adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Real eState

Here's Who's Giving What to Trump and Biden in Commercial Real Estate – Commercial Observer

Published

 on


When Donald Trump announced he was running for president in 2015, Elie Hirschfeld switched parties.

The Manhattan developer known for building the Crowne Plaza Hotel and residential towers Grand Sutton and Park Avenue Court had given sporadically to candidates in both parties in the past, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and members of the Bush clan, and considered himself a Democrat. 

But Hirschfeld has known Trump personally for decades. When Hirschfeld had an opportunity to develop the site that would become Riverside South on Manhattan’s Far West Side, he brought Trump into the deal. And he once rented office space in one of Trump Tower’s lower floors in the early 1980s.

300x250x1

“We became one of his first tenants in his office portion,” Hirschfeld told CO. “He built offices because he didn’t want to be alone. The apartments sold well, but the offices were slow.” 

Trump behaved more like a real estate mogul than a political power broker back then, writing checks for politicians in both parties who could loosen regulations and advance zoning applications. He has sprinkled approximately $1.5 million in contributions to national candidates and party committees since 1979, according to federal election records. Many were Democratic officeholders in New York and New Jersey. 

“I’ve given to everybody because that was my job,” Trump explained while campaigning in Iowa in 2016. “I’ve got to give to them because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass.”

But Trump’s own thirst for the White House grew after Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, and an array of political consultants he met with, including David Bossie, head of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United, suggested Trump shower Republican officeholders with his cash to boost his profile. 

Trump began tilting the majority of his spending toward Republicans in 2010, before he cut off Democrats entirely in 2011. By the following year, he had become a reliable Republican contributor, giving $325,000 to national candidates and party committees. 

Trump always expected something in return. He had targeted his spending to lay the groundwork for a future presidential run. Yet when Republican leaders solicited him in late 2012, after Mitt Romney’s loss, Trump chastised them over Romney’s campaign strategies and refusal to deploy him as a surrogate in the final weeks of the race.

Trump’s experiences demanding favors and dispensing advice led him to eschew sizable contributions when he launched his bid in June 2015, claiming other candidates were “puppets” of their benefactors. Yet his allies quickly registered a super PAC named “Make America Great Again.” And Trump publicly revised his views, telling CBS’ John Dickerson in August 2015, “I would even take big contributors, as long as they don’t expect anything.” 

One of his first significant donations was from the family of a New York-area developer. Seryl Kushner, executive administrator and spouse of the founder of Kushner Companies, who also happened to be the mother of Trump’s son-in-law, gave $100,000 to Trump’s Make America Great Again PAC in July 2015. (Disclosure: Seryl Kushner is also the mother-in-law of Observer Media chairman, Joseph Meyer.)

Elie Hirschfeld wrote a $2,700 check in February 2016, but the campaign’s fundraising arm was so disorganized he had to call Trump’s secretary Rhona Graff for instructions about how to send Trump the money.

“I did it because he was a friend,” said Hirschfeld, who is not currently working with the Trump Organization. “I didn’t think he had a chance to win at the time. The sense I had was it was a promotional effort, but it took awhile for me to realize it was his intent to win. When Donald puts his mind toward something, he usually gets it done.”

The Latest Round

Trump has hauled in a massive sum for his re-election this cycle, including from New York’s real estate community, after Hillary Clinton outraised him nearly 2 to 1 in 2016.

Eager to avoid being an underdog as a sitting president, Trump filed for re-election hours after his inauguration. And, after campaigning as a political outsider against the Republican Party establishment in 2016, his campaign merged with the Republican National Committee to form a joint fundraising committee. The move allows Trump to share office space and staff with the party, coordinate events, and control which candidates receive money from the party.

That early planning was critical, and the Trump campaign collected $572 million through the first half of 2020, 32 percent higher than the $433 million it brought in four years ago, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal campaign records.

Commercial real estate poured $15.9 million into Trump’s campaign coffers so far this cycle, the second-most of any business sector. That mark so far is 42 percent higher than the $11.2 million Trump coaxed from developers in 2016. Only finance has given more, though neither has had anything on what the Center for Responsive Politics describes as “retirees,” who have raised $89 million, and Republican officials, who have brought in $65 million.

