# Feel duped by my real estate agent. Need Advice



## bmg2009 (May 27, 2012)

My wife and I were looking to buy a condo since the last couple of months and have got one now. We close in mid June. In normal circumstances we should be very excited and looking forward to moving to our new home, but we're not. Here's the story:

We were looking to buy a bigger property in the same building we've lived in for the last 5 years and were actively looking in and around the neighborhood as well. but the preference was in our building itself . My wife met this agent in our building in one of the open houses and she asked her what we were looking for. After my wife told her our requirements, this agent then called her/us in a couple of weeks and said she may have found the perfect unit for us in our building. She said she'll ONLY disclose the unit number and more info if we sign a buyer/agent agreement with her. So we said we would BUT only exclusive to the sale of that particular unit.

Now that we did sign with her, she was "representing" both the seller and us (buyers). From the beginning we felt she wasn't working for us at all. She knew we liked the unit and wanted it, so she kept scaring us that if we put any condition the seller will not sell. We know the building so decided to go ahead and buy without any conditions. During the mortgage the property was appraised 20K lower than what we bought for. I raised a big red flag at the time but she kept telling us (and also got her mortgage guy-from RBC) to tell us that this happens all the time and that the people who appraise properties always undervalue it. She kept insisting her valuation is correct.

Just last week, an exact same unit like the one we bought has come on the market for 20K below what I will pay (we close in June), and this unit has better renos than the one I will get. Basically this agent, made a completely wrong valuation of the property and duped us to pay 25-30K more to the buyer.

I called her to ask for a explanation in the price difference between the unit she got us and this one that came on the market and she refuses to discuss. Has no answer, was extremely rude to me (and ironically she represents us), and basically said there's nothing she can do about it. She kind of told us to live with it now. This has upset both my wife and I and I feel I need to do something. We feel cheated and she has completely washed her hands off this sale as all she knows (and cares) is the double commission she'll make once we close in mid June.

I spoke to my lawyer too, if we can get out of this deal but he says we can't as there are no conditions. Not sure what to do now. We need some help and advise here. Much appreciated!


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Just some ideas that came to mind:

Go above her head and get in contact with her broker over this issue. See what he/she thinks, 1 of 2 things will happen, broker will stand behind their agent, or broker will be upset at how the agent has represented the brokerage. 

You could, and should contact your local Real Estate Council. Im not sure where you live, but in Alberta its the "Real Estate Council of Alberta" or "RECA". That is where complaints against industry members are filed and investigated. 

Lastly, you could first tell your agent that you are going to report her practises to the local real estate council, as you feel she did not fulfill her fiduciary duties (among other duties) to you. Maybe that threat will get her to make the situation right if possible. But either way, I would contact the Real Estate Council, even if she does make good of everything.

Good luck! And keep us updated.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

maybe try another lawyer.... I suppose you might get sued, but if you tell the agent and the sellers that you can't come up with the money what are they going to do - can't get blood from a stone. 
If you get sued and lose, you could be on the hook for costs associated with the sellers re-listing, maybe default costs on another property- need to research what the seller's situation is. 

but really.... it simply sounds like you trusted a seller's agent to determine the proper price of a home without shopping around. Well, live and learn. Had you looked at 10 units in the area or more and invested some time and energy feeling out the market, you would have a pretty good idea of value.
no conditions? who does that? Your heart took over and your head shut down and you wanted THAT unit and now you have buyer's remorse....sorry, but just paying the inflated price might be the way to go and just move on


----------



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

I think I would approach this as a possible violation of the Realtor's Code of Ethics. I don't believe you'd have a leg to stand on if another Realtor appraised the value of the home, however since the Realtor you worked with did the appraisal, they have a responsibility to look after your best interests ... along with the sellers. If you can prove that the comparables during that time period were $20,000 less, you might have a case.

The following is a link to the The REALTOR® Code of Ethics of The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA):

http://www.crea.ca/sites/default/files/files/REALTOR%20Code.pdf

I would focus on these two items:

3. Primary Duty to Client A REALTOR® shall protect and promote the interests of his or her Client. This primary obligation does not relieve the REALTOR® of the responsibility of dealing fairly with all parties to the transaction.

4. Discovery of Facts A REALTOR® has an obligation to discover facts pertaining to a property which a prudent REALTOR® would discover in order to avoid error or misrepresentation.


You might also question the following requirement:

12.5 A REALTOR® shall not perform an Appraisal unless he or she has the appropriate training.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes, but who is "the client" in this case? When the agent has both seller and buyer as clients (as in this case), the obligation is to treat every party "fairly" -- and what is the evidence of fairness? Willing seller, willing buyer.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Sorry about your loss.

As Hystat said, you didn't do your due diligence. An expensive lesson. Condos normally have good comparables to do an appraisal. You don't have to be an expert to do this.

Too late now, but you might want to read this article for next time - why you shouldn't trust your real estate agent:

http://www.moneysmartsblog.com/why-you-cant-trust-real-estate-agents-when-buying-a-house/

Your agent's job is to facilitate real estate transactions so they can make a commission. No more and no less.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think you should threaten to sue the Brokerage for derelicton of their duty. That is your only possible course. You have proof that they misrepresented the value of the unit. The other one is asking $20k less but what will it sell for? I would not put the odds high on winning but you might scare them.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Can I know the name of the brokerage, and the agent involved?


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

Duped maybe, but this feels like another case of trying to blame someone else for your own mistakes.. You should have done your own research you decided that you would by the place at the price, you could have offered less that is up to you.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

How can everyone be blaming bmg2009 for not doing their due diligence? This is not a used car we are talking about. The agent is supposedly the expert and has the duty to act in the clients best interests. The client should be able to put 100% trust into the agent.

@Moneygal - Both the buyer and the seller are clients in this case, it is called "dual agency". These situations are tricky because there can be a conflict of interest, which obviously is what happened here, with the agent favouring the selling party.

Did your agent show you comparable properties that have sold recently in the area? That should/would have been a good indicator of the value of the unit you bought. I would start with talking to the broker and see where that gets you.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Consider this a lesson learnt and move on, you were ok with the price of the unit when you bought it and you probably shouldn't be concerned with other sales since it won't change your purchase. If the comparable unit sold later on for $20K more would you want the buyer to come after you or would you think that you should give them the money or that the agent owes them something?

For the future:

1) Never trust a real estate agent, they want to close the deal and fast, that's thier main priority, your best interest is secondary at best.
2) Red flag should have been raised when the agent said the unit will be disclosed to you only if you sign buyer agreement.
3) Didn't you see the unit yourself on MLS.
4) Why would you think that the agent is representing you if she is getting buyers and sellers commissions, that 5% gotta be a sweet pocket change.
5) How much research on buying and selling did you do before hand, were you aware that you don't need the agent at all.
6) Is condo market in your area so hot that you needed to jump on it so quick?
7) While I realize you wanted the unit in this particular building, I have a hard time believing there wasn't anything comparable elsewhere and if you had expanded your criteria a bit you would have had a better chance of getting a fair deal.
8) The unit that came on the market below your purchase price may actually sell for much higher price (or lower for that matter), asking price is often set lower to get the interest and bidding war going in the sellers market. Did that unit sell already, if yes do you know the actual selling price?

