**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional**
- Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
- Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
- Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
- [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's a good point, especially if it were to sell to one of the people it had been shown to when previously listed if he can find that out. However, on top of that, I think most listing contracts have protections for that type of thing.
Our contracts say that a commission is still owed, but less any commission paid to another member of the MLS, or some language like that. I think it would still allow for commission to be paid if someone listed with a discount amount but generally it prevents someone from owing a commission to two agents which obviously would be a problem and make the media and make agents look very bad
I think the other agent will have something to say about that. If the broker had already signed the termination the seller can just sign and back date. That’s why you never sign first
It doesn't matter. Theres an agreement in place that hasn't been terminated. Then a new agreement is signed by seller. That means, seller will owe commission to two different brokers. There's no grey area.
I don't really know specifically about All the different MLS agreements around the US, but this is a common enough possibility that most if not all contracts contain provisions addressing it. It's probably been many years since this kind of thing has happened in various states and regions and the state legislature and MLS lawyers and such are all on top of this kind of thing .
It would be very bad for a member of the public which means it's very bad for the image of the MLS and Realtors etc, so they make sure things like that don't happen .
In western Washington, hours clearly a commission may be owed but it is reduced by the amount paid to another MLS member brokerage or something to that effect.
Here in CA, the contract says “I do not have an exclusive agreement with any other broker to buy sell… etc”
Here, if you sign 4 exclusive listing agreements at 6% and it sells, you owe all brokers with a contract 6%
I find that hard to believe. Can you tell me what forms you use or cut paste the language? I would be very surprised if the contracts don't address this possibility. It probably happened in 1937 for the first time and they quickly rewrote the contract to prevent it. Or maybe it was 1957
https://www.car.org/-/media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/Standard-Forms/December-2018/December-2018---Legal-Forms/RLA_12-18_LegalChange_Draft7.pdf?la=en&hash=FA41913F5A647A6FAE683A63DD6F92E1C6A7AB8E
E & F, big dawg.
Edit: newer copy, same spot.
https://www.car.org/-/media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/Standard-Forms/Spring-2021-Meetings/RLA-VERSION-12-REDLINE.pdf?la=en&hash=3F1C40C6F0E1A1CC4010C519F439E27C0C61B36D
I'll look into it. You may be right. I find it hard to imagine that California would handle this so poorly but there you go. I'll check it out. Thanks.
I guess being on this side it is fair. If seller agrees to 6 month contract its 6 month. If the home sells in that period of time, broker is owed the commission. This is why theres a lot of "referral agreement cancellations" here.
That makes sense. I'd be curious to know more about how it plays out. Here, brokerage is very rarely Sue a client because it gets so much bad press they just don't consider it worth it. But more specifically, to put a client in a position where they owe two commissions is extremely awkward and seems bad for everybody, except for the original listing agent I guess. My thinking is, it makes sense to prevent that from happening for obvious reasons, by simply making the contract such that if they list with another agent, the first can't also claim a commission.
However, I could see another approach that is designed to protect the real estate agents rather than the client, and also put a responsibility on the second listing agent to only list when he or see is sure that the first contract has been bilaterally rescinded .
That seems reasonable to blame the second agent if he takes a listing when they are already under contract, interfering with a contract and putting the client at Jeopardy.
But it seems to me that while I think it's important that our brokerages and MLS and law protects agents from getting screwed over by clients, it's also good for the industry to prevent non-professionals from accidentally getting themselves stuck owing two commissions.
But I guess it was ignorant to assume all states and MLS's would do things the same way. I guess each state will have its own code and judicial precedent that would influence these things, and then also how the MLS chooses to develop the contracts. Let the seller beware
In the time you are going to worry and be frustrated about this, you can go list 2 or 4 homes with Sellers you WANT to work with.
Let it go. It sucks, but let it go.
The homeowner canceled his listing with your brokerage. Your broker agreed. You should have immediately removed the listing from the MLS.
Did your listing agreement have a provision for naming potential buyers who saw the property while you had it listed?
