I am not in WA, so I can't speak of WA real estate laws. However, I tend to agree with Ardell; that you should look at the net proceeds in this case.

One important thing to remember is that if he is representing himself; no matter where the commission goes or how this issue is resolved, you want to make sure that neither you nor your agent give him any advise as a buyer.

You also want to make sure that he signs something to say that he is representing himself and that he will be doing negotiation on his own behalf, inspect and review the reports/property himself and that he will assume all liabilities of representing himself; and that in no way you will be responsible for his error or omission or any negligence due to no buyer representation.

Sylvia .

Thu Sep 6 2007, 15:35

A licensed Realtor in the state of WA can write the contract and give the licensed FL agent a "Referral Fee"
usual 25%-30% of the commission earned by the Buyers Agent. If it's A FSBO with the FL agent acting as A FSBO buyer then no, he can not be paid a commission. The FL agent still needs to disclose in the contract that he is a licensed agent in the state of FL.
Redmond is a great area! Good luck selling your home!

Thu Sep 6 2007, 15:17

It seems to me that the relevant issue here is whether or not you want the sale to happen. I don't believe that a non-washington licensed agent is due a commission because any other non-licensed person would not be. Yet, if the buyer/agent feels he feels otherwise, you have to decide whether to agree and allow the sale to happen or disagree and possibly lose the sale. My suggestion is to have your agent negotiate with this person. That may clear the issue up. If you are selling By Owner, I wish you the best.

Wed Aug 8 2007, 07:59

Here in the Seattle Area, many buyers feel that the Buyer Agent Fee is at their discretion. If your price includes a 3% fee to whomever represents the buyer, then if the buyer chooses to represent themselves, they want the 3% taken out of the price.

The logic being that the seller has already agreed to pay this 3% to whomever brings the buyer. If you ARE offering 3% to "buyer agents" then the buyer does not want to be penalized for not having one. If they hire a buyer agent at 2%, then they want the 3% you agreed to pay, paid to the agent, with the difference credited toward their closing costs.

That is not to say that everyone else is incorrect who has answered here. Technically speaking, based on the way you have worded the question, the are correct. But practically speaking, here in the Seattle Area, you should be looking at net proceeds with an agent vs. someone without one. Net proceeds becomes the true method of evaluating fairness rather then sale price.

So if this is the one buyer who is willing to pay the highest price for your home, and you were willing to pay 3% to an agent if he had one, then the 3% should be a buyer credit or sale price reduction. Better for you if you do it as a sale price reduction. If all you negotiate is 3% off the price with him "as commission", then your net proceeds will actually be higher, than if you sold full price to someone with an agent to pay.

Don't get hung up on the technicalities. Look at your net proceeds. Often giving the 3% you would have paid anyway, will save you from a price reduction. If you have several offers, than you are likely better paying that 3% to a buyer agent ,and selling the house to someone with a buyer agent, as it helps limit you future liability. You can tell them they MUST hire an agent to get the 3%, to protect yourself and insure they are well counseled. That's what I would do. But they can negotiate that 3% paid with their agent and ask that agent for a portion, rather than you as the seller direct. That is your best option, in my opinion.

The correct answer is that they are legally entitled to a referral fee from any agent they hire, if they are actively licesned in another State. The % of that referral fee can be anything the two agents agree to...but then it becomes taxable income for the agent/buyer. So better to simply use a seller to buyer closing cost credit.

Thu Jul 5 2007, 09:01

I would concur, that he is not ENTITLED to a commission. He is not licensed in the state of Washington, nor associated with a licensed broker in the state of Washington. In order to be entitled to a commission in a washington state transaction, one must be licensed in Washington and affiliated with a Washington Broker. At best he could negotiate with you and your listing agent as an unrepresented buyer for a "discount", but really no more or less than any other buyer. Referral fee's are paid to out of state licensees for referral of buyers to a washington agent and paid by the washington agent. He's still outa luck.

Wed Jul 4 2007, 13:23

If he doesn't have a license he cannot receive any commission. An active Realtor can fill-out contracts in the state they are licensed. Realtors, however, can receive referral fees from almost any state and country, as long as they cooperate.

Mon Jul 2 2007, 21:16

I agree with James. Only licensed Washington real estate agents and attorneys are entitled to a commssion. IF he were entitled to a commission (and he's not), the amount of commission is negotiable unless it is published in a listing. If it is published in a listing, the commission is paid to a cooperating MLS Selling Broker by the Listing Broker, so he still would not be entitled to the commission if he's not an agent of the Selling Broker.

Mon Jul 2 2007, 20:26

Then I'll say pretty confidently that he's got no ground to stand on in getting any kind of commission. Just cause you're formerly licensed doesn't mean you are forever entitled to a commission wherever you go. That's just crazy talk. To answer your question of why he thinks he's entitled...? No idea. Perhaps he's confused. Refer him to RCW 18.85.100.

Mon Jul 2 2007, 19:56

Yes, you are correct. He is not licensed anywhere right now.

Mon Jul 2 2007, 19:43

Just to make sure I understand the situation. You are selling your house in Redmond. I assume it is listed with an agent. A potential buyer who happens to be a former licensed Realtor in Florida, thinks he's going to get the buyer's agent side of the commission (3% here) if he bought your house? Is that accurate?

In the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 18.85.100, it basically says that you have to be a licensed broker, associate broker or salesperson to have any claim at a commission. What it doesn't say is if the person has to be licensed in Washington State (though my assumption would be yes). However, if this guy is simply a former agent and is not currently licensed anywhere, ..he should be completely out of luck...no matter what state he had his license in.

I think that if he felt he was entitled to a commission in a transaction in Washington State, then he's practicing real estate in Washington State and therefore should be licensed here to be entitled to a commission. I'm not 100% sure that is accurate, and I can't find anywhere in the RCW at this moment that spells it out exactly.

Mon Jul 2 2007, 19:39