BROKERS - Statute of Limitations

someone's gotta have an answer to this....right?

Yes. A lawyer.

true, but i would think a broker would know. and there are plenty of them on here.

Most of the brokers (like myself) on here are NY licensees, so your question excluded us. I can take a stab at it, but can't speak definitively. Your question is a bit cloudy, but I think (from what I know about you) that you're in the process of selling your place in Manhattan (congrats again) and are looking to buy in NJ. Are you saying you saw a property through a broker several months ago, and are now considering purchasing it directly from the seller? Here in New York that broker would be due his or her commission. Since your purchase will be a matter of public record, the broker may have the wherewithal to sue the seller for the commission, particularly if you signed any paperwork connecting you to the broker during the exclusive period.

Not sure what the rules are in Jersey. Do speak to an attorney familiar with the NJ laws. The seller would likely be the one to take the hit, but still, you don't want to get tagged by a rabid broker. We're nasty, remember?

Depends on the deal they have with the seller. I've seen 1-2 years but don't know if that is typical.

thanks.

tina - you are correct about my situation. i never signed anything with the selling broker but when i spoke to the seller directly quite a few months back they said a few things that made me think they wished they could go around their broker. i told them that it wasn't my intention to do that but i am sure that they just wanted to save the extra coin - potentially $50,000. the reason i ask now is because it is many months later and i just want to be able to use anything to my advantage in the negotiating process. any money that they can save will also help me get a better price. thanks for your answer. you always have thorough and well thought out responses.

Aw, thanks.
If you did not have any substantive contact with the broker, and never signed even an open house sign in sheet, you may be legally in the clear. Again, a quick call to your attorney should sort it out.

tina, if i saw a place with a buyside broker but have zero paperwork with that broker, could they still come after me for a commission if i wound up buying a place later on?

or rather not me for the commission, but try to get a part of the commission the seller is paying.

hmmm. i may have signed an open house sign-in sheet. can't remember. that would be the only thing i would have signed since another broker took me to see the home.

this is why i typically don't sign those open house sheets. and if i do, i give them a bogus name. if i want to buy a place, then i know where to find them. what possible upside is there for me to give them my details??

I guess the upside is being an honest person.

Ouch, sniper! You're screwing two brokers!
I'm curious about how you came to be in direct contact with the seller. If he/she is soliciting you outside his/her broker arrangement, you could probably plead ignorant (which is not the same as innocent, mind you). But sheesh! In this case, both brokers did their jobs and are legally entitled to their commissions. What you do with that information is up to you, your lawyer, and your conscience.

just for the record - i have a conscience and i am not screwing any brokers.
in my contact with the owner i let them know - in no uncertain terms - that "i want to do everything above board and would do this through my broker and your broker" - that i was not looking to cut anybody out. the reason i asked the question is because the owner said a few things when we spoke that led me to believe they wished they could save the money. if they wanted to do that and it would save me money, that is up to them. a lot of time has passed and i was just curious about the option. i have no problem with brokers in the deal at all but my conscience sleeps best when it knows that it is doing what will be best to take care of my family. it would be foolish not to look at all possibilities.

"I guess the upside is being an honest person. "

i honestly tell them i don't want to sign in. and there is certainly no law that says i have to sign in. if they insist and don't drop it, then that's what they get. same way i wouldn't give a telemarketer my real info either.

I'm all for you saving wherever you can, sniper. Do what you have to do, just make sure your lawyer is good with it. I'm not sticking up for brokers per se, just saying in this case they may have a legit legal right to came after the seller later on.

You didn't answer my question about how the seller came to be in direct contact with you...

you said you were "curious." you didn't really ask a question! just kidding. i took it upon my self to contact the seller. i wrote them a letter. i told my broker that i had done so and the seller in turn told their broker - although they kinda hesitated about it. you can read more about it in this post that i made yesterday that did not get much response. i would love your opinion tina. i value it.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8589-house-purchase-options-in-a-down-market

Sniper - you may have a touch situation here. I know in NJ the rules for seller's broker are very strict, basically you get stuck with paying the commission. What I am unclear about is whether this was a seller's broker of someone who got the listing off MLS in NJ. If the later is the case, you may be clear as long as you didn't sign anything with the broker. However, NJ is fairly strict in enforcing broker commissions. For instance, I saw a controlling case where the broker had a an exclusive that automatically renewed. The owner thought it had expired. Anyway, long after the broker stopped marketing the property. The State of NJ offered to buy from the owner (they tried to contact the broker, but the calls were not returned.) The owner/seller did all the leg work and sold the property, but the broker sued for commission and won.

this is a broker who has the exclusive listing. my broker (buyer) probably just got it off of MLS. i just wanted to know what the options are. i don't think it is worth getting into a messy situation.

