[rsmurano]

Nothing new here. When a seller makes a contract with an agent, they agree to pay a fee, which is split between the buying agent and the selling agents companies. If you as a buyer don’t bring a real estate agent with you, you can’t expect to get a break because the seller is already paying 5 or 6%.
The only way to get around this is for the seller to sell the house on their own and state that they will pay a fee to the buying agent if any or if the seller negotiates with their agent they will only give them 2.5 or 3% when selling their house, which I’ve never heard any agent accepting this kind of deal. IMO, the selling agent gets the house and they can sit on their butt while counting on other agents to actually find a buyer.

[Villager1234]

I am confused about this whole thread
I looked at an open house,
Made an offer
They countered
I signed
I didn’t sign anything except the sales contract
The agent that showed me the house (open house) said that she represented me
She handled all of the paperwork
I believe that I represented myself
Everything is going smoothly
I guess that the seller is paying her commission
The only thing that I didn’t understand is that I would have thought that she had a fiduciary responsibility to the seller since they are paying her

[mcloud]

Originally Posted by Craig Vernon

I am not up against any deadline to buy my forever home in TV, but my retirement date is approaching. With the new real estate law most realtors are requiring a buyer's agent agreement to show properties listed on the MLS. I saw one of these forms from a large realtor in TV that stated that I was exclusive with them for sixty days on any purchase. I am wary of the possibility that these agreements can limit my buying experience in a ton of ways. Few Examples: For Sale By Owner, VLS, Promptness of showings may be limited, delays in paperwork or offers. I believe in the motivation of commissions but with exclusivity to an individual agent the dynamic changes. I will be watching and waiting to hear of any experiences coming after new law takes effect on August 17 and moving forward. See you all as a neighbor in TV early 2025!

as I understand it, You are only exclusive to the properties that agent shows you if you find a property on your own, you’re not under obligation to use that agent

[Ptmcbriz]

Originally Posted by MightyDog

I will have moved to TV by Sept 8...in less than a month. My packed POD will be in storage in Ocala until I call for delivery of it.

After recovering for a couple days, I will be full-court press in home touring and buying mode. I will do it on my own, as I have several times in the past elsewhere, which works to both my favor and the sellers (one less agent to pay). I have my eye on 2 or 3 pre-owned currently on the market and have no intention of hiring a buy-side agent.

That's it. That's how I will do it.

You will only be aware of a small quantity of available homes without two realtors. You need one MLS realtor (called outside realtor here) and a Villages realtor. The two don’t cross over each other and the Villages listed houses aren’t listed on MLS (only on their app). You can visit the outside listed homes but cannot visit the Village listing homes (which includes all new homes). You have to have a Villages realtor to see nonMLS listed homes, which is an enormous amount of homes on the market. Most nice (and new) homes here you need a realtor because they literally sell within hours of listing. Only the realtors know when they are coming on line and with a good realtor they can get your offer in within the first hours of listing. We bought our dream home while we were still in Oregon packing, and our realtor did a live video walk through and put it on hold for us the within the first couple hours of listing. By that afternoon there were 5 other people on the wait list behind us hoping it would fall through.

[Margefrog]

I wouldn't sign any such thing and don't believe anyone needs to, unless they want one realtor to search for them. A 60 day commitment be on the Sellers side to list the proprty. The 6% Realtor fees were recently legally shot down (as, I think, considered price fixing) so they may be looking for yet another way to increase earnings. All houses for sale are listed on MLS etc. Search yourself and contact the agent representing that house. If you want to make an offer, then get an agent to represent your interests. That's my impression. I did have one agent I worked with. No agreement signed or verbal. She worked hard.

[ron32162]

So you signed a contract with a realtor to sell and after the agent found a buyer for you? You then went back on your word /original contract and negotiated after the fact with the sales agent or Realtor. Neither can negotiate with you on a commission the Broker owns that contract after you sign it and all goes thru the Broker, the agent or Realtor can do nothing. I guess you lucked up and found a pushover for a broker lucky you.

[SHPayne]

First, as others have mentioned, the new rules are not "law". They are new "rules" promulgated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) as a result of the settlement of a massive lawsuit, and they apply to members of NAR, which every "Realtor" (licensed real estate agents that are members of NAR) must comply with OR BE FINED. Almost all agents that are "Multiple Listing Service (MLS)" agents are members of NAR.