It seems like you are to blame for falling into a trap set up by the agent and for setting very narrow criterias for purchase and not doing enough due dilligence, sorry but it really seems like it.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

an agent does no more than a used car slesman, who is the "expert" on their product. The issue seems to be that people think agents are actually trying to do something other than sell a home to collect commission. 

It is up to the buyer to use their discretion on a large purchase like this. Walk into a car dealership without proper research and you'll be hosed for thousands more than the guy that does his / her research. Same applies here.

The agent has a duty to the seller to get the highest price they can, as acting in a dual agent role the buyer has to do some extra research -- it's a conflict of interest obviously.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Consider this a lesson learnt and move on, you were ok with the price of the unit when you bought it and you probably shouldn't be concerned with other sales since it won't change your purchase. If the comparable unit sold later on for $20K more would you want the buyer to come after you or would you think that you should give them the money or that the agent owes them something?

For the future:

1) Never trust a real estate agent, they want to close the deal and fast, that's thier main priority, your best interest is secondary at best.
*---This may be how you feel towards agents, but when become licensed, they agree to put clients best interests first and foremost.*

2) Red flag should have been raised when the agent said the unit will be disclosed to you only if you sign buyer agreement.
*---I agree, OP pointed this out.*

3) Didn't you see the unit yourself on MLS.
*--- I think it is safe to assume this unit wasn't listed on MLS yet, as it was probably just listed and that is why the agent came to these buyers right away and made them sign an agreement*

4) Why would you think that the agent is representing you if she is getting buyers and sellers commissions, that 5% gotta be a sweet pocket change.
*---It's called dual agency, its happens routinely, but it is a tricky situation. Despite representing the sellers, agent still has full fiduciary duty towards the buyers*

5) How much research on buying and selling did you do before hand, were you aware that you don't need the agent at all.
6) Is condo market in your area so hot that you needed to jump on it so quick?
7) While I realize you wanted the unit in this particular building, I have a hard time believing there wasn't anything comparable elsewhere and if you had expanded your criteria a bit you would have had a better chance of getting a fair deal.
*---While this makes sense, the agent should still be reviewing comparable properties with the buyer in order to agree on a fair price to offer. I have a feeling this did not happen. Its also fair to assume the agent went over comparable properties with the buyer when listing the property in order to decide on a listing price.*

8) The unit that came on the market below your purchase price may actually sell for much higher price (or lower for that matter), asking price is often set lower to get the interest and bidding war going in the sellers market. Did that unit sell already, if yes do you know the actual selling price?
*---This is worth looking into, but if the first unit sold before even coming on the market, 20k below that price for a nicer unit does not make any sense. Maybe 10k lower, max, in order to create a bidding war.*

It seems like you are to blame for falling into a trap set up by the agent and for setting very narrow criterias for purchase and not doing enough due dilligence, sorry but it really seems like it.
*--This last sentence is hilarious, it pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant. So you think it is ok for real estate agents to set up 'traps' and if a client fall for it, it is ok because they did not do enough due diligence? Your credibility is lost.*


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

jamesbe said:


> an agent does no more than a used car slesman, who is the "expert" on their product. The issue seems to be that people think agents are actually trying to do something other than sell a home to collect commission.
> 
> It is up to the buyer to use their discretion on a large purchase like this. Walk into a car dealership without proper research and you'll be hosed for thousands more than the guy that does his / her research. Same applies here.
> 
> The agent has a duty to the seller to get the highest price they can, as acting in a dual agent role the buyer has to do some extra research -- it's a conflict of interest obviously.


I would say that a car salesman is looked at as more of a middle-man than an expert. I don't think this should turn into an argument over which profession is better, or which is more expert. The real estate industry is regulated much more heavily than used car sales with much stricter penalties.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

For those suggesting the OP might have some recourse - on what basis? It doesn't sound like the agent provided a valuation in writing. And so what if a unit came onto the market after the deal was done? Any comparables after the fact are irrelevant - maybe the market dropped.


----------



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> Yes, but who is "the client" in this case? When the agent has both seller and buyer as clients (as in this case), the obligation is to treat every party "fairly" -- and what is the evidence of fairness? Willing seller, willing buyer.


This is going to come down to the OP being able to prove the Agent advised them to enter a contract without conditions, knowing that the appraisal was too high. This won't be easy to prove, but I would certainly take a crack at it. They would have to prove comparables were much lower at the time they purchased the unit. 

If people just roll over and play dead, these individuals will continue to conduct their business in an unethical manner. "Willing seller / willing buyer" won't hold up in court. They will look at the responsibilities of the Realtor to their client. In this case, they have to represent both the sellers and buyers interests.

In the end, I hold people to a high standard ... especially if they have to follow a specific Code of Ethics. I'm sure the Realtor Board and the Judicial system will also hold them to a higher standard.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

mind_business said:


> "Willing seller / willing buyer" won't hold up in court.


This is the _essence_ of real estate transactions. The client willingly entered into this transaction and willingly and freely paid the price he paid. He could have walked away from this sale at any point. FMV for real property in Canada is defined as the highest price a willing buyer will pay a willing seller transacting in an open market. This is explicitly distinguished from the "intrinsic value" of the property. I don't believe there is any ground to stand on here, personally.


----------



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> This is the _essence_ of real estate transactions. The client willingly entered into this transaction and willingly and freely paid the price he paid. He could have walked away from this sale at any point. FMV for real property in Canada is defined as the highest price a willing buyer will pay a willing seller transacting in an open market. This is explicitly distinguished from the "intrinsic value" of the property. I don't believe there is any ground to stand on here, personally.


I would agree only if the agent had disclosed comparables at the time. They have a responsibility to reasonably educate their client. Once again, I don't think it will be easy for the OP to prove the Agent acted unethically, however if he believes he was treated unfairly, I would recommend he pursues the matter with the Realtor Board.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

First I'd look for evidence that the agent oversold the unit to you. 

You can find this information by hahaha getting another agent to give you comparables. 

Then go to the provincial organisation that is responsible for ethics regulation in your province and make an immediate complaint. 

Then speak to another lawyer.

This is interesting and discusses the responsibilities of Dual Agency http://www.canlii.com/eliisa/highli...doc/2010/2010canlii96811/2010canlii96811.html


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

But WHAT comparables? The original poster is claiming that a "better" unit came on the market after he bought his unit. The agent may have been able to find lots of comparables in the same price range as the OP paid. The OP is arguing that the intrinsic value of the property is less than he paid...and we don't know that he even asked for comparables in the first place (is the agent *obliged* to present comparables? I don't think so. I know the OP is arguing that he felt "pressure" to complete the sale at that price but the reality is he owed the agent nothing and he could have walked away from the arrangement at any time. He wanted that unit, and ultimately he was willing to pay that price.)

