question on broker's fees

huntersburg: about 11 months ago

steamdemon, why so angry? Last week when you were over to steam clean my carpets, I gave you a tip. Some people ...

hoodia: about 11 months ago

Brokers should go after the landlords in this situation, not tenants.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

"however If u wanna be a morally corrupted assh*le that's fine, but hey it's NYC, most of us are."

So therefore it's okay?

steamdemon: about 11 months ago

Legally you can go around the broker no problem, however If u wanna be a morally corrupted assh*le that's fine, but hey it's NYC, most of us are.

huntersburg: about 11 months ago

>Example:

If you can find an apartment, say, on Rockrose website in the Archive for example, have been stalking the building for years to get in, only to be told every time, "sorry, rented/application in" and a broker who gets an update or has a relationship with the leasing agent informs you prior to it hitting the website that the exact line, size and price range you are looking for is available, gets you in and helps to ensure that you can actually secure it, I bet you all feel that's a "no fee" "I could have found it on my own" and the broker deserves no pay. But the thing is, you couldn't!

Wonderful, but this thread is about a completely different example.

ABrokerFirst: about 11 months ago

It really depends on the building. If the renter showed up to the building with the broker for the 1st time, then the renter would have been registered with the broker when they gt to the leasing office. So no matter which apartment the renter takes in that building the renter will be associated with that broker. The broker is usually notified that the renter has applied and has been approved. The broker is protected if the renter registered at the initial showing.

I know this from passed experience. A client tried to apply for an apartment in the building after I showed it to them to avoid paying the fee. The leasing office notified me on the application approval and wouldn't allow the renter to sign the lease unless the broker fee was paid at the same time of the lease signing.

Most building leasing offices protect the broker.

Hope that helps!!

mazzee: about 11 months ago

If the last line of defense for your profession is "the market will bear what the market will bear," then you've given up trying to justify that your work has value. Additionally, I fear for your soul.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

For Lef2009, What kind of lawyer are you (what's your specialty) and and what law school did you go to?

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

@ Ronnie, I am a little confused.

Here are the facts: "Friend sees an apartment with a broker; doesn't take it. The building is actually a no fee building and Friend subsequently returns to the building and rents a different apartment.

Friend did not sign anything."

Knowing these are the only facts (that is what appears in this thread), what does the Renter owe the Broker? An HJ? A slice of pizza? Full commission?

We are told of no agreement, we are told that the renter didn't even take the apartment but one in the building.

We have a lucky renter and a misguided broker.

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

@Ottawa, there are no emails in the fact pattern. The fact that you guys bring up some email is irrelevant as it is not part of the facts that LEF gave.

@Renterjoey, your making this seem like this is some tremendous trial up ahead and that there is a big judgment in the waiting.

First, there was no signed agreement. No mention of witnesses, paper trails and messages.

Second, the tenant didn't rent the apartment the broker showed him. He rented in the building.

Third, we don't have any discussion transcript between the broker and tenant. Hence let's not create facts.

Finally, what stupid lawyer would take this case (I take that back there probably are a bunch)? If these are the facts above and it is a he said/she said argument...good luck.

This should be a message to all brokers, SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. SPELL OUT WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS...

To potentials renters, CHANGE THE ADHESION CONTRACT.

RonnieHats: about 11 months ago

The broker in question may not be experienced enough to realize this. The renter in question may be so "tech savvy" as to not realize this...part of a broker's job is to introduce you to a solid property.

The renter does owe said broker something at the end of the day no matter how you slice it.

Example:

You will never truly understand until you walk a mile.

The job is service related, not "doorknob turning" related or "turning a coal into diamond" related.

I feel all of your pain about broker's being overpaid and such.
The same can be said about every profession out there if you really look at things...

Athletes vs teachers
Entertainers vs Services (cops, MTA, firefighters, armed forces)
Stock Brokers vs Real Estate Brokers...
Financial Analysts vs Nurses

Everyone has to earn a living, why debate about who deserves what.
The market will bear what the market will bear!

huntersburg: about 11 months ago

>Karma is a bitch.

What is this "Karma" you are talking about?
The kids who are born with birth defects, and the kids who get cancer at a young age, exactly what did they do to deserve it?

jim_hones10: about 11 months ago

Sometimes?

1. Never meet someone for the first time anywhere other than your office.
2. Never show property w/o a signed commission agreement.

amazalatis: about 11 months ago

Legally not bound without a signed fee agreement. If your friend was introduced to the building by his broker, he should pay some kind of fee for his service. Karma is a bitch. For all of the broker haters, sometimes you as the clients are just as shady. It's all about working with good and honest people.

jim_hones10: about 11 months ago

If you ar. An attorney why ask us?

lef2009: about 11 months ago

Just to respond to several questions -- no, it is really not me. I am, for better or worse, an owner and not a renter. As to the person who suggested that an email exchange is not an agreement, I agree with Consigliere -- the critical issue is whether a clear agreement was reached and not the precise form it was in. There are some exceptions to this (under the "Statute of Frauds"), but probably not relevant here. Even an oral agreement can be binding -- but there you have the issue of what was said to complicate matters.

LEF (a lawyer, but not a real estate or landlord-tenant lawyer)

Ottawanyc: about 11 months ago

Thanks Consigliere - did not realize we were in disagreement. Point is does not matter how agreement was communicated, as long as there was agreement, then contract.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

Hate to say this but I agree with Ottawa. I don't believe you need a written contract to collect on this although it certainly would make it a lot easier. As I mentioned there must be a lot of paper trails, messages, emails, witnesses etc. In my opinion, using attorney who has a very strong background in contract law would be a good fit if the broker wanted to take this to court.