Second, the new rules do require Realtors to obtain a buyer-broker agreement or buyer representation agreement that sets forth the broker's compensation before they can "show" a home to a prospective buyer. The amount of compensation to the "buyer's agent" is "capped" at what is set forth in the agreement (and is fully negotiable). Buyers can ask sellers for concessions toward closing costs in a contract offer to purchase which MAY be used to pay the agreed upon "buyer agent" compensation. If there are no such concessions offered (or used) for agent compensation, THEN the buyer pays the broker that represented them the full amount. If the seller pays some of it, the buyer pays the broker the difference. NOTE, however, that the agreement between buyer and broker may be modified at any time.

Third, a buyer-broker agreement can be for a single showing, for showing a list of specific properties, or it can be for showing all properties during the agreed upon term of the agreement. Everything is completely negotiable. For those that want the assistance of one agent to help them search everything in The Villages including MLS listed homes, Properties of The Villages (POTV) listed homes, For Sale By Owner (FSBO) homes, etc., and believe in directly compensating such an agent for scouring all the possibilities, these buyer-broker agreements have been in use for a long time. But let's be honest, there aren't a lot of those potential buyers in a market where buyers have, for the most part, not had to pay for these services "out-of-pocket".

Fourth, an agreement is NOT required if a potential buyer is just visiting an Open House and the attending agent is answering questions about the house. However, there is a line where an agreement might be required IF the potential buyer desires to get more representative personal advice regarding the purchase of that particular house or others.

Fifth, a "buyer agent" is not "required" in Florida. A buyer CAN go directly to a listing agent as long as the seller, in their listing agreement, has authorized the agent to work with potential buyers and the agent is a "Transaction Broker/Agent" (more on that later). However, under the new rules, if the listing agent is allowed to work with buyers, verifies that the potential buyer is not working with another agent under an "exclusive" agreement, and takes on the representation of the buyer, the buyer must still sign a buyer-broker agreement. It may still be beneficial financially to do that as the terms are still negotiable, BUT going directly to the listing agent DOES NOT alleviate the requirement under the new rules to enter into a buyer-broker agreement.

Sixth, these rules where seller pays seller's broker, with the "option" of compensating a buyer's broker, and the requirement of a buyer-broker agreement between a buyer and broker/agent have been in place in 18 states BEFORE the settlement. So while this is new in the majority of states, including Florida, it is not new nationwide.

Seventh, these new rules went into effect in our area on August 6. The MLS that covers The Villages counties decided to move early on this and not wait until the August 17 national deadline, so that is why many buyers (and some agents) are being caught a little off guard by this. There is going to be some confusion for a while.

Eighth, as mentioned before, seller's may still offer compensation to the buyer's agent in the Listing agreement, but said potential compensation is no longer allowed to be advertised or shown on the MLS as a "unilateral" offer of a specific compensation to an agent that brings a buyer. This is a requirement of the new rules to make sure that it is clear that compensation is completely negotiable (as it has always been, although THAT has not always been clear to all parties which is part of the gist of the lawsuit). Listing agents CAN advertise that the seller is offering compensation to buyer agents on their websites, on a flyer inside the home, and other places, just NOT on the MLS. If a buyer agent contacts a listing agent about compensation being offered by the seller, the listing agent is required to answer those questions so everyone knows the situation up front.

Ninth, previous to these changes, agents could see the percentage that the listing agent/seller was offering to "cooperating" buyer brokers in the MLS. That information has now been wiped from the MLS. There is a simple Yes/No question as to whether the seller is offering "concessions" and though the amount of the concessions MAY be disclosed, that information is not required.

Tenth, if a seller is offering concessions, it is not automatic. A buyer must specifically request concessions in a purchase contract, and those concessions, if agreed upon, may be used by the buyer for ANY purpose including fulfilling the terms of the buyer-broker agreement. If they don't use the concessions for agent compensation, then the buyer will have to compensate their broker/agent out-of-pocket according to their agreement.

Eleventh, these rules and disclosures now make it very clear that everything is negotiable when it comes to agent compensation on both the buyer and seller side. Again, it has always been negotiable, but THAT has not always been clear and completely transparent. Now, there are new listing agreements and buyer-broker agreements and new "compensation agreements" (if the seller decides to offer compensation to a buyer broker) that clearly state the negotiability of all this. Sellers now have to make a decision as to whether or not they think it is in their best interest to offer buyer broker compensation or "concessions" and at what level. This is not new, but it is going away from the "way things have always been done" where most sellers have gone along with the accepted practice in the market area (also a reason for the lawsuit, the settlement, and all these new rules). If the seller doesn't offer compensation to the buyer agent, it could reduce the pool of buyers. Let me be clear - it is an ethical violation for a broker/agent to NOT show a house a buyer wants to see based on compensation offered (or not offered) by the seller. HOWEVER, it may very well be the BUYER that chooses not to see homes IF they won't be getting any potential assistance to help cover this potential "new" out-of-pocket expense.

