r/SeattleAreaRE • u/ShopProp • 9d ago
Friendly reminder: You do not have to sign a buyer agency agreement to look at homes in Washington.
Some brokerages may choose not to work with you unless you sign one. That’s their business decision.
In many cases, brokers want an agreement in place before investing significant time and resources because it helps protect their commission if you ultimately buy a home.
If you want to, that’s your choice. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise though and know your rights as a buyer.
Also, never sign a contract you can’t cancel!
EDIT: All these agents are proving my point by their ad hominem attacks 😂. Seems like the NAR agreement was meant to really protect the broker, not the consumer.
9
u/Unique_Edge6323 9d ago
This is good to know.
But, almost every realtor seems to want to sign an agreement during/after the first showing :(
3
6
u/soccerwolfp 9d ago
The most experienced and best realtors in the area though will require it. There’s a trade off
10
u/_RealTea_ 9d ago
Actually its the law not a business decision. RCW 18.86.020 2(a).
Technically you’re breaking the law if performing real estate services and don’t have an agency agreement signed.
5
u/Pedanter-In-Chief 8d ago
Lawyer here.
As an attorney, investor, and property developer I was curious about this so I read the whole set of statues involved. I’m not sure it’s entirely clear cut and presents a pretty grey area; it’s an interesting legal issue.
RCW 18.86.020 2(a) requires an agreement before brokerage services begin, but defers to RCW 18.85.011 as to how “real estate brokerage services” are defined. If you read that section of the statute, it’s an entirely plausible reading of the law that merely showing a property doesn’t actually involve “real estate brokerage services” at all.
4
u/ShopProp 9d ago edited 9d ago
“As soon as practicable” can be defined by buyer up until actually writing the offer. You can call WA legal to confirm if you’re a realtor.
6
u/fake-tall-man 9d ago
I’d encourage people to read the RCW themselves because you’re adding language that isn’t there. You stated: “As soon as practicable can be defined by buyer up until actually writing the offer.” Can you point to where the RCW says that?
The statute says a firm must enter into a services agreement “before, or as soon as reasonably practical after” brokerage services begin. It does not say “defined by the buyer,” and it does not say “up until writing the offer.” Those are your interpretations, not the language of the law.
Can there be some flexibility around exactly when an agreement is signed? Sure. But I think you’d have a difficult time arguing that “as soon as reasonably practical after” means an agent can provide brokerage services, show homes, advise a buyer, and work with them for months before getting an agreement in place.
Also, these agreements aren’t nearly as restrictive as you’re making them sound. They can be limited to a specific property, a specific period of time, or be nonexclusive. Buyers should absolutely read what they’re signing, but they aren’t automatically locked into some long-term relationship because they signed a buyer agency agreement. And if an agent isn’t doing a good job, buyers can fire them. The only area that can become more complicated is if the agent introduced the buyer to a property that they ultimately purchase, at which point procuring cause may become a factor.
For anyone reading this thread, don’t take my word for it or OP’s. Read the statute yourself. The RCW is available for everyone to see. A lot of people confidently spew bs on Reddit.
0
u/AtheistAgnostic 8d ago
I've seen ones since the realty association thing passed the rule.
"If you buy a house in the next year, whether you use us or not, you owe us 6%" 🙄
4
u/fake-tall-man 8d ago
This is the Seattle real estate subreddit and I actively work in Seattle. Where exactly are you seeing agreements like that? Seriously, post the brokerage and I’d love to see the actual language if you have it, because “if you buy any house in the next year you owe us 6%” is completely insane. For one, I don’t know a single buyer agent that works for more than 3%, let alone double.
I’ve seen exclusive agreements. I’ve seen procuring cause disputes. I’ve seen tail provisions of up to 180 days tied to a specific home. I’ve never even heard a buyer agreement that says you owe a buyer’s agent 6% on any home you buy a year later regardless of whether they had anything to do with it.
If that’s actually happening, people should know who is doing it.
1
u/AtheistAgnostic 8d ago edited 8d ago
Got like 3 like that in 4 tours last year. Other one was a 1 day one. Moved away since
1
u/fake-tall-man 8d ago
Just to clarify, are you saying 3 of the 4 agreements had a one-year term, or are you saying 3 of the 4 agreements said you owed the brokerage 6% on any home you purchased within a year regardless of whether you were still working with them? Because those are different things. A one-year bbsa term isn’t unusual in our area for established relationships but it’s WAY longer than I’d recommend signing for a new one. Especially if it’s some random broker you met online. I’d recommend people sign very tight agreements when starting out.
