Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
New transaction forms created after the National Association of Realtors’ proposed settlement of multiple antitrust lawsuits are largely incomprehensible to the average homebuyer or seller and contain language that seeks to avoid terms of the settlement, according to a new study released Monday.
The study, “Report on Buyer Representation Agreements Post NAR Settlement: Terms Buyers Should Be Aware Of,” is authored by University of Buffalo contracts law professor Tanya Monestier, who earlier this summer also wrote reports for the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America on transaction forms created in the wake of the NAR deal. The latest study is Monestier’s work and not affiliated with the CFA.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR AUGUST
Under the NAR deal, listing brokers will no longer be able to make pre-emptive offers of compensation to buyer brokers through multiple listing services and buyer agents working with buyers will be required to have written agreements with those buyers before touring a property with them.
Because of those changes, private real estate brokerages and local and state Realtor associations have been revamping their forms, particularly their buyer representation agreements and seller listing agreements, with sometimes controversial results. The report anticipates that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of new transaction forms promulgated due to the NAR deal.
“I have reviewed several dozen of these new forms,” Monestier wrote in her latest report.
“By and large, they are all very complicated and will not be understood by the average buyer and seller. Many of these contain terms that would come as a surprise to a buyer or seller, and terms that signal how [R]ealtors plan to circumvent the NAR Settlement,” the latter of which “ultimately harms consumers by keeping commissions high.”
In particular, the report details ways in which buyer contracts allow buyer agents to collect more compensation than agreed-to with the buyer, which the settlement prohibits, as well as terms that are either confusing or that appear designed to “scare” buyers to behave a certain way.
Regarding buyer agents asking buyers to modify their original contracts so that the buyer agent can get paid more, Monestier warned that, not only do such requests violate the NAR settlement, but buyers may feel pressured to agree or may not understand the full implications of agreeing.
“In almost all cases, a buyer will be all too happy to sign a modified agreement after a guarantee of payment for the buyer’s agent has been secured,” Monestier wrote.
“After all, it’s: a) not his money; and b) failing to sign a modification could lead to an awkward or acrimonious relationship with the agent going forward. With respect to (b), it’s important to realize that the agent’s request for a modification to the compensation comes at the same time the agent is submitting and negotiating an offer for the buyer. Why would a buyer want to alienate his agent at this pivotal moment in the process?”
Monestier also stressed that such amendments put the agent’s financial interests over those of the client. “If an extra 1 percent is on the table, why should that money go to the agent?” she wrote. “Practices like this where [R]ealtors scoop up ‘excess’ funds result in the maintenance of the commission structure that the NAR Settlement was intended to dismantle.”
In her report, Monestier does not touch on specific forms created by brokerages, but she does single out forms from 19 Realtor associations. The report identified issues in the forms of all the associations except the Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Utah Realtor associations:
- California Association of Realtors
- Texas Realtors
- Florida Realtors
- NC Realtors (North Carolina)
- New Mexico Association of Realtors
- Northwest Multiple Listing Service
- Colorado Real Estate Commission
- Tennessee Association of Realtors
- Western New York REIS
- Georgia Association of Realtors
- Oklahoma Association of Realtors
- Pennsylvania Association of Realtors
- Minnesota Realtors
- Oregon Real Estate Forms
- Northern Virginia Association of Realtors
- Rhode Island Association of Realtors
- Massachusetts Association of Realtors
- Utah Association of Realtors
- South Carolina Realtors
“I do not claim that the forms are a representative sample of all the forms out there — but have reviewed enough of them to be able to identify patterns and problems,” Monestier wrote.
According to the report, one of these problems is that most of the forms are not understandable to the average homebuyer or seller.
“You should not need to hire a lawyer to understand a listing agreement or buyer representation agreement,” Monestier wrote.
“These forms do not need to be this complicated. Lawyers and [R]ealtor groups have made them this complicated. They then claim that it’s the buyer’s or the seller’s responsibility to read the forms and that consumers are fully capable of figuring out the terms.
“Assertions like this fly in the face of common sense and everything we know about consumer contracting.”
She also highlights terms in the contracts that she believes buyers should be aware of, including:
- Terms written in fine print or legalese that require buyers to pay their agent if a transaction doesn’t close due to the buyer’s breach. “Some of these forms can be read to require the buyer to pay their agent even if the transaction does not proceed owing to failed contingencies,” the report said. Moreover, Monestier stressed that she’s not saying a provision requiring a buyer to pay commission if they breach a contract is unfair or inappropriate but that a buyer is unlikely to expect that such a provision exists and therefore agents must be required to make sure the buyer understands exactly what they’re agreeing to. “Most buyers understand that if they breach a contract for purchase and sale, they will forfeit their earnest money deposit; they do not anticipate that they will also have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to their agent,” the report said. “An obligation of this magnitude should not be buried in the fine print.”