Twelfth, agents for Properties of The Villages (POTV) are licensed agents BUT they are NOT members of NAR (thus not "Realtors"), so the new rules do NOT apply to them. We all know POTV doesn't negotiate much, and I have no problem with that. However, that fact and these rules can be good and bad for consumers for a variety of reasons, but I'm trying to keep my opinions and speculation out of this.

Thirteenth, there are three statutory agency relationships in Florida between consumers and real estate brokers and they each have different "duties" of the agent to the consumer (the consumer also has some responsibilities to the broker/agent). This post is already long enough so I'm not going to get into the minutiae of the differences of the specific duties at each level.

The highest level of representation which includes fiduciary duties is "Single Agent" and this relationship MUST be clearly stated in listing and in any buyer-broker agreements.

The next level is "Transaction Agent" which is the statutory default in Florida IF the listing agreement or buyer-broker agreement does NOT indicate otherwise.

The lowest level of representation with the fewest duties (although there are still some) to the consumer is "No Broker Relationship" but that also must be clearly stated in agreements.

As has been correctly mentioned in this thread and several others there is no Dual Agency in Florida which means a broker CANNOT be a "Single Agent" for both a seller and a buyer in the same transaction - it is deemed too much of a conflict and theoretically impossible for a broker to provide the highest level of representation and fiduciary duties to both parties; therefore it is not allowed in Florida (it is allowed in some states). However, if the parties - seller and buyer - agree that they are fine with one agent handling both sides and facilitating the transaction with no fiduciary duties to either side (but still strong representational duties), that can be done in Florida as a "Transaction Broker/Agent".

Now, what has also been stated in many of these related threads is that one must consent in writing for a broker to be a "Transaction Broker/Agent" - that is not true. As mentioned above, "Transaction Broker/Agent is the default in Florida IF none of the three relationships is specifically stated in the agreements - that fact is in the statutes. With that said consent to "transition" to a "Transaction Broker" IS required IF the original relationship entered into was as a "Single Agent", and it is later desired to allow that broker/agent to facilitate both sides of the transaction (for any number of reasons that may be beneficial). There is even a Florida approved "Single Agent" listing agreement that incorporates this "consent to transition to a Transaction Broker/Agent" right into it IF the seller knows at time of listing that they would be okay with this if the situation arises. Or, they can always decide later in a separate written consent form.

Whew! Sorry about all that. And I'm sure I'll think of things I left out, but I hope it provides some clarification in what is happening. I've tried to stick to the facts, and leave my many opinions out of it, but I'll be happy to share those later if anyone cares.

By the way I've used the term broker and agent somewhat interchangeably, but understand that ALL these agreements are legally between the consumer and the Broker although the agent generally, but not always, has authority to enter into them on the Broker's behalf.

Finally, for background, I was a licensed attorney specializing in real estate in Kentucky and Indiana where I ran/co-owned a large title company, but I gave those licenses up long ago to live and travel in our RV for 15 years before we came to The Villages in late 2019. During the pandemic, I got my Florida real estate license, and I dabble part-time as an MLS agent here in The Villages, although maybe not for much longer. The market will eventually figure out all these new rules and their effects but, in the short term, all this takes a lot of the fun out of helping buyers look for homes.

[Pinkgirl]

Originally Posted by SHPayne

First, as others have mentioned, the new rules are not "law". They are new "rules" promulgated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) as a result of the settlement of a massive lawsuit, and they apply to members of NAR, which every "Realtor" (licensed real estate agents that are members of NAR) must comply with OR BE FINED. Almost all agents that are "Multiple Listing Service (MLS)" agents are members of NAR.

Second, the new rules do require Realtors to obtain a buyer-broker agreement or buyer representation agreement that sets forth the broker's compensation before they can "show" a home to a prospective buyer. The amount of compensation to the "buyer's agent" is "capped" at what is set forth in the agreement (and is fully negotiable). Buyers can ask sellers for concessions toward closing costs in a contract offer to purchase which MAY be used to pay the agreed upon "buyer agent" compensation. If there are no such concessions offered (or used) for agent compensation, THEN the buyer pays the broker that represented them the full amount. If the seller pays some of it, the buyer pays the broker the difference. NOTE, however, that the agreement between buyer and broker may be modified at any time.