That said, I have no special love for RE agents or the RE business in general. :neglected: [that is supposed to look like a "grumpy" face]


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> This is the _essence_ of real estate transactions. The client willingly entered into this transaction and willingly and freely paid the price he paid. He could have walked away from this sale at any point. FMV for real property in Canada is defined as the highest price a willing buyer will pay a willing seller transacting in an open market. This is explicitly distinguished from the "intrinsic value" of the property. I don't believe there is any ground to stand on here, personally.


This isn't as much about what the client did or didn't do, it isn't about how freely the client made these decisions. The fact of the matter is that the real estate agent had a duty to the client, and failed to provide these duties. The decisions made by the client, no matter how free they were, were made with false or inaccurate knowledge. You could also argue that the agent put pressure on the clients to sign the contract and make the offer, which is also against real estate standards.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> But WHAT comparables? The original poster is claiming that a "better" unit came on the market after he bought his unit. The agent may have been able to find lots of comparables in the same price range as the OP paid. The OP is arguing that the intrinsic value of the property is less than he paid...and we don't know that he even asked for comparables in the first place (is the agent *obliged* to present comparables? I don't think so. I know the OP is arguing that he felt "pressure" to complete the sale at that price but the reality is he owed the agent nothing and he could have walked away from the arrangement at any time. He wanted that unit, and ultimately he was willing to pay that price.)
> 
> That said, I have no special love for RE agents or the RE business in general. :neglected: [that is supposed to look like a "grumpy" face]



Generally a real estate agent will provide a buyer with comparable sales in the area in order to justify a purchase price. To me, it does not sound the the agent did this, which they should have. I would say the duty falls on the agent to provide these comparables, not the client to ask for them.

If a 'base' unit was sold at say $100,000 then a week later another unit becomes available, this one is a 'top end' unit, but its listed for $80,000, it is very likely that the first unit was over priced. This could be for a range of reasons (some that could totally make sense), but based on the story by the OP it sounds like the agent priced the unit high, knowing that she could get the buyers to pay the price. She used urgency and lack of knowledge to 'dupe' her client into overpaying for the unit.

EDIT: The scenario I am getting is: OP approaches agent, tells her that they are looking to buy in the area, specifically the building. By a stroke of luck the agent got a listing in the building that meets the OP's criteria. Knowing how bad the client wanted a unit in the building she priced it high knowing the OP would pay. Told client she wants exclusive rights to sell the unit to them. Then tells them that she wouldn't recommend putting any conditions on the offer to make it stronger. With no conditions on the offer the agent can pretty much count her paycheque already. *Im not sure how often offers with zero conditions are put forth, to me it seems rare.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

This is from the above linked ruling. FYI I love Canlii :biggrin:

This kind of deal is not ok. Reminds me of a rape victim being blamed for being raped. OP this is not your fault. You are dealing with a situation of information asymmetry, the agent should have discussed and disclosed comparable units. Without this information you are pretty screwed. 


It has been suggested that there is nothing wrong with a purchaser asking any price they want, unreasonable or otherwise. That may be true; however, the involvement of a registered real estate agent provides an appearance of legitimacy and when an agent is acting on behalf of both parties there is an expectation, and obligation, that the interests of both parties will be protected. It is not simply a matter of ‘buyer beware’, as Mr. Baxter seemed to think.[14] 

Mr. Baxter expressed regret that he identified Baxter Realty’s role as ‘dual agent’ in the various transactions. He apparently made this mistake because somewhere along the line he took a course and that is how he was told to do it. Firstly, it is difficult to understand how he made such a ‘mistake’, repeatedly. What is involved in being a dual agent is clearly stated on every ‘Confirmation of Co-operation and Representation’ form he completed. The buyer and the seller are to be treated equally and fairly, and there is an obligation to disclose factual information that the agent has (which would clearly include the current market value). Had he read or knew the content of the forms he was filling out, he would have known what his obligations were. He would have realized that he had no intention to fulfill those obligations and could have properly advised any buyer that they would not be provided with any services. Put in the best light possible this practice raises an issue of his competency that he did not know what his obligations were to the purchasers. In the worst light, it amounts to misrepresentation: to execute and provide meaningless forms to buyers who may rely upon by them. This was a clear breach of the Code of Ethics[15]


----------



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> But WHAT comparables? The original poster is claiming that a "better" unit came on the market after he bought his unit. The agent may have been able to find lots of comparables in the same price range as the OP paid. The OP is arguing that the intrinsic value of the property is less than he paid...and we don't know that he even asked for comparables in the first place (is the agent *obliged* to present comparables? I don't think so. I know the OP is arguing that he felt "pressure" to complete the sale at that price but the reality is he owed the agent nothing and he could have walked away from the arrangement at any time. He wanted that unit, and ultimately he was willing to pay that price.)
> 
> That said, I have no special love for RE agents or the RE business in general. :neglected: [that is supposed to look like a "grumpy" face]


The OP needs to clarify a few things, however it comes down to more than showing the buyer comparables. IF he's correct that the valuation was much too high, then he should have the Board look at how the Realtor appraised the property. Was the Realtor properly experience and trained to provide appraisals? All of my advice is based on the OP's concern that he was not properly advised of the correct value of the property, AND that they were advised to enter a contract without any conditions. My main advice for anyone who strongly believes they were wronged, is to pursue your options in a reasonable manner, and legal manner. 

Not specifically applicable to the OP's situation, however this quote (from Berubeland's link) shows the Ethical responsibilities when appraising property.

"All registrants are required to take courses involving ethics every two years. Therefore Mr. Baxter should have known that to be paid to do nothing was too good to be true. He had responsibilities under the Act to exercise due diligence, to evaluate the properties and not simply ‘slap’ a price on them."

This is where the Realtor needs to prove they used comparables, evaluated the specific property, and were properly trained and experienced in performing appraisals.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I don't know, there's really not enough info to go on here. Who's to say that the person who sold their unit for $20K less wasn't getting crappy advice from their realtor? The original realtor may have been right on the mark. We don't know because we don't know what the comparables were (or if they were even provided). 

And I don't think it's a matter of blaming the realtor or the OP, both share some blame. But the OP does seem to be directing sole blame on a crooked realtor. Perhaps that's the case, but I do think the OP has to accept some of the fault as well.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

mind_business said:


> All of my advice is based on the OP's concern that he was not properly advised of the correct value of the property, AND that they were advised to enter a contract without any conditions.


While I share you sentiment that the OP got shafted, I'm just not convinced he will be able to prove any wrong-doing. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Regarding "advised to enter a contract without any conditions" - what's wrong with that? Happens all the time. As for not being properly advised about the correct value - this might be hard to prove. The comparable that occurred later on (that made the OP upset) obviously didn't exist, so it is not proof of anything wrong-doing by the agent. Were there other comparables available to the agent (via MLS) at the time of the valuation which clearly show that her valuation was incorrect? Are they recent enough?