But Trump once again trails a formidable Democrat despite having an early fundraising advantage. After prevailing in a 29-candidate field, former Vice President Joe Biden has led Trump in polls with a boost of support from suburban whites, the elderly and college-educated voters. Biden’s fundraising exploded once the primary finished, with the candidate raking in $702 million so far.

It hasn’t been difficult for Biden to raise money from developers either this year. In fact, he’s brought in $17 million from the real estate industry nationally — roughly $1 million more than Trump.

This Biden motherlode includes treasure from some of the biggest names in or connected to New York real estate. Four M InvestmentsDennis Mehiel forked over $202,815 to pro-Biden groups (with his firm kicking in $5,000 more), followed by executives at BCG Partners, who distributed $100,000 to pro-Biden groups and $85,310 directly to the candidate, and at the Blackstone Group, who gave $100,000 to pro-Biden committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Other top real estate-related donors this election cycle include executives and principals at Fisher Brothers ($50,000 to outside groups and $6,705 to Biden), Cushman & Wakefield ($20,763 to Biden), Royal Realty, which is part of the Durst Organization ($20,000 to outside pro-Biden groups), and GFP Real Estate ($16,800 to Biden), whose chairman, Jeff Gural, co-hosted a $2,800-ticket party for Biden with Newmark Knight Frank CEO Barry Gosin in January. 

Biden might not enjoy the same ties with real estate developers and investors as Hillary Clinton, a former senator from New York and currently a Westchester County resident. But Gural is a longtime Biden friend who held fundraisers for his Delaware Senate campaigns. The people in Gural’s social circle are mostly Biden supporters too.

“It’s hard to be friendly with Trump supporters to tell you the truth,” Gural told CO. “Biden’s a decent guy, and maybe that’s what the country needs right now.”

Property owners, investors and brokers are exactly the kind of professionals with whom Trump should be succeeding, though. The industry remains predominantly white and male and the president’s base in 2016 largely consisted of white males over the age of 50, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. Trump also received more support than Clinton from whites who earned more than $50,000, a Data for Progress analysis showed.

There is enthusiasm for Trump in the industry — stemming in large part from his tax policy, his approach to Israel and the stock markets’ performance during his presidency — and that energy has translated into larger donations from it than in 2016. Trump’s top real estate donors so far this year have been Greystone & Co. managing director Abraham Spria, who donated $100,000 to a pro-Trump group and $5,600 to the Trump campaign, and Landmark Abstract Agency president Jacob Rekant, who gave $37,000 to a pro-Trump group. Other top donors include individuals at Compass and Walker & Dunlop, who each gave about $25,000 to pro-Trump groups, while executives at Meridian Properties ($19,966), the Witkoff Group ($17,200), Hirschfeld Properties ($16,800), and the Lefrak Organization ($16,200) all gave directly to the Trump campaign. Four years ago, H.J. Kalikow & Co. president Peter Kalikow was the only developer who gave Trump more than $10,000.

“Trump brings out both extremes, but he has a lot who support him in the middle,” Hirschfeld, who serves as finance chair of the state Republican Party, said. “On financial issues, people in the real estate world believe Donald Trump is doing better than would be the case if we had a progressive-leaning president.”

But the president’s immigration policies, refusal to fund New York infrastructure projects, the cap he supported on state and local tax deductions, and abject mismanagement of the pandemic galvanized others to thwart him.

“I’ve never seen a level of disgust and anger on Donald Trump’s weakness on so many issues,” Jennifer Bayer Michaels, a longtime fundraiser for Sen. Charles Schumer and Gov. Andrew Cuomo who leads the New York office of the pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country, told CO. “People are frankly disgusted. I’ve had a lot to work with. New Yorkers in particular are distrustful of Donald Trump. They don’t like what they see.”