Third, a buyer-broker agreement can be for a single showing, for showing a list of specific properties, or it can be for showing all properties during the agreed upon term of the agreement. Everything is completely negotiable. For those that want the assistance of one agent to help them search everything in The Villages including MLS listed homes, Properties of The Villages (POTV) listed homes, For Sale By Owner (FSBO) homes, etc., and believe in directly compensating such an agent for scouring all the possibilities, these buyer-broker agreements have been in use for a long time. But let's be honest, there aren't a lot of those potential buyers in a market where buyers have, for the most part, not had to pay for these services "out-of-pocket".

Fourth, an agreement is NOT required if a potential buyer is just visiting an Open House and the attending agent is answering questions about the house. However, there is a line where an agreement might be required IF the potential buyer desires to get more representative personal advice regarding the purchase of that particular house or others.

Fifth, a "buyer agent" is not "required" in Florida. A buyer CAN go directly to a listing agent as long as the seller, in their listing agreement, has authorized the agent to work with potential buyers and the agent is a "Transaction Broker/Agent" (more on that later). However, under the new rules, if the listing agent is allowed to work with buyers, verifies that the potential buyer is not working with another agent under an "exclusive" agreement, and takes on the representation of the buyer, the buyer must still sign a buyer-broker agreement. It may still be beneficial financially to do that as the terms are still negotiable, BUT going directly to the listing agent DOES NOT alleviate the requirement under the new rules to enter into a buyer-broker agreement.

Sixth, these rules where seller pays seller's broker, with the "option" of compensating a buyer's broker, and the requirement of a buyer-broker agreement between a buyer and broker/agent have been in place in 18 states BEFORE the settlement. So while this is new in the majority of states, including Florida, it is not new nationwide.

Seventh, these new rules went into effect in our area on August 6. The MLS that covers The Villages counties decided to move early on this and not wait until the August 17 national deadline, so that is why many buyers (and some agents) are being caught a little off guard by this. There is going to be some confusion for a while.

Eighth, as mentioned before, seller's may still offer compensation to the buyer's agent in the Listing agreement, but said potential compensation is no longer allowed to be advertised or shown on the MLS as a "unilateral" offer of a specific compensation to an agent that brings a buyer. This is a requirement of the new rules to make sure that it is clear that compensation is completely negotiable (as it has always been, although THAT has not always been clear to all parties which is part of the gist of the lawsuit). Listing agents CAN advertise that the seller is offering compensation to buyer agents on their websites, on a flyer inside the home, and other places, just NOT on the MLS. If a buyer agent contacts a listing agent about compensation being offered by the seller, the listing agent is required to answer those questions so everyone knows the situation up front.

Ninth, previous to these changes, agents could see the percentage that the listing agent/seller was offering to "cooperating" buyer brokers in the MLS. That information has now been wiped from the MLS. There is a simple Yes/No question as to whether the seller is offering "concessions" and though the amount of the concessions MAY be disclosed, that information is not required.

Tenth, if a seller is offering concessions, it is not automatic. A buyer must specifically request concessions in a purchase contract, and those concessions, if agreed upon, may be used by the buyer for ANY purpose including fulfilling the terms of the buyer-broker agreement. If they don't use the concessions for agent compensation, then the buyer will have to compensate their broker/agent out-of-pocket according to their agreement.

Eleventh, these rules and disclosures now make it very clear that everything is negotiable when it comes to agent compensation on both the buyer and seller side. Again, it has always been negotiable, but THAT has not always been clear and completely transparent. Now, there are new listing agreements and buyer-broker agreements and new "compensation agreements" (if the seller decides to offer compensation to a buyer broker) that clearly state the negotiability of all this. Sellers now have to make a decision as to whether or not they think it is in their best interest to offer buyer broker compensation or "concessions" and at what level. This is not new, but it is going away from the "way things have always been done" where most sellers have gone along with the accepted practice in the market area (also a reason for the lawsuit, the settlement, and all these new rules). If the seller doesn't offer compensation to the buyer agent, it could reduce the pool of buyers. Let me be clear - it is an ethical violation for a broker/agent to NOT show a house a buyer wants to see based on compensation offered (or not offered) by the seller. HOWEVER, it may very well be the BUYER that chooses not to see homes IF they won't be getting any potential assistance to help cover this potential "new" out-of-pocket expense.

Twelfth, agents for Properties of The Villages (POTV) are licensed agents BUT they are NOT members of NAR (thus not "Realtors"), so the new rules do NOT apply to them. We all know POTV doesn't negotiate much, and I have no problem with that. However, that fact and these rules can be good and bad for consumers for a variety of reasons, but I'm trying to keep my opinions and speculation out of this.

