- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Question about realtors "rules" or ethics
Posted on 4/8/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 4/8/26 at 11:59 am
So, my daughter had a buyer for her house. Contract signed.
During the process, daughter paid various fees for inspections and whatnot. She also forked out money to make a few home improvements to appease the buyer and meet some agreed upon terms.
Buyer has now backed out. Daughters realtor told her that the buyers realtor advised his client against buying the house because it had "foundation issues". This advice being given is apparently on my daughters security video. As far as we know, the advice was not cited in anyway or based on any inspectors report. The inspection went fine.
Daughter will be refunded the earnest money.
But what about the rest of the money she spent to appease the buyer? Is there any recourse here?
On a side note, I've learned over the years that listening to my daughter or wife explain things like this is usually insufficient. There's always missing information. I think there is likely some missing information in this case. Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why a realtor would tank their own sale unless they had a personal relationship with the buyer. Something isn't making sense here.
She's tried talking to a fully independent realtor for advice, but none will talk to her since she has an agent.
I am asking for input from those with knowledge. If I haven't given enough information, I'll answer questions to the best of my knowledge. I have not read the contract and I do not have access to it.
During the process, daughter paid various fees for inspections and whatnot. She also forked out money to make a few home improvements to appease the buyer and meet some agreed upon terms.
Buyer has now backed out. Daughters realtor told her that the buyers realtor advised his client against buying the house because it had "foundation issues". This advice being given is apparently on my daughters security video. As far as we know, the advice was not cited in anyway or based on any inspectors report. The inspection went fine.
Daughter will be refunded the earnest money.
But what about the rest of the money she spent to appease the buyer? Is there any recourse here?
On a side note, I've learned over the years that listening to my daughter or wife explain things like this is usually insufficient. There's always missing information. I think there is likely some missing information in this case. Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why a realtor would tank their own sale unless they had a personal relationship with the buyer. Something isn't making sense here.
She's tried talking to a fully independent realtor for advice, but none will talk to her since she has an agent.
I am asking for input from those with knowledge. If I haven't given enough information, I'll answer questions to the best of my knowledge. I have not read the contract and I do not have access to it.
14
Posted on 4/8/26 at 12:20 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
earnest money
That’s all she gets.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 12:33 pm to lsuconnman
Any idea why something like this would go down? Previous experience?
Why would a realtor tank their own sale?
Why would a realtor tank their own sale?
Posted on 4/8/26 at 1:16 pm to deuceiswild
The buyers agent’s purpose is to work in the buyers best interest. Your daughter should have a problem with her own agent didn’t warn her about setting the earnest money below the amount of repairs she agreed to.
The apparent failure to disclose an actively recording surveillance system is another big red flag.
The apparent failure to disclose an actively recording surveillance system is another big red flag.
This post was edited on 4/8/26 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 4/8/26 at 1:22 pm to deuceiswild
First of all, why is the seller paying for inspections? Isn't that typically done by a buyer? Also, you say your daughter will be refunded the earnest money. The earnest money is put up by the buyer, you're making it sound like she put up the earnest money?
Posted on 4/8/26 at 1:54 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
During the process, daughter paid various fees for inspections and whatnot. She also forked out money to make a few home improvements to appease the buyer and meet some agreed upon terms.
Why was your daughter paying for the inspections? Typically the buyer is who chooses the inspector and pays for it. Plus its in the buyer's interest to be the one in control of choosing who to hire as their inspector. That way the buyer knows the inspector is working for their interest and not working for the seller who may want the inspection to conveniently overlook something.
And then, why was your daughter putting out money for improvements at the buyer's request prior to the inspections coming back? After the buyer gets their inspection results back, that's normally when they start negotiating for the seller to either make repairs or for financial considerations to proceed with the sale as-is. So if the supposed foundation issues were going to be a deal breaker, then they shouldn't have even gotten to discussion about the seller making other repairs.
I'd be very suspicious of your daughter's realtor after all that.
ETA:
quote:
Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why a realtor would tank their own sale unless they had a personal relationship with the buyer. Something isn't making sense here.
The realtor has a duty to work in the best interest of their client, regardless if they have a personal relationship with them or not. Its called professional ethics
This post was edited on 4/8/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 4/8/26 at 1:56 pm to Civildawg
quote:I noticed that too. I assumed he meant "his daughter will be refunding the earnest money" that was put up by the buyer.
Also, you say your daughter will be refunded the earnest money. The earnest money is put up by the buyer, you're making it sound like she put up the earnest money?
Posted on 4/8/26 at 2:16 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
On a side note, I've learned over the years that listening to my daughter or wife explain things like this is usually insufficient. There's always missing information. I think there is likely some missing information in this case. Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why a realtor would tank their own sale unless they had a personal relationship with the buyer. Something isn't making sense here.
This is almost certainly going on.
Why did your daughter pay for inspections? That's a Buyer cost.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 2:18 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I noticed that too. I assumed he meant "his daughter will be refunding the earnest money" that was put up by the buyer.
