MJ wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:03 PM:Yet another example of why we need to adopt the "English Rule" that the loser of a lawsuit pays -- and also why so many folks try to get out of jury duty -- what a waste of taxpayer time and money! Of course, ANYBODY who would pay over a million for a "tract home", no matter how "high end" is nuts anyway.

Financial Expert wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:19 PM:The way to appraise a home is to multiply the yearly rental income by 7. So if the home would bring in $24,000 a month in rent, you should not pay more than $168,000 for it. Price to earning ratios apply to homes as well, just like stock valuations. Appraising a home based on what the last idiot paid is foolish and insane. That might be how to appraise one of a kind rare paintings, but homes are not rare. There are Millions of them for sale, overpriced, and millions more in foreclosure. Prices have fallen 50% since 2004 and will fall much further.

Nutz wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:24 PM:An absolute waste of time and money, and I hope that Marty and Vern are made to compensate the realtor and the courts for every dime spent on this ridiculous circus show. Follow that with having the lawyer that convinced them they had a case wear a "I am Stoopid" t-shirt every day for the next year.

Joseph wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:00 PM:The buyers chose this home and it appraised at the value that they bought it for. This is not the realors fault. If it appraised less than the purchase price, than there would be an issue with the realtor informing his clients of the homes worth being less than their offer -- not when it was appraised by an expert in the area. Shame on the buyers for not taking their own responsibility, not the realtor. The realtor did his job.

They are a joke! wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:20 PM:You guys are ridiculous. Enjoy wasting your money on your attorney because I can't see you winning!

I think I'll sue the guy who sold me my car because I heard someone bought one for less!!

Go back to Northern California Marty!!

Sdtangler wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:36 PM:Shame on the couple for not doing their homework! Most public real-estate sites will tell you how long the home has been listed and what other homes in the area have sold for. Wow.

Just Wrong wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:44 PM:It's just plain wrong to give this couple any money. When I bought my house just two weeks later one down the street sold for $3k less. That's real estate people. 10 years ago I didn't expect a refund and these people shouldn't get one today. They had every opportunity to negotiate a fair price before they closed on the home and if they didn't like it then they shouldn't have bought it.

If they win in court it's open season on all real estate agents as everyone is going to want a payday. Get Real.

Jackie wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:01 PM:This case totally disgusts me. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to blame someone else for their own regrets or mistakes. I couldn't believe a judge would even hear this case.

not a realtor wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:25 PM:Wonder how many of you respondents are part of the real estate racket.

Josh wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:16 PM:Interesting comments. My experience is that many Realtpors I know brag about cheating "clients". In this market idf a house is priced correctly the Broker buys it first (thats why they buy it--correct pricing). The question is: Are Realtors ready to invite investigators in to examine their activities? If not. What do you fear?

I know a Realtor who told the seller of a short sale that the house had an offer, it never did. Why, the loan company worked with the Realtor to get as many payments as possible from the owner (mortgage holder). Who takes the complaints? CAR refuses. Its time to either bring in the law or throw the baby out with the bath water. Its time that Realtors be held accountable. As "prpofessionals" they could have easily seen the housing bubble but refused to intervene because of their COMMISSIONS. Imagine a new $85/ft house selling for $260/ft and now "down" to $150/ft. This house has along way to drop before reality sets in.

Ron wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:40 AM:I like this plan.

I buy a stock. if it goes up, i happily keep the profit; if it goes down, my broker re-imburses me on the loss.

i'll be a billionaire in no time :)

Nitpicker wrote on Apr 11, 2008 7:06 AM:The word is "breach", not "breech".

SteveC wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:53 AM:Well, I guess if the buyers get an award, the courts will be jammed with more of these suits for the next 100 years!!

Peanut wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:22 PM:Imagine, a U.S. court (jury) actually made the decision that the buyer is responsible for what he/she paid for a house. Common sense! A real estate agent is there to assist you...but is NOT the one who makes the appraisal OR makes the decision to buy or not. Maybe the OTHER houses were worth a little less for a reason!

Rick wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:58 PM:I guess Josh & not a realtor are the only ones not in real estate. It's about time realtors and brokers made accountable for their actions. If the realtors wins the case, its open season on the buying public again just like where the real estate market is right now.

Ven wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:03 PM:I am with the home buyers. I am sure many of you who are bashing them are real estate crooks.
The role of the realtor is to give advice. If the realtor does not do that, he/she needs to be punished.
BTW, Ron, use ur head for once. Your broker is not an advisor. If I hired a stock advisor who did not do the job resulting in a loss, I will sue him/her.

Wayne in Houston wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:09 PM:While I personally do not trust "realtors" and would not want to be too dependent on what they told me, I don't think the "realtor" can be held liable for what the appraiser put on the report. And, with the appraisal lower, the loan would have been for less. Did the buyers benefit in the loan application for the higher amount? Just wondering.

John wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:43 PM:First of all the Real Estate Agent works for the seller of the home and not the buyer. It is the buyers responsibility to find out if they are getting a good deal or not. All those other sales are part of a public record available to anyone.

The real person who should be taken to task here is the dopey Judge who allowed this to go to trial in the first place. Even if the jury should rule in his favor it will be overturned on appeal.

McLovin wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:37 PM:Value ranges are large in homes over a million. These homes have views of the golf course, minimal to extreme upgrades and landscaping. I never heard mention of the $1.5mil plus listing (same tract one block south) that was on the market the same time these sheeple bought their McMansion. Not to mention that for years leading into 2005 every home sold for more than the previous sale,this one was the peak.

William wrote on Apr 12, 2008 6:04 AM:So if it's up to buyers to do their own research and legwork, what is the point of a realtor then? Why would a buyer pay a realtor 3%-6% just to open the door and show them the house? (Even though the seller writes the check, it comes from the buyer's money.) That points to finding your own listings, do your own negotiations, do your own background checks -- and skip paying at least the 3% allocated to the buyer's agent since realtors aren't providing any valuable service.

Peanut wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:14 AM:I am not in real estate and never have been...and have bought five houses over the years and sold four...I live in the fifth. -------- No matter how "crooked" real estate agents (and lenders) are, still it is up to the buyer to make sure that the house is worth the money compared to other houses (and what are the terms of a loan). Unless there is proof of deliberate abuse, a consumer should be held responsible for his/her decisions. ------ Of course, many WON'T seek out an expert (lawyer, etc.) for advice beforehand BECAUSE they do not want to pay...or think that they know it all...

Peanut wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:46 AM:In a lifetime, I have had 9 real estate transactions...3 with real estate agents and 6 "private" sales. Everybody came out reasonably happy in all the buying and selling. -------- Real estate agents can only work with appraisals and comparisons if they are even half way honest. They assist, but don't make the decisions... ------ Other houses can be bigger or smaller, have different size yards or views, etc. Prices can change even in a couple of months. ----------- Also, too many people have unrealistic expectations.... Everything in a house is NOT going to be perfect...

John wrote on Apr 12, 2008 10:00 AM:There's a reason why a realtor gets a commission, they're supposed to act as the buyer's champion and get the lowest price possible. Yet, the real estate industry builds in conflicts of interest by allowing rules--or rather the lack of one--in which agents can act as both the buyer's and seller's agent. I can't think of any other industry where such relations are allowed to exist. Sure, the homeowners should have done their research, but come on, are we also saying agents have never acted in self-interest? This is a clear example of an agent taking advantage of a buyer's ignorance to profit for themselves. That's plain wrong.

Bill wrote on Apr 12, 2008 6:19 PM:I’m actually surprised the realtors’ association didn’t side with the plaintiffs for one reason — they’re essentially conceding that a realtor doesn’t do anything but jack up the price to make a commission. No legwork, no honesty, no investigation, no assistance. That’s been painfully obvious, but aren’t these people trying to sell a service on the belief you’ll do better buying or selling through them than doing it yourself? And yet here they are saying you’re supposed to do it yourself, anyway, and pay them 6% of an inflated price for it. So what, exactly, are they supposed to offer?

(And, yes, I know the answer is “nothing.” It’s more of a marketing question.)

Bill wrote on Apr 12, 2008 6:21 PM:The Real Estate industry has just made the case for not using a Real Estate agent. Good timing guys!

Larry wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:58 PM:Sounds like buyers remorse to me. If the price had gone up, do you think they would be suing the real estate agent? I don't think so. Sounds like this person bought at the top of the market. If they win the lawsuit, anyone whose home value is less than what they paid would be able to sue.

I am not a real estate agent, but have purchased 4 properties over my lifetime. The agents I had were professional and honest people. I am sure there are a few bad apples, just like in any business, but I think the majority are good people trying to make an honest living. Stop bashing them, they are just doing their job.

Katie wrote on Apr 13, 2008 3:07 PM:You poor CA folk-believe the propaganda of the realtors. That no one can sell their own home. Where I come from, that is exactly what people do. One can use a realtor if one chooses but ONLY if one chooses. The entire transaction is above board and finalized with the help of an Attorney (at a reasonable hourly rate). When I was transferred to CA, I was told you MUST use a realtor-the only way to be sure of getting a good, legal deal. The first one I worked with obviously didn't know much, the second one ripped us off to the tune of thousands of dollars with lies and misrepresentation. We were told that the reason for realtors/brokers was that they MUST adhere to certain practices. Trust in someone being honest is not naive' and blaming the victim is cruel. If I would ever decide to sell, I would do it on my own at a deep discount rather than be taken advantage of-or take advantage of the buyer.