Thirteenth, there are three statutory agency relationships in Florida between consumers and real estate brokers and they each have different "duties" of the agent to the consumer (the consumer also has some responsibilities to the broker/agent). This post is already long enough so I'm not going to get into the minutiae of the differences of the specific duties at each level.

The highest level of representation which includes fiduciary duties is "Single Agent" and this relationship MUST be clearly stated in listing and in any buyer-broker agreements.

The next level is "Transaction Agent" which is the statutory default in Florida IF the listing agreement or buyer-broker agreement does NOT indicate otherwise.

The lowest level of representation with the fewest duties (although there are still some) to the consumer is "No Broker Relationship" but that also must be clearly stated in agreements.

As has been correctly mentioned in this thread and several others there is no Dual Agency in Florida which means a broker CANNOT be a "Single Agent" for both a seller and a buyer in the same transaction - it is deemed too much of a conflict and theoretically impossible for a broker to provide the highest level of representation and fiduciary duties to both parties; therefore it is not allowed in Florida (it is allowed in some states). However, if the parties - seller and buyer - agree that they are fine with one agent handling both sides and facilitating the transaction with no fiduciary duties to either side (but still strong representational duties), that can be done in Florida as a "Transaction Broker/Agent".

Now, what has also been stated in many of these related threads is that one must consent in writing for a broker to be a "Transaction Broker/Agent" - that is not true. As mentioned above, "Transaction Broker/Agent is the default in Florida IF none of the three relationships is specifically stated in the agreements - that fact is in the statutes. With that said consent to "transition" to a "Transaction Broker" IS required IF the original relationship entered into was as a "Single Agent", and it is later desired to allow that broker/agent to facilitate both sides of the transaction (for any number of reasons that may be beneficial). There is even a Florida approved "Single Agent" listing agreement that incorporates this "consent to transition to a Transaction Broker/Agent" right into it IF the seller knows at time of listing that they would be okay with this if the situation arises. Or, they can always decide later in a separate written consent form.

Whew! Sorry about all that. And I'm sure I'll think of things I left out, but I hope it provides some clarification in what is happening. I've tried to stick to the facts, and leave my many opinions out of it, but I'll be happy to share those later if anyone cares.

By the way I've used the term broker and agent somewhat interchangeably, but understand that ALL these agreements are legally between the consumer and the Broker although the agent generally, but not always, has authority to enter into them on the Broker's behalf.

Finally, for background, I was a licensed attorney specializing in real estate in Kentucky and Indiana where I ran/co-owned a large title company, but I gave those licenses up long ago to live and travel in our RV for 15 years before we came to The Villages in late 2019. During the pandemic, I got my Florida real estate license, and I dabble part-time as an MLS agent here in The Villages, although maybe not for much longer. The market will eventually figure out all these new rules and their effects but, in the short term, all this takes a lot of the fun out of helping buyers look for homes.

So if a buyer comes to an open house or to really any listing on their own WITHOUT a buyers agent and places an offer to the selling agent- at that point the selling agent can write up the offer becoming a transactional agent? (With sellers permission) My question is will this agent now want the buyer to sign a contract to enter a "Transactional Relationship" thereby guaranteed buyers commission from that person?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by SHPayne

Finally, for background, I was a licensed attorney specializing in real estate in Kentucky and Indiana where I ran/co-owned a large title company, but I gave those licenses up long ago to live and travel in our RV for 15 years before we came to The Villages in late 2019. During the pandemic, I got my Florida real estate license, and I dabble part-time as an MLS agent here in The Villages, although maybe not for much longer.
.

It's always refreshing when someone with a clue, decides to post facts and not nonsense.


Good job.

[SHPayne]

Originally Posted by Pinkgirl

So if a buyer comes to an open house or to really any listing on their own WITHOUT a buyers agent and places an offer to the selling agent- at that point the selling agent can write up the offer becoming a transactional agent? (With sellers permission) My question is will this agent now want the buyer to sign a contract to enter a "Transactional Relationship" thereby guaranteed buyers commission from that person?

First, let's assume, that the seller has NOT agreed to compensate a buyer's agent. If the agent at the Open House is in fact the listing agent in a Transaction Agent role (they don't just "become" a Transaction Agent"), and the potential buyer is NOT represented, that listing agent is required to get a Buyer-Broker Agreement signed by the Buyer before they can write anything up. Basically, by writing up the offer, they have to discuss terms of the offer with the buyer and some details, so they take on a representative role. Now, with that said, because they are in the position of listing agent and will be getting some agreed compensation from the seller, they MAY be willing to accept something very low from the buyer - could be 1%, could be $1,000, could be $100, could be $1 - it's all negotiable.