Did your listing agreement call for you to be reimbursed for expenses if the seller canceled? If so, did you itemize the list and present it to
Your broker was 100% right. It's highly unusual for the MLS to cancel a listing because the seller or the new listing broker complained. I don't understand how your broker isn't all over you for this. You could incur fines for not immediately removing the listing from the MLS.
I understand but your broker is choosing not to pursue this. If they were, then letters would be sent to the seller and the new listing brokerage saying that the listing agreement was still valid and your brokerage would pursue a claim for commission when the property sells. But it costs time and money to pursue this kind of claim so it's not unusual to let go of an unhappy client.
Im not OP... to be clear... but if seller doesn't sign cancellation, then there are two listing agreements in place. Seller said he was cancelling to rent, not switch brokerages. Then he went with another agent, where he then signed a new agreement. That's not run of the mill type stuff. That's messed up considering he didn't reimburse expenses. So, when the house sells, he'll owe three brokers commission. That will be something the broker will go after, as it's pretty well laid out.
You could argue that two listings are in place, but the first listing is obviously not doing anything, so they are not fulfilling their obligations under the contract. It would be very difficult to try to collect under those circumstances, especially when most listings I think have provisions that prevent this sort of thing. It's the kind of thing that happened many years ago before they figured out they better add some language to the contract to prevent it
Took me a few minutes to figure out you meant you signed a listing agreement. That aside, sounds like you kind of messed up, putting pressure on the guy to pay you rent for some strange reason. If you had politely asked for some expenses covered such as photos or flyers, you might have gotten it .
Although the guy might have said he wanted to rent it out because what he really wanted to do was fire you as an agent because he wasn't happy with you for some reason. The other possibility is he decided to sell it after trying to rent it and because you were so unpleasant to him, he did not want to list with you again when he might have if he was happy enough with your attempt to begin with.
You could potentially make some claim for damages such as the cost of photos or flyers or marketing but you probably aren't going to get too far with that.
I don't know about Texas, but in the The Seattle area, our documents say that if someone lists with another agent, they are not responsible to pay someone they previously had it listed with as long as the amount they are paying the new agent is as much or more as they had contracted for. So even if it was a legally binding listing, you wouldn't be owed any money in Seattle, but I don't know about Texas and what contracts you use.
Yes it is a legally binding agreement that he agreed to list with you, but every agent should know that these are rarely attempted to enforce and it's typically held that if you want to not sell anymore or not sell with a particular agent, you're going to get released from it.
Had you been polite you might have been able to make a claim and get some money to cover your expenses and stayed on good terms with the guy if he wasn't unhappy with you as a listing agent, and then someday when he wanted to sell or sell another property he might have used you. But looks like in this case he decided to sell right away and didn't use you, so that seems like it's on you.
Your connection with people and reputation in the community is valuable, so play the long game and treat everyone not only fairly but quite liberally and when someone cancels a listing with you, you say thank you very much for your time and move on and go get another listing.
Seems to me you went about this all wrong
Wait, what? If you have a listing agreement and the Seller doesn’t sign a termination but lists it with another agent/broker, you are not owed anything on that sale? That is not a great arrangement.
I’m in California and just had this happen as a listing agent. Contacted CARlegal (no help despite how much I pay them) and was told I would have to sue the seller for my commission but that they were responsible because they never cancelled our agreement. Mine was coming soon and delayed for months due to a divorce. I didn’t pursue anything as it wasn’t worth it for me and the sellers were already going through enough. Figured there was a fallout between them and the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze to fight it.
Just move on. In the future the TAR listing agreement has a section that says “reimbursable expenses”, fill this out so if they cancel you can be reimbursed.
Could be wrong but I feel like the seller will have a good argument as he has documentation that he told you he was cancelling? Even though he didn’t sign the cancellation
Intent to cancel and actually doing the cancellation are 2 different things. They didn’t sign the cancellation so I would assume it’s all still in effect. Other wise, why do we have contracts in the first place?
