The crux of RealPage’s argument is that their software merely provides aggregated data and recommendations, leaving ultimate pricing decisions in the hands of individual landlords. They maintain that the data analytics tools help landlords operate more efficiently in competitive rental markets, rather than stifling competition as alleged. For rental property owners in St. Louis, this motion highlights the growing scrutiny surrounding automated pricing tools, which are widely used to manage rents effectively in a dynamic market.
While RealPage’s motion seeks to clarify and defend its practices, this case serves as a reminder for St. Louis landlords to carefully evaluate their own pricing strategies and tools. Whether you use software to determine rent adjustments or rely on local market trends, ensuring transparency and compliance with fair housing laws is more important than ever. As this legal battle unfolds, investors may want to keep a close watch on the implications for rental property management technology and regulations.
For tailored advice on navigating legal changes in the St. Louis rental market, the team at MORE, REALTORS® is here to help. Our expertise in market trends and compliance can help you maximize your investments while staying ahead of regulatory challenges.
You can read RealPages motion to dismiss, along with its 35 page brief in support of the motion, below.
The landmark settlement in the Burnett (Sitzer) v. National Association of Realtors (NAR) class action lawsuit has officially received final approval from U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough on November 27, 2024. This settlement is set to impact millions of homeowners across the U.S., offering substantial financial restitution and mandating significant changes in real estate practices. The full details of the court’s order and settlement terms are provided in the document below.
Judge Bough emphasized the fairness of the settlement, noting that it provides “substantial benefits to the class” while ensuring equitable treatment of all members. Over 491,000 claims have been filed as of November 14, 2024, with claims open until May 2025. Below are the key highlights:
- Financial Compensation: Settlement class members who paid real estate commissions through any MLS-affiliated transaction are eligible for compensation.
- Industry Practice Reforms: Changes include greater transparency in commission structures and improved practices across participating brokerages.
- Comprehensive Notice Program: Nearly 40 million notices were sent, ensuring a broad reach, with over 300 million digital impressions.
- Minimal Objections: Despite the large class size, only 39 members opted out, and objections were minimal.
Judge Bough described the settlement as “a significant and swift recovery for the Class,” underscoring its importance in resolving complex antitrust claims while avoiding protracted litigation.
For those in St. Louis, this settlement underscores the value of informed real estate practices. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are committed to transparency and exceptional service, ensuring buyers and sellers have the support they need in an ever-evolving market.
Learn more about the settlement and its implications by reviewing the full order below.
Burnett vs The National Association of REALTORS Settlement Order
(click below to read entire order)
A recent Notorious P.O.D. interview with Wilson Fauber, a Virginia real estate broker and ordained minister, has brought renewed attention to the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. The rule prohibits hate speech, epithets, and harassing language by Realtors® at all times, including outside their professional lives.
Fauber faces an ethics hearing over social media posts he made years before the rule’s enactment, including one quoting scripture. Supporters argue the rule ensures a welcoming environment for all, while critics believe it infringes on personal freedoms and is being selectively enforced.
Why This Matters to Agents
The case raises concerns about how far professional organizations should extend their oversight into private speech. With potential penalties including fines, loss of MLS access, and more, some see the rule as a necessary step toward accountability, while others view it as overreach.
As the real estate industry navigates these debates, Fauber’s case highlights a pivotal moment for Realtors® to reflect on the balance between ethical guidelines and personal freedoms.
Notorious POD: NAR Speech Code Strikes Again, with Wilson Fauber
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is turning up the heat on the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the real estate industry at large. In a Statement of Interest filed in the class-action lawsuit Burnett v. NAR, the DOJ highlighted ongoing concerns about antitrust practices that could harm buyers, sellers, and competition within the real estate market.
The DOJ took particular aim at the current practice of unilateral offers of compensation to buyer brokers. These practices, the filing explains, pressure sellers to offer high commissions—often 2.5-3%—to buyer brokers to avoid “steering,” ultimately driving up home prices. This arrangement benefits neither buyers nor sellers, as it limits competition among brokers and prevents meaningful negotiations on fees.