If, on the other hand, the seller has agreed in the listing agreement to offer compensation to a buyer's agent, then it's between the seller and the listing agent as what has or will be agreed upon IF the listing agent handles both sides as a "Transaction Agent". It may be zero, it may be the full amount the seller agreed to in the listing agreement, or it may be something in between. If that's the case, the listing agent will want the buyer to sign a broker-buyer agreement with the compensation being whatever the listing agent and seller have agreed to, and then the agent acting as "Transaction Agent" could include a request for concessions in the contract to cover that amount.

Now, if the agent at an Open House, is NOT the listing agent as is often the case (although usually with the same brokerage), then they would still need a buyer to sign a buyer-broker agreement to write an offer. If the seller hasn't agreed to compensate a buyer's agent, the Open House agent MAY not have as much negotiating room on what the compensation might be from the buyer - again all completely negotiable. If the seller has agreed to buyer agent compensation, then the agent can request concessions to cover that - BUT how does that affect the overall negotiation process?

My colleagues probably won't like this, but it's not a bad strategy to go directly to the listing agent IF you are experienced and know what you are doing. BUT, understand that 1) it's not as cut and dry and easy as one might think under these new rules, and 2) the buyer won't get full, "Single Agent" level representation (although lots of buyers don't care nearly as much about that as NAR thinks they do especially IF it comes to compensating their agents out-of-pocket, even if by doing so it could, big leap "could", lower the price of the house). Sorry, I let an opinion or two slide in there.

[Skunky1]

If after making an agreement for your hourly wage or monthly salary with your employer, did your employer come back to you later on and negotiate a lower payment? think about that when you’re dealing with a real estate agent!

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by SHPayne

My colleagues probably won't like this, but it's not a bad strategy to go directly to the listing agent IF you are experienced and know what you are doing. BUT, understand that 1) it's not as cut and dry and easy as one might think under these new rules, and 2) the buyer won't get full, "Single Agent" level representation (although lots of buyers don't care nearly as much about that as NAR thinks they do especially IF it comes to compensating their agents out-of-pocket, even if by doing so it could, big leap "could", lower the price of the house). Sorry, I let an opinion or two slide in there.

Another excellent post.

I hope people actually read this and understand what you're saying.

I've owned a real estate agency and bought and sold 100's of properties, both commercial & residential. I don't need a Buyer's Broker, although in residential transactions, I've always used them. Why? It's simply easier to deal with the commission structure, if I call a friend who's a broker and set him up as my representative (& how we handle the commission, is between us).

With these "new rules", I'm afraid way too many people will opt to "go it alone". Having dealt with 100's of "retail level" consumer buyer's, most don't have a clue what to do or how to do it. They're going to be lost and in danger of making huge mistakes, particularly in a state like Florida, which tries to keep lawyers out of the buy/sell process. Caveat emptor will take on a whole new level of importance.

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by Ptmcbriz

You will only be aware of a small quantity of available homes without two realtors. You need one MLS realtor and a Villages realtor.

I do not need a buy-side MLS agent to help me find houses. This very cool internet thingy we're communicating on provides me with volumes of info about listings.

If I decide to offer on a pre-owned Villages-listed house, I will contact that listing agent. I have no interest in building new so, not a factor.

Originally Posted by Ptmcbriz

....and our realtor did a live video walk through and put it on hold for us the within the first couple hours of listing. By that afternoon there were 5 other people on the wait list behind us hoping it would fall through.

I suppose this comment will freak-out a few people (while others will nod their heads, already knowing this)....there are no wait lists for new TV homes/lots - that is a marketing mechanism. It's possible there are a rare few lots with great views, locations, etc. that have multiple buyers interested but, in general, wait lists are not a thing even though they are claimed.

I suspected as much and while visiting TV in Feb and at an Open House of an existing home in the northern area, I had a long conversation about local real estate with the showing agent (who is the third generation in a family of Properties of the Villages agents). I mention the new build wait list to her, she chuckled and said, "there are no wait lists". I smiled back and replied, "I figured so".

Sorry, don't mean to burst anyone's bubble but, that info could be hugely helpful to any possible new buyers reading here.

[Snakster66]

Originally Posted by SHPayne

First, as others have mentioned, the new rules are not "law". They are new "rules" promulgated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) as a result of the settlement of a massive lawsuit, and they apply to members of NAR, which every "Realtor" (licensed real estate agents that are members of NAR) must comply with OR BE FINED. Almost all agents that are "Multiple Listing Service (MLS)" agents are members of NAR.

