parties in advance.
(New disclaimer, HA!)