Another area of concern is a proposed settlement provision requiring buyers and brokers to sign written agreements before any home tours. While intended to add transparency, the DOJ warns it could hinder competition among buyer brokers, making it harder for buyers to explore their options freely.
Importantly, the DOJ has not endorsed the proposed settlement in this case. Instead, it reserves the right to continue investigating and enforcing antitrust laws. Compliance with the settlement will not shield NAR or other entities from future legal scrutiny.
The DOJ’s filing serves as a reminder that transparency, competition, and fair practices are essential to keeping the real estate market accessible and equitable for everyone. For buyers, sellers, and agents alike, this case underscores the importance of choosing representation that prioritizes their interests over outdated or self-serving industry norms.
Department of Justice – Statement of Interest – NAR Settlement
A federal court recently denied a request from eXp Realty to pause ongoing litigation while a settlement in a related case was being finalized. This ruling highlights growing concerns over settlement practices in the real estate industry, particularly in cases involving alleged anti-competitive behaviors. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the proposed settlement in the related Hooper lawsuit failed to adequately address claims or consider eXp’s financial resources, potentially leaving affected homebuyers and sellers shortchanged.
For consumers, this decision underscores the importance of accountability and fairness in real estate dealings. As cases like this challenge longstanding industry norms, buyers and sellers should take the time to fully understand commission structures and ensure their agents are acting transparently. Staying informed about legal developments can help you make smarter decisions when navigating the complexities of real estate transactions.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we prioritize transparency and client-focused service, ensuring you always have the information you need to make confident real estate decisions. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you.
The full court order detailing this decision is available below for those who want to dig deeper into the specifics.
ORDER – Gibson v NAR on eXp Realty’s Motion to Stay Case
In his recent article, “Repeal the Speech Code,” Rob Hahn has urged the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) to reconsider its controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. This policy, implemented in 2020, prohibits REALTORS® from using harassing or hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on protected classes, such as race, religion, and gender identity, in both professional and personal settings. Hahn argues that while intended to promote inclusivity, the policy overreaches and restricts REALTORS®’ freedom of speech outside of real estate-related activities.
The case of Brandon Huber, a REALTOR® and pastor, illustrates Hahn’s concerns. Huber was penalized under Standard of Practice 10-5 after making statements as a church leader unrelated to his real estate profession. His case raised questions about the balance between personal belief expression and professional standards, with Hahn emphasizing that the Speech Code “tells members what they can and cannot say in their private lives.” Similarly, NAR has faced debates over whether misgendering or expressing personal political beliefs could be deemed hate speech, as highlighted in discussions covered by Inman News. REALTORS® questioned how subjective interpretations might lead to unintended disciplinary actions, such as mistakenly using the wrong pronoun or expressing certain religious beliefs.
Hahn argues that repealing Standard of Practice 10-5 would not only protect REALTORS®’ personal freedoms but could also avoid divisive conflicts within NAR’s membership. He warns that maintaining the Speech Code may alienate members and draw unwanted attention from a new administration focused on freedom of speech. As Hahn states, “The right thing to do is sometimes the smart thing to do. When that happens, the only thing to do… is to do it.”
The full text of Hahn’s article is available below for those interested in the broader implications of this policy on NAR’s members and the real estate industry.
Monestier argues that the industry’s entrenched practices remain unchallenged by the settlement. Steering persists, commissions are still locked at 5-6%, and sellers continue to shoulder both agents’ fees, contrary to the supposed reforms. She warns, “What matters is how the settlement is being implemented in real life. And it is being implemented in a way that preserves the status quo of sellers paying both brokers.” Her objection underscores the reality that, rather than empowering buyers to negotiate their agents’ compensation, the industry has doubled down on its old ways, sidestepping reform.
Another alarming aspect of Monestier’s objection is her contention that the settlement introduces confusion instead of clarity, leaving both buyers and sellers struggling to navigate a complex, quasi-regulatory landscape. “As long as this is possible, the current system of seller-financed commissions will remain intact,” she argues, stressing that this agreement risks setting the industry back by reinforcing behaviors it purported to dismantle.
Monestier’s objection is a call to action for the court to reconsider the settlement’s adequacy and fairness, cautioning against accepting it at face value. She warns, “Unless someone speaks up, this Court is likely to be convinced that this settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’ It is not. It simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.” For those interested in the full details of her objection, the complete document is available for review below.
