In NC there is a real estate license law that says we have to have a buyer agency agreement signed.

If we don't have one signed but walk, talk and quack like a buyer's agent we not only break that law but we have become a buyer's agent through our actions.

Could have - Would have - SHOULD HAVE

Some jurisdiction may try to water down the common law of agency which is reputed to be over 300 hundred years old and imported from England. In some jurisdiction, real estate organization strongly opposed all the fiduciary obligation place upon an agent, under the law of Agency as it increased the agents liability and interfered with their income earning potential.

In our jurisdiction, the opinion of the courts was that “we do not abide by what real agents may think or want or what their organizations may suggest, or the term of reference they may choose to use etc. just as long as they obey the letter of the law.” (Agency law)

Some Real Estate organizations, who had failed to see the "writing on the wall" are still trying to play catch-up. Today, there are some agents representing buyers, who without any special knowledge or training fail to relize the liability involved.

Change is enviable, who can remember the anger generated when Re/Max entered the scene with revolutionary commission splits or the opposition to “part timers” or the introduction of “independent contractors” and Buyer’s agents, and those who sat back and said "it will never happen or it won't last" etc. none of these past changes were voluntary, and were originally brought about through the operation of law, despite the efforts of those real estate organizations that were opposed to change.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .

"I'm also unfamiliar with the ongoing litigation you're referring to. Is it California litigation?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/22agent.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Pike your link doesn't work. Given its the NYT I doubt its Cali litigation.

"Feeling Misled on Home Price, Buyers Sue Agent

CARLSBAD, Calif. — Marty Ummel feels she paid too much for her house. So do millions of other people who bought at the peak of the housing boom."

It works for me. Those are the headlines.
If it doesn't work for you, google should help, or this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22838905#22838905

Pike, I doubt seriously that a reasonable person would not know about a home selling for $100,000 less in an area of interest. These idiots are looking to shift blame. Couldn't happen to a nicer couple.

I'd cross complaint those bastards and own two houses in Carlsbad when it was all said and done. With respect to their appearance on national telivision I would make their decision to appear in public very unfortunate. I'd also find their retirement or any other assets to end the trail they are blazing.

"Pike, I doubt seriously that a reasonable person would not know about a home selling for $100,000 less in an area of interest. These idiots are looking to shift blame. Couldn't happen to a nicer couple."

You don't think it's the buyers agent fiduciary duty to show less expensive, identical homes to their buyer in the same neighborhood?
Anyhow, this can be a long discussion, especially not knowing all the facts, and a judge is going to decide what the law says about that.

They're having a huge party over this on the appraiser's board. People w/a lot of free time & an odd sense of superiority.

In CA we have a Market Advisory disclosure buyers sign. I don't know the facts in this one either but it is scary to think that failing to show 1 listing out of 52 actives in an area could be actionable.

Another reason I quit representing buyers a long time ago.

Did any of those lower priced units actually sell for those lower prices or were they fishing? Could the other units have been listed incorrectly in the MLS (we all know how that goes)? Or had/didn't have some feature buyers wanted/hated?

If the agent intentionally misled, that is one thing. But if the issue becomes does buyer's agent have an absolute responsiblity to show each & every listing that is listed in buyer's price range, well that is a scary outcome.

"If the agent intentionally misled, that is one thing. But if the issue becomes does buyer's agent have an absolute responsiblity to show each & every listing that is listed in buyer's price range, well that is a scary outcome."

Only if those listings meet the buyer's needs/parameters and they want to see them. The agent has a choice to fire the buyer if the agent thinks they have become unreasonable.

Pike I looked at the buyer in the video clip you sent me. I've managed people an resources for decades. This woman is being less than candid. her husband is going along for the ride because he doesn't want to stand up to her or he has more money than common decency. In either case I'd never give in this kind of mean spirited attempt to shift blame.

Let me ask you this directly Pike, who do you know that could spend a $1.3Mil on a house who isn't also sufficiently capable of picking up a flyer from a house 3 doors down from a house they were interested in purchasing?

Pike who do you know that doesn't have internet access and doesn't look at available information including comparable sales information available from a number of free sites?

Pike if you're telling me the woman on that video, the buyer in this case doesn't yahoo or internet but she buys $1.3 Mil homes I have a slightly used bridge in the San Francisco bay to sell you at a good price. Oh, an Pike, no checks. You know you REALAAATUURS can't be trusted.

The woman is lying and I wouldn't have a bench trial I'd have a jury trial because jurors in socal would give me punitive damages because of her malicious intent in bringing a frivilous claim.

Here is what a Certified General Appraiser had to say about this:

FYI,

I know this area reasonably well as I was doing a lot of field reviews there during this time frame.

The Ummel's property is a subdivision home. I looked this property up last week. There was an apparent model match located on the same street that sold for $175k less 3 months prior, and another model match that was in escrow and eventually closed on the same day as the Ummels' sale for $105k less; and that property had a nice pool/spa combo that the Ummel's property lacked. FYI, that property had been listed with a range listing that topped out only $5k more than the sale price. It was listed prior to the contract date reported for the Ummel's home. It's all in the MLS.

There were other sales data in that subdivision and the surrounding areas that appear to me to reflect the trends demonstrated by these other two properties. We're definitely not talking about an agent accidentally overlooking 1 listing out of 50 or anything like that. The Ummels would have had to drive past the active listing 3 doors down to get to this property when they were looking at it.

If I had reviewed an appraisal on this property I definitely would expect an appraiser to address both sales in the report, and they'd better have a really good reason for significantly exceeding the list price on the model match with the pool.

The facts of the case and who was supposed to do what will come out at trial. Or maybe not. I suppose it depends if there will be a settlement.

And some more info:
Couple, Feeling They've Been Wronged, Picket Re/Max

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/02/20/housing/939picket021207.txt

The appraiser in this deal already settled with the buyers.

"The appraiser in this deal already settled with the buyers."

I know, do you know for how much?

The Ummel’s are in the process of settling suits with both Contento and Horizon Pacific Financial Inc., the mortgage brokerage Little was affiliated with when he made their loan.

The hearing for that settlement, which seeks $20,000 from those two co-defendants, is scheduled for Feb. 23.

The appraiser in the "Ummel" case would make a good plaintiff witness against the defendents, if he testifies that he was under "undue influence" from the agent to bring in a high appraisal.

The court date, is set for July 13, 2008 according to Jeffery Hogue, the Ummel's lawyer and I would not be surprised, if this case, like a lot of other civil lawsuits will be settled out-of-court by the insurance company in order to avoid a court ruling that would establish a legal precedent and encourage similar lawsuits.

But, if it is discovered that there was collusion between the agent who owned the property and the buyer's agent, that may have involved fraudulent misrepresentation, then most insurance companies have a exclusionary clause allowing them to deny coverage in the event of criminal charges being filed, and the defendents are then on their own.

b] Important Notice:[/b] This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .

I wouldn't give a damn what my E&O carrier had to say. Before I paid my deductible I'd file a cross complaint. The appraiser was employed by the lender. If the appraiser wanted to testify I'd make sure his testimony was at an administrative hearing to take his license.

Pike, let me say it again. I looked at the video you sent me. The woman is a liar and that would show in 4 hours of aggressive cross before a socal jury. What jury member would be sympathetic to this kind of person with adequate direct examination?