"i honestly tell them i don't want to sign in. and there is certainly no law that says i have to sign in. if they insist and don't drop it, then that's what they get."

-- Ok, so you only lie after they insist that you sign in. Is that supposed to make you an honest person?

"same way i wouldn't give a telemarketer my real info either."

-- Really? So no diff between a telemarker, who cold calls you (and who you can just hang up on and go your merry way) v. a broker who spends $ and time advertising an open house, spends sundays and other times at the open house, etc. (and, importantly, is the only reason you even know about it in the first place, since the seller decided to use a broker instead of advertising themselves)?

Listen, I'm not a broker, and I'm all for tough negotiations. But if your approach is to lie by writing down false names in order to cut a broker out of their commission, that is dishonest, no matter how you spin it.

i don't think special k said he/she was looking to cut anyone out of their commission. they said if they are interested in the place they know where to find the broker/seller. i think it is fair not to want to be called or contacted by the broker. this may not apply but i once test drove a car and literally got calls from the salesman several times a day for several weeks. i wish i gave a fake name or number.

My husband ordered some Omaha Steaks for his underfed Buddhist brother in Seattle, and then got four sales calls a day for a month. Nobody likes a pushy salesman.

Sniper - this does seem super touchy. I think you might be able to ask the brokers directly to take a smaller percentage to make the deal work. If the listing agent no longer has the exclusive, and no other protected buyers from the exclusive period are interested, then the broker's reduced fee is better than no fee at all. Ask your broker to do the same. And make sure you get it in writing in the written offer. Offer to continue to do the legwork on your own, and pay the reduced fee for reduced services. You don't even need the brokers to show up at the closing. If you are no longer working with either of these brokers, it could feel like found money to them, and they might be thrilled.

If they balk, or seem remotely litigious, you'll know immediately. In which case, you have two choices: walk away, or proceed through the offer process with the two brokers. The seller may still accept your offer despite having to pay the full commission. You will have done everything in your power to make it work. If it doesn't work, it won't be for lack of effort (or honesty) on your part.

FWIW: "statute of limitations" is a misnomer here. That term applies to periods during which various types of legal actions may be brought (e.g., criminal, torts, contract disputes, negligence claims). I think what is more nearly being asked is during what period of time is a term in the broker agreement enforceable (would be defined by the terms of the agreement itself ordinarily in NY; breaches could be actionable up to 6 years, typically, in NY) and what if any rules apply to RE agents in regard to the seller's agent being obligated to share a commission with a buyer's broker. Since the buyer herself has no obligation to either broker, this is for the brokers to work out in NY. A typical NY arrangement is that if a buyer's agent introduces a buyer to a unit, the buyer's agent is entitled to a commission up to 6 months after the listing agreement expires. If the buyer signs in and gives a broker's name, that counts. If they go to a home alone and don't sign in with an agent or referring to an agent on the sign in sheet, there is no claim by an agent for the buyer in most cases.

I thought that all real estate agents worked for the seller unless the buyer signs an agreement with a buyer's agent. In this case, I am assuming you did not. So, you should alert the seller to the contact you had and when with the agents and it will be up to the seller and agents to agree (or not) as to whether the commission is to be paid. Unless you signed a buyers agreement you don't have a monetary, or otherwise, obligation to the real estate agent. They all work for the seller. Am I wrong on this?

I'm with Special K on the sign in sheets, I never sign in and no broker has ever forced it, although they try. I'm not interested in cutting a broker's commission, I'm interested in maintaining my privacy and not receiving junk e-mails. If I want to make an offer, the broker will then know who I am, but not before.

Also, I've only bought property through LLCs so I'm not sure a listing broker could ever figure out who actually bought a property. And even if I bought a property in my own name, I'm not sure the broker has enough, particularly if I have a common name. What argument could the listing broker make? The buyer had the same name as someone on a sign-in sheet?