See the entire objection that Tanya Monestier filed with the court HERE
How to File a Claim
To receive reimbursement, you’ll need to provide documentation proving that vermiculite-based ZAI was present and has been removed from your home. Accepted evidence includes contractor statements, receipts, photos of ZAI packaging or insulation samples, and certified lab tests confirming vermiculite in your attic. If you haven’t yet removed the insulation, it’s crucial to retain detailed records from your contractor to support your future claim.
What You Need to Know
Claims can be submitted through the Zonolite Trust website, where you’ll find all necessary forms and instructions. Homeowners are reimbursed for 55% of their removal costs, up to a capped amount. Claims are processed on a first-come, first-served basis, so early submission is recommended to avoid delays. The trust aims to resolve claims efficiently while ensuring that funds are distributed equitably.
Helpful Resources and Full Procedure Below
For more information on the eligibility requirements and to access the official claim forms, see the links to resources below. Additionally, the complete distribution procedure from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court—detailing how funds are allocated—is provided below for homeowners and legal professionals. This document outlines the rights and responsibilities of claimants under the reorganization plan for W.R. Grace & Co.
Don’t miss this opportunity to recover costs and protect your home—file your claim today and ensure your insulation concerns are addressed.
UNITED STATES ZONOLITE ATTIC INSULATION (“US ZAI”) PROPERTY DAMAGE SETTLEMENT TRUST DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURES
Zonolite (Vermiculite) Claims Resource Links
On October 15, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a settlement with Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation following allegations of discriminatory lending practices, or redlining, in predominantly Black neighborhoods in Birmingham, Alabama. As part of the resolution, Fairway agreed to pay $8 million in relief and a $1.9 million civil penalty to address claims that it avoided providing credit services in these communities due to residents’ race and national origin.
The settlement contributes to the DOJ’s broader efforts through the Combating Redlining Initiative, which has secured over $150 million in relief since its inception. According to the DOJ’s findings, Fairway concentrated its retail loan offices in majority-white areas and allocated less than 3% of its direct mail advertising to Black neighborhoods. Fairway’s lending rates in these areas were significantly lower than peer lenders, prompting the DOJ and CFPB to act.
In addition to financial penalties, the settlement requires Fairway to establish a $7 million loan subsidy program aimed at providing affordable loans for home purchases, refinances, and improvements in Black communities. Fairway will also invest $1 million in programs to support consumer education, outreach, and partnerships with local organizations. The enforcement action underscores the government’s commitment to rooting out lending discrimination nationwide.
The initial complaint filed by the CFPB against Fairway Mortgage, is below.
As I have highlighted in previous articles, the real problem with this rule is that it imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a very diverse set of circumstances. Agents with every intention of putting a listing in the MLS may find themselves constrained by the policy’s rigid timeline and prohibitions, limiting their ability to execute marketing strategies tailored to the needs of their clients.
A Misrepresentation of Intent
One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate around the Clear Cooperation Policy is the disingenuous portrayal of the issue by some proponents of the rule. They often frame the opposition as a desire to keep listings out of the MLS entirely, suggesting that agents pushing back against the rule are simply looking for ways to avoid sharing information. In reality, many agents, including myself, are primarily concerned with the restrictions the rule places on how and when we can promote a property before it hits the MLS.
For example, an agent might want to place a “coming soon” sign in a seller’s yard as soon as the listing agreement is signed, even if the seller isn’t ready to show the property for a few weeks. Or a seller may want to share on social media that their home will be available once a few repairs are completed. The Clear Cooperation Policy effectively bans such practices, even if the intent is to eventually list the property on the MLS. These restrictions can prevent agents from building pre-market buzz, which often results in better outcomes for sellers.
Where the Industry Stands
Currently, the industry is deeply divided over the Clear Cooperation Policy. Some argue that the rule ensures fairness and transparency, preventing large brokerages from “hoarding” listings and selectively sharing them only within their own networks. However, opponents see it as a top-down mandate that ignores the nuanced needs of clients and agents on the ground. This tension is playing out in various forums, with major industry players like Compass and Redfin publicly taking opposing stances.
