Home buyer who overpaid sues real estate agent

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
trrenter_IHB

trrenter_IHB

New member
<p><a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22840771/">http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22840771/</a></p>

<p>Nar watch out!!</p>
 
For as much as I would like to see the realtors pay some kind of price for the "real estate always goes up" lie told to buyers, if the buyers win this case, they are abdicating all responsibility for due diligence and common sense. If this serves as a way to get realtors regulated by the SEC and subject to limitations on their ability to provide "financial advice," then I am all for it.
 
<p>I'm a little torn on this one.</p>

<p>Yes, the buyer needs to be an adult and due their own due diligence. However, some of the comments from the agent that I've seen seems to indicate the agent thought they had no fiduciary responsibility to the buyer.</p>

<p>IMHO, that is something that needs to change. The agent, whether double ending, or single ending, should have a responsibility to get accurate, timely appraisals and information to the client and not just shuck a used car.</p>

<p> </p>
 
In a general sense, I'm glad that the anger has gotten to the point that this stupid lawsuit has been filed. If buyers wins, the precident it sets will just be a headache. They're both pathetic.





The question is, is, who is so stupid or negligent that houses on the same block could have sold for so much less and neither reacted appropriately.





Lots of bad investment, brokers, and buyers that need to be shook off in this downturn.
 
<p>When I read this article it is a smack in the head to the NAR's campaign about real estate being local check with an agent.</p>

<p>These people did not have Local Market Knowledge, they hired someone that did. Who somehow failed to mention homes for much less in the area. </p>

<p>So if you hire an agent to represent you they should be required to work in your best interest. If they do not what value do they hold other then the strangle hold on the MLS.</p>

<p>I think it would be great if he had to return his commision on the sale. That would be 36k at 3% or 72k at 6%. Now if he was the listing agent for the one they bought and not the others I think they may have a case.</p>

<p> </p>
 
"In a legal brief, the defendant quotes a real estate authority as saying the Ummels “<strong>simply didn’t do what is expected of a knowledgeable and sophisticated buyer</strong>, and are looking for someone other than themselves to take responsibility.”"





As was said before, doesn't the NAR tout the fact that realtors are knowledgeable - the point being you don't have to be sophisticated, the agent will take care of you? Joke.


Also interesting how the guy getting sued is also a mortgage broker. From the NY Times:





"The Ummels say he encouraged them to get their loan through him. Mr. Little ordered an appraisal of the house but did not respond to the couple’s requests to see it, the suit charges."
 
I would have to agree with the "legal experts" on this one. The banks approved the loan and believed that the house was worth the loan. Unless the buyers can show that the agent intentionally withheld the other properties from her clients, it is going to be a tough suit.
 
Guess Suzanne didn't research it? This *perfectly* illustrates the flaws inherent in the commission and incentives structure. Proof or no proof, every commissioned agent has obvious motive to have their buyers bid as high as possible.
 
Some agents out there dont mind one bit if you paid an extra 100K just so they can get an extra 3K. If i was an agent i would not be able to sleep at night knowing i just had someone pay an extra 100K to get 3K for myself.
 
This is interesting. I guess I should sue my financial advisor when he reccomends stocks and they tank. I pay a fee for his knowledge.



I always provided comps of active, in escrow, and closed homes to my clients and had them sign a copy so they couldn't come back and say they were not informed of market conditions at that point in time. I always had the client use the comps and provide me with the amount to offer or accept in a written form. I provide information and the client makes the decisions and then I did my best to get that amount accepted by the other party.



That keeps the responsibility where it belongs.



Regards
 
<em>"This is interesting. I guess I should sue my financial advisor when he reccomends stocks and they tank. I pay a fee for his knowledge."</em>





It is a rather slippery slope, isn't it?
 
<p>IR</p>

<p>True statement about the slippery slope.</p>

<p>If the property increased did a client ever share the wealth? Just a thought. LOL</p>

<p>Things should work both ways.</p>

<p>Enjoy!</p>
 
During the days of Richard Nixon the term ........Plausable Deniability was born.





There is no way one of these law suites will be won by a home buyer, the real estate agent just has to sit in the court room and look stupid and deny everything. Although most agents are dumb as rocks, they certainly did not keep logs with statements like......today I pulled one over my clients head and sold a POS for much more than it was worth..........nobody is that stupid, not even real estate agents.





NEVER TRUST A REAL ESTATE AGENT.................do your own diligence.................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top