Back to Results
check this out:
Please enter a valid email address.
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.
can't get into the article...
it's never their fault ... no the buyers werent the STUPID ones. If this lady wins I’ll consider packing up and moving out of the US. I go to car dealers all the time and ask the sales person what the car is really worth and buy the one they tell me is the best deal. OMG you mean they have been lying to me? Can I sue them too??
Oh good grief. Did the agent hold a gun to their heads and make them sign the offer? Did he threaten them with bodily harm when they asked to see the appraisal?? You know what really happened - they fell in love with the house and would have bought it (at the time) no matter what and now have buyer's remorse.
Going Out To Register To Vote So They Can Call Me To Serve On This Jury
The sue happy state of Calif... right down the freeway from me is this idiot. I can honestly say she won't win. The burden of proof is on her, and the agents have no duty regarding price. Price is what a willing and able buyer will pay for it... Now if the agent was part of a conspiracy to commit fraud, and she can prove it, then she has a shot. I don't see her winning. It's too easy to argue considering the definition of price.
wait ... I didnt read the whole thing ...
"It is clear the Ummels did not rush into a decision: They dismissed one agent and canceled deals on two houses before Mr. Little ( The REA) found them a prospect on a cul-de-sac in a five-year-old luxury development. A deal was struck with the owner, herself a real estate agent, for $1.2 million.Mr. Little also worked as a mortgage broker. The Ummels say he encouraged them to get their loan through him. Mr. Little ordered an appraisal of the house but did not respond to the couple’s requests to see it, the suit charges. "
hmmm it's shady as hell on one hand I hope the agent frys for being a douchbag but I would still have to say it's their fault for having signed without knowing what they were buying.
"Did the agent hold a gun to their heads and make them sign the offer? Did he threaten them with bodily harm when they asked to see the appraisal?? "
LOL! All it take is to lie like a pig! and use all kind of evil tactics.... fake multiple offers
fake apprasials and fake loans... the whole industry has corrupted the market place.
“Brokers aren’t appraisers,” said Mr. Horner, one of the writers of a guide to suing brokers. “They have no obligation to opine about value. But once they do, it becomes a gray area whether it’s puffery or a misstatement of a known fact.”
Well they sure as heck act like it when they do a CMA. So here the REA claims that the buyers should have done their homework-not his fault, but then the NAR and REAs claim you need the buyers agent to represent you and look out for your best interests (ie: they are supposed to do the homework for you, after all they are paid representatives. Sure no one had a crystal ball that prices were going down like they have but this purchase took place in 2004 before any bust in which one can almost bet that prices were still rising, and since a house on the same street with more bling bling like a pool sells for $175K less then clearly she got bamboozled by the seller (agent) and all who were involved.
After reading this article, there were more questions in my mind than answers (good journalism, make you think and make assumptions....). I do have to question the agents motives. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his client, and part of that is disclosure of material facts. Purchase prices of homes around them is material. He can't quote the purchase price of a home that didn't close before the offer was made. So the news about houses selling after a price was agreed to doesn't count since they already agreed to a price. I also question why he acted as their broker as well, that seems a little fishy to me, but I don't practice that and feel that doesn't help my clients. Also, why would you with-hold an apprasial (ever)? If the client wants to see it, by all means, show it to them, chances are they paid for it.
The fact that this is going to court stands out. If he was in violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, then there are lots of options, file compliant with NAR, the local Association and the Department of Real Estate, all of which would not cost $75k to do. Then if found guilty at those levels, it becomes easier to file suit (and win) at the court level.
In my opinion, lacking too facts to pass any judgement, they are both guilty. The agent was probably not acting in his clients best interests. The buyer was originally willing to pay the price for the home otherwise she wouldn't have put an offer in, if things weren't going well, bail, she did it twice before.
First off, an agent should never give a value of a property. But they can provide comparables and help interpret the information. The article does not mention in what capacity the agent was working for the buyer... buyers agent, facilitator, selling agent. (Many buyers tend to gloss over the relationship with their agent until there is a problem) Ultimately it is the buyer who signs on the dotted line and should be making the final decision of the homes value.
The article never mentions when the home was purchased. If they bought at the peak and the market declined shortly thereafter. then the buyer is in the same boat as a lot of other home owners.
It is important to remember that comparables, broker price opinions and appraisals are a snapshot of market value for that given day only. In all cases, the market data used is a lagging indicator of the market.
I read this a few hours ago on the sellers side but figured I would digest it and then comment.
We are not using an agent, not becuase of this situation. I don't think the agent is at fault.
I think the people putting their complete and utter trust in an agent/mortgage broker is a stupid thing to do. Having someone beneifit as an agent and a mortgage broker would lead me to think that maybe I should be more diligent myself.
It isn't that agents are all bad it is that by the nature of the business they make money when a sale happens. That would be a cinflict of interest, in my book, for some agents (again not all) to lean toward getting the sale completed rather than bringing anything up in the eleventh hour.
Since I would not fully trust any agent I would end up shadowing every thing that agent did which in turn would be just as much, if not, more work than not using one.
I think the agent just did what he does for a living. Buyer's and listing agents need the sale to happen and understandably that is where their focus is.
As a licensed agent in our wounderful sue happy state I always tell the buyer to do your due diligence. I advise the buyer to go with me into as many homes as they can in the 1/2 mile radius of the home they like. They decide not I -what to offer and what a home is worth. As far the appraisal, it should be given to the client at the close of escrow. I also think there may be a conflict of interest if the seller was also the lender and he ordered the appraisal asking to meet a certain requirement. I suppose all the truth wherever it lies will come out in court
I am reading these article in the eyes of a buyer. I think the fault is on both the agent and the buyer. The agent may have not given all fact about the house but only gave the information the buyers needed. the buyer did not rush into getting a home but should have researched the property themselves also. Yhey could have gotten their children to look into the property before they signed and they did not have to sign. I think the agent my have used the age of the buyer to his advantage not knowing what he was getting into. I don't think she will win the lawsuit if only thing is wrong with the home is the price.
The home was purchased in 2004, hardly when prices were declining in that area, much less the rest of the nation. Comps of homes like hers were selling for almost $200K less, information it seems that was kept from her. Sure she could have looked it up, but how many people in that age range are skilled at the internet and they were old school and felt their interests were being looked out for. When she gets a flier from a nearby house selling for less with more stuff shorlty after closing then clearly the feeling of being had came up. It isn't like this case propped up just now, I am sure she has been in litigation for quite some time.
I was ignorant when I bought my first two homes, I bought the third without an agent. Many agents present themselves as sort of a psuedo legal representative, when in many ways they are there to give some advice and make sure that paperwork is done and closing happens. Many of us have been led to believing that they are there to negotiate on our behalf and make deals happen, but the conflict of interest will always be the spoke in the wheel of that trust. I find it amazing how a stock broker would have his arse in a sling and a realtor gets away with such things and more money is often at stake in the real estate exchange.
I found it interesting that they pointed out that it wasn't until the the past few decades that buyer representation came into play.......time to phase it out perhaps.
Please enter text in the "Enter the text to display" field.
Please enter text in the "Enter URL" field.
Please enter a valid URL.
Please insert a video embed only
Zillow Advice depends on each member to keep it a safe, fun, and positive place. If you see abuse, flag it. More on our Good Neighbor Policy.