I'm all for brokers getting paid for doing their jobs under a contract and I think it's unethical/illegal/criminal for a buyer and/or seller to collude to deprive the broker of a commission. But I believe if they do conspire, it must be awfully hard for a broker to figure out, if people really want to hide it.

blossom - isn't that kind of a matter of semantics? the buyer's agent gets PAID by the seller but they are really busting their ass for the buyer. it is a strange arrangement but i think it would turn everything on its ear if the broker had to collect from the buyer. who would do that? you would see a lot more do-it=yourselfers i believe. my agent has busted her ass for me and in reality has waited around for 5 years for me to buy a house. i am not looking to screw her but if there was a way for everyone to get paid and for me to get a better price, that would be the prefect deal.

There is a way, of course. Keep your bid at the better price and let the seller eat the loss. Or let the seller work it out with his/her broker. You, of all people, should benefit from the market downturn. You are doing this seller a favor by buying this home in a declining market. You are the one taking all the risk. You don't have to pay more for the privilege to do so.

Sniper, unless you have signed an agreement that she is a buyer's agent, she has been working for the seller. She has a fiduciary obligation to the seller, not you. In turn, it is the seller's obligation to see that she is paid, not yours. If she were a buyer's agent, then the seller would still be paying her, if the listing agreement allows buyer's agents but you would have an ethical responsibilty to see that she gets paid if she introduced you to the property. I am not advocating screwing anyone out of anything. I am just stating the facts as I understand them (and as real estate agents made them). The agent is not working for you. She is trying to procure a sale for the seller and any payment should be worked out with the seller, not you. Of course, you could always pay her out of your pocket if she has been that valuable over the last five years but, as you mentioned, that is not how it typically works.

blossom - i think there has been a miscommunication somewhere. of course the seller pays the agents but my agent has shown me 40+ homes - i consider that working for me. i don't think she has any obligation to the seller. at this point she probably just wants me to buy any house. the seller, in this case, has their own agent with an exclusive listing. THAT agent works for the seller.

sniper, thats not so. Your agent works for the seller, unless you have asked and signed a buyer's agreement. IT is her obligation to do what is best for the seller, not you, even though she has shown you 40+ homes.

Blossom, I don't understand what you are saying. There is a listing agent. That agent signs an agreement with the seller. They have a contract. If I have an agent who shows me around and has nothing to do with the seller and has not entered into any agreement with the seller or seller's agent, how does "my" agent owe a duty of loyalty of any kind to the seller versus me?

This bit about agency is confusing even to agents, but let's give it another go, shall we?
-A true buyer's agent has a signed agreement to represent the buyer in a real estate transaction. The buyer's agent is paid by the buyer. (This practice is uncommon here in the NYC area.)
-What we refer to as a "buy-side" broker or agent is an agent who, like sniper's agent, dedicates his/her time to showing a buyer multiple properties, most of which are represented by listing agents.
-The buy-side agent functions as a sub-agent of the seller. Therefore, the agent's fiduciary responsibility is to the seller, not his/her own client. The agent (like the listing agent) is paid by the seller at closing.

But "fiduciary responsibility" is different from "loyalty". I think a buyer can tell whose interests an agent has in mind during a real estate transaction. From a business perspective, agents who routinely represent buyers can't afford to lose referrals, and will always demonstrate loyalty to their buyers. Ideally, the sale goes through because it serves both buyer and seller - and, subsequently, the agents as well.

Bottom line- the listing agent is the agent of the seller and the "buy-side" broker is a subagent of the seller. He or she may have "loyalty" to the buyer but his or her fiduciary (legal responsibility or trust) is with the seller. (I am not sure how you accomplish both "loyalty" to the buyer and legal responsibilty to the seller}

thank you for clearing that up. i understand a bit better now. so how, at this point, should i go about this? should i feel like i am really the only one with my best interest at heart? ultimately i know that is the case but i would hope my agent is on my side to some degree. i kind of feel like i should go it alone, for better or worse.

