Can real estate agents refuse to list a house?

debodun

debodun

SF VIP
Location
way upstate in New York, USA
When I was trying to settle my aunt's estate, I tried to get a realtor to put her home on the market. Nobody would take the listing. The only problem - water damage in the basement. I thought if you wanted to hire a real estate agent, they were obligated to take your listing - maybe I'm wrong? Are they that fussy?

What would you do if no agent wanted to list property you were selling?
 

How bad is the water damage? What would it take to repair it, what did the realtor suggest? I would call a few others and get their opinions. You could do a for sale by owner, but I would strongly suggest hiring an experienced real estate attorney. If you are going to sell "as is" that has to be stated I believe. If the property has structural damage, that may be a big problem. I don't know if a real estate agent has to list a property because someone is requesting, especially if there are some serious issues. Disclaimer: I have no experience in real estate sales, this is only my assumption. But if putting a few thousand out on repairs would bring you a higher asking price, it may be worth the investment and make a quicker sale.
 
Yes, they can refuse..

I would see if it can be listed with the damage repair negotiated in the selling price..
 
Realtors will only contract with you if they feel they can sell the house and it's worth their time and effort. If there's known damage, you have to ask yourself why would they want to take that on over other houses with no damage.
 
Having bought and sold a few times over the years my recommendations are thus: A realtor is not obligated to take on any property he/she does not want to. They are all independent sales persons and work on commission. They are, however, obligated to do certain things for you once that contract is signed. Also, a Realtor cannot tell you what to do - they can make suggestions and recommendations - IF you ask them - but what you do with that information is your choice.

You, as the seller, also have obligations - one is to disclose any problems with the property or the buyers can sue you. You also are obligated to take an offer, if it is your asking price and of course, anything other than that is negotiable.

As with anything else I suggest you should do your own homework. You can market online but a professional Realtor has access to other outlets that you don't - especially if it will be a tough property to sell. I have been told that most home sellers tend to talk too much and give out too much information that may turn buyers away. We have done both and found that using an Agent is just easier for us and you don't have to interact with the buyers. I found that on the west coast we NEVER even saw our buyers but on the east coast we all met at closing. I like the first way better - no possible prejudice. You might not like their looks or their kids or the way they whined about the kitchen.... who knows? You cannot take any of it personally so it is easier to enlist a third party to make the sale.

***One recent suggestion made to me is that we get estimates for the repair (or in my case, carpet replacement) so that if the buyer asks for an allowance we have an idea of what the repair (or replace) cost will be and can, at least, offer that concession. A buyer may ask for a $10,000 allowance when I know it would only cost $5000 and will have the estimate to prove it - be prepared and GOOD LUCK!
 
I am pretty sure you are still responsible. I imagine each state has different laws - again a good reason to have a Real Estate Agent to advise you on the limitations. Most people who sell a house have lived in it and are pretty aware of the circumstances. If you have not lived in it you can list the sale to be "as is" and be prepared for low-ball offers. You could also hire an inspector to give you a better idea of what might be going on - fix what you can, and disclose the rest.

To get top dollar it should be clean, bright, shiny and new - move in ready. I would spent $2000 to make $8000 more at closing. It also depends on the neighborhood. A friend of mine put top of the line everything into her little house and lost money at closing - buyers didn't care and the neighborhood/location didn't support the price she wanted.
 
RadishRose said:
The seller will be made aware of those problems when the home inspection is done.
Click to expand...

Yes, any any savvy buyer will insist on an inspection. Don't know for sure about unknown defects that the inspection doesn't find, but most of those home inspection companies are VERY thorough and know exactly what to look for that may show impending problems. After all, THEY don't want to get sued, either.

If you're worried about that (as I would be because my house is old, too), I'd spring for the money and get an inspection on my own to see what they would find. I sure wouldn't want to sell a house with a defect and get hung up for years in the sticky wicket of litigation over it, which could cost a fortune to defend.
 
I think most realtors will list and attempt to sell a house that has damage or needs updating as long as the seller accepts the market value appraisal for the home as is. I know a local realtor who refuses to list a property if he feels the asking price is too high for the area and condition of the home. He says "No thank you, I really don't want my sign rusting in your yard!" and moves on.
 
If the prospective buyer needs a mortgage to buy the house, the lender will insist on an inspection anyway. Then, the buyer will pay for the inspection. The lender wants to be satisfied that the property is worth the money they are being asked to loan. I can't imagine any mortgage lender not insisting on a very thorough inspection on a house that old.

They'll be looking for rot, termite damage, animal infestations, mold, radon, asbestos, roof condition, electrical wiring, lead pipes, lead paint, structural weaknesses or faults, water in basement, heating/furnace issues, among other things.

If there is a fireplace, there will be chimney issues to inspect.

Unless this house was kept up to date and up to code and there's no roofing, asbestos or lead issues, and the neighborhood is decent and not blighted, don't expect a huge amount.

As MyQuest55 pointed out, pouring a LOT of money into a house in an unsafe or blighted neighborhood could be big mistake.
 
RadishRose said:
They'll be looking for rot, termite damage, animal infestations, mold, radon, asbestos, roof condition, electrical wiring, lead pipes, lead paint, structural weaknesses or faults, water in basement, heating/furnace issues, among other things.

Unless this house was kept up to date and up to code and there's no roofing, asbestos or lead issues, and the neighborhood is decent and not blighted, don't expect a huge amount.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I don't think there's one item on your list that I don't have, except the bad neighborhood.
 
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. But the neighborhood is good, so some fixes may be worth it. I think the presence of asbestos is up to state laws so maybe not in your state, I don't know. Termites have to go! You really should get a good realtor to help you.

Bear in mind too, that since you didn't purchase the house yourself, any monies you get are profit in your pocket, even after some fixing up- if you decide to do that. I'm hoping that will make you feel a little better.
 
Sure would Butterfly, but my point was that Deb would make a profit by selling rather than having lost what she paid for the house since she inherited it rather than paid for it.

Oh, I wonder if an inheritance tax was paid! But regardless, as long as it sold for more than the repairs cost and after the tax, even if was oh, say... $100.00, it's still a profit.

I was thinking it would be better than sitting on it and paying property tax on it every year- that is, if it's in a state that has property taxes. Like mine. ugh.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top