Good news for Missouri home sellers and real estate agents. On Monday (October 20th), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a long-running lawsuit that could have changed how listings are marketed. The lawsuit, filed by a Columbia, Missouri-based home designer, claimed that a real estate brokerage broke copyright law by posting a floorplan online to help sell a home. After years of back and forth, the courts decided that using a floorplan in this way is legal under the “fair use” rule. That decision now stands for good.
So what does this mean for you? If you’re selling your home, your agent can still create and post floorplans to help market the property, even if the home’s layout is based on a copyrighted design. The court ruled that showing the interior layout helps buyers understand what they’re getting and doesn’t replace or harm the original design’s market value. In short, using a floorplan to sell a home isn’t stealing someone’s design… it’s just part of selling the home. This ruling protects a common and useful tool for listing homes, especially when today’s buyers expect as much info as possible upfront.
Note: This decision came out of a Missouri case, but it now has implications nationwide, as the Supreme Court let it stand without changes.
Missouri Insurance Department halts cancellations for storm-damaged homes
If your Missouri home was damaged in the spring 2025 storms and you’re still working through repairs, your insurer cannot cancel or non-renew your policy because of the storm damage or related claims. In a new directive, DCI ordered companies to keep coverage in force for storm-affected residential properties statewide for weather losses occurring after March 1, 2025. The department also told insurers to reverse any cancellations or non-renewals already sent out for this reason. Normal exceptions still apply, such as cancellations for non-payment and properties that weren’t damaged. The bulletin notes this is not a permanent moratorium, and encourages homeowners to complete repairs as quickly as possible. The full DCI bulletin appears below this article for your reference.
For help navigating a claim or policy question, you can contact DCI’s Consumer Hotline at 800-726-7390, email news@dci.mo.gov, or visit insurance.mo.gov. Also, if you want a practical, St. Louis-based perspective on coverage and claims, I recommend Lou Darden with Kreismann-Bayer Insurance Agency…he’s a trusted real estate broker, my personal friend, and my go-to insurance guy, with helpful interviews and contact info at the link above.
FTC Lawsuit Alleges Zillow-Redfin Deal Stifles Competition and Hurts Renters
In what could be a major shake-up for the rental housing market, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Zillow and Redfin, claiming the two companies struck an illegal agreement that essentially kills off competition in the online rental advertising space. According to the FTC, Zillow paid Redfin $100 million earlier this year to abandon its multifamily rental advertising business, hand over key customer data, and even help Zillow poach Redfin employees. The result? Redfin stopped selling rental ads and now only displays Zillow’s listings on its sites, like Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com. That means fewer choices and potentially higher costs for both landlords and renters.
For renters, this could mean fewer places to browse for listings, fewer deals, and less innovation on the platforms they use every day. For landlords and property managers, it means one less major player competing for their ad dollars — and less competition often leads to higher prices and fewer features. Agents who work in leasing or investor sales may also feel the impact, especially if they’ve relied on Redfin’s tools to market multifamily properties. The FTC argues that this move gives Zillow too much power in a market already dominated by just a few players and violates both the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
The implications are big, especially in markets like St. Louis, where multifamily rentals play a vital role in the local housing economy. The FTC wants the court to unwind the deal and restore competition. Until then, it’s a case worth watching — whether you’re a renter trying to find your next home, an investor marketing a property, or an agent trying to help your clients navigate a shifting digital landscape.
A federal class-action lawsuit filed September 19, 2025, claims Zillow uses its dominant position in online real estate to mislead home buyers and conceal referral-based payments. The complaint states that Zillow “tricks [buyers] into signing up with a Zillow agent,” describing a system that hides Zillow’s involvement behind user-friendly website buttons and misleads consumers into thinking they are contacting the listing agent.
The lawsuit states: “Zillow’s website has a big button in bright blue lettering posted next to the house listing that says ‘Contact Agent’… Buyers, however, naturally believe they are contacting the listing agent. Instead, they are routed to a Zillow-affiliated buyer’s agent.” It continues, “Zillow designs its website to trick potential buyers into connecting with a Zillow-affiliated agent instead of the seller’s agent.”
Once a consumer clicks the button, “Zillow farms out these leads to Zillow-affiliated agents who are part of the Zillow Flex program.” Those agents then “arrange a tour of the home by getting the buyer to sign a ‘Touring Agreement.’ The ‘Touring Agreement’ promises the buyer that the agent’s services are ‘free,’ but this is deceptive and not true: if the sale goes through, the buyer’s agent still receives a commission.” If that agent is a Zillow Flex agent, “he or she has to pay Zillow up to 40% of the agent’s commission,” a charge described as “Hidden Zillow Fees,” which are “never disclosed to the buyer or the seller”.
While the Touring Agreement is introduced early in the process, it’s important to note that the local agent, the one actually working with the buyer, may, and often does, go on to explain representation, buyer agency agreements, and compensation clearly and transparently. The lawsuit does not claim that local agents are misleading consumers. Its allegations are directed specifically at how Zillow’s platform is structured and presented, not at the behavior of the agents receiving leads.
The suit further alleges that Zillow exercises strict control over agents in its Flex program: “Zillow Flex agents are also required to steer buyers to Zillow Home Loans; if the agents fail to meet certain quotas, they are dropped from the program.”
According to the lawsuit, “Zillow’s scheme has the intent and the effect of unlawfully maintaining high and inflexible commissions that drive up the prices that buyers must pay.”
Referral fees, such as those paid in the Flex program, are a common part of the real estate industry. Agents frequently pay similar fees to relocation companies or out-of-market brokerages when working with referred clients. Disclosure of referral fees to consumers is not required under RESPA or Missouri/Illinois real estate license law, and is not standard industry practice. The lawsuit does not take issue with referral fees themselves, but rather with the way Zillow’s platform allegedly misleads consumers into thinking they are contacting the listing agent and not disclosing the corporate connection or fee structure.
If you’re looking for a home in St. Louis or considering selling one, it’s worth remembering that **you have local options. The official St Louis Real Estate Search site includes all listings from MARIS, the same data Zillow uses, but is operated by local real estate professionals at MORE, REALTORS®. You can also check your home’s estimated value using the free Home Valuation Tool based on real-time market conditions.
The full lawsuit is included below for those who want to read the complete filing.
In July 2025, Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 594, a groundbreaking reform that retroactively eliminates all Missouri state capital gains taxes for individuals, effective January 1, 2025. With this law, Missouri becomes the first U.S. state imposing an individual income tax to completely exempt personal capital gains from state taxation. Now, all capital gains—whether short-term or long-term, from sales of stocks, bonds, real estate, cryptocurrency, or businesses—are fully deductible from Missouri taxable income, thanks to a 100% subtraction for individuals.
This tax shift delivers powerful incentives across the board:
Real estate investors—especially those holding rental properties—face less friction when deciding to sell, since state taxes no longer eat into their gains.
Homeowners considering selling due to profit or lifestyle changes may now benefit from greater net proceeds.
Other asset holders (e.g., stocks or crypto investors) can also capitalize on improved after-tax returns.