Hopefully the OP will keep us up to date on this - it would be interesting to hear if he gets anywhere on this.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> While I share you sentiment that the OP got shafted, I'm just not convinced he will be able to prove any wrong-doing. Hopefully I'm wrong.
> 
> Regarding "advised to enter a contract without any conditions" - what's wrong with that? Happens all the time. As for not being properly advised about the correct value - this might be hard to prove. The comparable that occurred later on (that made the OP upset) obviously didn't exist, so it is not proof of anything wrong-doing by the agent. Were there other comparables available to the agent (via MLS) at the time of the valuation which clearly show that her valuation was incorrect? Are they recent enough?
> 
> Hopefully the OP will keep us up to date on this - it would be interesting to hear if he gets anywhere on this.


Im not sure that entering a real estate contract without any conditions is common. I find it hard to believe that many people submit offers without a clause related to passing an inspection for one. As for how the real estate agent acted, its all open to interpretation, but if the OP feels as though they were not treated fairly, they should bring this issue to both the broker and the local real estate council. I too am interested to see how this turns out. More information would be good too! OP where are you!


----------



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

Four Pillars said:


> Regarding "advised to enter a contract without any conditions" - what's wrong with that? Happens all the time.


Nothing, as long as they were ONLY representing the buyer. In this case, they represented the buyer and seller ... worse yet, they set the appraised value of the property. While they may have been acting ethically, and it would be up to the OP to prove otherwise, the agent has to tread very carefully when advising the buyer when also representing the seller during contract negotiations. 

The reason I'm being so adament in this thread is that I'm a strong believer that people should take action when they believed they have been harmed by a transaction. I'm not a fan of the take-no-action advice because it was your fault for not doing your own due dilligence. The OP was working with a professional, that works to a Code of Ethics. They should ensure the buyer is reasonably aware of what they're getting into, including providing comp's. Not to insult the OP, but there are inexperienced buyers out there, or certain personalities that wouldn't challenge the advice of a professional Realtor, or ask to see comp's ... or even know they should ask. Some people would disagree with me, however my guess is that the courts would require the 'Professional Realtor' to represent the buyer by providing pricing/comp information.

Now if only the OP would confirm whether they were advised of comp's before buying.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

TK.61 said:


> *---It's called dual agency, its happens routinely, but it is a tricky situation. Despite representing the sellers, agent still has full fiduciary duty towards the buyers*


Is that a true fiduciary duty, like a lawyer, corporate board member, etc.? Can you sue the pants off the agent when they in fact act in their own interest over that of the client?


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

This situation stinks beyond any inherent conflict in dual agency. 

Here the agent, already acting for the seller, coerced the buyer to sign on with him for this unit and thus prevented him from getting independent advice from another agent. That's got to be a huge breach of ethics for any professional body. He clearly obstructed the buyers access to the services of a real estate agent since their agreement dealt only with this unit and he was already contracted with the seller.

I'd report it.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I found this on the internet so it must be true!  (BTW is this the closest to a sarcasm smiley? Is there a better one?)

http://torontolawyersattorneys.com/tag/fiduciary-duty/



> Competence
> Real Estate Brokerages must:
> 
> have adequate knowledge, skills, and experiences to transact the real estate as required;
> ...


Promoting the best interests of the principal is the one item that seems suspect considering there are two principals with two completely different goals. Or are there?

The agent's goal isn't to get the absolute lowest or highest price for someone. It's quite common for agents to advise their clients to overbid to "win" if they think there is going to be stiff competition. Their goal is to help their client with the transaction in whatever way possible. The OP's main priority was NOT to get a bigger unit, but to get one in the EXACT SAME BUILDING. That was the priority, and the agent may have taken that literally above all other factors. I don't know.

Also, this isn't just a simple cost comparison. It's not like saying you bought a Coke at the corner store and it cost $1 more than the grocery store. These aren't static transactions where a buyer flips through the flyers and finds a good sale and goes to that store and buys what they want (maximum of 4 per customer please). They are constantly moving, evolving, changing. 

The OP was free to bid $20K below and the agent would have to do so. It doesn't guarantee the owner would have accepted the offer just because the owner of a similar unit with better finishes would. People buy and sell for different reasons, have different circumstances, and there's no guarantee the same offer would be accepted by everyone in the building.

Even if the OP bid $20K below and the owner was considering it, that still doesn't guarantee they get the unit for $20K less. Someone else could have swept in and stole the unit. Even if the OP were willing to then go above that, there's no guarantee they'd even get the opportunity to make a second bid. They may have lost out on the unit entirely.

It's no big deal I suppose because with our handy crystal ball we can predict a similar unit with better finishes becoming available soon! But that doesn't mean the OP could have bought it for $20K less. That's what the unit is listed for, but if it gets several potential bidders, it could go up. We don't know for certain unless someone wants to make an offer for that price and see if the owners of the second unit accept. And even then, that price may be more about their agent screwing them than it is about your agent screwing you.

Personally, I'm not a fan of real estate agents. I thought the chapter on them in Freakonomics was right on the mark, and I have very little faith in any of them. But I think this is a much more complex story than "the agent screwed me out of $20K," with many more sides.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

TK.61 said:


> *---This may be how you feel towards agents, but when become licensed, they agree to put clients best interests first and foremost.*
> 
> ]


Ofcourse, the thousands of real estate agents are all superior human beings, and they all follow whatever documents they had to sign to pass the test, why is it that the industry has such a bad reputation then?



TK.61 said:


> *--This last sentence is hilarious, it pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant. So you think it is ok for real estate agents to set up 'traps' and if a client fall for it, it is ok because they did not do enough due diligence? Your credibility is lost.*


What you think of my credibility is the least of my concern, however let me ask you a question, are you a real estate agent or are closely related to one?


----------



## iherald (Apr 18, 2009)

Here is the problem: who knows whether the 'better' unit that went on the market for $20,000 less is fairly priced? Maybe they want a bidding war and it will sell for $40,000 more than the OP paid.


----------



## bmg2009 (May 27, 2012)

TK.61 said:


> Im not sure that entering a real estate contract without any conditions is common. I find it hard to believe that many people submit offers without a clause related to passing an inspection for one. As for how the real estate agent acted, its all open to interpretation, but if the OP feels as though they were not treated fairly, they should bring this issue to both the broker and the local real estate council. I too am interested to see how this turns out. More information would be good too! OP where are you!


Hi TK.61, sorry was out of town for the weekend and just reading through all the posts now. First of all thanks for all the support/advise and comments. I will now be approaching http://www.reco.on.ca/ and the brokerage firm as well. Will get my case ready and keep you posted on what happens next.


----------



## Aolis (Nov 26, 2009)

*Buyer's Remorse*

This sounds like a case of buyer's remorse. Only you can decide how much you are willing to pay for something. It is unfortunate that a similar condo came on the market shortly after you purchased but that could have happened in any situation. There is a difference between appraisal value and the market value, especially when the market keeps going up.


