Florida consumers who wish to list their homes on the MLS for a flat fee need to protect their interest and deal with those companies that maintain a Florida brokerage license. Many foreign Flat Fee MLS companies do not maintain a Florida license. Therefore, these companies might be engaging in unlicensed activity in violation of chapter 475, Florida Statutes, since they are soliciting business from Florida consumers/sellers for a fee. A quick way to find out if the company you are dealing with is licensed in Florida is to click on the link below and follow the instructions. Search for a Florida real estate licensee.

The following cases stand for the proposition that a foreign real estate broker is not authorized to take part in the procuring of sellers and/or buyers for a fees in the state of Florida without first obtaining a Florida license.

1) Where a foreign broker acting on his own procures a client from his own jurisdiction to purchase property in Florida, he is not entitled to collect a fee. Paris v. Hilton, 352 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In Paris, this court held unenforceable a promissory note given by the Georgia purchaser to a Georgia broker because the note was given as consideration for brokerage services performed in Florida in connection with the sale of Florida land, the Georgia broker not being licensed in Florida

2) However, where a foreign broker, acting as cobroker with a Florida broker, procures a client within his own jurisdiction, the fact that part of his services were performed in Florida will not preclude him from enforcing his contractual right to a fee if he has performed good faith services within his own jurisdiction. Tassy v. Hall, 429 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

3) Where one cooperating broker is under a disability to recover a commission because of being non-registered, this infirmity affects the validity of the entire contract and no recovery is permitted. Harris v. McKay, 176 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965).

4) CITE: 502 So.2d 1317 PREVIEWS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Guy Eberhardt, Appellants, v. J.T. MURFF, Sr., J.T. Murff, Jr., and Murff and Company Inc., d b a M-K Ranches, Appellees. … “We do not have a situation where the foreign broker performed good faith services within his own jurisdiction. On the contrary, this foreign broker s activities were directed towards the solicitation of a purchaser in Florida.  The inescapable conclusion is that Eberhardt engaged in brokerage activities in this State within the meaning of Section 475.01(1)(c). Inasmuch as Eberhardt s activities were in violation of the laws of this State, his cobrokerage agreement with the Florida broker does not furnish a basis for the enforcement of a right to a fee for his services. That is, Eberhardt has not brought himself within the above quoted provisions of Section 475.25(1)(h). Were we to hold otherwise, we would, without justification, be providing a way by which Florida brokers could sublet their Florida licenses to foreign brokers. Neither is Previews, Inc. entitled to a fee.”

This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff Vicki V. Busby’s (“Busby”) appeal of the district court’s denial of class certification to a class of plaintiffs seeking damages arising out of Defendant JRHBW Realty, Inc.’s, d/b/a RealtySouth (“RealtySouth”), alleged violation of Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED.

On May 26, 2004, Busby, the putative class representative, purchased a home in Jefferson, Alabama, using a federally related home loan. Busby employed a RealtySouth real estate agent who earned a sales commission based on a percentage of the purchase price. This brokerage commission, paid by the seller, was lowered from 3% to 2.5% in order to encourage the seller to accept Busby’s offer. During the closing and settlement, RealtySouth charged Busby an Administrative Brokerage Commission fee of $149 (the “ABC Fee”). The closing attorney is Ms. Busby’s current counsel. He explained the closing documents and the HUD-1 statements to Busby 2 and engaged in discussions with her concerning the transactions.

Initial complaint.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Source: Washington
New ‘Good Faith Estimate’ will help borrowers save nearly $700
WASHINGTON - For the first time in more than 30 years, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today issued long-anticipated mortgage reforms that will help consumers to shop for the lowest cost mortgage and avoid costly and potentially harmful loan offers. HUD will require, for the first time ever, that lenders and mortgage brokers provide consumers with a standard Good Faith Estimate (GFE) that clearly discloses key loan terms and closing costs. HUD estimates its new regulation will save consumers nearly $700 at the closing table.

