Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are some of you saying that the brokerage has to disclose that they plan on keeping what belongs to them?
Ummm . . . maybe because when you associated with them you signed a written contract that spells out the relationship between the two parties which includes how commissions are split.
We constantly advise people who come on here asking questions to refer to their contract which governs their relationship with the other party in their transaction. Why should we not heed the same advice and refer to our contracts? Brokers need to stick to their contracts just like buyers/sellers do. The fact that the commission is owned by the broker is irrelevant.
Ummm . . . maybe because when you associated with them you signed a written contract that spells out the relationship between the two parties which includes how commissions are split.
We constantly advise people who come on here asking questions to refer to their contract which governs their relationship with the other party in their transaction. Why should we not heed the same advice and refer to our contracts? Brokers need to stick to their contracts just like buyers/sellers do. The fact that the commission is owned by the broker is irrelevant.
If nothing is spelled out in a contract between agent and broker whose listings are they? I have not yet tried to leave one broker for another and do this. I can see why it should be clearly written out, but does it have to Be? According to the OP in his case it wasn't.
What about the clients if they prefer to leave with the agent they have been working with so far? I think they should also have a say in what happens here, but do they?
I feel like no one gets where I'm coming from here.
Every time a buyer or seller hires me we sign an agreement that says they are hiring my broker and I'm acting on my brokers behalf. So, 100 percent these belong to the broker and it is in writing. If we are telling agents to look at contracts to answer questions doesn't this one count? If there was never anything else put in writing to the contrary what case would the OP have? I can see why it would be decent for a broker to spell out in writing that they keep them, but legally do they have to?
If nothing is spelled out in a contract between agent and broker whose listings are they? I have not yet tried to leave one broker for another and do this. I can see why it should be clearly written out, but does it have to Be? According to the OP in his case it wasn't.
What about the clients if they prefer to leave with the agent they have been working with so far? I think they should also have a say in what happens here, but do they?
The OP only said that it didn't say in his contract that the split would drop to 50%. They didn't give any other details about what their independent contractor contract said.
If the client signed a contract with the brokerage, then they have no say about what happens. As you mentioned, the contract is with the broker. So if the broker wants to assign a new agent to the client and they can do that. Of course, the exception here would be if the contract stated that the client could cancel at any point. The only other alternative is to refuse to buy or sell until the contract expires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots.
I feel like no one gets where I'm coming from here.
Every time a buyer or seller hires me we sign an agreement that says they are hiring my broker and I'm acting on my brokers behalf. So, 100 percent these belong to the broker and it is in writing. If we are telling agents to look at contracts to answer questions doesn't this one count? If there was never anything else put in writing to the contrary what case would the OP have? I can see why it would be decent for a broker to spell out in writing that they keep them, but legally do they have to?
I totally get what you're saying here. However, if there is a contract in place that spells out what needs to happen then both parties need to abide by that. If there is no contract or no written office policies, then of course the broker is pretty much free to do whatever they want. However, an agent would be an idiot to associate at that office. How would they know exactly what they are getting into if it's not in writing?
In the absence of other agreement/contract, then you're 100% correct - the clients belong to the brokerage, and she's not legally entitled to a nickel. If she didn't sign anything that went beyond that, then she might have been assuming it would have been like her prior broker had handled her leaving. If all of this is correct - current broker has no written policy she signed (or "Agreed to the terms of Service") and she's looked through what she DID sign and there's no mention of the departing agent split, then sadly she's stuck with what they're offering.
I believe in most places the listing agreements and buyer rep agreements are written between the broker and the client. The agent may facilitate, but they do not belong to the agent.
Now the philosophy of the company matters greatly. Some brokers may believe that and enforce that. We call that the broker centric model.
There are others who have an agent centric model....your listing your lead....etc....and let you take your buyers and listings not under contract to close with you with no fees.
I've seen agents in the broker centric model be very strategic when they leave....You get a broker like that that wants to play games with you.....then an agent with a lot of listings will write all the listing agreements to end on the same day for example. They plan ahead of time.
Talk with the new broker about strategic ideas to move. They've gone through it plenty of times before.
In the end....don't worry too much about it. That's why you are moving. Bigger, Better opportunities with a better broker.
So when you leave the agency, and someone has to finish the transaction for you, are they supposed to do that work for free? Is the agency supposed to pay them a wage out of pocket? Common sense says that you shouldn't get your full split if you didn't do the full transaction.
Someone has to finish the work on the transactions you are leaving behind. So a different split seems VERY fair to me. Although I think it should depend on how much is left.
If the deal is closing the day after you leave, and someone just has to accompany the buyer/seller to the closing table, that should warrant a very different split than a new construction contract you just signed last week that hasn't even started building yet and will take 3 months to close, and much work on the part of the replacement agent.
I'm not an agent, so I don't have a stake in the answer, but personally, I think if an agent leaves their client in the middle of the deal, they should get a referral fee of an amount to be negotiated between broker and agent separately for each contract, but definitely should not get their full commission.
Edited to say: Look at it from the other side. Your broker comes to you and says "Bob is leaving and we need you to take over his 5 contracts. Oh, but he still will make all the commission, so if you think you should be paid anything, you should work out a referral arrangement with him". Not fair, right?
I'm sure some brokerages would negotiate it on a case by case basis. It would be cumbersome, and they still have the final say. I'd guess smaller brokerages would actually allow folks to take their deals, since oftentimes that brokerage isn't even making a split.
But yes, based on my knowledge, a decent split remains with the brokerage to pay the agent that has to handle the transaction or unsold listing to closing.
So when you leave the agency, and someone has to finish the transaction for you, are they supposed to do that work for free? Is the agency supposed to pay them a wage out of pocket? Common sense says that you shouldn't get your full split if you didn't do the full transaction.
Edited to say: Look at it from the other side. Your broker comes to you and says "Bob is leaving and we need you to take over his 5 contracts. Oh, but he still will make all the commission, so if you think you should be paid anything, you should work out a referral arrangement with him". Not fair, right?
What you're saying is not reality at all. When an agent changes companies, that agent still works the contract until closing because they have the relationship. No one else is picking up any slack from the transactions. No one else is doing any work except the agent who facilitated the transaction. Now, if someone completely left the business and their license became inactive, that's a different story, but what I've said is reality for 99+% of the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
