Contacting Seller directly

not unethical on your part but depedning upon the agreement the broker and the seller have it may be a breach between them for the seller to deal with you directly.

Start working on a letter to the owner to make an offer. Mail it about 2 weeks before the 6 month mark. Since you have some time, try to get a friend or two to proofread, so you sound like a serious buyer.

Nothing technically prevents you from contacting the owner directly. You have no agreements with the broker. The owner, however, has a contract with the broker and cannot cut the broker out of the deal. Owner will have to pay the broker whether you make contact directly or via the agency. In addition, most agreements state that the owner must provide the broker with a commission if anyone the broker dealt with in the slightest during the period of representation (6 mos. usually) buys the unit during the 6 months following the period of representation.

Still, there's nothing stopping you from telling the owner how you feel. A letter left with the doorman or mailed. It is unorthodox and I'm not sure how effective a path this will be, but nothing is stopping you.

I'd send that letter now & let the owner know that you'd be seriously interested in FSBO when the contract expires... there are so few buyers out there right now that chances are it'll still be there. Give him/her your contact info. I do think it's important that you're willing to pay a fair price if you're going to go this route however. Imo, it's one thing to cut out the middle-man (broker) and split his commission in the sale price, but it's another to try to steal someone's apartment because they're desperate.

I would call the broker again and say you want to see the apt. If they do not accomodate you, I would call the brokers manager or the manager of the office that broker works in. I am sure they will not be hpapy and you'll see how fast you get an appt

Jerry Seinfeld tried not to pay a broker because he showed the apartment to the person who eventually bought it and refused to pay the broker...it went to court but I don't know the outcome.

I did that twice. We both agreed on a price and we decided to wait out the broker contract. We signed few documents says that both are interested and the price agreed up on will remain regardless of the market.

Both fell apart due to technicalities with the coop boards unrelated to broker dealing.

Kylewest - the agreements I've seen say that the broker will supply the sellers with a short list of names (number to agreed up between the parties) within 3 days or so of the expiration of their exclusive listing. Only if any of those parties ending up signing a contract within 90 days (and subsequently closing), a commission is due.

I tried to see an apartment a couple of weeks ago. The broker agreed to the day and time and then about 4 hours before the showing, another broker sent me an email telling me that they would be the one showing it and have a conflict at that time. I told them that I could come a few minutes earlier but otherwise would not be able to see it for at least two weeks and the broker did not seem in the least concerned. They have not tried to schedule anything since either. Since we are also sellers, it completely freaks me out. I often get the sense that the broker selling our apartment tries to group people together for open houses only. I just don't get it - isn't that how they make a living?!

Newbuyer99 - if you know the address and apartment number, you can easily send a letter indicating your experience with the broker and suggesting they get in touch with you directly if it's still available at the end of the listing period. If they mention you to the broker though, I'd be willing to bet that your name makes it on the list of "prospects" at the end of the exclusive. You can also ask the owner to show it to you directly now or have someone else show it to you and then make a bid reflecting whatever you are willing to pay (regardless of whether the broker gets paid or not.)

If you have a broker who you like and trust you can ask that broker to represent you and make all bids or negotiations through that broker. Then you do not have to go through the sellers broker or be put in an akward position. You may have to write a letter stating that you want to be represented by your broker since you do not feel that the sellers broker is representing you properly. sellers' broker has to accept your choice especially if they have a cobroke agreement with your broker (which they probably do) if sellers' broker refuses to deal with your broker, your broker can forward the letter to brokers manager

lo888 makes a good point. Make sure the seller does not put you on the broker's radar. If you have already dealt with this broker I would not make any further contact with her. There is a short list at the end of the contract & you don't want to be on it.

oldbroker, write all the letters you want, but the listing broker would still get half the commission, even if she sucks & is completely unresponsive to the buyer. The system is flawed.... and evil.

"I'd send that letter now & let the owner know that you'd be seriously interested in FSBO when the contract expires... there are so few buyers out there right now that chances are it'll still be there. Give him/her your contact info. I do think it's important that you're willing to pay a fair price if you're going to go this route however. Imo, it's one thing to cut out the middle-man (broker) and split his commission in the sale price, but it's another to try to steal someone's apartment because they're desperate."

In most contracts, the buyer indemnifies the seller that they have not dealt with any other brokers than those listed on the contract. Having this letter in writing would probably be a) possible tortious interference, and b) leave YOU liable for paying the commission which you have indemnified the seller against when teh broker goes after them for the commission.

newbuyer99, the thing to do, honestly, if you might want this place, is to get yourself a buyer's broker. Don't assume that the sellers don't like their broker, or care what you think about their broker. Hubby and I tried once to go around a broker to buy a house--we got the sellers at their door--and they listened to us for a minute or two and told us to go away and call their broker.

By buyer's broker I mean someone who has a fiduciary responsibility to YOU not to the seller. That means they are charged with looking out for your best interests. That means you should ask them to provide a Buyer Agency Disclosure Form. If they look puzzled, time to go.

Good luck with this.

