Can I get sued ?

Yes.

This is an easy question. Check the contract you signed with the broker.

Riversider--it's not erlto's broker. It's the buyer's broker. Check with an atty but I believe if the buyer chooses to dump their broker you, as the seller, are not on the hook.

The question was whether you will be sued, not whether the claim will succeed. The buyer's broker may very well sue all 3 parties - seller, seller's broker & buyer for the commission.

See this case.
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2007/2007-50761.html

Seinfelds sued by their broker - both seller and seller's broker were named.

But you haven't sent out a contract yet? Why don't you add a provision to the contract to cover this possibility?

Here's some free legal analysis. Not advice, really, but something to think about from a lawyer's POV:

Chances are, your contract with *your* broker obligates you to pay *your* broker a percentage of the purchase price. Your broker may, in turn, have an agreement with the buyer's broker (usually referred to as a co-broke) obligating your broker to split that payment with the buyer's broker. Chances are that you, however, do not have an agreement with the buyer's broker to pay the buyer's broker anything at all. This means that you are not in "privity" with the buyer. Accordingly, the buyer's broker probably won't succeed on a claim for breach of contract. So let's nix that for now.

That isn't all there is to this game, though! We litigators can be resourceful folks. Have you ever had any communication, written or otherwise, with the buyer's broker? If so, he may claim that you represented to him that you'd happily pay his fee if he produced a buyer, and that he reasonably relied on that representation. Still, he'd have a lot of trouble actually proving it, and in the civil world, he'd have to prove it by "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning roughly a 50% 1 chance, or "more likely than not". If it's just his word against yours, well, he'd have to have a pretty good word at his disposal. Let's nix that for now, too.

He may try some other avenues of attack, like claiming that you were unjustly enriched by his services, or some other equitable arguments. But again, why is it so wrong that you get to make the sale? The equitable road is usually a tough one to hoe, so let's nix that as well.

What are we left with? A whole lot of nothing for the plaintiff, and it seems like you're in good shape.

But let's assume for the moment that any claim against you on these facts should fail. Even knowing that, you really want to have to pay someone like me to make sure it does?

nyc10023 has it right - If I was the buyer's broker's lawyer and I thought I had a good argument for it, I'd sue everyone, including you. If I was the seller, I'd get my broker to get the buyer's broker on the phone and looped into the deal and make sure he gets his fee. But maybe I'm just risk-averse :)
.
.
.
Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City, but he isn't *your* lawyer, and you should not rely on this post for legal advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to email at MSANTORI@NMLLPLAW.COM

Anyone can be sued for anything. Doesn't mean you'll lose, but it does open door to possibility of litigation. 1) Check contract with your listing agent to see what it says on this issue--actually, have your attorney check it. 2) make sure you are indemnified by the buyer against any action against you by his/her former broker including any legal fees--again, your attorney should make sure you are protected. This isn't child's play--its is serious money at issue plus lots of potential aggravation. Very good time to get proper legal advice from seasoned RE attorney.

Hello? If its a typical co-broke situation, you already agreed to pay your broker x% who agreed to split it with Buyer's broker y% if buyer's broker is the "procuring cause" and buyers close the deal. Don't get fooled into stage 2 of this, which is buyers asking for a price concession because "they don't have a broker." This is irrelevant to you - you still have to pay your broker the original fee arrangement. This can only muck up your sale, so you need to be adamant with yourr broker to make sure they get it right, and unless you see a written waiver by the buyer's broker, I wouldn't be conceding $1 in price at any point. Check your contracts (with your broker and with the buyer)

You should consider that adding a provision to the contract would not protect you. Generally speaking, the purchase agreement will only bind those who are a party to it. What er1to9 seems to be asking is "will it be safe for me to cut the buyer's broker out of the deal?" Thus, if you cut the buyer's broker out of the deal, the buyer's broker won't be a party to the purchase agreement. You can't bind him to any provision that might waive his right to sue you, or renounce his role in the deal.