But it’s important to be clear: federal capital gains taxes still apply. Long-term gains remain subject to 0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on income level, while short-term gains are taxed as ordinary income. Missouri’s reform exclusively addresses state tax liability, leaving federal obligations untouched.
Consider this scenario: A real estate investor bought a rental property 10 years ago for $150,000, has taken $25,000 in depreciation, and is now selling it for $300,000 in 2025. Here’s how the Missouri state tax savings break down:
Calculate gain: – Sale price: $300,000 – Adjusted basis (purchase price minus depreciation): $150,000 − $25,000 = $125,000 – Capital gain: $300,000 − $125,000 = $175,000
State tax under prior law (4.8% top rate): $175,000 × 4.8% = $8,400 in Missouri state tax liability.
With HB 594 in effect: That $8,400 in state taxes is entirely eliminated—meaning the investor now keeps an additional $8,400 compared to pre‑2025 law.
Clarification: This is state-level relief only. The investor still owes federal capital gains tax, determined by whether the gain is short-term or long-term (0%, 15%, or 20%). HB 594 simply removes the Missouri tax burden, dramatically improving the after-tax outcome for sellers as of 2025.
Curious about what this means for your home or your next move? I’m here to help you make sense of it all — with insight, strategy, and no fluff.
Yesterday, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed into law House Bills 595 and 596, bringing significant changes that will impact landlords, tenants, property managers, investors, and real estate professionals across the state. This newly enacted legislation strengthens private property rights and tightens requirements for agency relationships in real estate transactions, two key areas anyone involved in Missouri real estate should pay close attention to.
For landlords and investors, HB 595 limits how local governments can regulate rental housing. Specifically, the law prohibits cities and counties from setting rent control measures, imposing restrictions on how landlords screen tenants, or mandating specific lease terms such as “right of first refusal” to tenants. It also bans local ordinances from preventing landlords from considering factors like a tenant’s source of income, credit score, rental history, or criminal background when making leasing decisions. In short, this legislation reinforces the right of private property owners to establish their own screening criteria and rent structures, free from local government intervention.
Meanwhile, for real estate agents and homebuyers, the changes in HB 595 and HB 596 modify how brokerage relationships must be handled. Under the new law, brokers representing buyers or tenants must have a written agency agreement in place before engaging in any real estate activity. Previously, the law allowed for this agreement to be signed before or during the transaction process, creating room for ambiguity. This change places a greater responsibility on agents and their brokers to establish clear, documented relationships upfront. Frankly, this is how it always should have been done and was done by most good buyer’s agents, so I’m glad to see it now be law.
Additionally, the law clarifies that exclusive brokerage agreements must spell out essential services that brokers are obligated to provide. This includes presenting offers and counteroffers, assisting with negotiations, and answering questions related to contracts. The intent here is to make sure clients receive a consistent and professional level of service, and that there is full transparency in the role and duties of an agent:
These legal updates arrive at a time when the real estate industry is already under pressure from shifting federal policies and class-action lawsuits over buyer agent compensation. Missouri’s new requirements put a spotlight on documentation and clarity in agency relationships while pushing back against what state lawmakers see as local overreach into landlord-tenant matters. Whether you’re a landlord screening tenants or a buyer’s agent preparing to work with a new client, understanding and complying with these new requirements is no longer optional—it’s the law.
The new law will go into effect August 28, 2025 and can be seen in its entirety below. If you have questions about this, or would like more information, feel free to reach out to me and I’ll be happy to help.
HB 595 – Regarding Landlord-Tenant Rights and Buyer Representation Agreements
Here’s an update on the One Big Beautiful Bill, fresh from its razor-thin Senate win and heading to the House.
Bottom line for the St. Louis market: The Senate kept nearly all the real-estate perks from the original plan and added a few new benefits that could mean lower taxes for homeowners across the metro, extra take-home pay for small landlords, and more funding for affordable housing projects.
What stayed the same:
Tax brackets and the standard deduction remain locked in and permanent. No surprise rate hikes in 2026.
The tax break for small real-estate businesses – like independent agents and landlords – gets even better. You can now deduct nearly a quarter of qualifying income, up from 20 percent.
Expanded Low-Income Housing Tax Credits promise more affordable apartment projects, like developments planned near the Cortex Innovation District and rehab of older buildings in South City.
Estate tax rules stay generous, letting each person pass on up to $15 million free of federal tax. That helps families keeping rental properties or historic homes in the family.
New wins in the Senate version:
State and local tax deductions jump from a $10,000 cap to $40,000. That could help higher income home owners receive some relief for the increase state and local taxes they pay (especially those living in the City of St Louis that are subject to the additional city earnings tax).
A new exclusion for tips and overtime pay means service workers – from restaurant staff to landscapers – keep more of what they earn, easing the path to homeownership or covering rent.
Seniors get a higher standard deduction, giving older homeowners on fixed incomes a bit more breathing room.
Next steps in the House: The U.S. House could vote any day. If they approve the Senate version as-is, the bill moves straight to the President – possibly by Independence Day. Any changes would send it back to the Senate, delaying final passage.
Why this matters in St. Louis: Locked-in low rates and bigger deductions keep more money circulating locally, whether you’re prepping a home for sale or advising a small investor. More affordable-housing funding can drive projects like the new Marquette Homes Project (Dutchtown and Gravois Park, St. Louis City) and the Clinton-Peabody Apartments Redevelopment.
A new lawsuit filed this week by Compass against Zillow has stirred up serious debate in the real estate industry, and while it may sound like a clash of two corporate giants, the real impact hits much closer to home, literally, for consumers, sellers, and real estate agents across the country, including right here in St. Louis.
In the 60-page complaint filed in federal court, Compass accuses Zillow of using its massive power and reach in the home search world to enforce what it calls an “anti-competitive ban” that hurts competition and restricts how agents can market listings for their seller clients. At the heart of this lawsuit is Zillow’s newly adopted “Listing Access Standards” policy (referred to in the complaint as the “Zillow Ban”), which goes into full enforcement this month. Under the policy, any property that is marketed publicly off Zillow’s platform for more than one day. like in a broker’s private network or pre-listing phase, will be banned from appearing on Zillow entirely.
Compass claims this policy is designed to crush its “3-Phased Marketing Strategy,” which includes pre-listing exposure through private Compass channels before going public on the MLS. According to Compass, 94% of homes that used this strategy in 2024 still ended up on Zillow during the final phase of marketing. So, Compass says, this isn’t about hiding listings from buyers, it’s about giving sellers the option to test price points, build interest, and protect their privacy and time before going live.
But here’s where this lawsuit goes from being a legal fight between billion-dollar companies to something every homeowner and agent should be thinking about. Because in the end, what’s really at stake is whether real estate continues to be personal and local…or becomes just another impersonal, number-driven corporate transaction.
As someone who’s been in this business since 1979…back when local, independent brokerages and personal relationships drove nearly every home sale. I’ve watched the industry shift dramatically. What’s happening now, though, is more than just a shift. It’s a push by massive, venture-backed tech companies to control where listings go, how buyers find them, and who gets paid. And they’re all claiming it’s “in the best interest of the consumer.”
