Elliman lawsuit: brokers acting as dual agents

When I was looking at apartments, it seemed as if many buildings had their own brokers. What I mean is that one or two brokers seemed to represent many of the sales in that building. If you get good word of mouth in a building, especially a large building or one with expensive units, that's a good situation I would think.
I don't see how being a broker can't affect your personal life because of the hours they work- weekends, evenings, whenver people have time to see an apartment. Some people can't leave their jobs whenever they please to view an apartment so brokers often work nontraditonal hours. And there are so many brokers, the competition is tough.

anyone feel the meed for a shower after reading that?

Re: the lawsuit, I think brokers should advise buyers & sellers who they rep from the beginning.

Dwell, brokers do that, and as of last year, we've done it in writing.

This suit is a little more nuanced than that: the party stating that they don't want to pay brokerage commission (and giving agency problems as the reason) signed a written contract that included acknowledgement of said commission.

I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the seller had problems with his broker, the time to object would have been BEFORE contract signing.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

exclusive contract should also mean you are exclusively representing the seller, and no other party. Otherwise, why pay someone 70k just so they can exclusively advertise? If a buyer comes on their own, a brokers contract should prohibit them for negotiating or representing them as a dual agent.

FP,
is it required by law or rebny or do you do it voluntarily?

Agree that if it was disclosed upfront, they owe it.

in this case the seller is just trying not to pay. Most contract do say if someone comes in on their own they will have to be a dual agent. AND how did the seller not know when the final sales contract clearly says who the brokers are in the transaction. I wonder how it went down? did the broker just show up at closing and the seller instructed their attorney not to pay them? what attorney would advise and go along with that?

the attorney could have advised against this but still go forward with the closing.

No one fights over the last piece of the strawberry shortcake when there are 30 more in the fridge....

Veniero's chocolate/strawberry/banana shortcake... I'd pay an extra 6% stooopid tax to tap that... come to papa.

See Ali, still believes the Nazis propoganda.... RE NEVER GOES DOWN! ZEIT HEIL!

Here's the listing that produced the lawsuit:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/336504-coop-785-park-avenue-upper-east-side-new-york

Interesting situation: the Tretters sold in the midst of a market meltdown, accepting a bid 15% below their asking price in December 2008, after listing for a year with BHS and another four months with Elliman. I would imagine the broker, Ms. Lockwood, was happy to get any kind of reasonable offer, and advised the sellers to take what they could get. Neither she nor the Tretters could foresee that the world was not actually ending.

Unless Ms. Lockwood did something particularly foolish to incriminate herself, it seems unlikely that the Tretters will prevail here, assuming that they signed a standard listing agreement. The odd thing, to me, is that they managed to get away from the closing table without paying in the first place. Perhaps they managed to deal directly with the buyer and cut Elliman out of the contract?

Another Real Deal article: http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/on-the-town-streeteasy-cuts-loose-at-chinatown-dumpling-shop-meets-spanish-brothel-holiday-bash-at-9-crosby-street

I wasn't invited. West81, dwell, were you?

from that article: Ilan Bracha, founder of Keller Williams NYC

Why would someone named Ilan Bracha found a firm named Keller Williams? Is it only for people who buy furniture at Raymour and Flanigan?

>See Ali, still believes the Nazis propoganda.... RE NEVER GOES DOWN! ZEIT HEIL!

Columbiacounty, can you correct your ape friend on your proper Nazi salute?

Huntersburg: I was snubbed too. Maybe it's time to take the open house reports to a more appreciative host.

Yeah, WTF.

w81: really? are you drinking?

oh look, here's columbiacounty to keep w81st street on streeteasy. Certainly we don't want him going over to Brick Underground after aboutready and Brick terminated their relationship... no way no how

columbiacounty
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse w81: really? are you drinking?

"hey hey ccc, how many kids did you rape today?"

can we assume that you are as accurate about real estate as you are about me?

2nd avenue bus is coming ...

as i thought.

rolling rolling rolling keep them doggies rolling RAWHIDE

do the neighbors know you are a registered sex offender, or did you get grandfathered in cunty?

can we assume that you are as accurate about real estate as you are about me?

as a third party to this fight between the two of you, how should I interpret columbiacounty's last statement? Is it high accuracy or low accuracy?

third party?

after second party

hb: no, not invited, boohoo.

"Most contract do say if someone comes in on their own they will have to be a dual agent."
just cuz a contract says something doesn't make it right or fair; that clause can be deleted or changed. Buyer/Seller should really seek protection via their own attorneys, not their broker. No offense to FP or W81.

W81: re: the Tretters, sounds like bad market timing. Too bad they didn't take it off the market & just watch/wait. 20/20 hindsight. And yeah, how'd they leave the closing w/o paying? Stormed out & said "sue us"?