Additionally, the policy has caught the attention of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulatory bodies, adding a legal layer to what is already a complex situation. The DOJ has reopened its investigation into NAR’s policies, and many are watching closely to see whether the Clear Cooperation Policy might be revised or struck down as part of the broader antitrust concerns surrounding the real estate industry.
What’s Next for the Rule?
In my view, NAR is facing mounting pressure to adapt. While I don’t believe the Clear Cooperation Policy will survive in its current form, NAR has shown a stubborn resistance to change before. However, if they are smart, they will eventually recognize that the rule’s rigidness does more harm than good and will cave to the increasing calls for its removal. The reality is that as the market continues to evolve, the industry needs to be flexible enough to serve the interests of consumers and agents alike — and this policy is increasingly looking like an obstacle rather than a solution.
One potential outcome is that NAR will amend the rule to allow for more flexibility in pre-MLS marketing, which would still ensure the policy’s goals of transparency while respecting agents’ ability to promote listings in a way that benefits their clients. But whether this kind of change will be enough to quell the growing discontent remains to be seen.
The Bottom Line
The real estate industry thrives on cooperation, but cooperation shouldn’t come at the expense of consumer choice or the ability of agents to act in their clients’ best interests. Rather than a rigid mandate, we need a policy that adapts to the realities of the modern market. Until then, I’ll continue to advocate for changes that prioritize clients’ needs over bureaucratic rules.
The proposed bill, Board Bill Number 72, states that the cap has become ineffective over time, allowing large-scale absentee property owners to simply absorb the low penalty as a cost of doing business. If approved, Proposition V would allow the city to impose fines that scale with the severity of the violations, addressing longstanding issues of property neglect and disinvestment. The complete text of the bill is included below for readers to review in its entirety.
Alderwoman Velazquez highlighted the urgent need for change in a recent opinion editorial published in the St. Louis Business Journal. She pointed out that when first established, the $500 fine was a meaningful deterrent, equivalent to roughly $4,000 today. “Over time, though, the penalty has become negligible, and absentee property owners and landlords often find it easier to pay the fine than maintain their properties,” Velazquez wrote. The alderwoman argues that the inability to impose higher fines has left the city with few options to compel owners to maintain their properties, resulting in safety hazards, reduced property values, and diminished investment in many St. Louis neighborhoods.
While Velazquez asserts, “This isn’t just about penalizing landlords — it’s about securing the future of St. Louis,” the proposal has also raised concerns among property owners and real estate investors. Critics argue that removing the $500 cap could lead to overly punitive measures that deter investment in St. Louis. For small property owners or new investors, the fear is that unlimited fines could become unpredictable and potentially crippling, making it riskier to operate in the city. Investors worry that it might lead to an environment where even minor code violations could result in disproportionately high penalties, pushing responsible landlords out of the market and discouraging new investment at a time when St. Louis needs it most.
Proposition V is part of a broader effort to revitalize St. Louis and protect its neighborhoods. However, its impact on the investment climate in the city will largely depend on how these new fines are implemented and enforced. As Velazquez emphasized, the measure is meant to “stimulate growth, attract responsible investment, and ensure that all property owners contribute positively to the community.” For residents concerned about vacant and neglected properties, Proposition V could mark a significant step forward in making St. Louis a safer and more vibrant place to live, but the long-term effects on the real estate market remain to be seen.
The National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy has been a contentious topic since its inception in 2019. The rule, which mandates that listings must be added to the MLS within one day of being publicly marketed, aims to provide transparency and equal access to all agents and homebuyers. However, as highlighted in anInman News article today, the policy is now facing strong opposition from major real estate firms like Compass and Anywhere Real Estate, both of which are calling for changes that would provide more flexibility to sellers.