There's no real laywerly magic to this. If you want to be safe under these facts, do the deal with the buyer's broker.
.
.
.
Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City, but he isn't *your* lawyer, and you should not rely on this post for legal advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to email at MSANTORI@NMLLPLAW.COM

I can't see how you wouldn't be responsible to pay commission if you go to contract. Not a fan of RE sales people but if it weren't for that broker your apt would not be sold. Not a lawyer but the bottom line is "if it weren't for the actions of the broker your apt would not of been sold to the specific buyer" Now how in the world would you think you would be off the hook on this one. Yes definitely read your contract. I believe any attorney would be more than happy to represent the plaintiff and have a very strong chance of winning if in fact there is a RE broker contract in place. This of course is just my opinion.

BTW I am not even sure a RE contract has to be in place for you to be responsible for commission. I would love to hear any lawyers chime in here on this one.

you are a seller and paying commission on the sale to your broker. they are buyers that don't want to use the broker that made a mistake. as long as you keep your part of the contract, i would expect that either the selling RE brokerage or the buyer will be on the hook. you are living up to your contract, they are not.

@ renterjoey and the others speculating here: you really should stop. These are legal questions with actual answers. Do you really think the seller has some kind of contractual obligation directly with any agent who comes with a buyer. Where exactly do you think the seller's obligation to pay that agent anything comes from? The air? Nothing has been signed between the seller and the buyer's agent. Or do you think it more likely that the 3% commission owed the buyer's broker comes from REBNY agreements between member agents? It is really through the seller's agent that the obligation may come. So the selling agent is responsible for divying up the commission. On the other hand, the seller has a signed contract with his agent. That contract may state what they agree will be done if a buyer comes with another agent. In such a case that would be very important here, yes? This is why legal counsel is required--to read the contracts, determine obligations, protect parties from unintended consequecnes, etc. There is simply not enough information here for a more substantive answer.

Kyle, If the buyers broker brought their client into see this apt for the first time and that client in turn purchased the apt than the buyers broker would be entitled to their commission, IMHO. Whether the commission comes directly from the seller or seller's agent makes no difference to the buyers broker. Definitely, the seller should go into detail with their lawyer prior to this transaction so their lawyer can read the agreement that the seller has with his/her real estate agent.

This also isn't entirely a contractual question. If the seller's broker is going to be contractually paid, but has some latitude on the co-broke, but the co-broke is somebody that they would typically pay, they're probably going to pay them. If you're Corcoran (say) it's not worth risking your relationship with Elliman (say) over thirty thousand bucks, even if that thirty thousand is in something of a gray area.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Bramstar, I didn't see that.
As a non-signer to any agreement, I guess you could get sued, but what contract did you break here? The liability if any should rest with the party that signed a contract that broke it.

If you have a business deal with inododo he will threaten to sue you and cite slightly tangential cases, but he's a paper tiger.

DG It shouldn't matter who was the co broker. The fact of the matter is "but if it wasn't" for the buyer's broker the sale would not of occurred between that specific buyer and seller.

'The fact of the matter is "but if it wasn't" for the buyer's broker the sale would not of occurred between that specific buyer and seller.'

Seems like the broker should have thought about that before misrepresenting their client and getting fired.

jordyn, that's the buyers interpretation. Maybe they just didn't like him.

Joey, you dont make the argument well. If i show up with you to buy a suit at barneys where i take you because you never heard of it before, am i entitled to a commission? No. Because barneys has no arrangement with me. Real estate is no different. You have to point to a law or WRITTEN contractual obligation which youve not done. A sellers obligation to pay a broker doesnt just 'exist' in some existential plain. Where do you claim the duty comes from here between seller and buyers ex broker? It has to be a contract with the ex broker and seller, or a clause in the sellers contract with his own broker. So which is it that you base your position on?

kyle, seriously, is that your legal advice on the matter? You asked others to stop speculating, citing this as a legal question with actual answer. If you are an attorney expert on these matters, it would be good to let us know, otherwise it seems as if you yourself should stop too as you've suggested others do.

There is absolutely no way Kylewest is an attorney. No way now how. The question by the op involves his sellers RE agent and a buyer's agent. Usually when you have both involved there is some type of agreement. That analogy with Barneys is so ridiculous it's not worth commenting on.

Don't get stuck on the contractual liability. See my first (long) post above. Breach of Contract is not the only cause of action in New York.

