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.
<snip>
My responsibilities are much more stringent when I have been engaged as a fiduciary to a Buyer client than they are to faceless people on line, when my actual legal default role is as the Sellers' agent. To disparage my default client's property to people who are NOT my clients, for items that are not legally material to the property would be egregious violation of law and ethical deportment.
Ah, the law... and definitions of words. Clear as mud.
There are many cases where you step out of your default role and become a buyer's agent. Although the "law" on what is relevant and material doesn't change, it certainly changes for your client. This is where you're losing me (and others continuing to post here).
You pledge a fiduciary responsibility to a buyer, but you're following rules protecting the seller. Which is counter intuitive to all the points you're making here.
Ah, the law... and definitions of words. Clear as mud.
There are many cases where you step out of your default role and become a buyer's agent. Although the "law" on what is relevant and material doesn't change, it certainly changes for your client. This is where you're losing me (and others continuing to post here).
You pledge a fiduciary responsibility to a buyer, but you're following rules protecting the seller. Which is counter intuitive to all the points you're making here.
Until the buyer engages me, they are a customer only.
The buyer has to engage me as their agent to create the fiduciary/client relationship.
In the absence of that engagement, I work for the Seller, by default, by NC Statute. Working for the Seller, if I disparage the property with non-material input to a buyer/customer I have served my client, the Seller, poorly.
I talk with Buyer clients differently than I do Buyer customers.
Until the buyer engages me, they are a customer only.
The buyer has to engage me as their agent to create the fiduciary/client relationship.
In the absence of that engagement, I work for the Seller, by default, by NC Statute. Working for the Seller, if I disparage the property with non-material input to a buyer/customer I have served my client, the Seller, poorly.
I talk with Buyer clients differently than I do Buyer customers.
I understand, but I'm sticking with the context of Sweet Digs comments being discussed in this thread... What is relevant and material to a buyer is mutually exclusive to those of a seller. So even though you are beholden to a buyer with your pledged fiduciary responsibilities, you still choose to call out anecdotal commentary that may be disparaging to the seller as "vandalism". That's not necessarily the case.
Any information that can be used as leverage by a buyer to obtain a lower price is clearly relevant and material to the listing.
There seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding of agency on this thread. States set the real estate laws regarding agency. Until a buyer engages me as a buyer agent they are customer and I must represent the sellers best interest. I am engaged to represent the buyers interest once we sign a buyer agency agreement that defines what the duties of each party are. As far as due diligence, there seems to be some unrealistic expectations. I see no reason for an agent to know any more than a buyer would about a neighbor with a harley, nor is that a required disclosure (which once again is defined by the state, not the Realtor). Issues with agency laws should be addressed to your local politicians. Personally, I think the system works and the system is very transparent compared to many business structures out there.
I believe the topic of allowing feedback to the public has been adequately addressed.
I understand, but I'm sticking with the context of Sweet Digs comments being discussed in this thread... What is relevant and material to a buyer is mutually exclusive to those of a seller. So even though you are beholden to a buyer with your pledged fiduciary responsibilities, you still choose to call out anecdotal commentary that may be disparaging to the seller as "vandalism". That's not necessarily the case.
Any information that can be used as leverage by a buyer to obtain a lower price is clearly relevant and material to the listing.
Wrong enough, too. Confidential information regarding client urgency is iron-clad in its legal protection from disclosure to a Buyer by the Listing Agent.
Beyond that, following that train of thought asks of an agent a Hobson's Choice of being asked to disobey the law, but to do it legally. To lie, but to do it with integrity.
Yet, agents are roundly criticized for breaking the law and lying.
And the licensee would be pretty exposed to civil complaint from Sellers for pretending that non-material stuff was material fact.
Subjective topics and posting commentary to the internet are what are being discussed, and listing agents have a role, which does not include expounding to buyers about subjective stuff to disparage the property. Time to hire an agent to work for the buyer.
Law exists for a reason, and part of that is to determine what is material, to offer a playing field, even if both parties have to do a little work.