President Donald Trump with Elie Hirschfeld, president of Hirschfeld Properties. The two have been friends for decades, and did business in New York City . Courtesy of Eli Hirschfeld

Why They Give 

Real estate leaders from both parties see a connection between Trump’s surprise win in 2016 and the leftward reaction in New York politics that followed. Dozens of progressives won seats in the City Council and state Legislature beginning in 2017. Democrats, in fact, took complete control of the state government for the first time since 2010. Lawmakers then passed tenant-friendly rent regulations, while developers seethed, and are pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy to close city and state budget deficits.

“The best thing that could happen to the real estate industry in New York is for Trump to lose,” one real estate executive who is backing Biden but preferred to stay anonymous told CO. “Other than a tax cut that has benefited some real estate owners personally, the last three and a half years have been a disaster politically for real estate and in a lot of people’s minds the first step to recovery is Trump getting out.”

Trump’s policies and personality have cleaved the real estate industry in unexpected ways too. One Trump fundraiser has found a bevy of support from individual property owners who own a handful of buildings and from smaller family-owned real estate firms in the New York area. Those at larger real estate investment trusts, however, favor Biden but have been open to a Trump-friendly pitch, the fundraiser said.

“I am more willing to cold call somebody in real estate who has given money to both sides but to less progressive-type Democrats like Gov. Cuomo,” the Trump fundraiser said. “I’d be more willing to call them than an attorney. The real estate industry’s been demonized a bit in New York, and I think is open to at least listening, especially over the last few years.”

But a Biden supporter noted that it may all come down to a donor’s ideology, culture, and whether they live in New York City or the suburbs.

“The higher-level guys who in a good year make $1.5 million and live in Greenwich, that’s the Trump folks,” the Biden supporter said. “It’s not really cool to be a Republican in the city. How do you be a Trump Republican and not like gay people and be bigoted in New York City? That’s not the way we operate here. Do you think they’re going to let you on the board of the Museum of Natural History if you don’t believe in science or the board of MoMA if you want to deport people?”

Some real estate firms have deep divisions within their own ranks, with senior executives raising gobs of cash for both parties while managing to keep politics out of their Slack channels. Executives at Blackstone, for instance, a major player in real estate financing and investing,  have raised $100,000 for Biden, while its CEO, Steve Schwarzman, has doled out $27.3 million to Republican candidates and PACs over the past two years, records show. 

And Stephen Ross, chairman and CEO of the Related Cos., one of New York’s busiest developers and owners, hosted a swanky Hamptons fete for Trump last summer while its employees largely gave to Democratic congressional candidates. Ross in a later New York Times interview expressed regret for hosting the Trump event, but he wouldn’t tell the paper for whom he planned to vote.

With fewer than six weeks to go before the end of the race, the money will continue to flow and donors will vie for the ear of their candidate much like Trump did in 2012. Elie Hirschfeld hopes Trump provides aid for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other public facilities in New York and tax relief by reinstating the SALT deduction. Jeff Gural wants Biden to continue condemning violence and outside agitators causing confrontations at protests. 

“I think deep down people would like to see the country united,” Gural said. “I don’t think they’re happy the country is so divided. I can’t wait for the election to see what people really think behind closed doors.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

NAR settlement explained: Why Realtors like me are scrambling

Published

 on

One of my favorite “Modern Family” episodes depicts the hilarity and nonsense of a real estate agent’s daily life as Phil Dunphy rattles off deed restrictions and the proper pronunciation of the word “Realtor” (real-TOR).

A registered trademark of its originator, Realtor is a title only real estate agents who pay membership to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) are allowed to boast.

Today, after more than 10 years as one myself, the “Realtor” prestige has lost its allure.

Just when it felt like NAR was bouncing back after a sexual harassment scandal in 2023, we real estate agents and brokers now find ourselves in the aftermath of this month’s multimillion dollar NAR settlement.

300x250x1

While I am nervous about what these NAR settlement changes mean for my residential real estate business and community, I am pleased that we’re all turning our eyes and ears to a company whose pockets have gotten too big and too dark for too long.

But enough about NAR.

Brokers, their agents and our local associations are scrambling to decide how to restructure serving residential buyers fairly without undervaluing our work. It feels a bit like a bomb just went off, and we’re running up to each other screaming, “Can you hear me talking? Are you talking? What are we going to do about this?!”