If they have buyer's agency in New Jersey, I would ask around and find a buyer's agent and sign with them. This is an agency agreement that allows you to have representation and is still paid by the seller at closing. I would not sign anything that would leave you liable for the commission if the listing agreement does not compensate a buyer's agent or if you buy a fsbo. Its the only way you are going to have representation. Others on this forum have recommended hiring a real estate attorney but at least in my experience down here, they don't know the market, inspectors, appraisers etc. Might be different up there. But there is no way I would let a seller's subagent navigate my real estate course; you would be better off going it alone. I am ready for the barrage of insults. Good thing this is an anonymous site.

so with the agent that i have been working with, the "sub-agent", how should i proceed? just write them off? or see if they will act as a buyer's agent?

just found this link for a jersey realtor that explains most of this:

http://www.ahomebuyeragent.com/New_Jersey_Real_Estate_Commission.htm

blossom is correct.

well done and thanks for enlightening us. here is the meat of the information pertaining to this part of our discussion (for those who don't want to go to the link)

New Jersey Real Estate Commission Consumer Information Statement on New Jersey Real Estate Relationships

SELLER'S AGENT

A seller's agent WORKS ONLY FOR THE SELLER and has legal obligations, called fiduciary duties, to the seller. These include reasonable care, undivided loyalty, confidentiality and full disclosure. Seller's agents often work with buyers, but do not represent the buyers. However, in working with buyers a sellers agent must act honestly. In dealing with both parties, a sellers agent may not make any misrepresentations to either party on matters material to the transaction, such as the buyers financial ability to pay, and must disclose defects of a material nature affecting the physical condition of the property which a reasonable inspection by the licensee would disclose.

Seller's agents include all persons licensed with the brokerage firm which has been authorized through a listing agreement to work as the seller's agent. In addition, the other brokerage firms may accept an offer to work with the listing broker's firm as the seller's agents. In such cases, those firms and all persons licensed with such firms, are called "sub-agents". Sellers who do not desire to have their property marketed through sub-agents should so inform the seller's agent.

BUYER'S AGENT

A buyer's agent WORKS ONLY FOR THE BUYER. A buyer's agent has fiduciary duties to the buyer which include reasonable care, undivided loyalty, confidentiality and full disclosure. However, in dealing with sellers a buyers agent must act honestly. In dealing with both parties, a buyer's agent may not make any misrepresentations on matters material to the transaction, such as the buyer's financial ability to pay, and must disclose defects of a material nature affecting the physical condition of the property which a reasonable inspection by the licensee would disclose.

A buyer wishing to be represented by a buyer's agent is advised to enter into a separate written buyer agency contract with the brokerage firm which is to work as their agent.

This was a great thread.Now,I know why my broker was pushing me to buy this unit.I thought she was working for me.Why would we ever allow a broker to negotiate for us .Unless they were a buyer's broker?I am never going to sign into an open house using my broker's name!!!!

what i just posted is from the New Jersey Real Estate Commission - could be different for NYC.

here are two more excellent links:

Non-Exclusive Buyer's Agency Contract - A Bet Consumers Can't Lose
http://www.searchlightcrusade.net/2009/02/finding_a_good_buyers_agent_an.html

Finding a Good Buyer's Agent (And Eliminating Bad Ones)
http://www.searchlightcrusade.net/2008/03/nonexclusive_buyers_agency_con.html

Sniper - the sites above are for California, which has very different real estate protocols from those here in New York. To your point, however: most people who represent buyers (such as your broker) do indeed have the buyer's interests in mind. Otherwise, why would she have shown you 40 properties instead of just one? Many brokers would be thrilled to sign exclusive or non-exclusive buyer agency contracts with their clients. But in these cases the buyer pays the commission, which most buyers would rather not do.

Noah at urbandigs.com is working on a suite of flat-fee services to offer buyers who want someone to negotiate for them, but don't need the remainder of the broker's services (locating & evaluating properties, preparing co-op packages, scheduling appraisals and inspections, liaising with attorneys, etc). But in sniper's case it sounds as if the broker offered and performed services - scheduling & attending viewings of 40 properties is work! - for which she/he is legally entitled to receive compensation, should the transaction close.

As I said above, please consult an attorney. These are not hypothetical questions about how to find property. The two agents involved seem to have performed their duties and can compel the seller to pay their commissions, whether or not you attempt an end run around them.

tina - the "seller's agent, buyer's agent" definitions i listed above are from NJ RE Commission. they clearly state that unless you have a "Buyer's Agent Agreement" the agent is technically working for the seller. yes, the other links are from a California Realtor. i DO NOT want to attempt and end run around anybody - i hope i make this clear - but i want to know who is truly on my side and i want the best possible person to go into the trenches with me. no one wants to jump in the foxhole with a guy you think may be on the other side.

tina, in my state, you can elect to sign a buyer agency and the commission is still paid by the seller.