Wrong enough, too. Confidential information regarding client urgency is iron-clad in its legal protection from disclosure to a Buyer by the Listing Agent.
Beyond that, following that train of thought asks of an agent a Hobson's Choice of being asked to disobey the law, but to do it legally. To lie, but to do it with integrity.
Yet, agents are roundly criticized for breaking the law and lying.
And the licensee would be pretty exposed to civil complaint from Sellers for pretending that non-material stuff was material fact.
Subjective topics and posting commentary to the internet are what are being discussed, and listing agents have a role, which does not include expounding to buyers about subjective stuff to disparage the property. Time to hire an agent to work for the buyer.
Law exists for a reason, and part of that is to determine what is material, to offer a playing field, even if both parties have to do a little work.
I'm not sure why you so quickly make the leap to "confidential information"... I wouldn't ask you to break the law, but we both know agents are roundly criticized for that because from time to time they do break the law - more often then not to facilitate the transaction even in the face of the laws you mention here.
The entire buying process is a subjective topic and posting commentary on a property to the internet was attacked by MLS. Sweet Digs was shut down because it was in violation of the MLS rules, not the law. You should really distinguish between the 2 if you're going to make this all about the law.
There are countless examples of "relevant" and "material" information about a property that are not "confidential". If buyer A sees the Harley and drum set because the neighbor had the garage door open that day and buyer B doesn't because the garage is closed... You're really going to classify buyer A telling buyer B that as "confidential information protected by law"? and then justify that it isn't relevant to a buyer's decision?
I'm not sure why you so quickly make the leap to "confidential information"... I wouldn't ask you to break the law, but we both know agents are roundly criticized for that because from time to time they do break the law - more often then not to facilitate the transaction even in the face of the laws you mention here.
The entire buying process is a subjective topic and posting commentary on a property to the internet was attacked by MLS. Sweet Digs was shut down because it was in violation of the MLS rules, not the law. You should really distinguish between the 2 if you're going to make this all about the law.
There are countless examples of "relevant" and "material" information about a property that are not "confidential". If buyer A sees the Harley and drum set because the neighbor had the garage door open that day and buyer B doesn't because the garage is closed... You're really going to classify buyer A telling buyer B that as "confidential information protected by law"? and then justify that it isn't relevant to a buyer's decision?
Mikey,
There was no leap at all. Not even a hop. You did say, "any information..." "Any information that can be used as leverage by a buyer to obtain a lower price is clearly relevant and material to the listing."
See, the details matter beyond what many folks grasp, and confidential information fits well within that "any information..." description for certain.
Greater price leverage could be found in the possibility that the Seller is relocated and cannot carry two housing expenses for more than 60 days without personal financial stress. Would that be "any information..." which a listing agent should convey to offer leverage to a buyer he doesn't represent?
I say "No."
As much as you try to tangle Buyer and Seller agency into a messy stew of comingled interest, they are two distinctly different roles.
Despite concerns that some agents are less than exemplary, I see those roles carried out routinely by good people.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 07-06-2011 at 03:44 PM..
The entire buying process is a subjective topic and posting commentary on a property to the internet was attacked by MLS. Sweet Digs was shut down because it was in violation of the MLS rules, not the law. You should really distinguish between the 2 if you're going to make this all about the law.
In Oregon the Sweet Digs reviews would have been against the law. I think it is the same in Washington. The real estate agencies typically only investigate when a complaint is filed. In the case of the Sweet Digs reviews the complaint was filed with the MLS directly and not with the real estate agency.
I don't think we have any Washington agents on here to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that WA works the same way as Oregon in that you can't advertise another agent's listings, and the review, because it was written in the name of the brokerage, was construed to be an advertisement as defined by law.
I know an agent who used to do the look up for sex offendesr for her clients. In one case, the registry disclosed a sex offender down the block and she disclosed this information to the buyer.
That was when the buyer told her he was a convicted sex offender ( beyond the 10 year horizon) and dropped her.
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.