- Provisions that include the possibility of modifying an agreement to allow an agent to get paid more than agreed to in the original contract with the buyer. “The NAR Settlement Agreement states that the compensation figure may not exceed that which is agreed to in ‘the agreement with the buyer,'” the report said. “This refers to the agreement in Section H.58.(vi) that the [R]ealtor has already ‘enter[ed] into . . . before the buyer tours any home.’ This provision clearly contemplates that the agreement that sets the cap on broker compensation is the one already entered into prior to the buyer touring the home—not a subsequently modified contract.”
- In that same vein, some contracts contain clauses that allow agents to collect “bonuses” from sellers. “Certain sellers—particularly sellers of new home construction—offer very enticing bonuses to agents to get buyers to purchase their properties,” Monestier wrote. “One builder in Florida recently advertised an 8% bonus!” In addition to being prohibited under the NAR deal, “allowing agents to collect these bonuses means that they will continue to steer their clients to these bonus-eligible properties,” the report said.
- Terms that allow a buyer agent to charge the buyer an extra fee if the seller is unrepresented, such as with a For-Sale-By-Owner (FSBO) property. “A buyer likely will not understand what this term is all about and what a fair number would be,” the report said. “This provision seems intended to discourage buyers from purchasing property from sellers who have not hired a listing agent,” the report added. Monestier pointed out a “highly deceptive” provision in Northwest MLS’s buyer contract that, if left blank, could obligate a buyer to pay double the commission if the seller is unrepresented. “This is contrary to the expectations of anyone who leaves a provision blank and is the type of provision that I believe could successfully be challenged as being unfair and deceptive,” Monestier wrote. NWMLS’s listing agreement contains a similar provision, according to the report.
- Clauses that allow for the buyer’s agent not to credit compensation they get from the seller to the amount owed by the buyer. Minnesota Realtors’ form contains such a provision, according to the report. “In effect, buyers could inadvertently be committing themselves to paying full compensation to their agent and permitting their agent to collect cooperating compensation as well,” the report said.
- Confusing holdover terms that mean buyers might not fully understand when they are still obligated to pay their former agent. “It is reasonable for buyers’ agents to extend their right to compensation for a period of time,” the report said. “But many of these holdover provisions are a choose-your-own adventure muddle.” In addition, Monestier points to at least one term she called “unconscionable” in the Oregon buyer contract. “Imagine a buyer being committed to paying an agent for six months after termination—even if the agent had absolutely no involvement in the process,” the report said. “One could easily envision a hapless buyer getting stuck in a situation where they owe two commissions.”
- A provision that creates a range of compensation — notably not allowed under the NAR deal — with the minimum being what the buyer agrees to and the maximum being what the seller provides. The report pointed to the Georgia Association of Realtors’ form as an example.
- Another provision that seems to allow the buyer agent to be paid whatever the listing agent is offering. The report pointed to Western New York REIS’s draft buyer agreement as an example. “The provision is confusing and seems on its face to violate the NAR Settlement by allowing for the possibility of collecting an amount exceeding the agreed-to fee,” the report said.
- Terms designed to “scare” buyers into action or inaction through the use of all caps and bold. For instance, Minnesota Realtors’ form warns in all caps: “CAUTION: BUYER’S ACTIONS IN LOCATING A PROPERTY MAY AFFECT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION BY SELLER(S) AND MAY THEREFORE OBLIGATE BUYER TO PAY ALL OR PART OF THE COMPENSATION IN CASH AT CLOSING. FOR EXAMPLE: THE ACT OF GOING THROUGH AN OPEN HOUSE UNACCOMPANIED BY BUYER’S BROKER …” Monestier notes that the provision regarding open houses is also inaccurate: “A buyer who has signed a representation agreement may attend open houses; they do not need to be accompanied by their broker to each and every open house,” she wrote. “A provision like this keeps the buyer wholly reliant on their agent in their home search.”
- Other potentially problematic provisions such as clauses that prevent buyers from suing if there is a dispute, provisions where a buyer pre-authorizes dual agency, terms that allow extra fees such as “junk” fees, and provisions that bind a buyer to an agent for longer than three months. Monestier also pointed to a provision that is often lacking in the contracts: “a statement that the agent may or will receive compensation for referrals to third-party service providers.”
Monestier also created a buyer’s guide to signing a representation agreement and a seller’s guide to signing a listing agreement, which explain the NAR settlement, consumers’ options regarding compensation, and “sneaky” things to be aware of, such as the contract terms included in her report.
“I would ask regulators and those drafting these forms: Do you think your mother or father would understand this?” Monestier wrote. “Would you want your son or daughter to sign these forms? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is time for a do-over.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reference the Colorado Real Estate Commission, which created that state’s forms, rather than the Colorado Association of Realtors.
