Ensure Your Next Commission is Secure
Posted in California Real Estate Bloggers By Austin Smith, Monday, April 27, 2009.“I question the validity of a practice that allows you to be paid when you didn’t do the job you’re getting paid for.” - Brenda Florida, Century 21 Alliance of Lansdale, PA
“Procuring Cause should simply go away. It’s an antiquated system.” - Tom Early, President of National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents
Procuring cause. It pains me just to type the phrase; like the words “Root Canal” or “Pepto-Bismol”, ‘procuring cause’ packs around negative connotations like they’re a new-born litter of possums. What most agents don’t know is that while procuring cause may be a danger, it is in fact a two-way street that has the capability to benefit both listing and selling agents.
Verily, hast thine gotten ahead of thineself? Thou hast! Forgive me; for all you readers out there that are still in the dark as to what procuring cause actually means, let me explain. Procuring cause disagreements arise when a prospective homebuyer expresses interest in a property and is, in some way, introduced to the property by a licensed real estate agent. The introduction could take place at a showing, open house, or in the agent’s office over a cup of coffee and a stack of photos. After this meeting, the buyer drops off the face of the earth, only to re-appear a few months and a few different showings later with another agent. The buyer, along with Agent #2, then expresses interest in the house introduced by the first agent, and suddenly #2’s commission is in danger. Disagreements arise because Agent #1 feels like it is his client since he struck up the relationship and showed the buyer the house he wants. Agent #2 thinks it is his sale because he has taken the buyer to several other houses and was unaware of Agent #1. Who gets the commission?
As you can see, procuring cause cases get pretty nasty, pretty quick. The beauty of procuring cause is that the outcome, most often decided by a mediator or arbitration panel, is entirely situation-specific, or ‘property-specific’. Panels will award procuring cause to he who has the following legitimate claim: the ability to define that you, as the REALTOR, started the unbroken chain of events that resulted in a transaction. ‘Breaking’ the chain of events is often defined as either ‘abandonment’ or ‘estrangement’.
NAR’s Arbitration Manual proffers the following definitions of ‘abandonment’ and ‘estrangement’: ·
* Abandonment – when the broker's inactivity, or perceived inactivity, may have caused the purchaser to reasonably conclude that the broker had lost interest or disengaged from the transaction. ·
* Estrangement - the broker engaged in conduct which caused the purchaser to terminate the relationship, either via words or actions.
In other words, when you put off calling a client because you’re busy playing Bejeweled, you have no case upon which you can claim procuring cause. Also, if you perhaps decide to replace a stripe of your client’s cherry-red painted Porsche with the champagne color of your Yukon on the way out of the office lot and then subsequently blame it on your shotgun-riding client, you have no case upon which you can claim procuring cause. Sad, I know, but painfully true.
We already know what Mrs. Florida and Mr. Early have to say on the subject; but what about you? Have you ever estranged a buyer and squandered a sale? Or have you taken pains to place all your ducks in a row, which in turn has awarded you with procuring cause and a cut of a nearly-lost commission? What steps have you taken in the past to avoid procuring cause disputes?

You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Jason Graves on April 27, 2009 - 11:10am.
What goes around comes around... Sometimes buyers will pull a fast one on purpose and sometimes it just happens through no fault of anyone. The cardinal rule in sales is "Ye who closes, gets paid."
Over the years I have been on both sides of this issue and I have found most agents willing to co-operate to reach a solution. I have successfully negotiated broker to broker referral fees to keep it fair. Example: I showed the house and a few surrounding others. I answered finance questions. I discussed agency. However, I don't speak Vietnamese and the buyers showed up a week later with a Vietnamese agent. I asked her broker to pay us a X% referal fee for my time and she did. She certainly didn't have to do that but it was the fair thing to do.
I agree that as a rule procuring cause can be silly and even downright wrong. But there's a gray area that is easily navigated using common sense and ethics.
Jason Graves
www.RaleighRealEstateNews.com
Submitted by Austin Smith on April 27, 2009 - 11:31am.
Jason - Thanks for your feedback. Charging a referral fee as opposed to taking the issue to a mediator is a very good solution to a potentially nasty situation. I would also agree that many of these sort of disputes can be avoided by using some common sense and the ethics our mothers tried to instill.
Thank you for your comment. I wonder: has anyone else been in a similar situation, and fell back on a referral fee to avoid arbitration? It would be interesting to see if this is a widely-known/implemented solution...