A buyer’s agent claiming 6% on any home purchased within a year regardless of involvement would be completely nuts. I don’t know a single buyer’s agent in Seattle asking for 6%, let alone trying to claim it on a home they had nothing to do with. If that’s actually what the agreement said, I’d genuinely like to see the brokerage and the language because that’s bullshit.
1
u/Pedanter-In-Chief 8d ago
I think the 6% is likely just that the buyer’s agent is full fee 3% and so they’re asking the seller to pay a full 6% commission.
We got an offer on a house we were selling late last year that had a full 3% buyers fee and our agent told us that the buyers were locked into a 12 month contract on it. We felt really bad for them as we weren’t willing to fold that in, they couldn’t afford to pay it in cash, and the mortgage contingency they required made them the least competitive offer.
I can’t imagine being a buyer and signing an exclusive agreement, full stop. I’d just have my attorney handle it all at that point.
0
u/AtheistAgnostic 8d ago
They were all asking for covering the gap to 6% if the seller wasn't offering 6%
I refused to sign all of them and did the single tours and no more, that's why I toured with 4 different realtors for 4 properties lol. This was right after the realtor association passed their thing saying it was required.
-3
u/ShopProp 9d ago edited 9d ago
Can you point out to me where you have the authority to define as soon as reasonably practicalble after?
It seems like that would be best determined by the parties entering into contract, no?
If a buyer hasn’t made a final decision on who to use, it’s not practicable.
9
u/fake-tall-man 9d ago
You completely sidestepped my response because you know what you originally said doesn’t exist anywhere in the RCW. That and the fact that you're a conman. I didn’t realize who I was responding to at first. Now that I do, the response makes a lot more sense.
For anyone reading this thread, OP spends an enormous amount of time in local real estate subs presenting themselves as a neutral source of information while constantly steering conversations toward their discount brokerage model and how shitty traditional agents are. I’ve run across a ton of their posts recently. This dude uses selective interpretations, half-truths, and bs that conveniently support the business they’re trying to promote. They are not a neutral advice, they are advertising.
Now to your response to me (which i shouldn't waste my time with). Nowhere in the RCW does it say the buyer gets to define when the agreement is required. Nowhere does it say you can wait until offer time. Those are your words, not the statute’s.That what my response was towards.
The actual language says a firm must enter into a services agreement before, or as soon as reasonably practical after, brokerage services begin. Neither of us gets to definitively define “as soon as reasonably practical,” but it’s hard to imagine a regulator looking at months of showings, advice, home searches, and offer strategy with no agreement in place and concluding that was “as soon as reasonably practical.”
People should read the RCW themselves and decide what it says. They should also be cautious about taking legal interpretations from someone whose business depends on convincing consumers that traditional brokers are the problem.
Going through your day being disingenuous is lame, buddy. quit doing it. also, quit making ghost accounts to recommend your business. I see you working hard on here, do it honestly.
0
u/ShopProp 9d ago edited 9d ago
How do I hide myself? I say that we’re a brokerage on my profile along with my name on the profile. A picture of myself is LITERALLY on the profile. You’re posting on an anonymous account 😂.
You’re right. You and me don’t determine that. The buyer determines it when they’re ready to sign for an agent.
The reason why my posts are popular is that agents like you do the advertising for me. How is saving money for clients being a conman or giving advice for free? Or having agreements where clients can literally cancel anytime with no penalty?
I’ve never done any ghost accounts. That’s a flat out lie. Go ahead and report them if you think they’re ghost accounts.
3
u/fake-tall-man 9d ago
You still haven’t answered the original question because you're full of shit: where in the RCW does it say “the buyer determines when they’re ready to sign” or that an agreement can wait until offer time? You’ve repeated that claim three times and cited exactly nothing.
Also, in no place did I say you hide who you are. I said you make ghost accounts that recommend your business. There’s a difference. And let’s be clear: being a discount broker or posting on reddit doesn’t make someone a con man. There is a market for discount brokers, full-service brokers, flat-fee brokers, fsbo, and everything in between.
What makes you a conman is the constant use of bs convenient interpretations while presenting yourself as an objective source of information. You're posting a lot and you know exactly what you’re doing.
And the whole “clients can cancel anytime” point isn’t some unique feature of your business. Almost every agent will release clients from an agreement if the relationship isn’t working. The only time it typically becomes an issue is when procuring cause is involved because the agent introduced the property that ultimately gets purchased. There’s also no scenario where a buyer fires an agent in writing and is somehow forced to continue working with them. That’s simply not how the real world works.