But let’s be honest. These approaches can’t both be right. One company wants every home listed on their national platform as fast as possible. The other believes in giving sellers the chance to test and refine before going public. These are completely opposite approaches, and both can’t be in the consumer’s best interest. But they can definitely be in the best interest of the companies pushing them.
There’s nothing wrong with a business acting in its own interest. We do that, too. But in real estate, we have something else layered on top: a fiduciary obligation. Our duty is to put the interests of our clients first. And that’s what we do in our company, along with many other brokers and agents across St. Louis and beyond. Whether an agent is listing a home for a seller or working with a buyer to find the right property, it should always come down to what’s best for the client—not what’s best for a platform or a profit-sharing model.
I’m not writing this as an “anti-Zillow” or “anti-Compass” piece. I’m writing it as someone who’s passionate about keeping real estate human. We’re not just dealing with assets, we’re helping people with what is often the biggest, most emotional decision of their lives. The beauty of this business has always been in the personal connection, the deep understanding of local markets, and the relationship between client and agent. That’s what corporate models, no matter how sophisticated the technology, can’t replace.
If this lawsuit accomplishes anything, I hope it at least reignites a conversation around what real estate should be. It should be client-first. Agent-supported. And driven by value, not volume.
Time will tell how this plays out in court. But regardless of the outcome, I know where we stand. And if you’re a homeowner, buyer, or agent who still believes in local knowledge, personal service, and fiduciary duty above all else, then you’re not alone.
With over 40 years in St. Louis real estate, Dennis leads MORE, REALTORS® with a focus on transparent, client-driven service and supporting agents who believe in putting fiduciary duty above all else.
Ready for a Confidential Conversation?
📱 Call or Text
314.332.1012
✉️ Email
Dennis@stlre.com
If you’re an agent who values local knowledge, personal service, and believes real estate should remain human-centered rather than corporate-driven, let’s talk. All conversations are completely confidential.
While brokers across the country argue over Clear Cooperation and buyer compensation, one group isn’t making noise — but they are taking notes. State real estate commissions, including Missouri’s, are quietly preparing for enforcement… and private listings are on their radar.
In a recent blog post titled “Private listings just got real: State regulators have entered the chat“, real estate compliance consultant Summer Goralik, a former DRE investigator, warned that off-MLS listings marketed without clear seller-driven intent could expose brokers to serious regulatory trouble. And in Missouri, that trouble comes with a very specific rulebook.
This Isn’t Just a Policy Risk — It’s a License Risk
Missouri license law is clear: licensees are required to act competently and in the client’s best interest. Business strategy is not a defense.
“The commission may investigate… any act or practice… that demonstrates bad faith, misconduct, gross negligence, or untrustworthy behavior.” — RSMo 339.100.2(19)
If you’re packaging private listings as a tool to generate double-ended deals or keep control of the buyer, and not clearly documenting that the seller initiated and understood that choice, you’re taking a regulatory gamble.
File Must Match the Story
Goralik outlines the kinds of questions regulators might ask in an audit. Here in Missouri, if MREC shows up at your office and asks:
Do you have a written office policy on off-MLS listings?
Did the seller request this in writing?
Was dual agency disclosed and consented to?
Are buyers told they may not receive full listing data (DOM, price changes, etc.)?
Then you better have clean documentation and proper disclosure forms on file, or you could be in violation of:
RSMo 339.730.1(1) – Agents must disclose material facts to all parties
20 CSR 2250-8.095 – Broker relationship disclosures are mandatory and must be timely
20 CSR 2250-8.020(1) – Brokers are responsible for supervising licensees and ensuring compliance
Let’s Talk Fiduciary
Missouri’s agency law requires more than just putting something in writing. It mandates that agents act with undivided loyalty, full disclosure, and obedience to lawful instructions. Failing to market a property broadly — unless the seller has been fully informed — is not just risky, it may be a breach of fiduciary duty under RSMo 339.730 and 339.740.
Summer said it best:
“When the rationale for avoiding the MLS looks more like a business strategy than a client-specific need… that’s when real trouble begins.”
This Isn’t New, Missouri Just Hasn’t Acted Yet
Summer’s right… MREC doesn’t need a lawsuit to act. Under RSMo 339.100, they can launch an investigation from a single consumer complaint. And once a pattern is established — like repeated private listings or internal buyer matching without transparency — civil penalties up to $2,500 per offense can be imposed.
Worse, Missouri allows reciprocal action across state lines. If you’re licensed in more than one state, what starts here can snowball.
The Bottom Line for Missouri Brokers
Private listings aren’t illegal. But if your brokerage is leaning on them as a routine strategy — without full disclosures, without documented seller instruction, and without tight supervision — you’re out of compliance.
Before you pitch an office exclusive or promote a “quiet listing,” ask yourself:
Is this about protecting the seller, or padding your deal count?
Have I disclosed everything that needs to be disclosed?
Would I be confident explaining this setup to MREC?
Because one day, you might have to. And they’re not coming to debate — they’re coming to enforce.
Rob Hahn recently ignited an important conversation about the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) decision to significantly modify Standard of Practice 10-5, a rule initially established to prevent harassment based on protected characteristics. While NAR’s move to restrict 10-5’s scope solely to REALTORS’ professional activities has been welcomed as a step toward safeguarding free speech, Hahn highlights another critical dimension needing attention: restitution for those previously penalized under its broader interpretation.
According to Hahn, now that NAR acknowledges the overreach of the initial rule, it owes apologies and possibly reparations to REALTORS previously sanctioned under it. As Hahn emphasizes, individuals like Brandon Huber, Wilson Fauber, Chad DeVries, and Jamie Haynes faced serious professional and personal repercussions for actions now clearly outside the revised scope of harassment. These repercussions included damaged reputations, career setbacks, and financial losses from legal defenses. Hahn calls for immediate revocation of any sanctions, restoration of membership, and financial reparations to make these individuals whole.
Hahn’s point raises broader questions relevant beyond real estate: How should professional bodies rectify past injustices when they recognize a rule was wrongly applied? History offers guidance. For example, when the American Bar Association (ABA) revised its ethical standards in response to changing views on lawyer advertising and free speech, it effectively nullified earlier disciplinary actions against attorneys previously punished under the outdated rules. Similarly, medical professionals once disciplined for practices later recognized as acceptable or even beneficial, like certain alternative treatments, often sought and received reversals of prior sanctions.
The conversation Hahn sparks compels us to consider the ethical responsibility organizations have to right historical wrongs once policies evolve. Should NAR follow suit, issuing formal apologies and monetary restitution to affected REALTORS? Moreover, should those who weaponized the rule inappropriately face accountability?
Hahn strongly argues they should. He asserts those who used the original rule as a political weapon should themselves face ethical scrutiny under the revised 10-5, suggesting this accountability is vital to restore trust and unity within the REALTOR community.
As this discussion unfolds, it prompts critical reflection across all professional industries: When policies change and previous “wrongdoings” are now exonerated, how far must an organization go to make amends?