Second, the new rules do require Realtors to obtain a buyer-broker agreement or buyer representation agreement that sets forth the broker's compensation before they can "show" a home to a prospective buyer. The amount of compensation to the "buyer's agent" is "capped" at what is set forth in the agreement (and is fully negotiable). Buyers can ask sellers for concessions toward closing costs in a contract offer to purchase which MAY be used to pay the agreed upon "buyer agent" compensation. If there are no such concessions offered (or used) for agent compensation, THEN the buyer pays the broker that represented them the full amount. If the seller pays some of it, the buyer pays the broker the difference. NOTE, however, that the agreement between buyer and broker may be modified at any time.

Third, a buyer-broker agreement can be for a single showing, for showing a list of specific properties, or it can be for showing all properties during the agreed upon term of the agreement. Everything is completely negotiable. For those that want the assistance of one agent to help them search everything in The Villages including MLS listed homes, Properties of The Villages (POTV) listed homes, For Sale By Owner (FSBO) homes, etc., and believe in directly compensating such an agent for scouring all the possibilities, these buyer-broker agreements have been in use for a long time. But let's be honest, there aren't a lot of those potential buyers in a market where buyers have, for the most part, not had to pay for these services "out-of-pocket".

Fourth, an agreement is NOT required if a potential buyer is just visiting an Open House and the attending agent is answering questions about the house. However, there is a line where an agreement might be required IF the potential buyer desires to get more representative personal advice regarding the purchase of that particular house or others.

Fifth, a "buyer agent" is not "required" in Florida. A buyer CAN go directly to a listing agent as long as the seller, in their listing agreement, has authorized the agent to work with potential buyers and the agent is a "Transaction Broker/Agent" (more on that later). However, under the new rules, if the listing agent is allowed to work with buyers, verifies that the potential buyer is not working with another agent under an "exclusive" agreement, and takes on the representation of the buyer, the buyer must still sign a buyer-broker agreement. It may still be beneficial financially to do that as the terms are still negotiable, BUT going directly to the listing agent DOES NOT alleviate the requirement under the new rules to enter into a buyer-broker agreement.

Sixth, these rules where seller pays seller's broker, with the "option" of compensating a buyer's broker, and the requirement of a buyer-broker agreement between a buyer and broker/agent have been in place in 18 states BEFORE the settlement. So while this is new in the majority of states, including Florida, it is not new nationwide.

Seventh, these new rules went into effect in our area on August 6. The MLS that covers The Villages counties decided to move early on this and not wait until the August 17 national deadline, so that is why many buyers (and some agents) are being caught a little off guard by this. There is going to be some confusion for a while.

Eighth, as mentioned before, seller's may still offer compensation to the buyer's agent in the Listing agreement, but said potential compensation is no longer allowed to be advertised or shown on the MLS as a "unilateral" offer of a specific compensation to an agent that brings a buyer. This is a requirement of the new rules to make sure that it is clear that compensation is completely negotiable (as it has always been, although THAT has not always been clear to all parties which is part of the gist of the lawsuit). Listing agents CAN advertise that the seller is offering compensation to buyer agents on their websites, on a flyer inside the home, and other places, just NOT on the MLS. If a buyer agent contacts a listing agent about compensation being offered by the seller, the listing agent is required to answer those questions so everyone knows the situation up front.

Ninth, previous to these changes, agents could see the percentage that the listing agent/seller was offering to "cooperating" buyer brokers in the MLS. That information has now been wiped from the MLS. There is a simple Yes/No question as to whether the seller is offering "concessions" and though the amount of the concessions MAY be disclosed, that information is not required.

Tenth, if a seller is offering concessions, it is not automatic. A buyer must specifically request concessions in a purchase contract, and those concessions, if agreed upon, may be used by the buyer for ANY purpose including fulfilling the terms of the buyer-broker agreement. If they don't use the concessions for agent compensation, then the buyer will have to compensate their broker/agent out-of-pocket according to their agreement.

Eleventh, these rules and disclosures now make it very clear that everything is negotiable when it comes to agent compensation on both the buyer and seller side. Again, it has always been negotiable, but THAT has not always been clear and completely transparent. Now, there are new listing agreements and buyer-broker agreements and new "compensation agreements" (if the seller decides to offer compensation to a buyer broker) that clearly state the negotiability of all this. Sellers now have to make a decision as to whether or not they think it is in their best interest to offer buyer broker compensation or "concessions" and at what level. This is not new, but it is going away from the "way things have always been done" where most sellers have gone along with the accepted practice in the market area (also a reason for the lawsuit, the settlement, and all these new rules). If the seller doesn't offer compensation to the buyer agent, it could reduce the pool of buyers. Let me be clear - it is an ethical violation for a broker/agent to NOT show a house a buyer wants to see based on compensation offered (or not offered) by the seller. HOWEVER, it may very well be the BUYER that chooses not to see homes IF they won't be getting any potential assistance to help cover this potential "new" out-of-pocket expense.