We have only until mid-July to figure it out.

Here’s what we know now: Buyer broker compensation is no longer allowed to be included on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). And buyers are now required to sign a Buyer Representation Agreement, which includes the buyer broker’s compensation.

Real estate agents are worth it. So how do we get paid?

Buyer services are harder and more unpredictable, I think, than seller services (even in a buyer’s market!). Some buyer clients take years to find a property, while others take only a few weeks.

The stories we agents could tell would make anyone roll with laughter or cry – probably both. Being a real estate agent is like a reality TV show. How will we divide our whole job into billable hours? Billable tasks?

As an agent, I’m not only giving advice about market data and negotiating terms for sale. I’m also an on-call therapist, a babysitter, an interior designer, a cleaner, an exterminator … agents gladly do an endless list of tasks for our clients. Just ask your favorite agent what she keeps in her car for emergencies!

One thing I can predict with much certainty: Buyers will have to do more work to buy a property in the future. Private tours will be less common and replaced by 3D tours, video tours and open houses. Buyers might also have to meet with their inspectors, contractors and others without their agent.

Maybe buyers really will do it all themselves without losing money.

Buying a house?Don’t go it alone. A real estate agent can make all the difference.

If you’re hoping to buy in the next three months, my recommendation would be to close by July 1. Most first-time homebuyers have no idea what has happened or how it will affect their ability to negotiate.

In the past week, I’ve had to explain the NAR settlement to every friend, neighbor and client outside the industry. I can only tell you that we’re all racing to get it figured out by the time it does affect everyone.

NAR settlement explained: How will this impact home sellers and real estate prices?

Seller-paid buyer broker commissions were created with equitable rights to good representation in mind. Specifically, so that first-time buyers could afford to have a fair negotiation, instead of being swept under the rug by a seller’s agent signed to protect the seller (a law in most states).

My heart breaks for those sellers who were swindled into commissions. As much as I’d like to blame NAR, this error is also on agents, brokers and local boards who clearly violated our ethical code. It’s maddening to watch agents and brokers feed right into the stereotype that real estate agents are lazy and just in it for the biggest paychecks.

So, who will pay the buyer’s agent now, and how will this affect home prices?

Real estate prices:Will home prices fall after Realtor lawsuit settlement? You shouldn’t count on it.

It’s commonly acknowledged that the 5-6% sales commission was “baked into” the sales price. Investor agents and builders have been using low-to-zero percent buyer broker commissions as leverage for years.

While I do think that 5-6% sales commissions will be a thing of the past, there is a chance that sellers will find a way to simply advertise buyer broker commissions through a different medium. This compromise walks a fine line with the new restriction.

Seller-paid “buyer credits” is my favorite idea bumping around. Buyer credits would be offered on the listing, and could be distributed as the buyer sees fit at the closing table. The buyer could use the funds for themselves, their broker or both.

If buyers are responsible for the buyer broker commission on top of other purchasing costs, the sales prices will have to come down. Lower sales prices should not affect the sellers’ net proceeds in this instance, since the sales price deficit should roughly mirror the now absent buyer broker’s commission.

In short, even though most sellers think they should be celebrating now, these new rules probably won’t affect sellers much, if at all, once the dust settles.

What does the NAR settlement mean for buyers?

Gone are the “Let’s go tour this house for fun!” days.

A signed Buyer Representation Agreement is now required before a property showing. This has always been best practice. For some states this will be a big change.

For example, I usually complete a buyer consultation and one or two property tours before requiring a buyer’s agreement. I do this to be sure we’re a good match for each other. A successful client-agent squad requires a lot of trust and a common communication style.

Take the tours off the table, and I think things will get awkward. Now I spend one hour with a potential buyer and then prompt, “So do you trust me to guide you through your biggest life purchase? Sign here.” I’m sure thankful many of my clients are referrals.

How will the commission change impact real estate agents in 2024?

The part-time agents and small brokerages will likely diminish over time, which will either be great or horrible for the industry. Agents will have to do more with less, and our 60 to 70 hour work week will feel impossible without high sales volume.