Having been a licensed salesperson (agent, aka "broker") for almost 5 weeks now, I do want to say I have rarely worked this hard in my previous endeavors. I love real estate, though, so it's been a blast.

But the hours are truly wild. I got a call from the U.K. from a seller at about 7:30 this morning, and took a call from a buyer the previous night at about 9 PM. I do Speak Easy stuff like this to unwind. I slip off for afternoon naps when I have to. The actual workload is infinite.

If a person in this job isn't well-organized, self-disciplined and good at time management, or if they just burn out, service is certainly going to suffer.

Fluter, please don't forget that both brokers are paid by the seller. So the buyer's broker, in the real world, will work to sell.

30yrs, the buyer contacting the seller directly isn't dealing with any other broker.... your (lame) point is obviously trying to scare the op & it's silly to think a seller is going to rat out the buyer by showing the letter.

Fluter, you think a 7:30 am call & a 9PM call is an infinite workload & you need naps? Lol. go back to Cleveland. This is NY. we all work like this, though most of us have reputable careers.

draqonfly, the OP ALREADY DID DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE BROKER. And you've obviously never been involved with litigation, otherwise you'd be aware of a little thing called DISCOVERY. And FYI, I was involved as an expert witness in a case on a commercial property about 10 years ago which had pretty much this exact fact pattern and the buyer ended up paying a commission to the broker.

Stick to giving advice on your "reputable" career and staying out of issues you are totally ignorant of.

another fool who thinks they know more than the people that earn their paycheck in real estate

Gotta love you brokers sticking your little hands in everyone's pockets for doing a whole lot of nothing & going to court to defend your *rights* to take that something for nothing. So you've been in RE for 30 years & you were involved in a "pretty much" the same case once. I'd take my chances if you were the incompetent broker the OP is talking about who won't give him/her & the listing the time of day. The buyer ends up paying anyway, right ?(as it was pointed out, the buyer is the only one with a checkbook at closing).

dragonfly, I don't worry about whether my career is reputable or not, I just worry about whether I am reputable or not.

Mimi, who writes the check to the broker does not determine agency under New York State law. Strange but true. I'm sure you've read the Dept of State's agency disclosure form, you know what it says. It could not be more explicit.

However, I hear your point--that as a practical matter, the buyer's broker has a strong built-in incentive in getting a sale, really any sale, good for the buyer or not.

I take a long-term view however and believe that looking out for my buyer-client's best interests--as I have said I would do in the agency disclosure form I provide--is ultimately in my best interests as well.

Can I make money doing things this way? It might take a year to find out. Fortunately I can afford to wait and see.

hopefully most of these broker haters will see they are not dealing with a bunch of people that don't know their business, despite the nonsense they like to spread.

30 years, why would the buyer pay the commission, and not the seller? That is where the contractual obligation lays.

maly: as I said in my original post: almost every contract has a clause where the buyer indemnifies the seller against claims from any other broker than the one's on the contract. So, if the broker sues and it turns out he's due a commission because the buyer tortiosly interfered with his contract with the seller (i.e. the listing agreement), and the buyer has indemnified the seller, then the buyer pays because he specifically indemnified the seller.

"I'd take my chances if you were the incompetent broker"

And I'd love it if this was the case as well. It usually costs people a lot of money to fuck with me down in 60 Centre, where I am King. Right now I'm involved in a case which has been going on for some time where the two other parties have lost several million dollars because they thought they could fuck with me and win. I've spent close to nothing on the other hand. So give it your best shot: I'll have dragonfly wings mounted on a plaque for my den.

"The law is not an ass." That's a saying you learn early in law school. Don't get cute with the law. You'll usually lose. Here a seller signs a contract with a broker to pay a commission if the apartment is sold during the contract period or for a certain period thereafter to anyone who expresses interest during the contract period. These contracts aren't drafted by interns. They have been crafted over time and thoroughly cover most contingencies. Mess with the broker's commission and get caught and you are likely to have the wrath of the RE broker gods come down on your head like a bucket of cement tossed from a rooftop.

As for "short lists" etc. following the contract, that isn't what is usually done at all. Those open house lists are there for reasons, one of which is for the broker to dutifullly record every prospect. Typically each and every contact is placed on a list and given to the seller at the end of the contract and anyone on that list who buys within 6 months triggers the commission. There is sometimes a clause in the contract that goes on to cover prospects that made themselves known during the contract period but who didn't make it onto the list.

Like it or not, this is the way it plays out. Do not try to skirt it or interfere with another's contract. It can cost you dearly. Nothing prevents you from contacting the seller or the President of the United States if you care to try. But you cannot change the terms of the listing agreement by working around the seller's broker.

"the law is not an ass" brilliant. of course, your lawyer might be.

you could always try to use good old streeteasy. if i were the seller, i would be checking my apt's listing constantly to see how many times it was saved, and of course, if any discussions had been started about it! you could "create a discussion" about the listing, address it to the seller, explain your intent and, while you're at it, your experience with their broker. power to the people..