----------



## bmg2009 (May 27, 2012)

Sorry was out of town for the weekend. First of all, thanks for all the support/advice/comments. I am putting my case together to report to RECO and also to the brokerage. I know she'll come up with a million reasons to justify herself but the fact is that RBC banks underwriter came with that evaluation (20K less), even then she said it's wrong. Also got her RBC mortgage guy to tell me this happens all the time and the valuation is wrong.

On the other unit that's on the market for 20K less. Called up that agent. It's still not sold, no offers yet and a week on the market. The comparable on similar unit was difficult to get as the last similar unit that was sold was 2 years back for 435K (but was completely renovated) I'd think at least 50K+ in renos


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I'm less concerned about the accuracy of the appraisal and more concerned about the coercion to sign the buyers agreement given it was so restrictive (applying only to one unit for which the agent was already representing the seller) There was virtually no services the agent could provide for the benefit of the buyer. The buyer did not enter into the agreement voluntarily. The buyers agreement in this situation was a defensive move by the agent and seller rather than a service to the buyer. Its only purpose was to exclude another agent from being involved. This reflects very badly on the profession. It would be very different if the buyer voluntarily engaged the agent to help him locate and buy a condo and this one happened to fit the bill. In that case disclosure of his conflict might be enough. But a selling agent shouldn't have the right to force potential buyers to engage her as their buying agent as a condition of showing a unit where they already represent the seller. It completely undermines the profession.

If I was on the disciplinary panel of the real estate board I would not look kindly to this.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Charlie said:


> But a selling agent shouldn't have the right to force potential buyers to engage her as their buying agent as a condition of showing a unit where they already represent the seller. It completely undermines the profession.
> 
> .


I agree completely, however if this is a base for disciplinary action and against the rules, I would think proving it will be difficult as I suspect there was nothing in writing and it was implied or imposed on verbally


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

He has a buyers agreement that is restricted to one specified unit. Should be enough to start an investigation given his story. I think this is slam dunk for discipline.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Charlie said:


> He has a buyers agreement that is restricted to one specified unit. Should be enough to start an investigation given his story. I think this is slam dunk for discipline.


Charlie, this is standard industry practice.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

really???? Wow. I had no idea.

seems it's a disservice to the seller (a barrier to potential buyers), the buyer (excluding access to an independent agent) the public at large, and reflects poorly on the industry. I had several agents pitch me their services when showing places, but none refuse to show me their own listing before I signed on with them. I understand the reasons for a buyers agreement -- but don't see any of those as being met here. 

Guess it truly is a rogues game.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

For me the issue is very dissimilar to rape, in which one (weaker) party is overpowered in the moment by a stronger party. While I agree that information asymmetry was present, and that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the buyer does not have an independent agent, I think "rape" as the metaphor is really, really overreaching. The OP said that their process of looking for a property took place over "months" and that he had "huge red flags" at at least one point in the process, but also that "we know the building so decided to go ahead and buy without any conditions."

In the process of looking for and then buying this property, the OP would have engaged in many conversations: with his spouse, probably with family members, with the agent, with whoever gave them their mortage, with their lawyer, with the agent's appraiser (I think) and with "her mortgage guy" etc. etc. There were multiple opportunities for him to reconsider his decision, make a different offer, or just walk away. Now that a different unit has come on the market (note: not sold) for a lower price, this guy feels that he "overpaid" (although he doesn't know that the other unit will sell for less, _just that it is listed for less_), and he wants out of the deal which he made. 

People here over and over (including me) will say you need independent representation in RE deals, and this is a big part of the reason why. But the problems with this situation arise primarily (in my opinion) from the fact that the buyer did not have his own agent, not from the conduct of the agent in this situation. The OP says that "From the beginning we felt she wasn't working for us at all." Well, for goodness' sakes then -- why did you proceed with her as your agent? Why not raise these issues with RECO at that time, instead of now, after you've actually entered into a deal?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Charlie said:


> really???? Wow. I had no idea.
> 
> seems it's a disservice to the seller (a barrier to potential buyers), the buyer (excluding access to an independent agent) the public at large, and reflects poorly on the industry. I had several agents pitch me their services when showing places, but none refuse to show me their own listing before I signed on with them. I understand the reasons for a buyers agreement -- but don't see any of those as being met here.
> 
> Guess it truly is a rogues game.


Now that I think about it - this is normal when you have one agent and one client. The agent needs the agreement to ensure they get paid.

In this case, you are right, the agent already has an agreement with the seller. I guess they wanted to lock in both sides of the deal.

Yes, this is a conflict and potentially a dis-service to the seller.

The whole "dual agency" thing is just BS anyway. Obviously the agent represents neither client and just gets the deal done and processes the paperwork.

Yes, it is a game of rogues.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> ..But the problems with this situation arise primarily (in my opinion) from the fact that the buyer did not have his own agent, not from the conduct of the agent in this situation.


The conduct of the agent prevented him from getting his own agent in this situation. 

What's more, the agent represented (and contracted in writing) that he was acting on the buyers behalf.

Shouldn't he have some culpability here as a professional?

(and I know buyer could have walked....but then he believed, and was told by the agent that he'd be precluded from having a chance at unit he wanted).


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

So...it wasn't listed on MLS? He couldn't have called a competing agent?

Editing to add: I know an RE lawyer who also sells RE. I asked about dual agency and his response was, "the agent's role is to ensure the client gets the purchase that best meets their needs," which doesn't necessarily translate as "while paying the lowest price."


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I suspect it was. Maybe not -- possibly a new listing? Don't know. I do think buyer was duped. (possibly not on price, but on the need to sign on with this agent). I do think there was a breach of ethics here that goes beyond buyer beware. And I think it would be of interest to a governing board.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

My point was not that rape and being taken advantage of in a financial transaction are the same but rather that we all have a tendency to blame the victim for being naive or not doing their due diligence. The facts are that if there was a breach of fiduciary duty the person committing the crime is to blame. 

I see this quite a lot with professional tenants and naive landlords. The landlord gets blamed for not doing proper due diligence or believing the tenant's story. I personally have witnessed these characters at work and they are much better equipped to deceive than we are to ferret them out.

Another good example would be the crimes of Bernie Madoff. He deceived some very sophisticated investors. Yet people were very quick to point out that "people should have known" because he had above average returns for years. In fact that's what 99% of investors are looking for. How many investor do you know who will come up and say "I want average returns on my investments" then when a can man cons them...we turn around and blame them for doing exactly what we would have done in that same situation.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> But the problems with this situation arise primarily (in my opinion) from the fact that the buyer did not have his own agent, not from the conduct of the agent in this situation.


I don't think that not having own agent is a problem at all, infact you can represent yourself and get a deal done without agent, however you have to put in an effort and prepare yourself a bit, the same goes for research regarding hiring or conducts of real estate agents, after all for most poeple this is the biggest purchase they ever make. Buying a personal property is really simple and doesn't require licensed professional, just requires a bit of a knowledge and research.

Lawyers can't represent both parties for obvious reason, real estate board doesn't prevent their members to do so, and they are surprised the industry has such a bad rap ;-)


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Charlie said:


> (and I know buyer could have walked....but then he believed, and was told by the agent that he'd be precluded from having a chance at unit he wanted).


