question on broker's fees

This is why some brokers make prospective clients sign a form saying they owe the fee for any apartment rented in a building shown by that broker.

If no form signed, my answer would be no.

The broker introduced the customer to the building... Yes, Even if the customer rents another unit he/she is obligated to pay the fee but ONLY if the customer signed the form.

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.

no.

Friend did not sign anything.

kind of a crappy thing to do... legally he is not responsible.

This is why landlords should pay a reasonable fee to brokers who secure a tenant.And perhaps then the broker can receive a reasonable fee for doing the legwork etc.from the tenant (1/2m and 1/2m?)

I found that most rental clients did not mind paying a reasonable fee to me (1/2 to 1 month) when I found the apartments and scheduled all the appointments and sent them a list of what we were going to view. It was all up front and 99% of the clients were happy/willing to pay for the service I provided. It's the game...not the player.

The services of an experienced rental broker can be priceless in finding a proper apartment in this city. People will pay a fee, but the current fee structure is quite costly. If a client is paying a reasonable amount they are happy to pay for quality service that saves them time and adds overall value to the entire process. They wont feel like a schmuck when they Google their new place and see a "No Fee" in the advert. Just a reasonable cost for good service rendered to them.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

MR17-5 -- Don't you think it depends on how the broker behaved? A broker who was honest and does real work for someone deserves to be paid. A broker who is dishonest and didn't do anything other than show her an apartment which she could have just easily found herself (as she found the other apartment), not so much.

If you agree to pay someone for a service and they provide said service I think you would owe them the fee. Only a very small number of contracts require the formality of a written contract.

I think its little more grey when its a different apartment in the same building. Did the broker show the listing, mention the alternative apartment in the building, or only mentioned and showed 1 apartment.

I won't easy agree to paying a broker commission for an apartment in the "same building" unless the broker said, I have these 3 apartments in the building and I said lets only see apartment A and B... Later saw C on my own and rented that one. Then I would say I was presented the apartment and saw it later on my own, I would still own the commission. Did the broker even know about the other apartment was for rent?

The question should be and I think this may be a legal issue and that is the "But for rule" But if it weren't for the actions of the broker would your friend (it's probably really you) rented this apt???? Would your friend have known about this apt being available without the actions of the broker? That's the question. If the actions of the broker caused your friend to go back to the building thus renting this apt than your friend may be required to pay the broker.Just my opinion.

btw I would think that a person being shown a rental apt in Manhattan should have an idea that if they rent an apt after it was shown by a broker for the first time that they are obligated to pay broker commission. Lots and lots of paper trials and witnesses and what not can be gathered by the broker if he really wants to pursue this. Did your friend think that the broker was working for free.

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....

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.

Actually when working with a rental broker

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

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

broker showed an apartment, not the building.

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.

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.

>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?

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.

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

BE

CLOSING

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.

I like to see overpaid broker's whining.

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

Broker showing no fee building, voila! no fee!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

Roro,

"Ruthless approach," understatement of the year.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

If you ar. An attorney why ask us?

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.

Sometimes?

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

>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?

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:

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!

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!

@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.

@ 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.

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

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.

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!!

>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.

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.

"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?

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

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