Once in escrow, the brunt of the work usually lands on the buyer’s agent, too. If there are more transactions without buyer’s agents, then the seller’s agent will have to pick up the slack.

Emily Ross

I often joke that as a 1099 real estate agent, I’m either overpaid or underpaid on each property. Still, my annual income mashes up into a worthwhile sum despite the work-life balance.

Without that 2-3% buyer’s commission propping up half my income, I am not sure the 11:30 p.m. phone calls, 6 a.m. texts, missing my daughter’s basketball game for an impromptu showing, and never having paid time off or maternity leave will be worth it.

Maybe I ought to go back to copywriting.

It feels like most brokers and Realtor associations are strategizing how to make the buyer agent obsolete with new technologies. I think they’re focusing on the wrong solution, but that’s a story for another day.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

A settlement in a U.S. lawsuit could upend the cornerstone of real estate industry: commissions

Published

 on

The cost of selling a home in the United States may be about to change dramatically.

A real estate trade group has agreed to a landmark deal to drop what was once a cornerstone of the industry: the six per cent sales commission paid to agents.

In Canada, two lawsuits filed against various real estate bodies want the courts to come to the same conclusion and force wholesale change in the way Realtors charge their fees when a home is sold.

“We got here by a cartel of brokerages and real estate associations that control the rules, and they’ve done it for a very long time,” said Garth Myers, a litigator with Toronto law firm Kalloghlian Myers.

300x250x1

He filed the proposed class-action lawsuits in Federal Court on behalf of plaintiffs who allege that the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board and several local brokerages and franchisors conspired to set fees and illegally drive up the price of real estate commissions.

At the heart of both the U.S. and Canadian cases is the opaque way in which real estate agents charge their fees.

Lawsuits revolve around Competition Act

In Canada, there are different fee structures in different jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, a commission of five per cent of a home’s sale price is split between the buyer’s and seller’s agents.

With the average price of a Toronto home at $1,225,000 last month, Realtor fees would amount to $61,250.

In Vancouver, Realtors charge seven per cent on the first $100,000 of the sale price, and between 2.5 and three per cent on the balance. So agents would split between $29,500 and $34,000 in fees on a $1-million home.

A real estate 'For Sale' sign outside a single-family home.
In Canada, there are different fee structures for real estate agents in different jurisdictions. In Vancouver, Realtors charge seven per cent on the first $100,000 of the sale price, and between 2.5 and three per cent on the balance. (Ben Nelms/CBC)

In the U.S., agents generally charge a commission of five or six per cent.

But what is common among those different jurisdictions is that the fee paid to the buyer’s agent is baked into the price of the home, while a seller can negotiate with their agent and get a better fee.

A potential buyer can look up the details of a home on something called the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The listing includes everything they would want to know about a property — from size and taxes to upgrades and amenities — but it doesn’t disclose the amount a buyer will pay in Realtor fees.

Myers said the existing system enables agents to steer clients away from homes that aren’t paying the full commission.

“It’s clear to us that consumers are being ripped off, it’s clear to us that the rules elevate the cost of buyer brokerage commissions,” he said. “Now the open question that the court is going to have to resolve is whether this is criminal conduct under the Competition Act. And that’s what we’re fighting about in court.”

It will likely take years before the cases are resolved.

WATCH | How sweeping U.S. real estate changes could impact Canada:

How sweeping U.S real estate changes could impact Canada

15 hours ago

Duration 6:22

A landmark legal settlement is upending the U.S. real estate market. CBC’s Peter Armstrong breaks down the possible ripple effects for home buyers and sellers in Canada.

U.S. industry pushes back

In the U.S., there is already fierce disagreement over what the court settlement — which ends legal claims from home sellers over real estate commissions — actually means.

On March 15, the day the $418-million US settlement was announced, the National Association of Realtors said fees have always been set by the market, not by collusion among agents. Besides, the group said, those fees have always been negotiable.