Doug wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:50 AM:I am a realtor. I abide by a code of ethics, one of the few professions that does. LCDORA this is the acronym for the resposibilities I am required to provide if I am representing a client. I do look at comparable properties for my buyers. In this case the agent showed 60 inside and out. Ultimately the buyers are buying not me. The appraiser saw the "value" of the home and the bank concurred. Agents are not appraisers and are not lawyers. These things are very clear in any approved contract or purchase agreement.

andy wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:01 AM:I agree with the verdict, but I won't be in a hurry to hire that agent.

So Sad.... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:32 AM:I know a doctor that is terrible because I am getting old and he should be able to stop it !!...and I know a teacher that should be sued because my stupid kid thinks that life is a party and does not learn anything at school...and I know that all of you out there would like to blame the financial crisis of your country and the mortgage that you can't afford and the devaluation of your home and all the other unfortunate decisions which you have made throughout your life on someone other than yourselves...go ahead!..if it makes you feel better, we are listening, but don't make yet another stupid decision and spend all your money making the lawyers reacher !!

MarylandAgentWithVision wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:48 AM:I'm a real estate agent licensed in Maryland. There are three things that we agents MUST do here in Maryland that greatly reduces confusion in residential sales:

1). On the first face-to-face meeting with customers (buyer or seller) we MUST present AND EXPLAIN a written DISCLOSURE entitled "Understanding Whom Real Estate Agents Represent". In this case, the buyer then signs the written disclosure indicating that the agent fully explained, to the buyer’s satisfaction, WHOM the agent represents in the transaction. Without a written agreement, in Maryland, an agent is considered a "Presumed Buyer's Agent". That is, presumed to be representing the buyer.

2). An agent may not MAKE or PREPARE an offer or NEGOTIATE a sale for the buyer without securing a signed (signed by buyer and agent) "Buyers Agency Contract" agreement. This written contract clearly states that the agent is representing the best interest of the buyer in the transaction. The buyer "customer" then becomes the buyer "client" at this point.

3). Furthermore, once a buyer has made a decision to make an offer on a home, it's the agent's responsibility to provide a written Competitive Market Analysis (CMA) report to the buyer for the subject property. We must fully explain that the CMA is not an appraisal. It identifies Comparable Properties ( based on same market location, interior finished sqftg, house-type, #bdrms, #baths, similar upgrades/amenities & other defining features...etc) ** comparable properties are commonly referred to as COMPS **, that have sold in the last 180 days. The actual NET sales prices (contract price minus any seller subsidies) become input into deciding the ESTIMATED market value of the subject property. With careful consultation with the agent, this ESTIMATED market value will assist the buyer in determining his/her offer on the subject property. But ultimately, it's the buyer's decision.

These three steps assist in protecting both the BUYER and the AGENT (and agent's Broker) and greatly reduce confusion concerning the buyer’s responsibility and the agent’s responsibility in the transaction.

arnoldmj in Tacoma, WA wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:44 PM:I am not in the Real Estate industry and I also think that buyers need to take responsiblity for their actions. I am so tired of hearing about how this agent or that broker caused a person to buy a house they may now regret. Who signed the papers... did they read the docs, or were they another set of sheeple. And for all the sheeple out there who have created the credit mess the country is in... eat the hay you laid in, cause nobody whats to bail you out. Suck it up and stop complaining.

Kate wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:02 AM:Remember, whenever you buy something, it is "BUYER BEWARE." Unless you manufactured that item, you simply can not ever know the complete history of that item. Whether a pair of jeans or a house, you have to decide if the item meets your requirements and whether you are willing to pay the price that the seller is asking. If you try on 60 pairs of high-end jeans, you should have a good idea of what a pair of those jeans is going to cost. If you try on 60 homes in the $1,000,000 range, you should have a good idea what a million dollar home looks like. If you can't decide after trying on 60 similar items, perhaps it is the wrong time for you to be buying. Don't blame the marketing and sales people for the pricing - decide whether the price is fair and make an offer. Sometimes the seller will take x% less and sometimes they won't. If the seller won't make that discount, then either take the risk and pay the seller's price, or walk away. This is the basis for any market, and there is always some RISK involved in making a purchase. Even the best real estate buyer's agent can not totally eliminate the risk involved in buying a home.

Broker wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:18 AM:When we represent buyers it's our practice to explain the difference between our opinion of value, theirs, and the appraiser's. Ours is an objective opinion based upon decades of experience, knowledge and expertise. The buyer may or may not have more than an amateur's opinion. The appraiser doesn't (at least shouldn't) have a dog in the fight. If they're the lender's appraiser they're working on marching orders unknown to the broker and buyer.

Appraising is not an exact science, opinions to the contrary. This is even more the case in the primary residential market, than it is in my market, investments. It almost always comes down to an informed decision. The context of the comparable sales used is crucial to decision making, obviously.

solohoh wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:33 PM:Anyone that owns real estate should be happy that they have some "real" value for their toxic U. S. dollars. The rising tide that lifted all the boats is still coming in via a 20%/yr. expansion (inflation) of the money supply.