But, looking at the floor plan, this is a 1br & dining room, not a true 2 bed (only 1 full bath), so considering the 12-2008 market (perhaps even today's market), it's not such a bad deal for the sellers.

Ali:

1. dont know facts of case
2. undisclosed dual agency is a fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
3. for a lawyer in Manhattan it would likely result in suspension
4. for a RE broker it should result in forfeiture of commission
5. there is no loss of commission if broker discloses to client and client consents

>
rb345
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Ali:

Ali's made it clear that the price is not relevant to the broker. Only turnover.

actually rb, as I hear the anecdotes, biglaw firms constantly have undisclosed client conflicts all the time.

But that is so NOT what this case is about. From my POV (and I'm not a lawyer) the dual agency was disclosed.

And the client consented to that by signing the real estate contract that included a promise of payment of broker commission.

Read the case and tell me if you agree.

ali r.

disclosed, after the fact?

That must have been a fun closing.

"The Tretter dispute focuses on whether Lockwood acted as a dual agent without properly disclosing it, Lawrence explained.

Lockwood had been hired as the seller's broker, as spelled out in the contract. But, the Tretters later argued, Lockwood confused matters by referring to the buyers, at one point, as her "customer." The remark was especially vexing, the Tretters contended, because at that point they had already discussed private financial details and strategy with her.

Moreover, they said, Sheila Tretter had raised "strenuous" objections to Lockwood's showing the buyers other apartments. And there was reason to believe Lockwood "may have attempted to frustrate the completion of the transaction" during negotiations over her commission, according to the state Supreme Court's one dissenting judge."

Ali, a firm (RE or Law) having client conflicts but the exact same person from the firm,that is a dual agent, far worse than dual agency and that is IMPOSSIBLE to have fair representation.
The client consented by signing the real estate contract expecting fair representation, not to be subjected to behind the eight ball negotiation akin (actually worse) to insider trading.

Please REread the case and tell me if you change your position!

Though after rereading this;

"Lockwood first met one of the buyers, Taurie Zeitzer, at an open house in the apartment, days after a different buyer had made a $1.5 million offer on the unit, according to court testimony. That offer was accepted, and while that candidate was in front of the board, Lockwood contacted Zeitzer and her husband, eventually showing them five other properties.
Weeks later, the original offer on the Tretters' apartment fell through. Lockwood brought the Zeitzers to see the apartment again, and they eventually agreed to buy it."

...casts some more gray on the matter.

A judge worthy of Solomon might determine the above circumstances put both Lockwood and the Tretters in an awkward position where Lockwood at this juncture was truly serving one party only, and owed one side of the commission, $35K.

Ali is a self serving re hack who drops the H bomb in any situation, don't expect her to not be self serving now.

Is the bathroom open?
Ali. 'no but I went to Harvard'

Do you have change for the meter?
Ali 'no but I have a degree from Harvard'

Are you acting as a dual agent
Ali 'does that have anything to do with my Harvard degree?'

Ali this polyp may be cancerous
Ali ' will my Harvard degree give me a better chance at survival?'

Why the fk would that Borker show 5 other apts when she was contracted to sell the unit in question?

But truth, if the client signed the listing contract expecting fair representation, and then decided that they didn't get it based on the subsequent performance of the broker, why not just fire the broker?

That's what I don't understand. It seems like accepting the buyers and the contract that the broker bought in IS an acceptance of her performance.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Flamozzzz. Does Ali have a pocket full of buyers she'll let a seller have if and only if they give her a full 6%.

Ali:

1. acceptance of a benefit under a contract with full knowledge of its material
terms waives known breaches by a counter-party.

2. I still havent seen the decision

3. if broker began to represent client #2 after deal for #1 appeared to be done, and only
brought #2 to #1 after deal of #1 collapsed, the presumption of dishinest concealment and
self-dealing vs. client #1 would no longer apply

4. but broker would still have to disclose 2nd representation and intent to collect dual fee

5. the real vice of dual representation is the concern that a dual agent will sll both parties
short in order to make a deal: get a lower price for the seller, and a less desirable apart-
ment for the buyer

6. human nature being what it is, it is very hard to avoid that happening in real life, as well
as suscipion by both parties that the broker us cheating them both

>5. the real vice of dual representation is the concern that a dual agent will sll both parties
short in order to make a deal: get a lower price for the seller, and a less desirable apart-
ment for the buyer

Ali's already told us that brokers don't care about the price, only volume.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/29046-internet-traffic-stats

front_porch
about 3 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse

FG, brokers don't care about price, we only care about volume.

are you in the market for an apartment or just looking to cause trouble?

As west81st predicted, Elliman has won and the Tretters have lost for the third time. The Court of Appeals decision is at http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/Nov12/184mem12.pdf

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone to take the other side of that bet.

what was the answer to columbiacounty's question?