Twelfth, agents for Properties of The Villages (POTV) are licensed agents BUT they are NOT members of NAR (thus not "Realtors"), so the new rules do NOT apply to them. We all know POTV doesn't negotiate much, and I have no problem with that. However, that fact and these rules can be good and bad for consumers for a variety of reasons, but I'm trying to keep my opinions and speculation out of this.

Thirteenth, there are three statutory agency relationships in Florida between consumers and real estate brokers and they each have different "duties" of the agent to the consumer (the consumer also has some responsibilities to the broker/agent). This post is already long enough so I'm not going to get into the minutiae of the differences of the specific duties at each level.

The highest level of representation which includes fiduciary duties is "Single Agent" and this relationship MUST be clearly stated in listing and in any buyer-broker agreements.

The next level is "Transaction Agent" which is the statutory default in Florida IF the listing agreement or buyer-broker agreement does NOT indicate otherwise.

The lowest level of representation with the fewest duties (although there are still some) to the consumer is "No Broker Relationship" but that also must be clearly stated in agreements.

As has been correctly mentioned in this thread and several others there is no Dual Agency in Florida which means a broker CANNOT be a "Single Agent" for both a seller and a buyer in the same transaction - it is deemed too much of a conflict and theoretically impossible for a broker to provide the highest level of representation and fiduciary duties to both parties; therefore it is not allowed in Florida (it is allowed in some states). However, if the parties - seller and buyer - agree that they are fine with one agent handling both sides and facilitating the transaction with no fiduciary duties to either side (but still strong representational duties), that can be done in Florida as a "Transaction Broker/Agent".

Now, what has also been stated in many of these related threads is that one must consent in writing for a broker to be a "Transaction Broker/Agent" - that is not true. As mentioned above, "Transaction Broker/Agent is the default in Florida IF none of the three relationships is specifically stated in the agreements - that fact is in the statutes. With that said consent to "transition" to a "Transaction Broker" IS required IF the original relationship entered into was as a "Single Agent", and it is later desired to allow that broker/agent to facilitate both sides of the transaction (for any number of reasons that may be beneficial). There is even a Florida approved "Single Agent" listing agreement that incorporates this "consent to transition to a Transaction Broker/Agent" right into it IF the seller knows at time of listing that they would be okay with this if the situation arises. Or, they can always decide later in a separate written consent form.

Whew! Sorry about all that. And I'm sure I'll think of things I left out, but I hope it provides some clarification in what is happening. I've tried to stick to the facts, and leave my many opinions out of it, but I'll be happy to share those later if anyone cares.

By the way I've used the term broker and agent somewhat interchangeably, but understand that ALL these agreements are legally between the consumer and the Broker although the agent generally, but not always, has authority to enter into them on the Broker's behalf.

Finally, for background, I was a licensed attorney specializing in real estate in Kentucky and Indiana where I ran/co-owned a large title company, but I gave those licenses up long ago to live and travel in our RV for 15 years before we came to The Villages in late 2019. During the pandemic, I got my Florida real estate license, and I dabble part-time as an MLS agent here in The Villages, although maybe not for much longer. The market will eventually figure out all these new rules and their effects but, in the short term, all this takes a lot of the fun out of helping buyers look for homes.

This should be made into a sticky post and hopefully quell the numerous new threads on the subject. Everyone should read this first, and if you still have a question, read it again.

Excellently written and explained.

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

With these "new rules", I'm afraid way too many people will opt to "go it alone". Having dealt with 100's of "retail level" consumer buyer's, most don't have a clue what to do or how to do it. They're going to be lost and in danger of making huge mistakes, particularly in a state like Florida, which tries to keep lawyers out of the buy/sell process. Caveat emptor will take on a whole new level of importance.

No doubt that many buyers should not be operating on their own. They just aren't experienced enough, aware enough or have the needed confidence...any of which could be costly.

Questions, please:
1 - Define what you mean by "huge mistakes" and "particularly in Florida" -- what's unique about FL in this regard?
2 - Why does FL try to keep lawyers out? Also, why is a lawyer necessarily needed? (Inspectors and title companies are only what's used in many other states.)