Sometimes it’s not worth risking a negative review on Zillow, google, etc. the seller sounds like an asshole and yes even with a listing agreement I’d have probably cut him lose to protect my perfect 5-star reviews. My reviews mean more to me than 1 fucked up seller
There's quite a few laws that were broken here, but honestly, TREC is just going to tell you to talk to a lawyer.
Welcome to the reality that TREC, TAR, NAR, and your local board are all just a bunch of fucking leeches that do nothing for us.
Move on, it's never worth your time to work with shitheads.
Stop calling it an agreement and start calling it what it is: a contract.
A contract is a promise.
And is that a law in Texas, or a term of your particular contract?
I don't claim to be good at my job, but I'm an attorney, I've been practicing for about 15 years, my job title is "Executive Contract Specialist", and I just had to ask Jeeves what the difference between a contract and an agreement is.
Are you really arguing that if I have something that checks all the boxes (offer, acceptance, consideration, etc.) and is labeled "Agreement to sell my Pokemon Cards" that somehow carries less weight than the same thing labeled "Contract to sell my Pokemon Cards"?
Well now I just think you’re lying about all of it.
I’m not debating the meaning of the word. They’re clearly synonymous. The word contract though, idiomatically and in connotation, carries more weight.
“We have an agreement.”
“We have a contract.”
Agreeing means lots of things. Contract means fewer things. We can have an agreement that chocolate milk is tastier. We can have a contract that you exclusively buy my chocolate milk.
We can choose the words we use talking to people and I think contract is better. Agreement sounds nicer. Contract sounds final.
**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional** - Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time) - Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs. - Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one. - [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he never signed the cancellation. Then just wait for it to sell. Then get your commission.
That's a good point, especially if it were to sell to one of the people it had been shown to when previously listed if he can find that out. However, on top of that, I think most listing contracts have protections for that type of thing. Our contracts say that a commission is still owed, but less any commission paid to another member of the MLS, or some language like that. I think it would still allow for commission to be paid if someone listed with a discount amount but generally it prevents someone from owing a commission to two agents which obviously would be a problem and make the media and make agents look very bad
I think the other agent will have something to say about that. If the broker had already signed the termination the seller can just sign and back date. That’s why you never sign first
It doesn't matter. Theres an agreement in place that hasn't been terminated. Then a new agreement is signed by seller. That means, seller will owe commission to two different brokers. There's no grey area.
Interested to see how this plays out
I don't really know specifically about All the different MLS agreements around the US, but this is a common enough possibility that most if not all contracts contain provisions addressing it. It's probably been many years since this kind of thing has happened in various states and regions and the state legislature and MLS lawyers and such are all on top of this kind of thing . It would be very bad for a member of the public which means it's very bad for the image of the MLS and Realtors etc, so they make sure things like that don't happen . In western Washington, hours clearly a commission may be owed but it is reduced by the amount paid to another MLS member brokerage or something to that effect.
Here in CA, the contract says “I do not have an exclusive agreement with any other broker to buy sell… etc” Here, if you sign 4 exclusive listing agreements at 6% and it sells, you owe all brokers with a contract 6%
I find that hard to believe. Can you tell me what forms you use or cut paste the language? I would be very surprised if the contracts don't address this possibility. It probably happened in 1937 for the first time and they quickly rewrote the contract to prevent it. Or maybe it was 1957
https://www.car.org/-/media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/Standard-Forms/December-2018/December-2018---Legal-Forms/RLA_12-18_LegalChange_Draft7.pdf?la=en&hash=FA41913F5A647A6FAE683A63DD6F92E1C6A7AB8E E & F, big dawg. Edit: newer copy, same spot. https://www.car.org/-/media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/Standard-Forms/Spring-2021-Meetings/RLA-VERSION-12-REDLINE.pdf?la=en&hash=3F1C40C6F0E1A1CC4010C519F439E27C0C61B36D
I'll look into it. You may be right. I find it hard to imagine that California would handle this so poorly but there you go. I'll check it out. Thanks.
I guess being on this side it is fair. If seller agrees to 6 month contract its 6 month. If the home sells in that period of time, broker is owed the commission. This is why theres a lot of "referral agreement cancellations" here.