This isn’t the first time the Clear Cooperation Policy has been challenged. I have previously discussed this issue in several articles, noting both the potential legal implications under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the practical impacts on homeowners trying to sell their properties effectively. While the policy aims to prevent “pocket listings” and promote fairness, some argue that it actually limits consumer choice by dictating how listings must be shared and marketed. As I mentioned in article I wrote in 2020 about the new rule, New Rule Will Require REALTORS Put All Listings In The MLS Or Not Market Them, while transparency is essential, homeowners should have the flexibility to choose a marketing strategy that best suits their needs.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we adapt to these regulations by leveraging our advanced digital marketing expertise to ensure sellers still get top exposure and results within the constraints of current rules. So, while changes to NAR’s policy may be coming, you can count on us to navigate these shifts and maximize your home’s potential.
As I’ve emphasized in prior articles about the NAR/Sitzer settlement, the real impact of these changes will be in how commissions are discussed and handled, not whether they are eliminated. This is a pivotal time for agents to educate their clients on the evolving commission landscape, ensuring buyers and sellers both understand who is paying for what and why. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for this shift, and we’re committed to guiding our clients through these changes with clear communication and expert advice.
St. Louis’ connection to the Manhattan Project might be a footnote in history books, but for residents of North County, its legacy is still felt today. Decades after uranium processing for the first atomic bombs took place at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in downtown St. Louis, the environmental and health effects continue to affect North County communities.
The Manhattan Project’s Reach in St. Louis County
During World War II, Mallinckrodt processed uranium for the development of atomic bombs, storing the radioactive waste near the St. Louis Airport and along Latty Avenue. Unfortunately, the waste wasn’t properly contained, which led to contamination of Coldwater Creek—a waterway that runs through Hazelwood, Florissant, and several other North County communities.
In 1973, some of the radioactive waste was illegally dumped at the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton. Over the years, concerns have mounted regarding the contamination’s role in increased rates of rare cancers, birth defects, and autoimmune disorders among residents living near Coldwater Creek.
Superfund Sites and Ongoing Cleanup Efforts
Coldwater Creek and the West Lake Landfill have both been designated Superfund sites by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indicating the need for extensive, long-term cleanup. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been working on removing contaminated soil, having cleared over 1 million cubic yards so far. However, concerns about lingering contamination remain, especially after recent tests found radioactive materials at a North County elementary school.
Local groups like “Just Moms STL” continue to push for more recognition of the health impacts and further efforts to clean up the area. The full extent of contamination is still being investigated, with estimates suggesting that up to 80,000 people may have been affected by exposure to radioactive materials.
Warning Signs and Real Estate Impact
In response to ongoing health and safety concerns, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recently installed warning signs along Coldwater Creek to alert the public to the risks. While these signs are crucial for safety, they bring a new wave of attention to the environmental hazards in North County—something that’s likely to influence the real estate market.
- Health concerns: The increased awareness of contamination and its potential health impacts could lead to further hesitation among homebuyers, particularly families.
- Property value declines: Homes in affected areas may see their values drop as the stigma around contamination grows, and real estate transactions may slow as buyers tread carefully.
- Uncertainty for the future: While cleanup efforts are ongoing, it’s uncertain how long it will take to fully remediate the area—or whether full remediation is even possible.
What Homeowners and Buyers Should Consider
For those considering buying or selling property in North County, it’s critical to be aware of the legacy of contamination from the Manhattan Project. Real estate transactions in these areas will likely be impacted by the environmental concerns, and both buyers and sellers should work closely with agents who understand the unique challenges of the market in this part of St. Louis County.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re dedicated to providing you with the latest information and helping you make informed decisions about your real estate investments. Reach out to us if you have questions about buying or selling in North County or if you’re curious about how the cleanup efforts might impact your property.
The Federal Reserve made an important announcement today that could have a ripple effect on the real estate market in St. Louis and beyond. In their latest meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided to lower the federal funds rate by half a percentage point, bringing the target range down to 4.75% to 5%. This move comes as the Fed notes continued solid economic activity but acknowledges that job gains have slowed, and inflation, while improving, still remains above their 2% target.
For homebuyers and real estate investors, this rate cut could lead to a slight reduction in borrowing costs, making mortgages a bit more affordable. However, the broader economic outlook remains uncertain, as the Fed continues to carefully monitor inflation and employment levels. As always, real estate professionals and buyers alike should keep a close eye on these developments, as any future shifts in rates could further impact the housing market.
