Realtor Takes Advantage of 9/11 WTC NYFD Widow !!!

[Charlotte Dixon]

Many of us hold Real Estate Licenses and it's situations like this that make me want to keep it a secret. It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?

 

[jtrotta]

Joe

Now, this is where Realtor "Ethics" come into play; Agent lives next door; Seller appears to be more than a friend, given the circumstances.

Buyer, due to circumstances beyond her control, needed a "Real Estate counciling session or two". Her father appears to not be able to assist her in that area; perhaps unknown during the original phone call, but after meeting with the Dad, that would have been my recomendation. Did you not want to get involved :?:

just my thought

8)

 

[bradellis]

Folks,

Sounds like a REAL good story for the local papers, NO?

Brad Ellis, IFA,RAA

 

[Farm Gal]

Sounds like a REAL good story for the local papers, NO?

YEAH! :evil:

tho nothing will likely come of it other than other realtors looking for more 'victims' :roll:

MAY be some one other 9/11 survivor will take a deep breath and hang on to thier financial benefit... rather than squandering thier childrens future.

 

[Blue1]

Larry,

What about the home owner? Is it ethical to list a property when you know it will never sell? Just to lure in buyers? What about the buyer? Is it ethical to sell a home with an over-inflated value to an unsuspecting buyer and, beyond that, have a crooked appraiser "in your pocket?" This seems to be standard business practice for some realtors.

 

[Pat Butler]

You haven't provided enough facts for any of us to make a determination as to whether or not the realtor did anything wrong.

The first question I would ask is, "Who was the realtor's client?". If it was the seller then the realtor would have done a terrific job. If it was the buyer, then the realtor might have breached his/her fiduciary duty to the buyer. There's no way to know because of the limited amount of information that you've provided.

Sometimes a buyer will have very specific needs and they'll knowingly overpay for a particular house that meets those needs. The fact that a buyer who is represented by a realtor overpays for a house, means nothing by itself. A realtors fiduciary duty to a client does not preclude the buyer overpaying for house so long as the realtor lets them know that they may be overpaying. You are not privy to that sort of information. But you did say that even the father couldn't convince his daughter that she was making a mistake. So even though a family member couldn't prevent her purchase, you somehow find blame with a realtor who should have much less influence.

Secondly, you say that the realtor took advantage of this particular buyer but also indicated that the property was listed at a high price in the MLS. I can understand if the price was somehow changed when the seller knew of this particular buyer's desparation, but it appears that the realtor was advertising the so-called high price to EVERYONE because it was in the MLS. It just happens that that particular buyer liked the house. So let's see- the realtor lists a property at a particular price that you disagree with, yet it sells at full price with a cash buyer. And that somehow means that the realtor did something wrong? It sounds to me like the realtor knows values in that particular neighborhood better than you do.

You mention that the realtor lives next door to the subject and that the seller was her friend. So what?? It seems to me that the realtor would be least likely to rip off someone who will be living next door. And, if the seller was the realtor's client, then it wouldn't matter at all. The fact that the realtor would be representing the seller anyway already creates a realtionship whereby the realtor owes the highest level of representation to that seller.

You also said that you told her if she hires you to do the appraisal, it will appraise at a lot less. You do realize that is a USPAP violation don't you?

Your obvious bias against realtors has completely skewed your thinking process. It could be that this is the worst realtor in the world, yet the reasons you provide don't support your point and a lack of knowledge of how the brokerage business works, and your admission that you would accept an appraisal order based upon a predetermined value direction makes me question your ethics.

 

[Pat Butler]

jtrotta-- in my state, giving the sort of counseling advice that you suggested would be practicing real estate and would require a real estate license. It's one thing to provide an appraisal giving an opinion of market value and quite another issue to then give your advice as to whether or not someone should buy a particular house.

And Larry, your open house scenario doesn't quite make sense. I'm not questioning the facts that you provided, but rather your reason for why a realtor would do that. I don't know of any realtor who would intentionally not want to sell the open house. If it was too high priced then the traffic would be slow through the open house. No realtor wants to have an open house at a property that they know is high priced! You couldn't be more wrong about a realtors desire to overprice a house for open house purposes. There's nothing worse than spending a Sunday afternoon in someone's house and not having any traffic.

Everyone I know prefers to hold an open house at a property that is priced right, or even underpriced! It is customary for realtors to hold open houses on any listings that their office has, even those houses listed by other agents. So it just doesn't make sense to intentionally set up a scenario whereby a particular house is intentionally not sold (via overpricing) so that it can be used as the perpetual open house. Why not sell it and have an open house the next week at another listing that the office has?

Does anyone realize that the vast majority of sellers want to overprice their house? They always think it worth more than it really is. So the next time you see a high priced listing, you need to realize that it is more likely to have been overpriced, not because of the realtor's skills, but because the seller demanded it. Most of you need to get out in the field sometime with a realtor to get a reality check. There are a lot more details to the real estate brokerage business than most of you are apparently aware of.