Rob Hahn’s challenge to NAR is clear: “Peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Whether NAR responds by embracing this deeper reconciliation remains to be seen—but the conversation around accountability, restitution, and ethical responsibility is one all industries can benefit from exploring openly.
A new federal lawsuit filed in California is challenging a long-standing National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) policy that many small and independent brokers argue has quietly stifled competition in the real estate industry for years. The suit, brought by broker John Diaz, centers on the “Variable Dues Formula” — a policy that requires designated REALTOR® brokers to pay NAR dues not just for themselves, but also for any agents in their firm who are not NAR members, even if those agents opt out of the services.
While this may sound like an administrative issue, it has real consequences, particularly for independent brokerages and markets like St. Louis where many agents prefer not to join trade associations. The complaint argues that NAR, along with state and local affiliates, is enforcing a coercive system that punishes brokers who try to offer more flexible employment models. Under current rules, if a broker like Diaz hires an agent who doesn’t want to be a NAR member, the broker must either pay dues on their behalf, disassociate from them, or force them to join. These extra costs often exceed $1,000 per agent annually, a significant barrier for small shops trying to grow.
The lawsuit alleges this structure creates a “group boycott” of non-member licensees and illegally ties access to essential tools — like the MLS and standard contract forms — to association membership. It also calls out the Limited Function Referral Office (LFRO) workaround as inadequate, since it requires agents to give up all sales activity, limiting them to referrals only. According to the complaint, this is particularly harmful in markets with fewer large firms, where agents need flexibility and lower costs to stay active.
In many ways, this complaint echoes ongoing concerns raised in other major lawsuits — including the Moehrl case and those targeting buyer broker commissions — that challenge long-standing NAR policies under federal antitrust law. While those lawsuits focus more on how commissions are structured and disclosed, the Diaz suit strikes at the operational backbone of how brokerages function under the NAR system.
For agents and brokers in St. Louis, this case may be especially relevant. Smaller firms make up a large part of the local real estate fabric, and the economic pressure of paying dues for non-member agents limits their ability to operate efficiently. Consumers may also feel the effects — fewer active agents means fewer choices and potentially higher costs due to reduced competition. The outcome of this lawsuit could open the door for more flexible brokerage models and broader access to real estate careers.
It’s yet another signal that the way real estate has worked for decades is now under a legal microscope. Whether you’re a broker, agent, or consumer, change may be coming — and it’s worth watching closely.
Read the full complaint below for more detail on the case.
McBride Homes, the largest builder in St. Louis, is in hot water. A St. Louis County judge just denied their attempt to stop Builder’s Bloc, a major contractor, from going after them for more than $10 million in unpaid work. The result? Legal chaos spilling over onto unsuspecting homebuyers.
The Fight: $10 Million, Dozens of Homes, and No Resolution
Builder’s Bloc claims McBride didn’t pay up. In response, they’ve filed liens on homes in multiple McBride communities. These aren’t empty threats. Some buyers have already closed and now own homes with liens attached. Others are under contract and facing serious uncertainty.
McBride is calling it fraud. Builder’s Bloc says it’s breach of contract. Both sides are lawyering up. The battle is playing out in court and in arbitration at the same time. That means a long, expensive road ahead.
The Court’s Message: Let the Contractor Keep Swinging
McBride tried to hit pause. They asked the court to block Builder’s Bloc from enforcing liens or pursuing further action while the case plays out. The judge said no. That means Builder’s Bloc is free to keep filing liens and pushing for payment.
This was a key early move. And McBride lost it. That loss puts every pending deal and recent closing in jeopardy.
Why Buyers Should Pay Attention
If you just bought or are under contract with McBride, this should be on your radar. A lien can cloud your title, delay your closing, or throw a wrench in your financing. This isn’t just a headache for executives. It’s a real problem for everyday families trying to move in.
Now with arbitration involved, the timeline for resolution just got longer. And the cost? Expect it to climb.
What You Should Do Now
If you’re involved with a McBride home, talk to your real estate agent. Talk to your attorney. Make sure you know what rights and protections you have. Don’t assume this will get resolved quietly behind the scenes. Take some time and look it up on Missouri’s Case.Net too.
We’re Watching Every Move
At StLouisRealEstateNews.com, we’re tracking this closely. This isn’t just a contractor squabble. It’s a high-stakes legal mess with real consequences for buyers, sellers, and the entire St. Louis real estate market.
Stay alert. Stay informed. We’ll keep you updated every step of the way.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on the content without seeking professional legal counsel. StLouisRealEstateNews.com and its affiliates make no warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information and accept no liability for any loss arising from reliance on it. Always consult with a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation.
The National Association of REALTORS® Board of Directors today approved updates to Standard of Practice 10-5 and Professional Standards Policy Statement 29 — both key components of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics. These long-anticipated changes, debated since 2023, aim to bring more clarity and consistency to how REALTORS® are held accountable when it comes to discrimination and harassment.
As I reported in my May 26th article, concerns had been growing over whether SOP 10-5 infringed on members’ personal free speech — especially in cases where comments or beliefs expressed outside the workplace led to disciplinary action. The revised policy now limits enforcement to conduct that occurs within a member’s professional role and aligns the definition of “harassment” with the NAR Member Code of Conduct. This should help reduce ambiguity and risk for both members and associations tasked with enforcement.
NAR President Kevin Sears stated that these amendments better align with ethical standards used by other large trade groups and strengthen the association’s commitment to fair housing. From a professional standpoint, it’s a move that balances ethical responsibility with clearer boundaries — something the industry has been asking for.
Newly Revised SOP 10-5 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics
Quick Summary:
A new legal challenge could undo the $1.8 billion+ Sitzer/Burnett vs NAR real estate commission settlement. If successful, it could reverse everything the industry has done to comply, and throw home sellers, agents, and brokerages in St. Louis and across the U.S. into another round of litigation and uncertainty.
A key settlement in the Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit, the one that was supposed to change how agents get paid, may be on the brink of collapse. Law professor and former home seller Tanya Monestier has filed a formal appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Her argument? The settlement gives sellers pennies and promises… and not much else.
Monestier, who sold a home in 2022 and paid nearly $30,000 in commissions, believes the deal was cut without legal standing and fails to deliver real benefits. “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper,” she wrote in her original objection. “In the real world, it’s been a disaster.” Her recent filing adds that the plaintiffs—past home sellers—had no right to negotiate future practice changes in the industry because those changes don’t directly benefit them. That argument goes to the heart of whether the entire settlement is even constitutional under Article III rules for federal courts.
She also takes aim at the numbers. While the headline payout is nearly $1 billion, the average seller would see about $16—barely 0.1% of the typical commission they paid, which Monestier pegs at $11,450. And since commissions haven’t meaningfully dropped post-settlement, she argues the supposed “reforms” have had little impact. In her words, the settlement “simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.”
What’s more, she accuses agents, brokerages, and even NAR of already finding ways to “work around” the rule changes. Examples include adjusting buyer agreements after-the-fact to match seller-paid bonuses, using misleading contract language, and telling sellers their home won’t get offers unless they still pay the buyer’s broker. These tactics, she claims, maintain the old structure with a few more forms and less clarity for consumers.