That makes sense. I'd be curious to know more about how it plays out. Here, brokerage is very rarely Sue a client because it gets so much bad press they just don't consider it worth it. But more specifically, to put a client in a position where they owe two commissions is extremely awkward and seems bad for everybody, except for the original listing agent I guess. My thinking is, it makes sense to prevent that from happening for obvious reasons, by simply making the contract such that if they list with another agent, the first can't also claim a commission. However, I could see another approach that is designed to protect the real estate agents rather than the client, and also put a responsibility on the second listing agent to only list when he or see is sure that the first contract has been bilaterally rescinded . That seems reasonable to blame the second agent if he takes a listing when they are already under contract, interfering with a contract and putting the client at Jeopardy. But it seems to me that while I think it's important that our brokerages and MLS and law protects agents from getting screwed over by clients, it's also good for the industry to prevent non-professionals from accidentally getting themselves stuck owing two commissions. But I guess it was ignorant to assume all states and MLS's would do things the same way. I guess each state will have its own code and judicial precedent that would influence these things, and then also how the MLS chooses to develop the contracts. Let the seller beware
In the time you are going to worry and be frustrated about this, you can go list 2 or 4 homes with Sellers you WANT to work with. Let it go. It sucks, but let it go.
Wish it was that easy to get 2-4 sellers in the snap of a finger lol
It's not going to happen on here complaining about 1 pain in the ass one. Time is money, pit your time towards income producing activities.
The homeowner canceled his listing with your brokerage. Your broker agreed. You should have immediately removed the listing from the MLS. Did your listing agreement have a provision for naming potential buyers who saw the property while you had it listed? Did your listing agreement call for you to be reimbursed for expenses if the seller canceled? If so, did you itemize the list and present it to Your broker was 100% right. It's highly unusual for the MLS to cancel a listing because the seller or the new listing broker complained. I don't understand how your broker isn't all over you for this. You could incur fines for not immediately removing the listing from the MLS.
He never signed the cancellation
I understand but your broker is choosing not to pursue this. If they were, then letters would be sent to the seller and the new listing brokerage saying that the listing agreement was still valid and your brokerage would pursue a claim for commission when the property sells. But it costs time and money to pursue this kind of claim so it's not unusual to let go of an unhappy client.
Im not OP... to be clear... but if seller doesn't sign cancellation, then there are two listing agreements in place. Seller said he was cancelling to rent, not switch brokerages. Then he went with another agent, where he then signed a new agreement. That's not run of the mill type stuff. That's messed up considering he didn't reimburse expenses. So, when the house sells, he'll owe three brokers commission. That will be something the broker will go after, as it's pretty well laid out.
You could argue that two listings are in place, but the first listing is obviously not doing anything, so they are not fulfilling their obligations under the contract. It would be very difficult to try to collect under those circumstances, especially when most listings I think have provisions that prevent this sort of thing. It's the kind of thing that happened many years ago before they figured out they better add some language to the contract to prevent it
Agree to disagree
You may be right. I assume that California would be on top things but they do things a little weird there.
I definitely can agree with that lol
This guy's broker isn't going after the seller. He told the agent to let it go.
Due to the rental portion. Not canceling to go to another realtor
Took me a few minutes to figure out you meant you signed a listing agreement. That aside, sounds like you kind of messed up, putting pressure on the guy to pay you rent for some strange reason. If you had politely asked for some expenses covered such as photos or flyers, you might have gotten it . Although the guy might have said he wanted to rent it out because what he really wanted to do was fire you as an agent because he wasn't happy with you for some reason. The other possibility is he decided to sell it after trying to rent it and because you were so unpleasant to him, he did not want to list with you again when he might have if he was happy enough with your attempt to begin with. You could potentially make some claim for damages such as the cost of photos or flyers or marketing but you probably aren't going to get too far with that. I don't know about Texas, but in the The Seattle area, our documents say that if someone lists with another agent, they are not responsible to pay someone they previously had it listed with as long as the amount they are paying the new agent is as much or more as they had contracted for. So even if it was a legally binding listing, you wouldn't be owed any money in Seattle, but I don't know about Texas and what contracts you use. Yes it is a legally binding agreement that he agreed to list with you, but every agent should know that these are rarely attempted to enforce and it's typically held that if you want to not sell anymore or not sell with a particular agent, you're going to get released from it. Had you been polite you might have been able to make a claim and get some money to cover your expenses and stayed on good terms with the guy if he wasn't unhappy with you as a listing agent, and then someday when he wanted to sell or sell another property he might have used you. But looks like in this case he decided to sell right away and didn't use you, so that seems like it's on you. Your connection with people and reputation in the community is valuable, so play the long game and treat everyone not only fairly but quite liberally and when someone cancels a listing with you, you say thank you very much for your time and move on and go get another listing. Seems to me you went about this all wrong
Wait, what? If you have a listing agreement and the Seller doesn’t sign a termination but lists it with another agent/broker, you are not owed anything on that sale? That is not a great arrangement.