30 years: even though the seller had a contract with the broker? I could see the broker suing the seller especially if the buyer is on the open house sheet, but I would think it surprising to go after the buyer. I guess it depends if the buyer actually went to an open house or knew that broker from a previous entanglement.

maly, I think you miss the point because 30 yrs was referencing the sales contract between the seller & buyer. Not the broker's contract with the seller. The agent wouldn't sue the buyer for her/his commission. Agent would sue seller. The seller would then turn around and sue the buyer to "indemnify" the seller against any liability for money owed to the agent. Basically, the seller is the sales contract says "if anyone appears later claiming I owe them for this sale and you haven't made that known to me prior to the closing, then you the buyer will have to make good on any such claim."

I've not delved into this area so the clauses have never been directly relevant to my particular dealings which have never sought to circumvent an involved agent. But if 30 yrs says the clauses are commonly included, I have no reason to doubt him. Say what you will about agents, but the brokerages are not stupid when it comes to making sure they get their cut. I seriously doubt you'll find any loopholes when it comes to commissions.

dragonfly = ignore; what an ignoramus -

Fluter, congratulations to you, you bright, shiny, newly-minted broker. Best of luck to you. I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying it already. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thanks to everyone for the comments - very helpful. I haven't decided for sure, but I think I may write that letter to the owner. In the interests of being upfront, I will also email a copy of the letter to the broker in question - I think anyone being complained about deserves to know about it. I am debating whether or not to also cc. higher-ups at the brokerage agency (one of the big ones) on that email.

I am not trying to be cute, or to *cut out* the broker from their commission. My objectives are simple: 1) Make it known to the owner that their broker is doing a crappy job; 2) Express my potential interest in the apartment directly to the owner and 3) avoid dealing with the broker.

What the owner does with my letter and my potential interest in the apartment is up to them.

Oh, and I appreciate the suggestion of a buyer's broker, but I don't really see what they add here, other than taking the unpleasant task of dealing with the seller's broker off my hands. Hardly seems worth it.

Thanks again.

Kylewest, I followed the same argument, and didn't miss the part of the contract between buyer and seller, and I don't doubt the clause about the buyer agreeing to indemnify the seller for someone coming out of the woodwork after the sale (I really didn't read the contract that closely); I was just wondering how the seller could invoke such a clause when s/he had a contract with the broker. Oh well, it's pretty academic anyway. I wonder if that particular situation ever occurred.

Kylewest - we reviewed several firm's contracts when listing our place and all had the short list clause. We have one in place now.

In most contracts, the buyer indemnifies the seller that they have not dealt with any other brokers than those listed on the contract. Having this letter in writing would probably be a) possible tortious interference, and b) leave YOU liable for paying the commission which you have indemnified the seller against when teh broker goes after them for the commission.

a) NO, not in any fashion
b) NO, there would be no liability on the seller that the broker could rightfully claim, and, despite that a third party action against wouldn't apply here either.

Isn't it wonderful how a sockpuppet always turns up to gainsay facts (without any proof of any kind) whenever I faceplant some idiot?

Kylewest: thanks for the support and spelling out what I was saying perhaps a bit clearer than I made myself.

The only thing I remember differently was that there was some story which ended with someone saying "well, then the law is an ass". But that aside, I think we agree that people think that they can come up with "cute" solutions to things (ever see those Craigslist hooker ads where they ask for '250 roses' thinking it would somehow give them deniability?) and that judges and juries are dumb and won't realize exactly what went on.

Thanks for the tip 30 years. I now know NEVER to sign my real name on an open house sign-in sheet. For sure I'll be spreading that info around to my buying friends. Bart Simpson will be attending many an open house in the upcoming months... look for me & say hi.

dragonfly, so you are goiing to go to open houses, contact each seller directly, wait out the term of the agreement (for the apartments you like) and then try to deal directly with the seller? what an unscrupuolous piece of garbage you must be. really

sorry, that tip was from Kyle. Funny how first 30 years dealt with this ONCE, 10 years ago & suddenly he's making millions down at 60 Center NOW where he's "king"

Funny.

60 Centre Street, he is now King?
30yrs_RE_20_in_REO is like any other pundit talking his book. Beware of agendas. Also beware of non-lawyers who think they are experts in litigation and the ins-and-outs of the law and brag about how much time they spend in court. What they are really expert in is not knowing how to negotiate fairly and reach agreement in business. The overwhelming majority of business deals are done without litigation (think how many people go to the dry cleaners and don't have a problem and are happy and the one person who keeps suing because her sweater was shrunk, her pantsuit has a stain that doesn't come out, the dress shirt elbows tore, etc.). If someone has a high percentage of litigation as part of their business strategy, let alone their revenue model, "two other parties have lost several million dollars because they thought they could fuck with me ", AVOID anything associated with this person at all costs.

dragonfly: I'm sure no one takes you seriously at open houses, either.

oxy; I'll have to remember not to argue with you about being a dickhead, because you certainly know a lot more than I do about that. I leave the field to the experts who are experts, that's what differentiates me from a lot here.

oh u so cleva

"suddenly he's making millions down at 60 Center"

You have NO idea how ironic that statement is. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

the idiot's true personality always comes out with just a little prodding. imagine what good opposing counsel could do. Oh, but he's King over there at the supreme court. I bet he's got the court officers on his daily gossip and funny joke of the day routine so if ever held in contempt by a judge he can go out the back door instead

You're exactly the type of guy I love to go up against. I've never been held in contempt of court, although several opponents have been. It's no secret who I am: go around asking "good opposing counsel" how much they have enjoyed deposing me. Oh, but it's easy since you are several anonymous posters here and I'm the one with the balls to say who I am and what I really do. Why don't you come out from hiding and tell us about your experiences and expertise? Chicken.