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

Ottawanyc,

I believe emails are "WRITTEN" and not "ORAL" communications/records. This is under The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999. Although New York has not adopted the UETA (see below), the New York statute (see below) now acknowledges as "writing" "the tangible written text produced by telex, telefacsimile, computer retrieval or other process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or otherwise" and as a signature "any symbol executed or adopted by a party with the present intention to authenticate a writing."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/uniform-electronic-transactions-acts.aspx

N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law §5-701(b)(4).

Enjoy the lawsuit everyone.

Ottawanyc: about 11 months ago

You don't need to sign anything. Oral contract, contract communicated through email. Same, same. Contract is useful because it is clear. But you don't need the formality of a written contract. Did they have an agreement that the renter would pay the broker a fee, if the broker found an apartment (oral, email, whatever)? If yes, contract. Proving it though is hard, which is why contract is useful. So could be liable for the agent's loss (15% if that was agreed), but not legal fees.

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

Roro,

"Ruthless approach," understatement of the year.

Roro: about 11 months ago

Hope your friend did sign the form and gets sued for 15% plus legal fees. Sure, many rental agents are in fact shady characters. In light of "your friend's" ruthless approach - can anyone really wonder why?

Brooks2: about 11 months ago

bait and switch, their rules. Perfectly ok to play be their rules.

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

Agree joey, that is why we don't need to imply any ourselves.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

so even if the rental broker sent an email detailing their fee agreement and how they work to this potential renter. The renter then sends back an email replying fine. Then what? Still no written contract. I highly doubt we have all the facts of what actually happened here.

KeithB: about 11 months ago

ABC, that's what it's all about. Nice Consigliere, need to rent that, great film, great performances!

mazzee: about 11 months ago

Rental brokers are useless, largely unskilled parasites that exist only to add unwanted friction to a marketplace. I'm glad at least one got screwed. Please do whatever you can to make this a trend.

gcondo: about 11 months ago

Broker showing no fee building, voila! no fee!

gcondo: about 11 months ago

I like to see overpaid broker's whining.

But I agree with their sentiment that nobody should use a broker. "Dont use one"

jim_hones10: about 11 months ago

huntersburg
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse

>angeloz
about 17 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

correct crescent, any broker who shows should have an authorization form to represent the renter and an agreement that discloses the commission and the companies policies. Did that person sign anything? If they did, legally they can be sued for a lot more than the commission plus legal fees.

What else gets thrown in to the lawsuit, Angeloz? Emotional distress?

Actually, all commission agreements cover the entire building. Only time that might get sticky is in a condo or coop with multiple owners, and different agents with different exclusives.

It's also clearly stated that the potential client would only be responsible for the fee, plus legal fee's.

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

Adhesion contracts at their finest. F*ck You potential renter. That's my name. You know why, mister? You drove a Hyundai to get here. I drove an eighty-thousand dollar BMW. THAT'S my name. And your name is you're wanting. You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them - go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life: Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.

ALWAYS

CLOSING

Consigliere: about 11 months ago

Is the friend you?

No form, no money. Sorry Charlie. In addition, why stop there? If a broker shows you an apartment on third avenue, why not pay a fee for any apartment rented on third avenue. The broker shows an apartment and not a building. Without an agreement, I wouldn't pay a commission in this situation.

Keith B has some good points though.

huntersburg: about 11 months ago

>angeloz
about 17 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

yournyagent: about 11 months ago

Could not agree more-if you don't want to pay a broker fee -don't use a broker. It's pretty straight forward, if you use a brokers time, expertise, knowledge and he brings you to a building that you end up renting in-you should pay a fee. Period.

kharby2: about 11 months ago

Crescent and angeloz are right, this is why brokerages ask tenants to sign a form that encompasses all other apartments in the building.

In my case if a prospective renter refuses to sign (which by the way has yet to happen), then I would not show them any apartments at all and we would both move on. Without a signature by the tenant, I do not think there is any moral obligation whatsoever to pay the agent anything.

The agent did not do their job correctly, because fees were not fully disclosed and agreed upon in advance in writing. Perhaps this agent doesn't even expect a fee for an apartment rented elsewhere in the building; there is huge variation in how people approach this work.

If you don't want or need to pay an agent ("broker") to find an apartment, then don't work with one.

MrSuttonPlace: about 11 months ago

broker showed an apartment, not the building.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

and rule # 2: Don't get high on your own supply.

renterjoey: about 11 months ago

Actually when working with a rental broker

Rule number one: Never underestimate... the other guy's greed!

jim_hones10: about 11 months ago

Rule 1. Never meet anyone for thr first showing anywhere other than your office or open house.

Rule 2. Never show anyone a rental apartment without a signed fee agreement and disclosure.

angeloz: about 11 months ago

lef, i guess your "friend" got away with a great apartment using someone else's time and information for free. The broker is really the one who dropped the ball, even if he has an implied contract, the reality is it needs to be in writing if you are going to get your money from these type of people. Also, could of, would of, may have, are not good arguments for why you shouldnt have to pay the broker who found you an apartment. Hey I could of met my wife on my own, one day i possibly could have ran into her, maybe if i was in the right place at the right time, but if it wasnt for my friend introducing me to her, it would of taken me a lot longer to find the woman of my dreams....