Even if it was, the contract may have some unusual terms in it. For example, it may require the seller to indemnify & defend his broker against any losses incurred relating to the sale. I don't see that very often, but it could be in there. If it is, then the seller is going to be in deep on legal fees protecting his broker if the buyer's broker sues.

er1to9: why don't you tell us what the terms of your brokerage agreement are. Maybe we can give some more specific analysis.
.
.
.
Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City, but he isn't *your* lawyer, and you should not rely on this post for legal advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to email at MSANTORI@NMLLPLAW.COM

definitely get legal advice on the contract you signed...
from my experience working with buyers, and buyers brokers, unless they have an exclusive buyers contract with their broker, they can hire or fire any broker they want. The customer/buyer is always right, and up to contract signing they can have anyone they want represent them. I am seeing more and more brokers get exclusive buyers broker agreements and i think its partly because of cases like this.

Well, all the buyers broker has to do is get all kinds of documentation. Documents such as phone records with the buyers, and his communication records via email. When he first met the buyer and date and time as to when the buyer was brought to the apt. I am sure he/she can get hold of lots and lots of paper trails that can be presented to an attorney that understands real estate contract law. If in fact the buyers broker's client purchased this apt then rest assure the buyers broker is collecting on his commission.IMHO

My first two posts on this thread say what msantori says. joey, you're a fool. You either can't read what I wrote, or can't understand it. Your comments add nothing here. Obligations in RE arise from written instruments or statutes. Not thin air. I don't know how to be any more clear than my first two posts: A seller is obligated to others brokers via a contract with the listing agent or via the sales contract. There are no other binding documents or statutes in a typical transaction. So what these two documents say is what needs to be looked at. Whether the buyer's ex-broker introduced the buyer to the apartment does not in itself determine whether a seller owe's that ex-broker a cent. What guides are legal agreements. This is such basic law as to be silly to discuss more. Get a lawyer and read the documents for applicable clauses. Why are we still talking about this?

Kyewest what law school did you go to UFM (University for Morons) Since your post about Barneys made absolutely no sense why would I think you have anything credible to say
"this is such basic law" I tend to think msantori would disagree with you

joey, this is really silly. santori and I have essentially said the same things with each of us expanding on certain aspects of the potential risks and contractual implications. Where do you see a difference between what each of us has said? I'm also curious what you think you have contributed here that Santori or I didn't say at the beginning. Btw, you have knowledge in this area, how?

Santori has credibility you on the other hand are full of crap. Are you claiming to be a lawyer or are you pretending to be well versed in contract law?

I have some questions:

Is Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City?

Is he "my" lawyer?

Should I rely on his posts for legal advice?

How can I reach him if I have other questions?

fwiw, joey boy, I think my 5 years of posts on Streeteasy speak for themselves in terms of providing competent information on this forum. You, on the other hand, are a johnny-come-lately who, judging by your name, may know about the world of renting but seem to have little knowledge of purchasing and selling Manh RE. And while santori is indeed contributing, he's about as new as you are on here. Some people, when they are new to a place, take it all in for a while before insulting the regulars. Why don't you get a lay of the land, figure out who really are the more reliable posters, and think about what your posts will add before you hit "reply." Or feel free to go off half-cocked. Many on here do that, too. And truth be told, in the last 5 years I've been guilty of it too now and again. But not on this thread.

See MidTownerEast? That's why I have such an informative signature ;)

kylewest, All your 5 year tenure of postings has done is turn you into a cocky moron.

You state, as if you are an expert, that "Obligations in RE arise from written instruments"
Well I disagree with that. Even without a written agreement I believe the seller may still be liable to pay the buyers broker his/her commission if in fact the buyers broker's client purchased the apt.

kylewest, your only mistake was to give in to the temptation of getting into it with that loon. Arguing with a crackpot is like suing a pauper.

poor renterjoey, It's unfortunate you have someone like NWT who is just another village idiot coming out of the woodwork. He never has anything useful to add other than to support this pompous know it 5 year posting veteran.

kyle, shouldn't you acknowledge if you are an attorney to renteroey and others here, since you've said that non-attorney advice is a bad idea?

1) Happy holiday weekend everybody!
2) Let's go Mets!
3) Renterjoey, going after KW really? Interesting choice.

ali

huntersburg, kyle is not an attorney. That's quite obvious. Moron yes attorney no.

Happy Easter, everyone. And Ali, the interesting choice here was my own in getting sucked into this--shame on me! On to other threads...

Yes, Happy Easter and Passover to everyone. I too apologize for getting sucked into this as well. I need to learn how to be more tolerant to those who claim they know it all.