30yrs: Why bother with these guys, man? It's just an internet slapfight -- not really worthwhile.

In any event, a senior partner and friend of mine once told me that in any deal you have to watch out for the odd man out. If that person has any claim -- ANY claim -- there's no reason for him not to press it for all it's worth. He didn't realize any benefit from the deal, so all he loses in pressing the claim is his transaction costs -- which usually aren't that high (relatively speaking).

Why is it dangerous to play this game of hoping that the broker doesn't find out? Because when he sees a sale on the apartment that he showed for six months, he'll be very interested in knowing who the buyer was. When he finds out that he's the odd man out...well, if he has any inkling that he might have gotten the shaft (and he'll almost always think he's gotten the shaft -- whether true or not), he'll probably look into the matter.

Maybe the buyer gets away with it anyways -- the law is not an ass, but it also isn't perfect. But if the buyer doesn't get away with it, they're out tens of thousands of dollars in double commission. And for what, exactly? Avoiding dealing with someone they found unpleasant? I wouldn't consider that worth the risk.

jimhones: No, no, that's not my plan. I went to a bunch of OHs in June/July but found there's nothing to my liking on the market. Not contacting any of those people. What I have done is use SE to go back and look at history of apartments in buildings that I like that have been listed before then but have been de-listed. I'm contacting them directly before they re-list to see if they want to arrange a private sale. These are apartments I've never seen & have never met the broker. Of course I have no idea if that's going to work so I'm planning to continue seeing OHs if and when anything new comes on the market. I'm not planning to do anything unethical to cut out the broker if it's already listed. 30 yrs & I seem to have gotten into some mud-flinging but I"m not as unscrupulous as I came off (I was joking about the Bart Simpson thing, duh). I do hate brokers though, obviously. Been burned by a couple of *really* bad ones & you're all not to be trusted now.

newbuyer - I was just about to go to contract, when I discovered a legal problem with the apartment I was after. To make a long story short, the lawyers yelled at each other for weeks, even though the problem was not that complicated. The sellers' broker was uninformed and uninterested, and my broker could make no progress with her. So, one day after being cc'd in a ferocious email from the sellers' lawyer to mine, along with the sellers, I took the chance of emailing the sellers directly. I have since had a very good conversation with them, and we've both gone back to our lawyers with clear marching orders to get this contract done. When you've reached the end of the line with the middelmen, there is nothing to lose from contacting the other party directly. In my case, it looks like it has saved the deal.

Excellent, tanker, & best of luck to you; your situation is a lot different, however, than trying to screw the broker out of their commission.

You're exactly the type of guy I love to go up against. I've never been held in contempt of court, although several opponents have been. It's no secret who I am: go around asking "good opposing counsel" how much they have enjoyed deposing me. Oh, but it's easy since you are several anonymous posters here and I'm the one with the balls to say who I am and what I really do. Why don't you come out from hiding and tell us about your experiences and expertise? Chicken.

What you really do? You spend all of your day in court. If you want to be involved with a real estate broker whose deals end up in court, go with David, "When you work with David, you know where your deal stands." In litigation, "down in 60 Centre, where I am King"

dragonfly: write whatever you want, but don't drag me into the muck. I didn't engage you personally. Above you "joke" about signing open house sign-in sheets with a false name and when called on it your write: "sorry, that tip was from Kyle." No it wasn't. I had posted one of the uses the sign-up sheets are put to. There's nothing illegitimate about the use I describe. Lying in business dealings is for chumps. At best it gets you one deal, if that, and a bad reputation forever. Please don't cite Madoff. You know exactly what I'm trying to say here. A contract is a contract and a seller contracts with a listing agent to pay a commission for any leads generated during the listing period. It is quite simple. How the lead is generated is irrelevant unless specifically noted in the contract. Sarcasm doesn't read well on posts, so excuse me if you were just being 'funny.' But I post here often enough that I don't appreciate you stating or implying that I in any way advocated dishonest dealings such as lying about who you are when a broker welcomes you in to an open house.

FWIW: the brokerage community is large, but operates in many ways like a small town. Word spreads fast. Screw a broker, do something illegal, try to cheat...you can end up the equivalent of black-listed with every broker in town telling clients you approach that you are to be avoided at all costs. It happens. I wouldn't want to test that.