(more…)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called on Congress to move rather expeditiously on the Bush administration’s $700 billion proposal to bail out the financial system.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Paulson, after addressing the issue of irresponsibility in lending practices, said that the capital or credit markets had become frozen, which made it virtually impossible for U.S. companies to raise adequate financing.

Paulson said:

The credit markets are right now frozen and we need to deal with this and deal with it quickly.

Mr. Paulson reiterated the fact that the system faces significant risks from over complexity, which makes all illiquid debt securities very difficult to value. He also noted that an overhaul of the outdated U.S. regulatory system for financial markets is necessary. However, the first job, said Paulson, is to get the rescue package passed by Congress.

The White House recently said it was ready to work with Congress to enact legislation quickly in order to allow the government to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad mortgage-related assets from American based companies with a significant exposure to the collapse of the housing market.

By National Association of Realtors

On May 27, 2008, NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.

What the settlement accomplishes

The proposed terms (PDF 28K) are a win for NAR, REALTORS®, and consumers, and confirm that MLS members must be actively engaged in real estate brokerage (PDF 32K) by actually helping people buy or sell homes.

This will ensure that MLSs are used for what they were originally intended to do — to help real estate professionals find buyers for people who want to sell their homes. NAR has also agreed to adopt a revised Virtual Office Web site policy (PDF 36K) that NAR will request MLSs to adopt.

There appears to be a growing movement within the FSBO, flat fee MLS marketplace that is acting in discord and not considering the harm inflicted by their behavior. For the listing broker, however, flat fee MLS has become a giveaway business that, at best, should only be used to capture additional revenue from outside sources. So, why can’t this popular segment within the real estate industry generate enough in profit margins to sustain itself? The answer is quite clear: unfair methods of competition, resulting from unlicensed activity. This inappropriate intrusion into a regulated industry operates to the detriment of legitimate licensees, many of whom have become insolvent due to these alleged practices. At this point, we will refrain from mentioning any names as those individuals are well aware of their behavior and still engage in the unlicensed activity. The extent of the damages to the industry is unknown. One could easily argue, however, that this behavior makes entry into the market place more difficult and has had a profound effect on sustainability.

These individuals engage in the performance of real estate services in that they maintain websites that offer consumers a host of different real estate brokerage services that include, without limitation, listing property in a local MLS ( Multiple Listing Service) for a flat fee through the cooperative efforts of licensed real estate brokers with whom they have established written referral agreements. They unlawfully collect and retain a portion of the fee charged for listing the real property in the MLS. This takes market share away from legitimate, licensed real estate brokers in that licensed brokers are deprived of listings, revenue, and revenue growth, among other things. These listings would otherwise be posted on the MLS through the licensed brokerage community using legitimate forms of conduct and compliance with all relevant licensing laws.

Furthermore, these business models unlawfully procure the involvement of third party licensed real estate brokers, who, in addition to being licensed, must hold participatory rights to numerous MLS’s throughout each state. These individuals accomplish this by establishing a network of licensed brokers and sales associates divided among different regions throughout each state with whom they have written MLS referral agreements. As a result of these unlawful referral agreements, these individuals engage in an unfair method of competition, and violate licensing laws, among other things, thereby gaining market share as a result of selling MLS packages to consumers/sellers who make payment directly to them.

Finally, the revenues derived from the sale of these MLS packages, combined with all other derived benefits, such as all private property listings created as a result of tying ( bundling ) these services together, clearly indicate how these MLS referral agreements serve to increase market share, which in turn harms the industry.

This scheme of networking with licensees throughout the country as an attempt to circumvent the licensing laws, not only violates those laws but harms each licensed broker who has lost revenue, revenue growth, and market share as a result of these unfair methods of competition. Similarly, the scheme is designed to enrich the violator, and serve as a means by which the violator can sustain its operation and continue to fund portions of its costs for research, web traffic growth, and increased search engine rankings, among other things. The violator’s business model produces significant revenues from these unlawful practices to grow and stay in business.