So what happens if the Eighth Circuit agrees with her? The whole deal could be thrown out. That means rule changes already in effect across St. Louis brokerages—like the new buyer agency agreement requirements—could be voided. Brokerages would be back at square one, facing renewed legal exposure, and sellers who expected change could be left even more frustrated.
As we wrote in our earlier coverage of Monestier’s objection, this case has always been about more than money. It’s about whether the real estate commission structure in place for decades can be changed in a way that actually helps the consumers funding it—especially home sellers in markets like St. Louis.
Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: this isn’t over. As the legal process drags into 2026, sellers and agents alike will need to keep up—and stay informed. If you’re buying or selling a home in this shifting landscape, it’s more important than ever to work with a professional who knows the rules, understands the risks, and puts your interests first. That’s exactly what we do at MORE, REALTORS®.
The Federal Reserve’s latest note on real estate commissions adds some national context to trends we’ve seen unfold in St. Louis for decades. While their report shows a national decline in buyer agent commissions from 3% in the late 1990s to around 2.7% in 2022, our local data shows this shift started much earlier and ran a bit deeper here.
In the St. Louis metro area, the median commission paid to buyer’s agents has been on a steady decline since peaking near 3% back in the early 2000s. By 2023, it had dropped to about 2.59%, just before MLS rules changed in 2024 due to the NAR settlement, which removed the ability to display commission offers in MLS listings. As a result, our local data stops in early 2024—but the trend was clear. Now, based on what we’re seeing in the field, it looks like the typical buyer agent commission in St. Louis is holding steady around 2.5%. Interestingly, listing commissions may have actually ticked up a bit, with many sellers now paying closer to 3% to their agent.
This slight shift in the traditional commission split appears to be one of several business model adaptations happening in real-time. With the settlement’s decoupling of commissions—where buyers and sellers now negotiate separately—some sellers are choosing not to pay a buyer’s agent at all. But more often, we’re seeing sellers still offer something to encourage buyer interest, just outside of the MLS.
One takeaway from the Fed’s report that especially resonates here is the importance of local norms. Despite all the change, commissions in St. Louis haven’t collapsed. Why? Because sellers still want their homes to be shown, and buyers still want professional representation. And with local practices like split closings already making things more complex, there’s still real value in having experienced agents on both sides of a deal.
If you’re interested in seeing how buyer agent commission rates have changed in St. Louis over time, check out the live interactive chart below showing annual median rates from 1998 through 2024.
As always, at MORE, REALTORS®, we’ll be watching closely to see how this plays out in the coming months and years.
If you’re buying or selling a home in 2025, there’s a hidden threat you need to be aware of: wire fraud. According to the newly released State of Wire Fraud 2025 report by CertifID, 1 in 4 consumers reported receiving suspicious or fraudulent communication during their real estate transaction—and nearly 1 in 20 fell victim.
In 2024 alone, these scams resulted in nearly $500 million in losses. The method? Criminals impersonate trusted figures in the transaction—with real estate agents being the top target, mentioned by 58% of victims. Title agents were next at 41%, followed by loan officers at 34%.
And this isn’t just an issue for less tech-savvy consumers. First-time buyers and sellers were three times more likely to be victimized. Given the complexity and urgency around closing, particularly when wiring large sums of money, it’s easy to see how even cautious consumers can be fooled.
What’s more concerning is how few people know this is happening. Over half of those surveyed said they were either “not aware” or only “somewhat aware” of the risks. And just 49% said their real estate professional provided education on wire fraud.
To understand the stakes, consider this: a West Virginia buyer lost $112,000 to a fraudster posing as her closing agent. As she put it, “The way the person did it – it was really, really good.” These are not amateur scams. They’re often AI-powered and timed perfectly. Only 73% of victims recovered most or all of their funds. The remaining 27% lost half or more—some lost everything.
So who’s responsible for stopping this? Consumers are divided. About 30% say it’s on their real estate agent. Another 30% point to their bank, and the rest believe their title company or attorney should handle it. But in reality, no single party owns the responsibility outright—and that’s a key vulnerability.
That’s why proactive education and tools are critical. Unfortunately, many only hear about wire fraud halfway through the process, or worse, right before closing—too late. Scammers are usually already in the inbox by then.
Key stats from CertifID’s 2024 findings include:
Median buyer loss: $68,413
Average seller loss: $172,080
Mortgage payoff fraud: $275,927 on average
While technology alone isn’t the answer, it helps when used correctly. CertifID flagged $1.32 billion in high-risk transfers and helped protect over 913,000 transactions in 2024.
If you’re involved in a real estate transaction, here’s what you can do:
Assume emails or texts can be spoofed. Don’t trust last-minute wiring instructions without verbal confirmation.
Call to confirm using a trusted number—never reply directly to a suspicious message.
Ask your agent and title company how they protect your transaction from wire fraud.
For buyers and sellers in the St. Louis market, M&I Title Companystands out as a trusted resource. They serve both Missouri and Illinois and use CertifID on every transaction to guard against wire fraud. In a region where split closings are the norm, working with a title company that prioritizes consumer safety is essential:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.
And of course, working with experienced professionals makes a difference. The seasoned agents at MORE, REALTORS® are knowledgeable, proactive, and committed to protecting your best interest throughout the process.
In today’s environment, it’s not enough to just show up to closing—you need to show up informed. Ask questions early, verify everything, and choose professionals who prioritize your safety. Wire fraud can happen fast, but with the right team and precautions, it doesn’t have to happen to you.
📘 Access the full 2025 State of Wire Fraud Report by CertifID below:
On April 22, 2025, a court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the City of St. Louis from enforcing Ordinance 71729, which governs short-term rentals in the city. As a result, the city has paused all activity related to the permitting and regulation of short-term rentals, including accepting new applications, conducting inspections, issuing permits, and collecting associated fees. This pause also affects the recently passed Proposition S, halting the collection of the 3% fee approved by voters in November 2024.
While the legal dispute continues, short-term rentals can continue to operate in the City of St. Louis without permits as required under the challenged ordinance. The next court hearing is scheduled for May 5, 2025, at which time the judge will decide whether to extend or alter the restraining order. Until further guidance is issued by the court, short-term rental platforms are allowed to keep listings active that do not currently comply with Ordinance 71729.
This legal development introduces a period of uncertainty for investors and property owners operating or considering entering the short-term rental market in St. Louis. Anyone involved in or impacted by these operations should pay close attention to the court’s next decision. We’ll provide timely updates as more information becomes available.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we continue to monitor this closely to keep our clients informed and empowered to make confident real estate decisions.
In Missouri, it’s an eye-opener that companies managing homeowners associations (HOAs), condominium associations, and subdivisions are not required to hold any type of state license—not even a real estate broker’s license. Yet, just across the river in Illinois, community association managers must be licensed under their Community Association Manager Licensing and Disciplinary Act. This gap in regulation here in Missouri leaves condo owners and homeowners vulnerable, particularly when it comes to the management of large associations that handle millions of dollars in dues and are responsible for common ground and major infrastructure like private streets and utilities.