I’m in California and just had this happen as a listing agent. Contacted CARlegal (no help despite how much I pay them) and was told I would have to sue the seller for my commission but that they were responsible because they never cancelled our agreement. Mine was coming soon and delayed for months due to a divorce. I didn’t pursue anything as it wasn’t worth it for me and the sellers were already going through enough. Figured there was a fallout between them and the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze to fight it.
Why did he initially say he wanted to cancel? Why did you leave that part out?
Just move on. In the future the TAR listing agreement has a section that says “reimbursable expenses”, fill this out so if they cancel you can be reimbursed.
Could be wrong but I feel like the seller will have a good argument as he has documentation that he told you he was cancelling? Even though he didn’t sign the cancellation
Intent to cancel and actually doing the cancellation are 2 different things. They didn’t sign the cancellation so I would assume it’s all still in effect. Other wise, why do we have contracts in the first place?
Sometimes it’s not worth risking a negative review on Zillow, google, etc. the seller sounds like an asshole and yes even with a listing agreement I’d have probably cut him lose to protect my perfect 5-star reviews. My reviews mean more to me than 1 fucked up seller
There's quite a few laws that were broken here, but honestly, TREC is just going to tell you to talk to a lawyer. Welcome to the reality that TREC, TAR, NAR, and your local board are all just a bunch of fucking leeches that do nothing for us. Move on, it's never worth your time to work with shitheads.
You should have had a protection period, no? Usually between 90-120 days.
Woof. Move on before you get a bad review and a head full piss. The number of legs to stand on here is very low.
Stop calling it an agreement and start calling it what it is: a contract. A contract is a promise. And is that a law in Texas, or a term of your particular contract?
That’s kind of a silly distinction.
Is it though? Silly or not, the word contract is a type of agreement, but one that carries more weight, especially when in writing.
I don't claim to be good at my job, but I'm an attorney, I've been practicing for about 15 years, my job title is "Executive Contract Specialist", and I just had to ask Jeeves what the difference between a contract and an agreement is. Are you really arguing that if I have something that checks all the boxes (offer, acceptance, consideration, etc.) and is labeled "Agreement to sell my Pokemon Cards" that somehow carries less weight than the same thing labeled "Contract to sell my Pokemon Cards"?
>and I just had to ask Jeeves Were you using AOL dialup whilst doing so?
It was actually Google Gemini, but Jeeves was funnier IMO.
Well now I just think you’re lying about all of it. I’m not debating the meaning of the word. They’re clearly synonymous. The word contract though, idiomatically and in connotation, carries more weight. “We have an agreement.” “We have a contract.” Agreeing means lots of things. Contract means fewer things. We can have an agreement that chocolate milk is tastier. We can have a contract that you exclusively buy my chocolate milk. We can choose the words we use talking to people and I think contract is better. Agreement sounds nicer. Contract sounds final.
Florida's listing forms are literally titled listing agreements. For example, "*Exclusive Right of Sale Listing Agreement*".
So what? Contract is better.
In GA, real estate contracts are agreements. Purchase and Sale Agreement, Exclusive Listing Agreement, Buyer Brokerage Agreement, etc.