“Offers of compensation help make professional representation more accessible, decrease costs for home buyers to secure these services, increase fair housing opportunities, and increase the potential buyer pool for sellers,” the association said in a statement outlining the broad points of the agreement.

Rows of houses are shown in a subdivision.
A housing subdivision is shown in Middlesex Township, Pa., in April 2023. In the U.S., there is disagreement over what the $418-million US court settlement — which ends legal claims from home sellers over real estate commissions — actually means. (Gene J. Puskar/The Associated Press)

Since then, high-profile brokerages have pushed back against the notion that the industry will be forced to change as a result.

“Since the settlement announcement, there have been numerous articles and stories in the media on what this means for buyers and sellers,” Budge Huskey, president and CEO of Premier Sotheby’s International Realty in Naples, Fla., said in a statement released on Tuesday.

“Regrettably, most reflect a profound lack of understanding of the real estate business as well as mistaken claims.”

Huskey said the notion that sellers will no longer pay a fee to the buyer’s agent is simply false.

“There has never been any obligation for a seller to pay buyer agent compensation at any time, yet it has been a historical practice that’s worked exceedingly well since the advent of modern residential real estate,” he said.

Realtors in Canada, such as ReMax, aren’t saying much publicly while the cases work their way through the courts. A spokesperson for the organization would only say that “we do not comment on ongoing litigation.”

U.S. reaction watched closely here

“It’s important to note the litigations in Canada and the U.S. occur in different legal and factual contexts, and the litigations are at a much earlier stage here in Canada,” the Canadian Real Estate Association said in a statement to CBC News, adding that “we’ll continue to review U.S. developments.”

The statement goes on to say that buyers and sellers in Canada “have always been able to negotiate commissions with their agent…. On the buyer side, buyer representation agreements are required in at least seven provinces in Canada. These agreements set out terms like services and fees between an agent and their buyer. This represents more than 80 per cent of homes sold in Canada.”

Real estate experts on this side of the border have been watching the U.S. reaction very closely.

A man with grey hair and a grey beard, wearing a blue overcoat and tie, stands outside a building.
Murtaza Haider, a professor of real estate management at Toronto Metropolitan University, says he thinks the lawsuits in Canada will lead to the same outcome as those in the U.S. because the two real estate systems are so similar. (Pelin Sidiki/CBC)

Murtaza Haider, a professor of real estate management at Toronto Metropolitan University, said the two systems are so similar that he believes the court cases here will lead to the same outcome as those in the U.S.

But, he said, people should temper their expectations.

“We won’t have a system blow up. It’s basically giving the buyer the rights to negotiate with the agent, a commission for the services they may or may not use,” Haider said.

Down the road, he imagines a system where some buyers pay an agent a full commission to help them find a home, figure out a price and close the sale, while others will simply need someone to help them file the paperwork.

Haider warned that there may be some unintended consequences to changing the system. Currently, he said, the fee paid to both the buyer’s and seller’s agents is essentially included in the price of the home. Fees are not an extra closing cost outside the home price.

“Right now it’s baked into the mortgage amount, so you don’t have an out-of-pocket policy. But [if you] have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate, that amount [may be] coming out of your own pocket right away,” Haider said.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

The Homeowners Who Beat the National Association of Realtors

Published

 on

When Rhonda Burnett went to sell a home in 2016, she knew she would have to pay a commission to her real estate agent.

The house was a second home — she and her husband, Scott Burnett, had purchased the three-bedroom house in Kansas City’s Hyde Park neighborhood as a place for their oldest son to live after he was accepted to law school in Kansas City in 2008.

Her real estate agent presented her with a form that detailed how much commission they would pay, with choices in four boxes: 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent or 9 percent.

Ms. Burnett was instructed to select one, and she picked 6 percent.

300x250x1

The rest of the form, which stipulated that the commission would be evenly split among the buyer and seller agents, was already filled out; Ms. Burnett asked if she could lower the commission paid to the buyer’s agent, but her agent told her doing so would discourage agents from showing her home. “I shop sales,” Ms. Burnett, 70, said with a laugh. She spent three decades as a stay-at-home mother while her husband, Scott Burnett, 72, worked for a waste management company and spent 20 years working as a local legislator. “I’m always looking for a break. But when I asked her if I could negotiate, she said, ‘No, you really can’t.’”