Kylewest: "FWIW: the brokerage community is large, but operates in many ways like a small town. Word spreads fast. Screw a broker, do something illegal, try to cheat...you can end up the equivalent of black-listed with every broker in town telling clients you approach that you are to be avoided at all costs. It happens. I wouldn't want to test that."

**The word you are looking for is incestuous. Dictionary.com definition: Improperly intimate or interconnected: as in "Press-politics relations are notoriously incestuous" That's a perfect description, actually. Thanks for the visual.

And I love the altruistic enthusiasm. You're worried about the poor schmuck of a buyer doing something illegal or trying to cheat. Now that's funny.

And if you're going to be hanging out on an anonymous posting board (and be in one of the lowest prestige careers possible for that matter) you might want to get a thicker skin. My sarcasm was blatantly obvious, unless your reading skills are of the 2nd grade variety. It was a JOKE... Bart Simpson....makes up funny names & pretends to be someone else... Seymour Butts anyone?

oxucrew:"I'm a chickenshit hiding behind an anonymous handle throwing spitballs who has nothing meaningful to add to discussions, so I act like and child at the grownups table who doesn't understand the discussion: I say 'doody' to get attention"

And you remain a chicken, and I call you out again, chicken.

dragonfly: "It was a JOKE"

And so you are.

30yrs- Always thought your posts were really informative using what seems to have been great experience in the real estate field. Disappointed to see you going down to the name calling level- shouldn't let the idiots get to you.

Did you just say doody and then call me chicken?

ph41 - you are right, but it's getting rather burdensome having to remove spitballs from the back of my neck from the idiot chicken.

Chicken - still waiting for the answers, as opposed to more spitballs. I know I'll never get them, because you're still a fraud.

Fraud, you want to sue?

Most owners will not think highly of a buyer that contacts them directly.

Dorai you are wrong. Most owners love to hear from buyers. Who cares where they come from.

Question: Let;s say I visit an Elliman OH in January and sign in. Owner changes listing to Corcoran in March and I purchase in May forgetting that I'd originally seen the apartment at Elliman's OH. Corcoran collects their 6% at closing. Could I possibly be responsible for Elliman's 6% commission if I have indemnified the owner in the sales contract?

dragonfly, now you are just being a douche. You have no better idea what my career is than you do guessing at what someone who went to business school does for a career. And it doesn't take a graduate degree to know your joke was lame. Growing up we had a rule: it's only a joke if two people laugh. That kept me from pulling sh-t on my younger brothers and then claiming 'it was a joke.' I'd venture to bet, two people didn't laugh at your supposed joke based on ripping someone off of what they are rightfully entitled to. The fact that your mind went right to lying on sign-in sheets says something about you more than the brokers. Most brokers are what they are--let's not argue about what is in the scorpion's nature because we likely agree about this conflict ridden line of work. But as a buyer, if you want to hold yourself out as something other than another flavor of scorpion, then act the part. Enough said. This thread's now degenerated into silliness.

If I'm not mistaken, the seller is responsible for the commission and the seller's broker splits the commission with the buyer. So why the buyer needs to worry about the broker I don't know what the point of this whole discussion is. If Bart or Seymour sign up on a signin sheet, why does it matter? The broker and the seller need to be in agreement. The buyer needs to live up to what he agrees which 99% of is writing the check to the seller. Its funny how I'm reading that it seems like the broker community is trying to make this a buyer problem just during the days when the balance of power is shifting from the seller to the buyer. We should call these tactis on this discussion for what they are and not let the broker intermediary community make their problems into someonelses.

Sign in sheets are meaningless. Any broker who thinks what is written on a sign in sheet protects them in any way is uninformed. Their only real use is to get buyer's information to attempt to contact them to show them other properties and earn a commission by effectuating a sale.

As far as NYCDreamer's question, the courts have generally been loath to make a Seller pay 2 commissions on 1 sale. Sellers more often pay 2 commissions based on their willful default on a deal in order to grab a bigger, better one. But I think the question is setting up a straw man to knock down: there's a sea of difference between a buyer seeing a place and forgetting he saw it and a different broker ends up getting a commission than a buyer knowingly interfering with the contract between a broker and a seller in order to have NO commission paid. OTOH, if a seller got a list of potential buyers from the first broker who they had agreed in the listing agreement to "protect" the first broker on, and then failed to pass the list on, or even mention it, to the second broker, I'm not so sure they wouldn't have some liability for their willful act.

"The buyer needs to live up to what he agrees which 99% of is writing the check to the seller. Its funny how I'm reading that it seems like the broker community is trying to make this a buyer problem just during the days when the balance of power is shifting from the seller to the buyer. We should call these tactis on this discussion for what they are and not let the broker intermediary community make their problems into someonelses."