During times of economic uncertainty, working with a trusted local real estate professional is more important than ever. At MORE, REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on staying ahead of market trends and providing expert guidance to our clients. Whether you’re a first-time buyer or a seasoned investor, our team is here to help you navigate these shifting conditions and make smart, informed decisions.
Stay tuned for more updates, as this decision could have further implications for our local St. Louis market in the coming months.
- Eligibility: Missouri residents who are 62 years or older, own their home, and are liable for real property taxes.
- Credit Amount: The credit equals the difference between the current tax liability and the tax liability during the taxpayer’s initial credit year.
- Local Adoption: Counties can adopt the credit through an ordinance or a voter-approved referendum. The Homestead Property Tax Credit operates under a simple premise: protect senior homeowners from rising property tax liabilities. For eligible seniors, the credit stabilizes the tax amount payable to the figure from their initial credit year, shielding them from subsequent increases. This means if the property tax rises after a senior’s initial credit year, the tax burden will not.
For implementation, each county has the option to either pass a local ordinance or bring the matter before voters with a referendum. If approved via referendum, the ballot will pose a straightforward question about exempting seniors from increases in property tax liabilities due on their primary residences.
How Does the Homestead Act Work?
The Homestead Act plays a crucial role by defining the ‘homestead’ as the primary residence of the taxpayer, where the tax credit is applied. Here’s how it works:
- Tax Stabilization: Once a homeowner qualifies, any increase in property tax assessments will not affect their payable amount, unless there’s new construction or improvements on the property.
- Adjustments for New Improvements: If an eligible taxpayer makes improvements to their home, the tax liability will adjust accordingly for that year but will stabilize again for subsequent years.
- Impact of Annexation: If a home is annexed into a new taxing jurisdiction where previously no real property tax was owed, the initial credit year’s tax liability will adjust to reflect the new obligations.
Helpful links to counties that have implemented the program already:
- City of St Louis (program applications are closed until March 2025)
- St Louis County (program is waiting on staffing and setup but you can sign up for email status notifications)
- St Charles County (program applications are closed for 2024 tax bills)
This initiative not only offers financial relief but also promotes stability and predictability for seniors in managing their most significant investment—their home. As counties begin implementing these changes, it’s essential for residents to stay informed about how these adjustments could benefit them personally. For additional insights on navigating property tax changes or purchasing a new home, consider reaching out to our experts at MORE, REALTORS®. Our seasoned team is committed to providing tailored advice that protects and enhances your real estate investments.
In a recent telephone interview with an Inman News reporter, Michael Ketchmark, lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the groundbreaking Sitzer | Burnett case, emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) proposed settlement. Ketchmark and his team are keeping a close eye on how the real estate industry rolls out these changes, warning that any attempts to evade the new rules will be met with swift legal action. “If anyone thinks they’re going to be able to avoid the application of this settlement agreement and the law by creating some new forms or hiding this cooperation on new websites, they’re wrong,” Ketchmark stated. He also underscored the long-term impact of the settlement, anticipating that while it may take time, the free market will eventually adjust to lower commissions.
Ketchmark expressed concerns about Zillow’s business model, which he believes was built on practices now being challenged by the settlement. “We just cut the legs out from under that,” he said, referring to Zillow’s referral-based system. Looking to the future, Ketchmark highlighted the upcoming litigation against Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.
As these significant shifts in the industry unfold, it’s crucial for homebuyers and sellers to have knowledgeable and ethical representation. That’s where the agents at MORE, REALTORS® come in—dedicated professionals who are committed to navigating this evolving landscape while keeping your best interests at heart.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has released a comprehensive report highlighting the risks and challenges associated with “contracts for deed,” a form of seller financing often used as an alternative to traditional mortgages. While these contracts can provide a pathway to homeownership for some, the report underscores the significant dangers they pose, particularly to vulnerable populations, including low-income, Black, Hispanic, and immigrant communities.
Contracts for deed are often characterized by substandard housing, inflated prices, and a lack of consumer protections. Buyers assume all responsibilities of homeownership, yet they do not gain legal title until all payments are completed, which can span decades. The CFPB’s findings reveal that many of these contracts are structured to fail, with sellers retaining all equity and payments in the event of a buyer’s default. This practice perpetuates a cycle of exploitation, where homes are repeatedly sold without necessary repairs, trapping buyers in a never-ending loop of financial insecurity.