Three years later in 2019, Ms. Burnett became the lead plaintiff in a landmark legal case about home sale commissions against the National Association of Realtors that led to a settlement earlier this month that real estate experts say will rewrite the housing industry in the United States.

The settlement followed a federal jury verdict in October in favor of the Burnetts and four other plaintiffs, on behalf of 500,000 Missouri home sellers, that ordered N.A.R. to pay $1.8 billion in damages. Under the agreement, sellers’ agents will no longer be able to make offers of commission to buyers’ agents on most of the databases where homes are listed for sale, a shift that will, experts say, lower commissions across the board. For decades, most agents in the United States have charged an industry standard of between 5 and 6 percent, which is higher than in nearly any other developed country.

The plaintiffs argued that N.A.R. and several large real estate brokerages had conspired to inflate real estate commissions, pointing to several N.A.R. rules that required a seller’s agent make an offer of commission to a buyer’s agent. Those commissions, the home sellers argued, were negotiable in name only, and unnecessarily high, forcing home sellers to pay unnecessary fees to close a sale.

Ms. Burnett spoke for both herself and her husband. She told the jury how she felt that the rules of the real estate industry had seemed fixed, and she believed she was forced to pay a commission that was never truly negotiable.

In an interview, Ms. Burnett stressed that she didn’t blame her real estate agent, whom she believes was just doing her job. Ms. Burnett spent several years as an advocate for the Kansas City public schools, meeting with educators and parents that helped her district. Her real estate agent was also a school advocate, and they often saw each other at district meetings. She blamed the industry, and the powerful National Association of Realtors, which had set the rules.

“It’s not the Realtors. But the Realtors are controlled by a huge spider web,” she said. “After I joined the lawsuit, I learned so much about how the industry is run. It goes all the way to the brokerages and up to N.A.R.”

Despite the settlement, which is pending a federal judge’s approval, N.A.R. continues to deny any wrongdoing in terms of its rules for agent compensation.

“N.A.R. does not set commissions, and commissions were negotiable long before this settlement. They are and will remain entirely negotiable between brokers and their clients,” the organization said in a recent statement.

Before the lawsuit went to court, N.A.R. — a powerful trade organization with 1.5 million members, more than $1 billion in assets and a cash-flush lobbying arm — seemed impregnable. It had fended off a Justice Department inquiry into anticompetitive behavior for more than a decade, and successfully sued upstart real estate companies that challenged its stance. The Justice Department inquiry is ongoing.

But in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the home sellers were speaking directly to a jury of their peers. It offered them an opening.

Michael Ketchmark, 58, a plain-spoken personal injury lawyer who became lead lawyer on the case, sensed his advantage on the first day of the trial.

Stepping to the front of the courtroom on Oct. 17, he gestured to his mother and father, who are in their 80s and attend all of his trials. On that day, Margaret and Eugene Ketchmark were seated in the front row.

“I told the jury that everything I needed to know about this lawsuit, I learned from my mom and dad when I was in kindergarten,” Mr. Ketchmark said in an interview. “If you take something that doesn’t belong to you, you have to give it back. And that’s what this case was. It was a refund case. It was about giving the money back.”

Mr. Ketchmark was referred to the case by a friend and fellow attorney who knew the Burnetts. He then began looking for other plaintiffs across Missouri who might have similar grievances.

Mr. Ketchmark had never tried a housing case before, but he was no stranger to big wins — in 2002, he won a $2.2 billion civil judgment against Eli Lilly and other drugmakers, claiming that they failed to uncover the scheme of a Kansas City pharmacist who was diluting chemotherapy drugs. The drugmakers, who never admitted any wrongdoing, later settled for $72.1 million.

Mr. Ketchmark had a similar upbringing to the plaintiffs in the case against N.A.R., with parents who didn’t make a lot of money and who saw a house as their biggest investment. He grew up in West Des Moines, Iowa, as one of four children, and his father worked at a bank. His mother didn’t finish college until he himself was in law school — she put herself through night school.

