Someone forwarded this article to me, from the Washington Post today. Tina Merritt also wrote about this at www.VARBuzz.com. I found it very enlightening…
Challenging Brokers’ Add-On Fees
Friday, May 8, 2009
A federal district court has handed down a ruling in a class-action lawsuit that could directly affect the fees you pay to the real estate brokerage company at closing, whether as a buyer or seller.
The decision targets one of the most common practices adopted by brokerage firms in recent years: charging consumers "admin," "processing," "ABC" and other mystery fees ranging from $150 to as much as $500 per transaction. The fees are tacked on top of regular commissions and sometimes come as last-minute surprises on settlement sheets.
Typically, the charges are imposed by the brokerage company owners and go straight to them, rather than being shared with sales agents. When pressed about why buyers or sellers should be hit with hundreds of dollars extra at closing when thousands of dollars of commissions are already being charged in the deal, some sales agents say, "It’s the broker’s policy — we don’t get any of this money."
Brokers say they need the add-on fees to stay in business, especially when their commission splits with top agents can exceed 90 percent, sales volume is down and overhead expenses keep rising. Laurie Janik, the general counsel of the National Association of Realtors, defends the fees, arguing that brokers "ought to be able to charge what they need to make a profit."
But are these add-on fees legal? In a decision late last month that is sending shudders through the real estate brokerage industry, U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins in Birmingham, Ala., ruled that when a real estate firm charges clients an "admin" fee, for which no specific settlement services are performed, the fee violates federal law.
The case involved RealtySouth, one of the 20 major brokerage units of Minneapolis-based HomeServices of America, the second-largest realty firm in the country. RealtySouth was sued by home buyer Vicki V. Busby of Jefferson, Ala., when she was required to pay a $149 "ABC" fee — an administrative brokerage commission. The court found no evidence that the brokerage company performed any services beyond those covered by the commission, thereby violating a federal real estate settlement statutory ban against "unearned" fees.
Other federal courts have interpreted the statutory language on unearned fees differently, so the RealtySouth case does not settle the issue.
Busby’s lawyers estimate the class of affected consumers to number approximately 30,000 — all RealtySouth clients who have paid ABC fees in recent years that were, based on the district court’s ruling, illegal. Dana Strandmo, general counsel and senior vice president for HomeServices of America, said the company hasn’t decided whether to appeal the decision. Strandmo confirmed that charging administrative fees "is a very widespread practice," not only in his firm’s offices but throughout the industry.
Frank Borges Llosa, a real estate broker who runs Frankly Realty in Northern Virginia and an outspoken critic of what he calls "bogus admin fees," blames brokers and agents for their increasingly common use. In a posting on his blog, Llosa said brokers "are charging [these fees] because they can’t make enough from the agents. Why? Because the agents are demanding [bigger] splits" of the commission dollar, leaving brokers with less and less.
Llosa provided this hypothetical example: Say an agent who currently gets a 60 percent split of the commissions he or she brings in — the broker gets 40 percent — is approached by a competing brokerage firm that will pay 70 percent, but also imposes a $300 administrative fee that either the agent or the client has to pay.
After switching to the new brokerage, Llosa said, the agent now tells clients, "Oops, sorry, this firm charges $300 more per deal, nothing I can do about it." Meanwhile on a $10,000 commission the new company gives the agent $1,000 more while charging $300 to the clients. "It’s really despicable," Llosa said in an interview.
Janik of the Realtors group says brokerages need to move to a more standardized system of flat-fee-plus-commission compensation that is prominently disclosed to all clients. Listing agreements might, for example, indicate that the company’s compensation includes a base fee — say $500 — plus a standard sales commission of X percent.
"If [brokers] do it that way and don’t get fancy," she said, they should be immune from legal attacks over unearned fees, such as in the RealtySouth case.
What should consumers do? Number one, make sure you get full disclosure about all compensation and fees associated with any sale or purchase, upfront. If you don’t like what you see, you can always take Janik’s advice: "Walk down the street to another broker."
Kenneth R. Harney’s e-mail address is KenHarney@earthlink.net.
Source: The Washington Post
Tweet
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Some of these companies began charging fees well before the market headed south and profits became smaller. Perhaps the belief was that when prices were rocketing upwards sellers were realizing such large equity gains that they would not mind paying a “fee” on top of the commission. Clients could specify “no additional fees will be charged unless agreed upon by both parties” in any buyer or listing agreement they sign.
I worked for one company that charged an admin fee. It thought it was so totally wrong that I paid it myself.
The NVAR exclusive right to sell agreement does have a space in which a brokerage company can warn sellers that they will be gouged an extra fee at closing. However, agents who do not get a buyer agency agreement with the admin fee specifically written in are setting themselves up for a nice lawsuit. Another good reason to get an agency agreement.
Yes, the NVAR listing agreement does contain that language. I would still suggest that sellers include verbage to ensure that additional (undisclosed at time of listing agreement) fees must be agreed upon by both parties. That would stop a company from tacking on something else at the end.