Which in turn translates into not representing the best interests of the seller, since the agent would prevent certain buyers from having the opportunity.

Ohh boy ;-)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

^^ That.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

i think this is a case of buyers remorse. We all know that they did not have to sign the buyers agreement to make an offer on the condo. The agent was using the situation to lock up their commission. This is bad practice but we all know it happens. If they had not signed the agreement, they could have claimed 2.5% for themselves off the purchase price. The only loser would have been the listing agent.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, I talked to my realtor about this case. He says you've got good grounds for a potential lawsuit against the realtor, and she could potentially lose her license. 

It all depends on some details you may have left out. Did you sign the form about dual agency? Did you sign the form about unconditional offers? There are a number of other things which may influence the eventual decision and reprocussions. 

However, it's his opinion that, on the surface, she may have gone over the line. The other aspect he said to consider is most real estate councils are cracking down heavily on such behavior because they are trying to improve their reputation.

All this being said, you should also try to learn from this situation, your despiration and lack of due dillegence did play a factor in the outcome...of course the realtor, being the hired professional, is not allowed to take advantage of you either.

It may boil down to how good your lawyer is compared to hers.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Homerhomer said:


> Ofcourse, the thousands of real estate agents are all superior human beings, and they all follow whatever documents they had to sign to pass the test, why is it that the industry has such a bad reputation then?
> 
> 
> 
> What you think of my credibility is the least of my concern, however let me ask you a question, are you a real estate agent or are closely related to one?


Of course not all real estate agents follow ethical guidelines. But that is why there is legislation against it, so when agents stray from proper business practices, the client/victim has legal recourse to ensure they are protected. Im not concerned about your credibility either, but don't state things as if they are facts, when you aren't positive they are true. To answer your last question, I am a fully licensed agent in Alberta, although I currently do not practice, and I am not related directly to an agent, but a parent works for the Real Estate Council of Alberta and I have a few close friends who are active real estate agents and I know two brokers very closely.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

kcowan said:


> i think this is a case of buyers remorse. We all know that they did not have to sign the buyers agreement to make an offer on the condo. The agent was using the situation to lock up their commission. This is bad practice but we all know it happens. If they had not signed the agreement, they could have claimed 2.5% for themselves off the purchase price. The only loser would have been the listing agent.


You make a good point, although it seems to be against your stance on the situation....No, the buyer did not have to sign the buyers agreement to buy the condo, or even make an offer, but the agent made it out to be that the client would not have the opportunity to bid on the property if they did not sign with that specific agent (she threatened to withhold the address). This like previously posted, is coercion and unethical as the agent is not acting in the best interests of the client, which is what we are debating over.

I am almost positive that when the OP finally chimes in, he will unveil that the property was never posted on MLS, so almost no other agent would be able to find out which unit was for sale without asking the listing realtor, and by the sounds of it, she wouldn't have revealed because she thought she could get OP to pay more than the market would.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> Now that I think about it - this is normal when you have one agent and one client. The agent needs the agreement to ensure they get paid.
> 
> In this case, you are right, the agent already has an agreement with the seller. I guess they wanted to lock in both sides of the deal.
> 
> ...


You are wrong, the agent actually still represents both clients. This is why she has to disclose to both parties that she will be acting in dual agency, and either party can, and sometimes does state they are uncomfortable with the situation. An agent, when acting ethically, would (in this situation, if a client is uncomfortable) either tell the buyer that they cannot sell this property to them due to a conflict of interest, and let the buyer find a new agent to purchase the property, or show the buyer other properties that do not result in dual agency. Agent would give the buyer both options and let them choose.

You are letting your view of the real estate industry, and agents cloud your logic.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

How about some public shaming for a start?

Name of the agent and city. Tell absolutely everyone you know, get the word out there. 

I'm not sure how much luck you'll have with any sort of disciplinary hearings, but at the very least you can try and hit the agent's future business.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I suppose he can go after the agent in civil court or ask them to give back some commission but IMO He signed a legally binding contract so SOOL.Prime example of people getting in a panic and rushing to purchase real estate .


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

TK.61 said:


> You are wrong, the agent actually still represents both clients. This is why she has to disclose to both parties that she will be acting in dual agency, and either party can, and sometimes does state they are uncomfortable with the situation. An agent, when acting ethically, would (in this situation, if a client is uncomfortable) either tell the buyer that they cannot sell this property to them due to a conflict of interest, and let the buyer find a new agent to purchase the property, or show the buyer other properties that do not result in dual agency. Agent would give the buyer both options and let them choose.
> 
> You are letting your view of the real estate industry, and agents cloud your logic.


Uh no - you're wrong. They just pretend they are representing both clients. Like someone else said, it's like having one lawyer shared by both sides of a case. 

Completely ridiculous.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

how about stop wining and take responsibility for your own actions ? that's the name of the real estate game, some win, some loose, you lost, deal with it.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> Uh no - you're wrong. They just pretend they are representing both clients. Like someone else said, it's like having one lawyer shared by both sides of a case.
> 
> Completely ridiculous.


It's not even close to a lawyer-client relationship. In law, there is only 2 sides guilty/innocent or right/wrong or legal/illegal etc. So obviously you cant represent one side claiming innocence, while representing the other claiming guilt. In real estate there can be a fair deal that pleases both the buyer and seller...it's a negotiation process....It is clear that you do not understand the industry/practices and I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic because your arguments are so far off from logic.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Realistically, the agent works for themselves, and not the clients. There are major conflicts of interest in the way agents are compensated.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

TK.61 said:


> It's not even close to a lawyer-client relationship. In law, there is only 2 sides guilty/innocent or right/wrong or legal/illegal etc. So obviously you cant represent one side claiming innocence, while representing the other claiming guilt. In real estate there can be a fair deal that pleases both the buyer and seller...it's a negotiation process....It is clear that you do not understand the industry/practices and I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic because your arguments are so far off from logic.


You don't seem to understand the basics of negotiation and representation by an agent (of any type). An agent is supposed to get the best deal for their client - it has nothing to do with fairness.

Anyway, I'm thinking you are just one more troll on here. The thread is all yours.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

TK.61 said:


> It's not even close to a lawyer-client relationship. In law, there is only 2 sides guilty/innocent or right/wrong or legal/illegal etc. So obviously you cant represent one side claiming innocence, while representing the other claiming guilt. In real estate there can be a fair deal that pleases both the buyer and seller...it's a negotiation process....It is clear that you do not understand the industry/practices and I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic because your arguments are so far off from logic.


Your logic is ridiculous. 

In real estate the person buying wants to pay the least possible amount to secure the property

In real estate the person selling wants to sell for the highest price possible 

In both cases it is the agent's responsibility to make the best deal for their client. Considering that these goals are completely diametrically opposed in dual agency, I have no idea why it's even allowed. 

Furthermore there is a serious conflict of interest when an agent negotiates on behalf of a client to buy the property. In essence the better they do their job the less they get paid. How is this good for the buyer? Or honest agents?