"any brokers would be thrilled to sign exclusive or non-exclusive buyer agency contracts with their clients. But in these cases the buyer pays the commission, which most buyers would rather not do."

This is very funny. Of course, buyers never want to hear that they should be paying someone for their services and yet, these same buyers like to think that the use of brokers is somehow "free", when it is an additional cost in the deal. The real estate industry goes on and on about how the use of buyer's brokers is "free" but is is anything but that. Too bad most buyers are just too clueless to realize this fact.

sniper - I agree entirely with your statement "no one wants to jump in the foxhole with a guy you think may be on the other side." This is one of the reasons I recommended that you ask the agents to take a reduced commission so that you and the seller can complete the deal without further services from them. Then you get the best of all worlds:
-The listing agent gets a (reduced) fee for an expired listing.
-The selling agent (your agent) gets a fee for finding you the home you want to purchase, and for showing you 39 others that helped you come to that conclusion.
-The seller pays a reduced commission AND sells a property at what we can only assume is a tidy profit (what year did they buy? Please!!)
-You get a better price on the purchase while avoiding litigation, with just you and your attorney in the foxhole.

Please note that I'm not advocating any particular agency choices. Every buyer is different, and each should assemble a support team comprising whatever combination of agents, brokers, consultants and attorneys makes sense for him or her. I never recommended you hire a broker when you were selling your home. I just think the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one, and you need to proceed according to the (implicit or explicit) contract you entered into when you selected the services of that broker.

Thank tina, for laying out all the reasons why I will continue to search for a single, living, breathing, unattached buyer. Anything to avoid all of these entanglements.

Tina, Sniper will not end up in litigation. The seller is responsible for the fee (if anyone).

okay, first - i believe the owners have been in the home for over 20 years. i would love to find out what they paid for it but i can't figure out how to and when i go the bergen county public records site i must be doing something wrong. would that info be available as an insider on streeteasy north jersey? i have not been able to get in touch with my broker for 2.5 days and now i am not even sure whose side she is really on anyway!!

as far as "contract entered into" - there was never any contract entered into. as far as i remember we signed nothing.

sniper - please let us know what your attorney says. I think that would help us all out!

The issue of the 'buy-side' broker's duties really is a gray area. Yes, that broker has a fiduciary responsiblity to the seller. I guess in theory it is the same responsibiity as the listing broker. In practice it means bringing a qualified (fully vetted) buyer to the table, i.e., the broker is confident in the buyer's ability to go forth with a sale at the negotiated price. Also it is the buy-side broker's responsibility to make sure every offer of a qualified buyer is put forth to the seller in writing and the seller receives the written offer. That satisfies honesty to the customer (buyer) and loyalty to the client (seller). The customer knows the client has read his offer, and the client receives the offer without the filter of the listing broker.

A conflict arises when the listing broker states that a seller will not entertain any offer below X dollars. I could be in error, but imoh I think the offer still must be put in front the seller.

In reference to open house sign-in sheets---I understand that potential buyers do not want to be bombarded with calls, e-mails etc., however remember you (most likely) are walking into someone's home and they deserve for various reasons, a true record of whom has viewed the property.

Yes sniper, talk to your lawyer.

"Tina, Sniper will not end up in litigation. The seller is responsible for the fee (if anyone)."

Pity the poor seller, the target of lawsuits lodged by brokers.

It matters not one bit how long the seller has owned the house. I get this question at every single open house, as if the answer were some sort of magic number that would force the seller to accept any price put on the table. It is just nonsense. Now, if a seller could not stay in the home more than a year, I might be worried about some sort of defect. Other than that, who cares.

"The issue of the 'buy-side' broker's duties really is a gray area."

- No it's not. There is such thing as "NY State Disclosure Form for Buyer and Seller" or " NY State Disclosure Form for Landlord and Tenant". The law requires each agent assisting in the transaction to present you with written disclosure, that clearly states who does agent works for and helps you to make informed choices about your relationship with the real estate broker and its sales associates.

