Dual agency disclosures fail homebuyers

A look at some of the worst-offending states

Inman News®

Flickr photo courtesy of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonofgroucho/3154732628/sizes/l/in/photostream/">Son of Groucho</a>.Flickr photo courtesy of Son of Groucho.

Although some states ban the practice, called dual agency, in which the same real estate broker represents the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction, most states have settled for a kind of disclosure Band-Aid that doesn't work well for consumers.

It's a little like the warnings on cigarette packets about the dangers of tobacco that really don't make much difference to those who really want to smoke.

I'm told that more states used to ban dual agency, but real estate associations lobbied hard for the passage of regulations that permit this "double-ending" as it is also referred to, in some form. So what we have ended up with is a kind of cigarette packet of regulations: "Yes, you can have dual agency (or some variation of it), but here's your warning" -- which is most often ignored.

The way it now works in some states: An agent or broker has to reveal to the homebuyer the possible ways that the buyer will be represented, including dual agency. The buyer signs a disclosure statement and everyone pushes on.

The problem is -- and all real estate agents understand this -- when consumers find a house they want to buy, they become so emotionally involved in the purchase that they barely listen to the legalities because they are focused only on two things: price and purchase.

Besides, they may end up signing many disclosure documents, so no matter what the documents say, it all gets lost in the shuffle of papers.

"A consumer will do much more due diligence and much more research buying a car, which is 1/20 the value and guaranteed to depreciate compared to a property," said Tim Walters, a principal with The Home Buyers in Minneapolis. "They do much more research on car buying than on who will represent them in buying a home and what is the best way to purchase a house."

Secondly, even if a consumer does, perchance, look at the disclosure, the wording is often so obtuse it's really hard to discern the point being made.

Walters sent me the Minnesota disclosure, which begins: "Minnesota law requires that early in any relationship real estate brokers or salespersons discuss with consumers what type of agency representation or relationship they desire." I'm not sure how to interpret the meaning of "early," here, and the wording seems vague.

Walters said that in Minnesota disclosure is to be discussed at initial contact, though in practice that may not be the norm.

"The agency agreement is a legal-sized document of a page and a half and it is really remarkable how it is skimmed over," he said. "You don't go over it in detail, because it even says on the document that this is not a contract, just a disclosure."

In Arizona, N. Mark Kramoltz, an attorney and real estate broker, abhors dual agency, calling it a "fiction" invented by the real estate industry to double-dip, or win commission for both sides of a sale.

"This is the biggest purchase of people's (lives) and they deserve to have the best representation, the utmost loyalty and confidentiality, and dual agency automatically undercuts that," he said.

Kramoltz is not a fan of Arizona's disclosure form, which was created by the state Realtor association. "It says if there is going to be dual agency, then both the buyer and seller have to consent, but it doesn't mean informed consent -- only that they have to sign a document. The form gives weak notice that dual agency is not in the best interest of buyer and seller."

Kramoltz said many agents now represent themselves as buyer's agents, but will also take listings.

New Jersey requires disclosure at first significant contact, said Paul Howard of www.njhomebuyer.com and a member of the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents.

The big loophole in New Jersey is that brokers can advertise as being buyer's agents, but they work for large companies that have listings.

The New Jersey disclosure statement, titled, "Real Estate Relationships," does state that "to work as a dual agent, a firm must first obtain the informed written consent of the buyer and the seller," but people who want to be dual agents minimize the effect of it, said Howard.

"I was in an online discussion and an agent commented that she explains the advantages of dual agency to her clients," Howard said. "My reply was, 'The state law requires that you tell what the disadvantages are.' "

The problem is a lack of proper disclosure, said John Sullivan, vice president of Buyer's Edge Co. Inc. in Silver Spring, Md. "If consumers were more aware of their choices, there wouldn't be a problem with dual agency, because no one in their right mind would do it."

Sullivan works in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.

"The D.C.-area disclosure is probably the worst in the nation," he said. "It says nothing more than the dual agent represents the buyer and seller. Virginia says much the same thing, with the addition that you might be entitled to other rights under the law, so here's a citation -- go look it up. Maryland's law is so confounded it actually permits an agent working for a brokerage to perform functions that a broker cannot perform."

As with other states, in Maryland and Washington, D.C., disclosures are to be made at the first scheduled meeting, which is always a problem. As the National Association of Realtors' studies in the first decade of this century show, only about 30-35 percent of homebuyers received disclosure information in the first meeting, and as many as 22 percent didn't received any disclosure at all.

Even before the recession, buyer representation lawsuits started to multiply significantly, according to a legal scan by NAR.

"State real estate associations lobbied for the passage of laws permitting dual agency," said Bruce Hahn, president of the American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance. "But, it was short-sighted on their part because of all the problems that have (arisen), bad publicity, and damage done to the profession's reputation."

Steve Bergsman is a freelance writer in Arizona and author of several books. His latest book, "After the Fall: Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade," has been ranked as a top-selling real estate investment book for the Amazon Kindle e-reader.