Well, tortious interference comes into play on ANY contract. This isn't 'the broker community" trying to scare buyers out of legal acts. This is me saying that anyone can be held liable for their willful acts, and that if a buyer is going to, in writing, try to induce the seller to breach his contract with the broker, there are potential consequences. I would say the same thing if a broker contacted a seller he knew way in contract with a buyer and tried to get him to breach that sales contract in order for him (the broker) to sell the unit to someone else. I'm sure most of you would have a very different opinion of the second case than the first, based solely on your 'screw all brokers' mentality. But just because YOU have that attitude, don't assume a judge will agree with you. People - buyers, sellers, brokers -can b held accountable for their actions, and tortious interference with a contract between 2 other parties can be one of those actions. And if you indemnify someone against your acts, even if it's something "they should pay for", your indem puts you in their shoes. " We should call these tactis on this discussion for what they are" - well, that is what the are.

By NYC law, a buyer or a seller is allowed to change brokers even at a closing. Of course, a brokerage compasny may contest, but thats the law. It makes no difference if you signed in first or not, a buyer is not responsible for a commission on a sale - unless specified upfront by the seller - lastly sellers that don't trust their brokers and are happy to hear from buyers directly, will ultimately screw you as well.

Dear Seller, I like your place, but the current circumstances of your sale are not attractive to me, including your representation by your current selling broker who has not represented you or your property well enough to induce me to make an offer at this stage. He also always seems to have something stuck in his teeth and my significant other I'm afraid might just have that horrible image in his or her head forever if this broker is associated with the sale. I also don’t like the logo on his business card, it reminds our family of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

If your selling circumstances change in the future, and perhaps if the price drops 5% or so (the market is softening, sorry to say), please contact me at ...
-
This indemnification clause of which some here speak has no applicability. Nor is there a tortuous interference. The choice is left to the seller as to when and how to sell if approached by a willing buyer. The seller is the only person, other than the buyer who is relevant to the execution of the contract and the performance of the transaction. The buyer "interfering" with the seller's broker isn't the case. The buyer simply will not enter into a transaction with the seller which is the buyer's full prerogative and the reason is irrelevant. I've heard of clients not buying because of a certain month, of a certain religious season underway, of a certain color (that was remedied), in one case for one of the richest men in the world a certain number that had to be changed, heck it doesn't matter what crazy or logical reason may be involved. So it will be up to the seller to choose to accommodate the wishes of the buyer. And therein is the action that takes place, the seller makes a change to induce the buyer. The notion then that the buyer has any responsibility for the seller's action misunderstands the nature of a contract wherein each side gives consideration. Whether the seller has done something wrong vis-a-vis the seller's broker is solely and exclusively based on action of the seller. If there is no action of the buyer associated with it as there can not be because the buyer has no control over the seller’s side other than in a negotiated contract, then there's nothing to indemnify. If the seller's broker finds that the seller has acted in bad faith according to the terms of the contract between the seller and the seller broker, then no indemnity in the world will force an indemnifying party to cover bad faith by an indemnified party even if the action was known to the buyer. Bad faith/willful misconduct, gross negligence, criminal acts, are all outs for indemnification, but of course we haven't even gotten to the point of a claim because the buyer is acting within his or her prerogative of choosing when he or she would make a purchase. The seller and the seller's broker will have to deal with each other within the bounds of their own contract. The buyer has no liability, directly, indirectly, or through any "default" indemnification that seems to be imagined here.

Kyle, I laughed at dragonfly's joke. I didn't get the impression that you suggested anything unethical or that it reflected negatively on you in any way.

I usually do not give my real name and phone number to total strangers, so if I do sign in at an OH, I use an alias. It's mostly that I don't want to deal with unsolicited calls/e-mails, but also a safety issue.

It sound like the OP wasn't trying to avoid the commission, he just didn't want to deal with the broker. I think contacting the owner is a good idea. The owner can work it out with the broker; it doesn't have to end with cutting the broker out of a commission. 30-Years raises an interesting point. If the contract has an indemnification, then that seems to be a term to negotiate, especially if a buyer is unsure about how the seller/broker relationship played out. Maybe the insurance industry could price a product. . .

Why would any smart buyer indemnify a seller for what the seller has done, most of which would actually be unknown to the buyer. Buyer is not an insurance policy!

i have a similar question. i rent in a co-op and there is a 2 bedroom that we like available. it's priced a little higher than we would like but i think if we went direct to the owner we could come to a understanding on price.

i spoke with a neighbor who said they would tell the owner that we were interested but they told the broker instead (who lives in the building) of the owner. the broker then put something under my door (but i have not contacted them nor seen the apartment (i have seen others exactly like it).

is it okay if i contact the owner directly and would i have to pay the brokers fee if the owner sells it to me after the exclusivity period ends?

i don't mind the broker making a few bucks (maybe 2%) but 6% for an apartment that i know is available is too much and probably the difference between us buying the apartment or not. (it's a 1.1mm listing and i don't want to pay more than 975k). i think we can get to 975 or maybe 999k because the seller doesn't have to pay the 6% fee.

thoughts?

Buyer does not pay the broker. Ever. Ever ever. Ever ever ever ever.