As of sign-in sheet, I always ask visitors for their official form of ID, because it is my fiduciary obligation to the seller to know who was in their property.

As of main question of this thread - it would be defined by the terms of the agreement itself.

elena
(broker)

If I was asked for "official ID" at an open house I'd walk out. How's that for "fulfilling fiduciary duty" to the seller. It's offensive. Who taught you that or did you just invent that little insult on your own?

In addition, from a legal point of view, interpreting fiduciary duty to include demanding "official" ID from those visiting an open house is novel and not grounded in standard practice or the law.

barskaya: There is the 'NYS Disclosure Form for Buyer and Seller'; the second line of title is 'This is not a Contract'---thus the gray area. Any buyer can find this form by google. Let the discussion begin.

You are totally correct in asking for ID. If should be the protocol for your protection and the protetction of the seller.

Here's a quick question:

A broker shows a buyer 40 homes. The buyer decides to buy one of the homes the broker has shown him/her. Does the broker have a right to collect a fee from the seller?

Let's ignore, for the moment, the legal question. Instead, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks from a logical standpoint, or an ethical one. I really am genuinely curious about this.

yes, they deserve compensation for their work.
the thing that is throwing everyone for a loop here is those designations of buyer/seller agent, etc. logically, someone who is showing you 40 homes is doing work for you but the fine print here says that they DON'T work for you.

kylewest,
you can walk out right from the lobby of the buildin - it's your right.
Because if you think that I let you come to wonder through a private property without at least knowing who you are - you are wrong. Do you know what kind of criminals out there may read my add in the media?

sjbh,
yes disclosure form is not a contract, why should it be?

elena
(broker)

That's funny, I have been to a million open houses and have never been asked once for identification. Why in the world would I trust an agent with information from my driver's license? I guess this is just another way of cutting down traffic to your open houses.

Tina, the agent has a right to collect whatever has been agreed upon in the listing agreement with the seller. The agent is a subagent of the seller and gets paid by the seller. If its a fsbo then no. If the listing agreement does not compensate outside firms, then no. The buyer has NO obligation to the agent unless it is agreed upon in advance.

I am not defending the system, I think its whacked. I'm just stating facts.

barskaya: The disclosure form should be read and should be signed. I think it is confusing and doesn't clarify agency and responsibilities.

I have no problem signing in. I give an email address (usually false because brokers seem to regularly abuse it and spam me to death with unsolicited drivel I never said it was okay to send me), my broker's name and agency, maybe an address with no apartment number or my work address. I would never give a broker my driver license or SS# or passport # or date of birth. Are you nuts? Like anyone--even one broker to another--would trust a listing broker with that kind of personal data? Please. Sign in with adequate info is plenty. If someone refuses, then I understand asking them to leave. But criminals have licenses, too. Since industry practice of not demanding "official" ID seems to work just fine, I don't think inventing problems or citing some isolated bizarre case supports the invented practice suggested here.

I understand the desire, but it does feel awfully invasive and unsafe from a buyer's perspective in terms of ID theft and the potential for abuse by the broker.

On a related note, I actually hate the idea of every other person signing in seeing my name and address and more. I think that is actually pretty rude on the part of the listing agent. Separate pages for each looker would solve that problem. What, as the listing agent, do you do to protect the private information of those coming to your open houses? Or do you just leave it all there on the table for everyone to see?

My sign in sheet only has spaces for name and email address, that's it. I send one followup note to thank them for coming by and telling them about the next open house, in case they want to take another look. If they don't respond, they never hear from me again.

Now that kylewest mentions it, perhaps I should have a little sheet that comes down from the top of the page and hides the names of the people who have already signed in.

"What, as the listing agent, do you do to protect the private information of those coming to your open houses?"

- I ask you for ID and sign you in myself. Everybody can see "Fair housing sign", but not sign-in sheet, they are purely for my own and owner's protection.
I also don't have any fine prints, like some of big houses do: "By signing this sheet you give us permission to contact you". I know why they do it (our days one can put her phone number on "Do not call list" and calling her without permission would be illegal). But you don't serve people by being sneaky with them.
I ask visitors if they would like to be contacted by me, and if they feel like they would benefit from it, they give me their real contact info and explain the way they would like to be contacted.
I also disclose my agency.

elena
(broker)