Contact Steve Bergsman:
Email Email Letter to the Editor Letter to the Editor
Share with REmessenger

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Derek Eisenberg on July 15, 2011 - 3:29pm.

There is no reason not to allow dual agency when buyer's agents typically work on a percentage and contingent payment structure. The buyer's agent's job is to get the buyer the lowest price but to do that he/she has to take a lower commission. If that is not a conflict of interest what is? Also, the buyer's agent makes nothing unless the sale closes so if he/she plays hardball to get his/her client a lower price, he/she risks not making a commission at all. So what does the buyer's agent do? Answer--go lite on the seller and not fight his/her hardest for the buyer.

Before tackling dual agency the states should tackle ethical pay structure. It could be hourly, a flat fee or a percentage that might be based on the asking price or the assessed value. However, to base it on something like sale price where efforts to move the price down create a loss of pay for the buyer's agent is an obvious conflict. This does not occur with a seller's agent who is charged with getting the price higher.

Derek Eisenberg
http://www.mls2u.com

 
Submitted by Paul Howard on July 16, 2011 - 2:53am.

The first sentence of Derek's comment serves to diminish the MUCH more serious conflict of dual agency that this article does an excellent job of addressing. The the fee structure and the problem of dual agency are not anywhere near in the same league.

That said, it is a point that can't be ignored. The MLS system, itself, serves to maintain the existing fee structure but the problem is less than that it is percentage based than that most listing agents lead the seller to believe they control what the buyer's agent receives.

Buyers would do well to be sure that the company they retain to represent them WILL represent their interests - not the sellers. But they would also do well to be sure they negotiate a fee that does not depend on offers of compensation from seller's agents -a practice facilitated by MLS systems nationwide.

As to the structure of that fee - it is a simple matter to construct a fee structure that results in an agent receiving a higher fee if the buyer gets a lower price.

That is not something states need to address but agents advertising services to buyers that they may not be able to provide certainly is.

Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08034

 
Submitted by Eve Alexander, GRI,CEBA,CBA,RRC,CIPS,ABR,ABRM,CLHMS,ALHS,TRC,CSP on July 16, 2011 - 3:42am.

Florida used to have Dual Agency, but then they changed it to "Transaction Broker". Basically same thing, new name...sounds better and is easier to dupe a buyer with.

Buyer: wants the lowest price and the seller to fix everything.

Seller: wants the highest price,and do no repairs.

Transaction Broker: Sure no problem, I can do both.

Agency disclosures: Best kept secret in town.

Smart consumers will always use an agent to ONLY represent them. Homebuyers need www.NAEBA.ORG

Eve Alexander, Broker
BUYERS BROKER OF FLORIDA
www.Orlando-BuyersAgent.com

 
Submitted by Rob Aubrey on July 16, 2011 - 6:51am.

I personally do not do limited agency as it it is called in UT, btw I think limited is a better word to describe it.

Anyway I clearly explain that I am an agent for the seller, you have the right to have an agent represent you. I have them sign an unrepresented buyer and agency disclosure form explaining what the types of agency exist.

I am adding a link to the form we use

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1593806/Forms/unrep-buyer.pdf

One more item, I'd like to add, it is the limited agency at the broker level. Where there is one principle broker and 2 agents in the brokerage.

I am fine with that

 
Submitted by Michael Byrd on July 16, 2011 - 5:05pm.

Disclosure!?! Let me quote directly from California's legally mandated disclosure:

"...the agent has the following affirmative obligations to both the seller and the buyer:
(a) A fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty in the dealings with either the Seller or the Buyer."

Please re-read that final seven words.

Since fiduciary duty, by its very nature, can only be provided to one party, which party gets it? How is that party chosen? Is it the seller because she had the first relationship with the agent? The buyer because he's bringing in the dough? Rock, paper, scissors?

Oh, and does any dual agent tell the client who is not the beneficiary of fiduciary that they don't get it but the party on the other side does?

 
Submitted by Jon Astaris on July 22, 2011 - 6:18pm.

The management of General motors have a fiduciary obligations to the stockholders AND THE CAR BUYERS.

The entire dual agency issue is bogus, the lawyers and bureaucrats, and many zealous "practitioners" frenziedly looking for ways to justify their existence by bloating everybody else's with more and more regs that by the way have not diminished but greatly increased the number of errors, outright fraud, and lawsuits.

Both seller's and buyer's agents are obligated to exercise care and honesty and fair dealing to ALL parties to a deal, not just the buyer or trhe seller. You can't hide material facts from any one. If you are the sellers agent you better make sure that the buyer finds out theres a huge crack under the house. The law demands - DEMANDS! - that you disclose, disclose, disclose, in addition to the implied agency duties.

I'll take one honest well informed smart agent that I know and respect to represent me AND the other side in a transaction vs. a listing agent and a buyer's agent I know little about, any day.