----------



## sharbit (Apr 26, 2012)

Berubeland said:


> Your logic is ridiculous.


I dunno, he's given some helpful advice.

From what TK.61 has said the argument could almost be simplified to; if it hadn't been a dual agency, but instead two separate agents, would the outcome have been similar (within reason). If no then there is likely a breach of ethics somewhere. In this case there seems to be an issue. Not in the price, but the conditions that were put in to force the deal through. Ie, higher price (for the seller), withholding both the listing and comparables plus no conditions on completion.

Like, is a 5% payday that much more awesome to lose their licence? However, the completion of the transaction in a slower market would have been.

Though your right the situation is screwy just in the way humans work. It's an unfortunate situation to find oneself in. Like a positive outcome in dual agency is esentially a gamble. It's almost advantageous not to disclose what specific building your trying to get into.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> You don't seem to understand the basics of negotiation and representation by an agent (of any type). An agent is supposed to get the best deal for their client - it has nothing to do with fairness.
> 
> Anyway, I'm thinking you are just one more troll on here. The thread is all yours.


Troll? Hardly. I am trying to give the OP useful information/guidance just like they asked for, and I am correcting people like you who are sharing your opinions, not facts about the situation the OP is in. All your statements are based off personal bias, and I am clarifying for OP (and whoever else) that these are just personal opinions, and not actual facts based on anything.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

When I bought my current property (my first house), my agent didn't show me any comparables. I didn't know any better so I didn't ask. I think I overpaid about 5K, based on comparables I saw after the deal closed.

The morale of the story:

(1) Normal agency is not a panacea. Buyers' agents have a major conflict of interest. They have a monetary incentive to hide crucial data.

(2) **** like this will continue to happen (_please excuse my French_) as long as MLS sales data remains closed to the public.


----------



## TK.61 (Mar 27, 2012)

Berubeland said:


> Your logic is ridiculous.
> 
> In real estate the person buying wants to pay the least possible amount to secure the property
> 
> ...


My logic whatever it is, is synonymous the with law and standards which realtors are supposedly upheld by. I am not advocating dual agency, but it happens to be allowed and there are ethical guidelines which are to be followed in dual agent cases. I understand what you are saying in that both goals are opposed, but in cases of dual agency a lot disclosure and communication is needed. Dual agent transactions can be smooth, if done properly. 

--For ex. Agent lists house for person "A" for 500k. A few days later some random person "B" emails agent asking about house. Agent replies with details, and asks if the person is represented already. After meeting person "B" in person and disclosing all about dual agency and the possible complications, person "B" decides to proceed with the agent and make an offer on the house. Agent then meets with person "A" and tells them about the situation and dual agency.... Agent (previously) tells person "B" that the house is priced very fairly, shows them many comparable properties, they both conclude that the house IS priced fairly and that an offer of 500k is reasonable. (Maybe person "B" wants to offer at 5k under asking, Agent would then go talk with person "A" and they would make a judgement. If A wants full asking, then agent goes back to person "B" and dictates this. They make a judgement...). These situations are super tricky, I am not saying it is easy, or should even be allowed, but it is.

Moral of story, the process can go smooth, but with shady people not following ethical guidelines, it wont. and someone will get screwed. In OP's case if it can be proved the agent did not act ethically, there will be repercussions for the agent. It is simply not the buyer or sellers fault if they trusted the agent and agent screwed them. I believe in real estate, ethically can be defined as "what a reasonable person would do".


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It can go smoothly, but it is a bit like a pedophile running a daycare. Not a good idea.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I actually prefer dual agency. I look up houses online, do my own research as much as possible and then contact the selling agents. It's just one less conniving actor I have to deal with, and I'm less worried that they are colluding together at lunch. I'm pretty well versed in filling out standard paperwork or doing research myself, but my RE fees are covered by work anyways. I have negotiated good deals so far this way, and it's also a much better way to vet agents I find. You have more control up until the moment you sign that buyer/agent agreement. Never ever let an agent run the show or steer your judgement as this is their primary expertise, even if their comments seem innocent and helpful it's likely not. If they know anything useful, they can easily just keep it to themselves if they see fit. You can't prove they broke any code of ethics for using subtle persuasion. How is the secret MLS listing still allowed in the days of high speed internet? *How is that ethical anyways?* It's pure manipulation actually, like if car salesmen controlled all used car reviews or something. There is no reason they still deserve a fixed % commission with today's RE prices, and they are usually happy to fill out some forms for much less (especially if they have both sides). Or else find another one, there are many others with dollar signs in their eyes. This is of course personal bias, however I have friends in the business and the agencies don't seem to keep them around for their shining ability to follow a code of ethics.... they keep the ones who make the most sales obviously. TK.61 claiming OP should be able to trust their agent 100% is either drinking too much agency koolaid or full of sh!t. They are there to provide a service and shouldn't be trusted any more than anyone else working on a % based sales commission. It's no wonder the Cdn RE prices are skyrocketing when people will blindly pay whatever price the agent suggests!


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> I actually prefer dual agency. I look up houses online, do my own research as much as possible and then contact the selling agents.


That's what I did, I really don't need an agent to look up mls and send me automated email, just purchased a house this way, no commissions for the buyer's agent since I didn't have one and the seller was happy with the price offered even though it was below asking. Don't think it qualifies as dual agency since I was representing myself, and the agent wanted the sale as quickly as possible.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

TK.61 said:


> My logic whatever it is, is synonymous the with law and standards which realtors are supposedly upheld by. I am not advocating dual agency, but it happens to be allowed and there are ethical guidelines which are to be followed in dual agent cases.
> 
> I understand what you are saying in that both goals are opposed, but in cases of dual agency a lot disclosure and communication is needed. Dual agent transactions can be smooth, if done properly.
> 
> ...


Problem is, while the agency and RE board can choose to do something or not - "ethical guideline" likely does not have the force of law behind it.

Then too, if the agent is profitable for the agency, they don't have much incentive to act unless there is iron clad proof or a perceived loss of reputation/customers. Since the MLS is closed to the individual and it is all a "point in time", being suspicious is easy while proving it is harder. Any shady operator is going know this and be more likely to take advantage.

It's like when I ask for the company I work for to pay for an extra hotel room in exchange for a cheaper airline flight. If I don't take point-in-time quotes for the airline ticket price at the same time as booking the cheaper ticket - anyone can dispute the "savings". Even with additional quotes, there is no guarantee selective options were chosen.


As well, when I bought my first house - I also was not presented with comparables. It didn't matter as I'd done my own research and was under-bidding on a rental that had sat empty on the market for months.

When I sold the house was when I comparables were presented while setting the sale price.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> That's what I did, I really don't need an agent to look up mls and send me automated email, just purchased a house this way, no commissions for the buyer's agent since I didn't have one and the seller was happy with the price offered even though it was below asking.