If you want to buy the place for $975, offer $975, or offer $950 and have $25K in your back pocket. The net proceeds to the seller are not your problem. The fees and expenses of the seller are not your problem. The contract between the seller and the seller's broker are not your problem. The electric bill prior to closing is not your problem. The tax problems of the seller are not your problem. If the seller voted for Lyndon Larouche in the last election, that's not your problem. The seller's nasty daughter in law is not your problem. Do not make what is not your problem into your problem.

my view is that the buyer is the one with the cash and so at the end of the day paying everyone.

if i want the place for 975, sure i could offer 975 (or 950). but the seller does the math and realizes he is only getting 900-925 after commission costs. He might end up waiting for another offer.

i think he would take 1050 in a heartbeat (he wants 1.1mm) so if i go direct with him at 995, i save the mansion tax and everything.

anyone have thoughts on this? much appreciated.

Sending a letter to the owner of an apt is a wonderful idea... Unless it is already listed.

it is listed.

If it is listed...why would you go to the owner? They signed a contract, probably for 6 months. Do you think they will wait for you that time to save 6% with no assurance that you will buy it then? Imagine the market drops another 10%, where would they be then waiting for u?
If you go directly to the seller's broker, she/he will be probably very happy to favor you, as she is making 3% more than with other buyers. This is quite usual human behavior.
You could call Klara Madlin to represent you. She gives 10% of her 3% with the buyer. This way you'll get some advantage, though not really much. She can help you with the process. As much as I dislike a lot of brokers, there are some of them that I really like, and she is one of them.

I make my living helping apartment owners sell their apartments. You want to go around me so I don't get paid? Ha. How about I come to your home and steal the dinner out of your kids mouths and then take their lunch on the way to school? How would you like that? Huh? How would you?
Good luck even trying to do what you want to do. Just wait until I poison the owners about you as a buyer, tell them how you go and create problems after a deal and go to court and won't get past the co-op board because they'll find out you are dishonest. Just wait. Try it. Sometimes I like a good fight when I know I will win.

"By NYC law, a buyer or a seller is allowed to change brokers even at a closing."

This is pure nonsense. While buyers have a wide latitude to choose who represents them at most points in a deal, the concept that a deal can be done and at the closing the buyer sqys "oh, BTW, I changed my mind. Don't give the commission to the broker who has been representing me throughout the entire transaction, give it to X instead" is drivel.

PS At least get your branches of Gov't right. It's the State, not the City which governs here.

"Sending a letter to the owner of an apt is a wonderful idea... Unless it is already listed."

Agreed. Tons of misinformation (or maybe even disinformation) being given in this thread. I guess all I can say is consider the source, and seek your own legal council, but from where I sit, people are spewing lots of total BS.

"Buyer does not pay the broker. Ever. Ever ever. Ever ever ever ever."

I have over $1MM of checks which say otherwise.

Did everyone know that New York City is one of the branches of government in the Constitution? And that New York State is another branch of our government? What's the third one? Oh, the Supreme Court of New York State where 30yrs_RE_20_10_9_8_7_6 is the King! (King is just a figurative term, since we have branches of government, there is no formal monarchy, long live 30_yrs)

buck buck buuuck

Take your advice from a broker who doesn't know that to get the money, he has to bring the checks to the bank. And that the canceled check goes to the check writer, not the check depositor.

Don't most people hire a broker because they don't want to have to deal with dishonest buyers? Like a buyer who would pull this would probably be dishonest when negotiating or doing the contract. For $60,000 (on a $million place) not to have a dishonest dealing with you is a good thing I think.

But we all hate brokers & we'll do anything to avoid them; nothing like having an amateur leading your team on the most expensive purchase of your life. Let the games begin!

I tried this once.

I was embarassed, it actually cost me money, and I didn't get the place, plus I had a problem later trying to hire a broker. Do not try this. Friendly warning.

I guess I am a bit confused. I am not trying to go around anyone. I am simply trying to express my displeasure with the conduct of the broker, in a very open way (I have already politely expressed it to her directly, but unsurprisingly, she doesn't seem to give a rat's ass).

If in some way, shape or form my contacting the seller directly results in the cutting out of the useless middleman (after her exclusive runs out), great. And obviously I would not be stupid enough to sign a contract where I indemnify the seller for anything - that just doesn't make any sense. However, to be very clear, again, cutting out the middle man is NOT my objective.

How will this course of action cost me money, cause me embarrassment, etc.?

I wouldn't try it.

newbuyer99: at least as far as what I've written, it wasn't the contacting of the seller directly which was the "terrible" idea: it was writing a letter trying to induce them to cut out the broker and sell it as FSBO.

Does anyone have any opinions on the use of Crisco vs Canola oil for frying?

Again, beware of industry people with agendas here.

Even look at the scenario put forth and the indemnification provision discussed - they are of two separate things.

jfrishman said it best (with typos), "Its funny how I'm reading that it seems like the broker community is trying to make this a buyer problem just during the days when the balance of power is shifting from the seller to the buyer. We should call these tactis on this discussion for what they are and not let the broker intermediary community make their problems into someonelses."

Buyer should do what it wants. If the buyer isn't buying, then there's no deal. Seller can figure out his own costs and decide on it being worth it to use a broker or not. If they can find someone in the building who will buy at a good price, then maybe no broker is necessary and they can pocket more and/or have more flexibility to take a lower price which means that a deal can get done faster.

Biggest problem is that commissions are set with having two sided representation in mind when you don't always need two sided. So there are misaligned incentives. Seller should negotiate a 3% commission (or 2%) and agree that if a buyer has a broker, that broker gets anther 2% and tell the buyer that this is the case so the costs and incentives are all aligned.

mimi - it's listed but has been listed for a while now (about 4 months) with price cuts along the way. i won't try any of the brokers who give kickbacks as i have an acquantance who is a broker and i'd just give them the buy side listing.

bbbroker - if you didn't annoy my wife so much when you were at the gym (you live in our building) and didn't leave your open houses early (we tried to go but you were not there at the time listed as open house), maybe we would not try to go around you. plus, i would not go around you until your contract was expired, i would wait the 6 full months.

this is a building we know well since we live in the building. the broker is not adding any value here at all.

we might just pass as it seems to difficult to do. we might just put a note in the building lobby that says we are looking for a 2 bed 2 bath and do not want to use a broker. if anyone calls us great if not so be it.

30yrs: your patience to continue contribuing to this thread exceeds my own. Much advice on here strikes me as reckless and of-the-cuff pontificating, and is just plain wrong or misleading. I don't thing posters mean to offer bad advice, but they don't understand how deficient their knowledge is (e.g., the deeper legal and RE issues involved in the situations they are addressing). Much 'advice' is facile and lacking in true appreciation of contract and RE law. Even the confusion evinced by many over basic concepts such as indemnification is revealed on thread such as this. Equally disturbing is the often evinced naivety of many people concerning what a contract even is (e.g., most seem to think a contract is an offer and an acceptance of the offer--there's no realization that 'consideration' is an essential compenent or what that is). Yet, notwithstanding a lack of training or knowledge in RE or the law, there is no hesitation by many to advise others to do things that would result in enormous exposure to liability or cripple the chances for the desired deal.

As an aside, fwiw, I have come to value your contributions on Streeteasy as one of the truly knowledgable people here. You clearly have a depth of knowledge based on formal training and long-time experience and perspective. Yesterday, for instance, I learned from you about the land-lease history of many GV coops that I was unaware of. We will not always agree, but so what. Even reasonable minds may differ on things, but I find your posts thoughtful and informed and always worth considering--so thank you for that.

So kyle, because you used the word eviced (and twice at that), your support behind 30 makes him indisputable.

Isn't it really the opposite though kyle, when a lawyer is using a big word, he's hoping to sound sophisticated and scare off those who are plainly sensible and most often on the right side of truth?

And what makes you think that others have no training or knowledge in RE or in the law? 30's training in the law is that he's a noxious overzealous pompous litigant. Oh, there I go, big words.

KW, I wonder if people just don't read the posts carefully or have poor reading comprehension or are just not too bright. You're right; there is a blatant disregard for the facts. Part of that, I guess, is the blinding hatred of the professional real estate community & then wishful thinking for how things "oughta be". I'm done with this, too. Let them blunder into a huge legal mess; job security for you.

Both you & 30yrs bring a lot to this board & thanx. Happy Holiday!

Oxycrew: to the extent you think I directed anything I wrote toward you, I did not and actually, without scrolling back, I have no idea what you personally even posted. But time and time again on here for the post two years, some people regularly offer legal advice or statements of NY/NYC RE law & practice that is patently incorrect. For instance, one prolific streeteasy poster, Stevejhx (a translater by trade), with no law degree or legal experience, recently posted that common law does not exist in NYS, offered distorted interpretations of case law, and boldly misstated the ways in which coop shares may be legally owned. Sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express last night, despite the ad campaign, does not make one suddenly competent to advise in areas that really do require formal education and experience. Expressing one's opinion is one thing. Making statements about what is legal, industry practice, or particular facts should carry with it some modicum (ooo, there's a $10 word) of responsibility. Alas, all are free to write what they like, and I wouldn't want that to change. It is a free country and everyone (from the mentally infirm to criminals to scholars) is entitled to an opinion however idiotic it may be. My point is that I have personally found 30yrs to be consistent in his depth on knowledge, and I appreciate what he shares (even if expressed with some snarky-ness at times); I myself have disagreed with him here or there, but that doesn't change the fact that I've come to see his information is quite sound and he actually knows what he's talking about. Many others don't, and many posts on this thread make that clear.

I'm sorry if find a 6-letter word like "evince" to be a "big" word that somehow offends you, but it doesn't change the fact that sometimes people one finds to be obnoxious or pompous can also offer factually correct information related to areas of his/her expertise.

And drdrd, thank you for the comment.

kw; thx fr yr sprt.

Can all of the people who are lawyers here please identify themselves, and also if you are a real estate lawyer and you typicaly work for one side or the other let us know that.

My guess is that at least 2 of the 3 (if not all 3) posters, 30yrs, Kylewest and/or drdrd are the same poster yanking our chains and complementing/corroborating himself.
signed, not a lawyer or a broker

They are independent

who are you? did you sign up just to respond here?