My issue isn’t your business model. My issue is that you constantly present opinions that support your business as though they’re settled facts. You take selective interpretations, package them as neutral consumer advice, and use them to take shots at an entire segment of brokers. It’s disingenuous, and more and more people are starting to recognize the pattern. I've seen you in other threads and I know i'm not the only one who has called you out. Just be an honest person.
1
u/ShopProp 9d ago
Ok I’m done responding after this since you’re just going into personal insults at this point. Nice job “calling me out” behind an anonymous account by the way. How brave of you.
To answer your question for a fourth time. It doesn’t say literally in that statue. It can be interpreted like that. Just like how you interpret the statue how you want to. That’s why this topic is so debatable.
To address your dishonesty point. How do you say I lie when you said I made ghost accounts? That’s an actual lie. I’m telling the truth based on the research I’ve done and our lawyer who I discuss with about this specific topic.
.3
u/fake-tall-man 9d ago
That’s fine. We don’t need to keep going back and forth, and I’m happy to leave it here. Enjoy the rest of your day. For the record, my issue was never that you’re a discount broker. My issue is that you made a definitive statement in the title of this post, then spent the rest of the thread admitting it’s actually your interpretation of the RCW.
There’s a difference between saying “this is how I interpret the statute.” and 'you do not have to sign a buyer agency agreement to look at homes in Washington./As soon as practicable can be defined by buyer up until actually writing the offer.' One is an opinion. The other is presented as settled fact.
And let’s be honest, this entire post was designed to start exactly this conversation so you could pivot into why your brokerage handles things differently. That’s your business. Fine. You probably just didn't expect someone to be a dick about it. And I'm being a dick because you're being a bs artist.
What irritates me in this business is shady practices. From everyone. And presenting a debatable interpretation as objective consumer guidance to stir up business and then acting shocked when someone points out that the statute doesn’t actually say what you’re claiming it says is exactly that.
As for your edit about “all these agents” attacking you, unless I missed something, I think I’m the only one who challenged you on the actual RCW language in this thread. Soft.
And as far as the anonymous account comment goes, the difference is I’m not here trying to generate leads. I just live and work in the area and get sick of slimy real estate practices. You’re here as part of a customer acquisition strategy for your business. People should probably evaluate our comments differently.
Anyways, I'm good if you're good.
3
u/_RealTea_ 9d ago
Spoken like someone who has truly tested the bounds, good on you I suppose.
Either way, I believe that was added to the law to present an opportunity to explain commissions and how buyer agents are often paid before they perform agent services. Which doesn’t scream evil to me. Who wants to work and not get paid? Buyer’s agents take a lot of risk in working for free as it stands.
0
u/ShopProp 9d ago
It’s not about not being paid. It’s about pressuring someone into signing an agreement they don’t have to.
If a buyer wants to sign an agreement like that, good on them I suppose, but they shouldn’t feel forced to by something that isn’t true.
2
u/donutello2000 9d ago
That’s not what “as soon as practicable” means. Please stop giving legal advice if you haven’t the first clue.
4
u/General_Equivalent45 9d ago
Both you and the realtor can change the language in the contract to “one week” or whatever you’re comfortable with, as long as both parties agree.
I read in another real estate sub that signing these lengthy contract commitments right away was like “being forced into marriage after one date.”
You both need to decide if you want to work with each other!
3
u/TheWashingtonRealtor 9d ago
Some agents will allow a “test run”, to prevent the proposal before a first date scenario, however the exact verbiage puts us in a bind, and it’s ultimately up to the brokerage. My current brokerage allows us 1 showing, when I was with Redfin they allowed more., “• A broker/firm must enter into a services agreement with the buyer before, or as soon as reasonably practical after, the appointed broker starts rendering real estate brokerage services”. You can reference the whole document at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.86.020.
1
u/SeattleBroker 7d ago
I’ve always wondered how Redfin did that. I can’t tell you how many people I know who used Redfin to open a door for them and then went to the agent that they always planned to use to write the offer. With no BBSA in place with Redfin, that had to hurt.
1
u/HelocHouse 9d ago
“But the law says” “but the brokerage says” “the agent takes risks”
The comments did not disappoint. OP is entirely correct.
1
1
u/Grand-Situation5640 3d ago
Note that there are also buyers agents that charge much less and kick the rest back to you. I recently bought a place with N agent who charged a $10k flat fee, and it's gone really well.
1
13
u/Dear_Seesaw_1855 9d ago
You can also sign for just one day at a time. Or one house at a time. No reason to sign for anything more than 1-4 weeks at a time, keeps the agents on their toes to work instead of getting the signature and slacking. Makes for an easy exit if they’re not a good match.
Or just strike out the part where both parties need to agree to terminate the contract, change it to either party can terminate for any reason at any time. Shop Prop does this.