Think about it: a property manager overseeing a single rental home for an individual must be a licensed real estate broker—subject to audits, escrow requirements, and consumer protections. Meanwhile, someone managing a 300-unit condominium development or an entire subdivision, receiving and disbursing hundreds of thousands of dollars, is subject to little oversight beyond general contract law and, if needed, civil lawsuits. There’s no mandated education, no licensing, no formal fiduciary standard, and no real consequence for poor management short of costly, time-consuming litigation initiated by the homeowners or the association.
Unfortunately, this lack of accountability can have very real consequences. I’m currently dealing with a situation where a St. Louis County occupancy inspection cited an issue with the electric service—a repair that was clearly the condominium association’s responsibility. Here we are, nearly three months later, and the property management company has only managed to get a couple of bids—no repairs have been completed, the unit remains vacant, and a tenant I had lined up has now moved on. It’s not just my financial loss; this kind of mismanagement ultimately hurts all unit owners by negatively impacting property values and undermining the reputation of the community.
It is surprising—and concerning—that Missouri has not stepped up to at least require some form of licensing or regulation for community association managers. After all, protecting homeowners’ investments is critical, and the stakes for mismanagement of a multi-million dollar community are arguably much higher than for a single rental property. Until the laws catch up, property owners need to be extremely diligent when selecting and overseeing their association management companies, because for now, in Missouri, “buyer beware” applies just as much after closing as it does before.
If you’re a homebuyer or seller in the St. Louis area, heads up—there’s something going on in Washington that may affect your next move in a bigger way than you think.
The Department of Justice just appointed Roger Alford to a top antitrust role. He’s not a household name, but he’s someone who’s been deep in the fight over real estate commissions and how homes get marketed. He played a key role in the massive $1.8 billion verdict in the Sitzer/Burnett case here in Missouri—where a jury said real estate commissions were being artificially inflated by the industry.
So what’s this mean for you?
In plain terms: the way homes are bought and sold is changing, and the DOJ is pushing that change forward. We’re likely to see pressure to break down rules that limit how sellers can market their homes and how buyers find them—especially when it comes to FSBO (For Sale By Owner) listings. Alford’s already criticized laws that block FSBO sellers from advertising on big platforms like Zillow and Redfin. That’s good news for consumers who want more options.
We’re also likely to see more flexibility in how commissions work. That doesn’t mean agents go away—it means buyers and sellers might have more say in what they pay, and how they structure their deals. And the agents who are upfront about costs, focus on value, and act as true advisors—not just middlemen—will rise to the top.
The DOJ has its sights set on rules and practices that limit competition, like the MLS Clear Cooperation Policy and others that were designed to protect the system as it’s always been. Alford’s appointment is a signal that the government wants to open that system up and give consumers more control.
Here in St. Louis, we’ve already seen how these national issues hit close to home. So if you’re in the market—buying or selling—this is the time to work with professionals who get it. The landscape’s shifting. The old ways are under pressure. And the best agents are the ones leaning into change, not resisting it.
At MORE, REALTORS®, that’s how we operate. We’ve always believed in transparency, client-first service, and helping you make smart, informed decisions—whether you’re working with one of our experienced agents or going the FSBO route and just need the right support. If you want a real estate experience that respects your choices and puts your interests first, we’re here to help.
There’s been a significant appointment at the Department of Justice that should grab the attention of everyone in the real estate industry. Roger Alford, a Notre Dame law professor with deep antitrust experience and a key expert witness in the 2023 Sitzer/Burnett case against NAR, has been named Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. That’s a strong signal of where things may be heading.
Alford has made his views on NAR’s practices clear—particularly the Clear Cooperation Policy and MLS rules that tie access to REALTOR® membership. In his testimony and published work, he’s criticized these as tools to maintain monopoly control, limit competition, and prevent innovation. With Alford helping lead the Antitrust Division, it’s likely we’ll see increased federal pressure on longstanding industry practices.
Here in the St. Louis metro area, MARIS—our regional MLS—has taken a forward-looking stance. MARIS, which serves the metro and surrounding areas, has been actively working to address key issues early and stay ahead of regulatory changes. As Vice Chairman of the MARIS Board, I’ve seen firsthand the effort to prioritize transparency, flexibility, and broker protection while preparing for what’s ahead.
Real estate is changing fast, and those who adapt will thrive. At MORE, REALTORS®, we continue to push for transparency and consumer-first practices while equipping agents with tools and coaching to compete in this evolving landscape. Stay tuned—we’ll be ready for what comes next.
Today, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) announced significant changes to its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP). After months of debate and scrutiny—from brokers, MLS leaders, agents, and legal experts—NAR introduced the new “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy, which aims to address concerns around consumer choice and market fairness.
I’ve written extensively on why the original CCP faced such strong opposition, notably in my recent article highlighting attorney Michael Ketchmark’s explicit warning to NAR brokers: repeal CCP or face legal action. Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, clearly indicated that maintaining the CCP could trigger antitrust lawsuits against individual brokers who supported it.
The new policy announced today appears to be NAR’s attempt to address these legal pressures while preserving some of the original intentions behind CCP.
Under the updated policy:
Sellers can now opt for a “delayed marketing exempt listing,” allowing the listing agent to temporarily withhold public marketing through IDX feeds or third-party syndications.
During this delayed period, properties remain accessible within the MLS, enabling agents from other brokerages to share these listings privately with clients.
Each local MLS will determine its own delayed marketing timeframe, catering to regional market needs.
Sellers choosing delayed marketing must sign a disclosure confirming their informed consent to delay broader public exposure.
Notably, NAR also clarified that one-on-one broker communications won’t trigger CCP’s requirements, but multi-broker communications remain classified as public marketing.
While the new policy does introduce more flexibility, from my perspective, it may still miss the mark. In my recent article, I proposed a more balanced solution: creating an “MLS Exclusive” category. This would mandate inclusion of listings within the MLS to ensure broad exposure among professionals, but without public syndication to Zillow, Realtor.com, and countless other public sites. This approach effectively balances privacy needs with fair competition—avoiding potential antitrust pitfalls.
The new NAR policy seems like a half-step toward that goal. It introduces valuable flexibility but still leaves questions about privacy and antitrust vulnerability unanswered. While delayed marketing might address some concerns, it stops short of fully embracing a robust, MLS-exclusive alternative.
As this policy rolls out nationwide—with implementation required by September 30, 2025—it’ll be critical for MLSs, brokers, and agents here in St. Louis and across Missouri to carefully evaluate the implications. The legal landscape remains sensitive, and industry professionals would be wise to consider whether this new policy fully addresses potential legal challenges or merely delays them.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is on the verge of making a pivotal decision about its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP)—a rule requiring listings to be submitted to a multiple listing service (MLS) within one business day of public marketing. Now, attorney Michael Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, has issued a stark warning: if NAR brokers vote to maintain the rule, he may take legal action against them.