 

[Joe Birrell (NY)]

Dee Dee:

It was most likely her father was the one insisting she get an appraisal, and perhaps the appraisal would help change her mind.


Pat Butler:

You are obviously a Realtor.

The Realtor in question represented the seller.

It's unfortunate that your Code of Ethics does not make specific reference
to GREED, and IMMORALITY. If it did, your response would be entirely
negated.

Your statements that I don't know the values in the area, and that my ethics are questionable is an outrage. As to telling the buyer that there is no such thing as a $550,000 house (two blocks from my office) is NOT a violation of USPAP.

 

[Pat Butler]

Joe-- the fact that the realtor represented the seller just galvanizes my points. Why would a seller hire a realtor then not expect them to get the best price for their property? Real estate agents are advocates for their client, just like many other professions. Just because you have a problem with that advocacy postition doesn't mean it's unethical.

If you were to sell your own house FSBO, wouldn't you want to get the highest price? Using your reasoning you would lower the price so that the buyer got a good deal.

Buyers are free to hire their own agent and have their own best interests represented. In most areas of the country, the buyer's agent is compensated by the seller's agent- so a buyer can typically have their own representation without actually having to come up with their own money. You call that greed? I call that a great deal that is available to a buyer because of the existence of realtor's MLS system. The realtors code of ethics also advocates that all parties to a transaction have their own representation. And most state licensing laws are drafted with significant assistance by the state realtor association with an emphasis on a balance between the buyer and seller's interest. Nothing you told me about that buyer's situation showed that she was taken advantage of because of a situation that a realtor set up, but rather, because she decided to make her own decisions.

The majority of real estate transactions in most urban areas are comprised of buyers and sellers who each have their own representation anyway. In my state, there are all sort of disclosures that have to be made to a buyer who is receiving services from an agent who will be respresenting the seller, and not the buyer. A buyer basically isn't too wise if they decline the services of their own agent. And they certainly will be aware of their lack of representation by the time they decide to buy a house. Our state realtor association actually pushed quite hard to get those disclosure laws passed the last time that our license law was revised. In fact, that required disclosure form actually provides a checklist of things that an agent can, and cannot do, when helping a buyer in a ministerial (non agency) capacity. Most buyers would choose to be represented by someone (even their attorney) after reading that form.

There are also sellers in desparate situations who a very happy when their realtor is able to get the highest price for their client. So unless you know the seller's situation, it's really tough to say that the realtor was trying to rip off the buyer. Perhaps the seller is grateful that they've been assisted so well by their agent and they now have money to pay off their medical bills, get surgery, etc.

You've basically portrayed a situation whereby a cash buyer decides to buy a house without being represented by anyone. She decided to not even go through with ordering an appraisal or be influenced by a family member. She has the money, and has found a house that suits her need. This is a great country that allows for people to make their own decisions- good or bad. What's wrong with that?

Most appraisers have very little first-hand experience with representing buyers and sellers in a real estate transaction. There's so much more to a successful transaction than just the price that was paid. Unless you are in the middle of a transaction, it's nearly impossible to determine whether a real estate agent did a good, or bad, job based solely upon the price that their seller received, or buyer paid. Ultimately, buyers and sellers make their own decisions and the transaction, at face value, usually doesn't provide enough information to be indicative of the agent's influence and ability.

With respect to the USPAP situation, read the Management section. By telling the buyer, in advance, that the house would not exceed a certain value violates the part about performing an assignment with a predetermined result. You could accept that assignment then find out that the interior of the house in unlike what you thought. You'd be in the middle of a situation whereby you've promised the value wasn't above a certain amount, yet it could be.

 

[xmrdfghap]

<span style='color:brown'>As some of you know, I try to shy away from controversy, but in these circumstances I find myself more in agreement with Pat. I know this probably depresses Pat, somewhat, but what can I say?

Stop and think about it just a moment.....the house was originally LISTED at the inflated price. How does that constitute misrepresentation? Having adjacent offices does not indicate anything untoward either.

But what did the widow buy? A house she had always dreamed of, in a neighborhood she always wanted to live in. Peace of mind? Personal satisfaction? How much is realizing a dream worth?

There really are too many variables not related to make a determination, but my immediate impression is that it was a good sale...."knowledgeable, willing buyer" (you did tell her that it would not appraise for what she was paying for it, as did her dad) and a final meeting of minds.

Should the Realtor, after having listed the property at the price the seller wanted (how many days on the market before a contract was signed?), have persuaded the seller to cut the listing price simply because the buyer had suffered a personal tragedy? Or should the Realtor, in his fiduciary responsiblity to the seller, advised the seller to hold firm to his price because the buyer was going to buy regardless of outside advice against it?</span>