Yes, but in my case the RE agent fees are covered by work anyways. If you negotiate with them they seem to know a number of ways to grease the wheels when they are potentially getting double commission. They also don't seem to mind divulging some seemingly harmless information the other side has told them if you are paying them something, which you can then use your own judgement to take or leave. They are usually happy to pay out some hefty referrals as well if you have a lot of friends who move.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Too bad the OP hasn't posted an update regarding whether they have received a second opinion on legal advice. I am under the understanding that you can always get out of a deal....for a price. 

This is what I read. We are unhappy we did not get a better deal, the agent should have ensured that. 

This is what they got. No independent representation. As per assessment, they overpaid for a condo in a building they really wanted to be in. Offering basically what the agent felt it would sell for on the open market.

As per the other unit for sale with a lower price. Have you checked it out? Is the seller a motivated seller, does the unit have comparable fixtures. Perhaps it is the same unit, but there could be other factors at play. It sounds as if you are an inexperienced buyer, who wants someone to blame for not getting a great price. You did get a unit you like in the building you wanted, remember. How many other comparable units did you ask to see, did you check the price history of comparable units that have recently sold in that building?

IMO you may have a case against the agent, whether the legal fees are worth it is for you to decide. You might be able to break the contract, have the owner sell the unit to someone else, you would have to pay the difference to the seller if it is less than what you signed to pay, and you would probably be on the hook for yours and the sellers legal fees, as well as the sellers staging fees, hydro/insurance expenses past the original sell date, and any loss of commission for the RE agent. But that is a best case scenario.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> They also don't seem to mind divulging some seemingly harmless information the other side has told them if you are paying them something, which you can then use your own judgement to take or leave.


Yep, the integrity of the profession ;-)


----------



## dougboswell (Oct 25, 2010)

BMG2009: Unfortuneately you signed a legal contract. However I would follow the advice of others here.
1) Go to her Broker of Record with everything written down
2) Take your complaints to the local real estate board.
3) If you live in Ont I would defineately file a complaint with RECO the provincial governing body.
In Ontario agents are bound by REBBA - which lays out the various items an agent must do. One has already been mentioned -feduciary duty

Questions I have. 
1) Did she give you the names of 3 different mortgage agents or did she tell you to use the RBC . At the same time why did you not go to your own bank?
2) Did she mention the Condomidium bylaws that you can purchase that give details of your unit and the financial report on the Condo Corpn.
3) Was it a licensed appraiser that was used and did RBC order it?
4) Do she not sit down with you before you put the offer in and show you comparable units and what they recently had sold for?
5) Did you ask to put conditions in ie mortgage financing and were told they were not needed? What would have happened if you had been turned down for a mortgage. Without that condition you still would be liable to pay for it.

These are the type of things I would document and then start your complaint. Don't be intimindated by her broker. He/she wants the money as much as her so he/she will probably say they can't help you. Keep going up the ladder even to the provincial regulatory body


----------



## colossk (May 11, 2011)

I'm sorry but this feels like a case of buyers remorse. It seems like everyone these days wants to blame someone else for their problems, it's never their faut but the other guys. I see posts like this and I can understand why our kids are growing up lazy, with such a sense of ridiculous entitlement, instant gratification and ridiculous expectations.

*You decided *not to put in any conditions, *you decided *what you wanted to pay for the unit. *You decided *to continue even after the appraisal came in at 20k under your offer. *You decided *that you wanted to deal with this agent, The agent didn't hold a gun to your head. It sounds like you bought with your emotions and now regret it.

Also, who's to say that this "other Unit" thats 20k less wasn't priced that way to start a bidding war? Who's to say it's not underpriced and yours is priced correctly?
Also are people really that naive to take an agents apraisal over a certified appraiser? An agent can not appraise a property correctly, she can make a "best guess" as to what the value of your home will sell for based on current market conditons but they can not accurately appraise a property. 

There's a reason why banks call in a certified appraiser and not a real estate agent when they want the value of the property. The formulas and calculations that are done when doing an actual appraisal of a property are numerous and have pretty strict guidelines. Where an agent might say "walkout basement, add 10k or a ravine lot add 20k", a certified appraiser will say "walkout basements adds 9.4k and a ravine lot of this size adds 18.9k. Do these type of calculations 50x on a property and its aesy to see how there can be a 20k difference between the best guess of an agent and a certified appraisal.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

I'm sorry but I'm in agreement with colossk here - though he put it much softer than I would have.

*You* likely signed another piece of the paper with the agent which very clearly mentioned that the agent would be representing both parties here, and any conflict of interest is acknowledged by you.

*You* never should have signed without the conditions of inspection and financing.

I think that you should look at this now as you paid what you felt was fair for something you really wanted (at the time). Regardless of the current variables it is the decision you made at that time which you really have to consider.

There's more to life than money. If you go down the legal road, I think you'll learn that very quickly as it is not usually worth the time and stress.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

K-133 said:


> *You* never should have signed without the conditions of inspection and financing.
> 
> .


However in a hot market having both conditions pretty much guarantees you are not getting the property since it has became a norm that no condition offers have best chances of being accepted. Just stating in general and not for this particular case.

Silly but that's the reality.


----------



## tombiosis (Dec 18, 2010)

K-133 said:


> I'm sorry but I'm in agreement with colossk here -
> 
> There's more to life than money. If you go down the legal road, I think you'll learn that very quickly as it is not usually worth the time and stress.


Good post!
This has definitely been my experience....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I suppose this is the caveat emptor argument. It was OP's mistake for thinking the agent was acting in good faith. Moral of the story: operate on the assumption that RE agents are snakes that see you as just another commission to be quickly plucked. They may be in fact be perfectly decent, honest people, but you should assume the worst to protect yourself.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

IOW look out for number one because no one else will!


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

As with any asset, when the conditions favors the sellers, you are taking a risky bid with the assumption of profit only if the price goes up. However, when the condition favors the buyers, the risk is more in your favor where you have more laws in your favor when conditions go south. 
Nature of the trade. Welcome to the game of money.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

A very good mix of opinions here. So two things . . . OP's originally posted on May 27, so surely the unit has gone up $20,000 in that time  and secondly, do we really thing the R E agent would knowingly take on this much potential risk for their cut of ($20,000 x 5%) x 50% x tax rate . . . so if the agent were this "sharp" (a term lawyers sometimes use amongst themselves), I'm sure that works out to $250. I didn't see anywhere that there was actually a problem with the unit. Also, what did the other unit sell for in the end . . . perhaps it was priced to start a bidding war and will eventually sell for more. The agent dug up a unit (off market, and despite all the BS, therefore not subject to a bidding war) and got the OP what they wanted. What are the other comps in the building ? What was the other venders motivation?

(full disclosure . . . I am NOT an agent, nor associated with one in any way . . . and deal with the underbelly of society often enough to be wary . . . chapter one, page of course number one "commission splitting" . . . enough said!)


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Mall Guy said:


> chapter one, page of course number one "commission splitting" . . . enough said!)


Precisely what I was alluding to. They know how to grease the wheels if you know how to play their game. And you're right they don't care about the final price, it's more important to make a quick transaction. If you don't question the price though why would they.


----------