Ketchmark, in an interview with Inman News, made his stance clear: “It’s my expectation that after this meeting, when this comes to a NAR vote overall, that they’ll do the right thing and remove that policy and let the free market continue to work.” He added that if the rule remains, his firm will scrutinize the motivations of those involved and determine whether anti-competitive behavior is at play. “We’ll take the depositions of the people involved and figure out exactly why they did that and what was the motivation behind it, and then make a decision at that point on how to proceed,” Ketchmark told Inman.
Legal Pressure Mounts Against NAR’s Listing Rules
The Clear Cooperation Policy, introduced in 2020, was originally designed to increase listing transparency and prevent pocket listings, which some argue allow brokers to double-end deals at the expense of consumer choice. However, opponents—including brokers, agents, and consumer advocates—argue that the rule violates antitrust principles by forcing listings into MLSs, thereby restricting homeowner control over marketing strategies.
NAR’s recent $418 million settlement in the Sitzer and related lawsuits has already forced major industry changes, including the decoupling of buyer agent compensation from listing agreements. Now, Clear Cooperation is in the crosshairs as another rule that may not withstand legal scrutiny.
Ketchmark emphasized that his issue is not with NAR itself, which he acknowledged has upheld its obligations under the settlement. Instead, his focus is on individual brokers who would vote to uphold the rule. “I don’t want anybody to suggest or think that I’m threatening the National Association of Realtors,” Ketchmark said, “but what I am saying is that whoever is voting to continue and enforce this rule, if we believe that it is done with anti-competitive goals in mind, that we will take their depositions and will hold anyone who is involved in that responsible.”
A Better Alternative: ‘MLS Exclusive’ Listings
As the debate over Clear Cooperation continues, one practical alternative gaining traction is an “MLS Exclusive” listing category. This approach would require all listings to be entered into the MLS, ensuring maximum exposure to real estate professionals while addressing seller privacy and security concerns.
Unlike traditional “office exclusive” listings—where properties are only shared within a single brokerage—MLS Exclusive listings would still be accessible to every licensed real estate professional in the MLS. For example, in the St. Louis area, MARIS (Mid-America Regional Information Systems) serves over 16,000 real estate professionals, all of whom would have access to MLS Exclusive listings.
This means that a seller’s property could still reach a vast network of professionals actively working with buyers, without being publicly displayed on thousands of websites like Zillow, Realtor.com, or IDX feeds on brokerage sites. For sellers who value privacy—such as high-profile individuals, those facing personal security concerns, or those in sensitive situations like divorce or estate sales—this provides an ideal balance between market exposure and confidentiality.
This solution eliminates the anti-competitive concerns of private “pocket listings” while preserving the seller’s right to control how their home is marketed. It also ensures that real estate professionals remain central to the transaction, offering expert guidance to both buyers and sellers without unnecessary public exposure.
The Future of Clear Cooperation
With NAR expected to vote on the policy by the end of the month, the fate of Clear Cooperation—and potentially more lawsuits—hangs in the balance. If Ketchmark follows through with legal action, brokers who support keeping the policy may find themselves on the defensive in court. Meanwhile, the industry must consider whether MLS Exclusive listingsoffer a more viable solution that protects both consumer choice and market integrity.
Big changes are coming to Austin’s real estate market, and while they might seem far away, they could signal future shifts in St. Louis. The Austin Board of REALTORS® (ABoR), which owns and operates Unlock MLS (formerly ACTRIS), has announced that starting in June 2025, real estate agents will no longer be required to be REALTOR® members to access the MLS. This means agents in Austin can now choose whether or not to join the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) while still being able to list homes on the MLS.
Could something like this happen in St. Louis? Not without a major decision from the REALTOR® associations that own MARIS. Unlike Austin’s MLS, which is controlled by a single association that made the decision to open access, MARIS is owned by multiple REALTOR® associations, including the St. Louis REALTORS®, St. Charles REALTORS®, and several others. For MARIS to follow Austin’s lead, these associations would need to collectively decide to remove the REALTOR® membership requirement for MLS access.
For buyers and sellers, Austin’s move could lead to lower costs, more competition, and different business models as some agents may no longer pay REALTOR® dues. Some argue this will create more options for consumers, while others worry about the potential impact on professional standards. While nothing is changing here in St. Louis yet, this move signals a shift in the industry that could eventually reach our market. Buyers, sellers, and investors should pay attention—real estate is evolving fast.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we stay ahead of industry trends so our clients get the best advice in an ever-changing market. If you’re thinking about buying or selling in St. Louis, let’s talk about how to navigate today’s market with confidence.
The real estate industry’s relationship with the National Association of Realtors faces mounting challenges as multiple lawsuits emerge nationwide. Texas broker Lou Eytalis recently joined others in challenging NAR’s mandatory membership requirements for MLS access (see lawsuit complaint below), with similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. These suits coincide with controversy over NAR’s Standard of Practice 10-5, which has sparked First Amendment challenges from both brokers and agents who argue the rule improperly restricts speech by banning hate speech and discriminatory language on personal social media accounts.
These legal challenges come amid a turbulent period for NAR, which faces scrutiny over sexual harassment allegations, spending practices, and commission lawsuits. The Free Speech Coalition, representing real estate professionals across multiple states, argues that NAR’s speech restrictions exceed their authority and violate constitutional rights. Meanwhile, Eytalis and others contend the mandatory membership issue extends beyond fees – it’s about forcing change within an organization they believe has lost touch with members’ needs. While NAR maintains local organizations control MLS access rules, their intervention preventing Phoenix Realtors from offering membership-free MLS access suggests otherwise. The convergence of these suits – challenging both membership requirements and speech restrictions – represents growing industry pushback against NAR’s regulatory reach.
Today, we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a visionary who championed equality, justice, and the inherent dignity of all people. His fight against systemic injustices extended to housing discrimination, a battle that continues to shape communities across the nation, including right here in St. Louis.
Fair housing has been a cornerstone of efforts to ensure everyone has access to safe, affordable homes without fear of discrimination. Landmark legislation like the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is part of Dr. King’s enduring legacy, prohibiting discriminatory practices based on race, color, national origin, religion, and other protected classes. These principles are vital to fostering thriving neighborhoods and ensuring that homeownership opportunities are accessible to all.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we serve every client with fairness and professionalism, ensuring all buyers and sellers have access to expert representation and market insights. Whether you’re buying your first home or selling a property, we’re here to guide you every step of the way.
A recent lawsuit that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and concluded with a ruling on January 14, 2025, sheds light on a significant issue for homeowners and REALTORS® alike regarding copyright infringement and the use of floor plans in marketing homes. The case, Designworks Homes, Inc. v. House of Brokers Realty, Inc., involved Columbia, Missouri-based House of Brokers Realty and other defendants, and revolved around whether real estate agents and brokers could use floor plans in marketing properties without infringing on copyrights. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, citing the fair use doctrine and affirming the district court’s decision.
The lawsuit originated when Designworks alleged that House of Brokers infringed on its copyrights by creating and sharing a floor plan for a property the brokerage was hired to sell. The court, however, determined that creating and using the floor plan constituted transformative use—it served a functional purpose of providing information to prospective buyers rather than copying the original design’s artistic or creative intent. This ruling sets a precedent, ensuring REALTORS® can continue using floor plans for marketing homes, benefiting both buyers and sellers by increasing transparency.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we understand the value of providing buyers with comprehensive information, which is why we often incorporate floor plans—such as those prepared alongside 3D tours—into our marketing strategies for sellers’ homes. Buyers gain a better understanding of the home’s layout, and sellers benefit from increased visibility and buyer interest. The full lawsuit details and judgment are available below for further review.
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review the National Association of REALTORS’ (NAR) appeal to block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from resuming its antitrust investigation. This decision allows the DOJ to reopen its probe into NAR’s practices, including the Clear Cooperation Policy and the Participation Rule, both of which have been criticized for limiting competition in the real estate industry.
The Clear Cooperation Policy requires listing brokers to submit a property to their Realtor-affiliated MLS within one business day of marketing it publicly. This policy was intended to ensure transparency but has faced allegations of reducing competition and restricting options for consumers. The Participation Rule, which NAR recently eliminated as part of a separate settlement, previously required listing brokers to make a blanket offer of compensation to buyer brokers to list properties in the MLS. The DOJ had issued a subpoena in 2021 requesting extensive documentation on these rules, signaling its intention to assess whether they hindered fair market practices.
For St. Louis homeowners and investors, the outcome of this investigation could lead to significant changes in how properties are marketed and sold. It’s a reminder of the evolving landscape in real estate and the importance of staying informed. As always, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website MORE, REALTORS® is here to provide guidance and insights to help you navigate these developments. Contact us today to learn how we can help you with your real estate needs.
St. Louis lawmakers have introduced three significant bills aimed at increasing accountability for owners of vacant and deteriorated properties, building on the recent approval of Proposition V, which lifted a decades-old cap on fines for ordinance violations. With nearly 14,000 city properties having outstanding code violations and over 24,000 vacant properties in the city, these bills seek to address issues that have long plagued St. Louis neighborhoods.
The proposed legislation includes Board Bill 169, introduced by Alderman Michael Browning, which raises fines for vacant and deteriorated properties from $25 for the first violation to $100, with repeat offenses escalating to $250 or more. Board Bill 170, introduced by Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez, sets penalties for unsecured buildings at $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for repeat offenses. Additionally, it establishes a $30,000 fine or 50% of the property’s appraised value—whichever is greater—for unpermitted demolitions, with proceeds going toward the city’s Vacant Building Initiative Fund. Meanwhile, Alderwoman Pamela Boyd’s Board Bill 171 introduces a mechanism to add unpaid fines and abatement costs to property tax bills as liens, simplifying collections and ensuring enforcement. Together, these measures aim to deter neglect, reduce vacancy, and revitalize neighborhoods.
These new bills represent a direct effort to address the challenges highlighted during the campaign for Proposition V. St. Louis investors and property owners should take note of these changes as they signal stricter enforcement of property ordinances.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has expanded its antitrust lawsuit against RealPage by naming six of the nation’s largest landlords as defendants, according to the amended complaint filed recently. These landlords are accused of participating in a coordinated pricing scheme that relied on sensitive competitive data and algorithmic pricing tools to maintain elevated rents, impacting millions of renters across the U.S.
The landlords named in the amended complaint—Greystar Real Estate Partners, Blackstone’s LivCor, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Willow Bridge Property Company, and Cortland Management—operate more than 1.3 million rental units nationwide. The DOJ alleges that these landlords not only utilized RealPage’s controversial algorithm but also engaged in direct communication and user group discussions to share sensitive pricing strategies. For example, the DOJ highlighted instances where Camden executives communicated with competitors about planned rent increases and occupancy strategies.
In a move to settle with the DOJ, Cortland agreed to cooperate with the investigation, cease using competitor-sensitive data, and stop relying on common pricing algorithms. This consent decree is subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court may approve the settlement. The amended lawsuit underscores the DOJ’s commitment to ensuring a competitive housing market, stating, “Landlords must not prioritize profits over fair housing opportunities for renters.”
The Risks of HELOC Wire Fraud: A Case Study for St. Louis Homeowners
A recent lawsuit, Skertich vs. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and Alliant Credit Union, highlights alarming vulnerabilities in Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs) when it comes to wire fraud. According to the complaint, a fraudulent wire transfer amounting to $425,650 was authorized using counterfeit documents and improper verification processes. Despite clear red flags, such as mismatched signatures and suspicious IP addresses, the financial institutions involved processed the transaction. This serves as a stark reminder for homeowners in St. Louis and beyond to exercise caution with HELOC accounts.
The case emphasizes the importance of robust security protocols. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to have commercially reasonable systems in place to detect and prevent fraudulent activity. This situation escalated further when the victims were held liable for the unauthorized transaction, leading to increased balances and potential foreclosure actions. Homeowners utilizing HELOCs must regularly monitor account activity and promptly report any discrepancies.
For St. Louis area homeowners, this case is a reminder to protect your equity by using secure communication channels with your lender, reviewing monthly statements thoroughly, and inquiring about the security measures your provider has in place. The full complaint, detailing the allegations and implications, can be reviewed below.
—
If you’re navigating the complexities of homeownership in St. Louis, MORE, REALTORS® is here to guide you with expert advice tailored to your needs. Contact us today to stay informed and secure in your real estate journey.
Missouri Online Real Estate, Inc. 3636 South Geyer Road - Suite 100, St Louis, MO 63127 314-414-6000 - Licensed Real Estate Broker in Missouri
The owner and authors this site are providing the information on this web site for general informational purposes only and make no representations, warranties (expressed or implied) or guarantees of any kind whatsoever, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or of any information found by following any link on this site. Furthermore, the owner and authors of this site will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any errors or omissions in information on this site, nor for the availability of this information. Additionally the owner and authors of this site will not be liable for for any losses, injuries or damages in any way from the display or use of this information or as the result of following external links displayed on this site, or by responding to advertisements displayed, or contained, on this site
In using this site, users acknowledge and agree that the information on this site does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind nor should it be construed as such. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action on this information, you should consult a qualified professional adviser to whom you have provided all of the facts applicable to your particular situation or question. None of the tax information on this web site is intended to be used nor can it be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All of the information on this site is provided as is, with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
This site contains external links to other sites not owned or controlled by the owner of this site, therefore the owner of this site does not control or guarantee in any manner the accuracy or relevancy of any information obtained through following such links. Links contained on this site are for users convenience and users should exercise extreme caution when following links. Including a link on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the site linked to or any views or opinions expressed on the site, products or services offered on outside sites or the companies or organizations that own and operate outside sites.
This site may accept payment for advertising, for displaying advertisements, through affiliate relationships with companies or may receive referral fees or commissions from companies as a result of recommending or referring people to a website. This site may also accept free product samples, free services, gift cards or cash to review a product or service. All paid and sponsored content may not always be identified as such. Any product claim, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
Today, we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a visionary who championed equality, justice, and the inherent dignity of all people. His fight against systemic injustices extended to housing discrimination, a battle that continues to shape communities across the nation, including right here in St. Louis.