It's either that, or they went past the inspection period (hence the daughter made repairs) but buyer still backed out, in which case the daughter would retain (not be refunded) the earnest money.
This post was edited on 4/8/26 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 4/8/26 at 2:39 pm to deuceiswild
The earnest money is the compensation for the buyer backing out.
The repairs make the house more valuable for the next buyer so she should make that back.
The repairs make the house more valuable for the next buyer so she should make that back.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:22 pm to lsuconnman
The security system is in plain sight and is not being removed. While I can't say it was verbally communicated that it's always on.... yeah, I get what you're saying. But I also can't bring myself to believe there's a reasonable expectation of privacy when on someone else's property with cameras in plain sight.
Not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying...
Not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying...
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:22 pm to deuceiswild
Buyer has now backed out. Daughters realtor told her that the buyers realtor advised his client against buying the house because it had "foundation issues". This advice being given is apparently on my daughters security video. As far as we know, the advice was not cited in anyway or based on any inspectors report. The inspection went fine.
--
Does the house have any foundation issues? If not, I 'd call the agent's broker and ask why that advice was given, which resulted in a lost sale.
--
Does the house have any foundation issues? If not, I 'd call the agent's broker and ask why that advice was given, which resulted in a lost sale.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:28 pm to Civildawg
quote:
First of all, why is the seller paying for inspections? Isn't that typically done by a buyer? Also, you say your daughter will be refunded the earnest money. The earnest money is put up by the buyer, you're making it sound like she put up the earnest money?
I have not read the contract nor do I know all the details, unfortunately. Calling it earnest money was a misspeak on my part. My apologies. Everything was communicated to me via text. What they are trying to tell me is the earnest money was given back to the potential buyer for some reason.
Paying for inspections was something both parties agreed on before signing the contract. The buyer is likely not in the best position and at their limits on what they'll be approved to borrow, and due to my daughter wanting this to happen badly enough, she gave in on some concessions.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:31 pm to deuceiswild
I sent this to my wife who has been a successful real estate agent for 14 years. This was her reply:
After 14 years in this industry, this is one of those tough and frustrating) realities of real estate.
Buying and selling real estate always comes with some level of risk, and unfortunately, sometimes that risk shows up financially…like inspections, repairs, or improvements made in good faith to keep a deal together.
In most cases, unless there was a specific contractual agreement stating the buyer would reimburse those repair costs if they terminated, those expenses fall on the seller.
Terminating over “foundation issues” without documented support would make me dig more as a listing agent.
It’s extremely rare for an agent to intentionally kill a deal without a reason. We don’t get paid unless it closes. So there’s likely some missing details somewhere like inspection notes, lender concerns, buyer getting nervous or finding another property they like better.
After 14 years in this industry, this is one of those tough and frustrating) realities of real estate.
Buying and selling real estate always comes with some level of risk, and unfortunately, sometimes that risk shows up financially…like inspections, repairs, or improvements made in good faith to keep a deal together.
In most cases, unless there was a specific contractual agreement stating the buyer would reimburse those repair costs if they terminated, those expenses fall on the seller.
Terminating over “foundation issues” without documented support would make me dig more as a listing agent.
It’s extremely rare for an agent to intentionally kill a deal without a reason. We don’t get paid unless it closes. So there’s likely some missing details somewhere like inspection notes, lender concerns, buyer getting nervous or finding another property they like better.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:32 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
The realtor has a duty to work in the best interest of their client, regardless if they have a personal relationship with them or not. Its called professional ethics
I understand this, and I agree with it. But the inspection was already done and there was zero mention of anything to do with the foundation. The way I'm understanding things, comments about the foundation were brought up by the buyers realtor with no apparent basis.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:34 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
they went past the inspection period (hence the daughter made repairs) but buyer still backed out, in which case the daughter would retain (not be refunded) the earnest money.
Yes. This. To my understanding this is what is happening. But she is apparently not retaining the earnest money.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:36 pm to ItzMe1972
There are no actual foundation issues, per the most recent inspection. Nor were there any seven yrs ago when they purchased the house, per that inspection.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 3:40 pm to mach316
quote:
Terminating over “foundation issues” without documented support would make me dig more as a listing agent.
It’s extremely rare for an agent to intentionally kill a deal without a reason. We don’t get paid unless it closes. So there’s likely some missing details somewhere like inspection notes, lender concerns, buyer getting nervous or finding another property they like better.
Thank you for this.
When I get home and can ask questions verbally and dig for more specific information, I'll have a better grasp of the situation. When I was informed of all this, that was my first question.... "foundation issues based on what, exactly? the inspection was clean"
And I also commented that I believe "the buyer found a property they can more easily slip into and needed a convenient excuse".
Posted on 4/8/26 at 4:00 pm to deuceiswild
No problem! I knew she would have some good insight. Good luck!
Posted on 4/8/26 at 4:07 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
But she is apparently not retaining the earnest money.
Then it wasn’t really earnest money, it was a deposit.
If the deposit is specified as earnest money it’s non refundable. But, it allows the buyer to walk away for any reason.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News