He had a strategy: Talk to as many average Americans as he could about the case, and find out what resonated. His team began running and filming mock trials.

“We would watch the tape, and start developing out the themes of the case,” he said. By the time they got to trial, Mr. Ketchmark estimates he had watched 2,000 hours of video of mock jurors discussing the case.

“I intuitively knew when the trial started that if we could win this, that if the jury followed the law and reached the right result, that it would change the industry. And it has,” he said.

He pressed Ms. Burnett, who grew up in Georgia and met her husband when they were both working in President Jimmy Carter’s White House — Scott did field organization, Rhonda worked as an administrative aide — to describe her childhood with a stay-at-home mother who sold Tupperware and a father who worked at the federal penitentiary and took on shifts selling sporting goods at the local Sears for extra cash.

Ms. Burnett’s agent listed the house for $275,000 but it sold for $250,000. Ms. Burnett paid $15,298 in commission.

Mr. Ketchmark guided Jerod Breit, 42, another plaintiff in the case, to share stories of working as a police officer in St. Louis before saving up enough to buy his first home in South St. Louis. And he encouraged Hollee Ellis, 53, to tell the jury about her mother, who worked as a real estate agent.

Ms. Ellis, a former high school English teacher who now works in nonprofits, talked about joining her mother at real estate showings as a child, and later even working as an assistant at her brokerage at one point. She joined the lawsuit, she told the jury, not in spite of her mother but because of her.

If real estate agents were actually able to negotiate commissions, she said, she believed her mother could have made more money, rather than less.

“She operated under that assumption and that practice and that standard for so many years,” Ms. Ellis said of the split 6 percent commission. She shared with the jury that her mother is now suffering from Alzheimer’s and has advanced dementia. “Whereas I know she worked very, very hard for some of her buyers and possibly could have negotiated a different rate.”

Ms. Ellis described selling a modest three-bedroom, single-level brick house in 2016 and feeling that she could not negotiate the 6 percent commission she paid that was split between her agent and her buyer’s agent. “It’s not about money at all,” she said of the case. “It’s about reversing a practice that I feel is unfair.”

Ms. Ellis and her husband, Jerry Ellis, a forklift driver, were looking to sell their house in Ash Grove, Mo., because Ms. Ellis had a new job opportunity at a nonprofit in South Carolina.

They owed $107,000 on their mortgage. They hired a real estate agent who sold the house for $126,000, netting them just over $18,000. Forty percent of that ended up going to real estate commissions for both their agent and the buyer’s agent.

“It was a hard pill to swallow that we were walking away with so little,” she said.

Mr. Breit, 42, also said he felt he had money taken from him.

He spent more than a decade as a police officer. He bought his first home, a two-bedroom brick Tudor in south St. Louis he described as a “gingerbread house,” with the help of a fellow officer’s father — a retired paramedic who worked as a real estate agent on the side.

When it came time to sell that home, Mr. Breit said, that same retired paramedic offered to help again, he said, and promised he would only take the “law enforcement special” of 5.5 percent commission.

Mr. Breit took issue with the commission to his buyer’s agent, and had already joined the class-action lawsuit when lawyers began reviewing the contracts of his home sale. It was only then, one day before he was scheduled to take the stand, that he learned he hadn’t been offered a law enforcement special anyway.

He sold the home for $149,900 in 2017. He was charged $4,946.70 in commission to his seller, and $4,047.30 in commission to his buyer, totaling $8,994. When the numbers were brought to his attention, he did the math in his head several times, disbelieving. His agent, using forms that were preprinted, had gone ahead and charged him the full 6 percent.

“I know people say it’s negotiable,” he said. “But it’s really hard for me to believe that it’s negotiable when the documents are pre-filled and we don’t question it.”

Mr. Breit left the police force in 2017 and now serves as a regional executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD.

“I’m just a person who sold a house,” he said. “I don’t go to Jiffy Lube to pay for an oil change next week, and I don’t pay for someone else’s Hulu account because we live on the same block. People should only have to pay for what they use.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending