home buyers suing their brokers

you've got to be kidding

I would think that would be futile. While I agree brokers can be complete liars/sleaze...they do not force one to buy.

Cry me a river. Everyone's a victim. How hard is it to check the comparables your broker feeds you? You want to see the appraiser's report? Then demand to see it and don't go forward until you do. You want to be sure your appraiser or mortgage lender is not tied too closely with conflicts of interest to your broker? Then find your own. This is the stuff of common sense--not law suits. Come on.

I'm going to sue Streeteasy for their over abundance of doom and gloom posters and spunky for defamation against Edison, NJ

A woman is suing in California and the judge is letting the case go to forward...just something to think about in this crazy market.

julia, do you have an article you can link? This would put the discussion in a better context. It might be a case of a breech of contract rather than just suing your broker.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/22agent.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Unless it was a buyer's broker, withholding information couldn't possibly be a cause of action. Even then, it would be a real reach. This is what gives litigation a really bad name.

The article does make it seem like the owner is suing her broker as the buyer:

"What makes Ms. Ummel different is that she is suing her agent, saying it was all his fault."

I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but this does shine some light on the inherent conflict of interest buyers brokers face: the lower they negotiate the price for you, the smaller their commission.

I have a friend who's bought-sold-bought luxury property, using the same broker each time (Corcoran VP), and he was amazed when I showed him where to find the comps. I had talked to his broker as well and always felt her allegiance was more to the market in general than to me. Other buyer's brokers have given me the same uncomfortable feeling.

tenemental is so correct..I was also amazed when I recently looked at comps it give the buyer a useful tool and it also helps to keep the broker "honest"

So much for Suzanne's research.

That's why people use brokers--or at least good ones...A good broker is one who has a good source of information. Your broker should be supplying you with the comps (that is their duty) and feel impartial to what the comps show. A good broker will work for their client for the long term relationships, not the quick paycheck. That article sounds like the buyer was working with a bad agent, but that's why people should interview different agents prior to working with one in particular. They will not win this suit, but teh broker might not get anymore business.

Anyone who believes an agent - of any description - deserves to be screwed over. Now she knows to hate agents like the rest of us and can move on. It's a very natural learning experience.

You can buy a studio in a bad neighborhood for $20,000,000. The broker has nothing to do with your decision to buy something at an inflated price. This is not actionable in a court of law. You have to do your own due diligence before buying into an apartment.

Eah, the kind of over-the-top grand pronouncement that agents should be hated and never believed may feel like a good way to vent or get attention, but isn't very instructive or educated. It suggests there is no point in vetting which agent someone wants to represent them. I strongly disagree. Great care should be taken in selecting an agent because a good one can bring a tremendous value to transactions. For instance, you can't play good cop/bad cop by yourself in negotiating; employing an agent opens strategic tacts that are useful (I'm not in RE but I basically negotiate for a living and a key to effective negotiating is often having more than one mouthpiece for 'your side.'). Similarly, there are very distinct other advantages to negotiating at arm's distance from the other party, but this isn't a lesson in that. You search until you find an agent you like. If the relationship isn't working, say so in a nice way and find a new agent. This isn't rocket science or daytime TV soap opera.

She'd probably sue a store that sells stuff for more than the next-door store. It's a free market. She didn't want to buy it, she shouldn;t have bought it. I hope she;ll never consider buying any goods or services ever again.

Brigguynyc - if you bring cash to a transaction an agent is just a distraction and/or makes the process error prone and more about their cut than the best deal for the buyer/seller. In this area, I agree with the analysis in Freakonomics (sp?)...

When I buy I ask the seller (or the sellers agent if they have one) what their cash/close as soon as the contract is signed price is. In a NYC market that's all people really care about. I know my price range, I know my location and I know my top bidding price. Conversely, the seller knows their bottom price. Any time I have used an agent it has been an annoyance at best and a disaster at worst.

And if the "hating RE agents" time has passed what's with the NY Times article on that being the least respected job based on? The fact that they are honest and hard working?

No one is going to argue that the RE field is full of awful brokers. I think it's unfair though to stereotype them all.

I saw Barbara Corcoran on MSNBC. She said 20% of the brokers make 80% of the money and they are good. She said the rest are hacks.