Because of these risks, it’s more important than ever to work with a trusted real estate professional who understands the local market and is committed to protecting your interests. At MORE, REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on guiding our clients through every step of the home-buying process, ensuring they avoid predatory practices like those associated with some contracts for deed. Our agents are dedicated to providing transparent, fair, and informed advice to help you achieve your homeownership goals safely and successfully.
John Pound, a former alderman of Des Peres, Missouri, has been sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to repay $292,305 after pleading guilty to embezzling funds from clients of his real estate management company, Commercial Realty Management Inc. Pound’s fraudulent activities spanned a decade, during which he manipulated financial records to siphon off larger commissions and management fees than authorized from a commercial property on North Euclid Avenue in St. Louis’ Central West End. His actions, which included falsifying QuickBooks entries and misrepresenting budgets, resulted in significant financial losses for his clients. Pound’s sentencing serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency and trust in real estate management.
Pound resigned from his elected position as an alderman in Des Peres, Missouri after his guilty plea.
The FBI investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gwen Carroll prosecuted the case.
The revisions aim to align current practices with the legal outcomes of these settlements, ensuring compliance and fostering transparency in real estate transactions. One of the pivotal changes is the inclusion of clear, consistent language that reflects new industry standards and practices mandated by the settlement. This initiative underscores the importance of adapting to evolving legal landscapes to maintain professional integrity and trust with clients.
Upcoming MLS Rule Changes
In addition to the new forms, there are upcoming changes to the MLS rules effective August 1. These new rules will prohibit the display of commission offers to agents working with buyers in the MLS. This change has generated considerable confusion and anxiety among real estate professionals. Many agents are either unaware of the impending changes or are scrambling to figure out workarounds. However, there are dedicated professionals who are well-informed and prepared to adapt seamlessly.
The prohibition on displaying commission offers is intended to enhance transparency in real estate transactions by focusing on the value of the property rather than the commission structures. Despite the noble intent, the rule change has sparked debates within the real estate community, with opinions varying widely on its potential impact.
Embracing Transparency at MORE
At MORE, REALTORS®, we have been closely following these lawsuits since 2019, fully aware that industry changes were imminent. Our proactive approach has allowed us to prepare thoroughly for these changes, ensuring that our agents are not only compliant but also well-versed in the new practices.
We wholeheartedly embrace the idea of total transparency in transactions. This includes being upfront about how our agents are compensated, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, and whom they represent in each transaction. Our commitment to transparency ensures that clients can trust us to act in their best interests at all times.
In conclusion, the recent updates to contract forms and MLS rules are significant steps towards greater transparency and compliance in the real estate industry. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are ready to lead by example, demonstrating our dedication to these principles and ensuring that our clients receive the highest level of service and trust.
President Biden has announced a plan to cap rent increases at 5% per year for corporate landlords with more than 50 units. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to lower housing costs and address the housing shortage. The plan also includes repurposing public land for affordable housing and rehabilitating distressed properties. The Biden administration emphasizes that these actions will help protect tenants from excessive rent hikes and promote the development of new affordable housing units.
However, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has expressed significant concerns about this proposal. Carl Harris, chairman of the NAHB, argues that rent control in any form is detrimental to the housing market. According to Harris, “These rent caps would also hurt existing tenants – those that the president is trying to help — because owners and developers would be unable to cover rising costs if rents are fixed.” The NAHB believes that such measures will discourage developers from building new rental units, exacerbating the housing shortage and worsening the affordability crisis.
The NAHB suggests alternative solutions to address housing affordability. They advocate for strengthening the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), reducing regulatory barriers that delay multifamily development, and adopting cost-effective building codes. Harris states, “If the Biden administration is serious about wanting to lower costs for renters, its policies should focus on increasing the rental housing supply.” By focusing on these strategies, the NAHB believes the government can more effectively boost multifamily housing production and make renting more affordable for Americans.
HUD’s Charge of Discrimination reveals troubling details about the appraisal process, highlighting inaccuracies and methodological deviations that led to a significantly lower property value. This undervaluation subsequently resulted in the denial of the homeowner’s refinance loan application. Diane M. Shelley, HUD’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, stated, “Homeownership is crucial to build both generational wealth and housing stability for Black and Brown families.” As the case proceeds, it underscores the ongoing challenges in ensuring equity in housing and the importance of vigilance against discriminatory practices in real estate transactions.
Starting August 17, 2024, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is implementing a new requirement on its members that will impact home buyers and REALTORS® alike. This new rule mandates that REALTORS® must have a written agreement with buyers before showing them any homes. This change is required as part of the settlement agreement of multiple massive class-action lawsuits where NAR was accused of anti-competitive practices. The settlement aimed to increase transparency and fairness in real estate transactions, ensuring that both buyers and agents have a clear understanding of their relationship and obligations. However, there’s a lot of confusion surrounding the new requirement, including some “PSA” messages posted by agents on social media that refer to the required agreement as a “Buyer’s Agency” agreement.
A Buyer’s Agency agreement is used when you wish to engage an agent to represent you as a buyer and establishes obligations upon the agent, including fiduciary duties to put your interests ahead of all others (including themselves). This is certainly the agreement I would recommend buyers use in most cases once ready to commit to an agent. However, while this certainly meets the requirement, it is not the only type of agreement that satisfies NAR’s new rule. In fact, representation is not required at all. Yes, a written agreement is necessary, but it doesn’t have to be a full-blown buyer representation agreement. Any written agreement to show a property will suffice. The intent here is not to complicate the home buying process but to protect buyers and clarify the REALTOR®’s role and responsibilities, including the cost, if any, to the buyer and where the compensation is coming from. It ensures that you understand the services you’re getting and how your REALTOR® will be compensated, making the whole process smoother and more transparent.
Is compensation required under the agreement?
That is, of course, dependent on the agreement itself, but there is no requirement by the NAR settlement that buyers be charged anything to enter into an agreement to be shown a home. Naturally, if the agreement is a Buyer’s Agency agreement where you will, in fact, receive representation, the agent, like every other professional involved in the home buying process, will need to be compensated, and how much and who pays will need to be laid out.
How long does the agreement obligate me?
Again, there is no requirement for the agreement to last any period of time. If it’s simply a showing agreement, it may last long enough for the agent to walk you through the home.
What if the listing agent shows you the home?
If the listing agent is giving you a tour of the home (as the seller’s agent) and not “working with” you, then the agreement may not be required. Personally, though, I think it is still a good idea to use it for transparency so that you, as the buyer, clearly understand whose interest that agent is required to put ahead of yours.
What is required in the “buyer agreement”?
According to the NAR settlement, the following are the only requirements for the agreement that must be signed before showing a home to a buyer they are working with:
- Specify and conspicuously disclose the amount or rate of any compensation the MLS Participant will receive from any source.
- The amount of compensation must be objectively ascertainable and may not be open-ended (e.g., “buyer broker compensation shall be whatever amount the seller is offering to the buyer”).
- Include a statement that MLS Participants may not receive compensation from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to with the buyer.
- Disclose in conspicuous language that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.
- Include any provisions required by law.
At MORE, we are committed to providing exceptional service and ensuring complete transparency throughout your home buying journey. Our experienced agents are ready to guide you through this new process, making it as seamless as possible. Whether you’re a first-time homebuyer or looking for your next investment, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website
MORE, REALTORS® is here to help you every step of the way.
Selling a home can be a complex process, especially when recent work has been done by contractors. One way Missouri home sellers can simplify their sale and protect themselves is by filing a Notice of Intent to Sell (NOIS). While not required by Missouri law, a NOIS can significantly benefit property owners. Filing this notice shortens the period contractors and material suppliers have to file a mechanics lien from six months to just 45 days after the notice is filed. This can reduce the risk of unexpected liens popping up after the sale.
M&I Title Company, a local St. Louis-based title company whose ownership team includes Investors Title and the principals and most of the agents of MORE, REALTORS®
, takes the hassle out of this process. When M&I Title Company is involved and files a NOIS on your behalf, you won’t need to gather and provide all the paid invoices and properly executed lien waivers from contractors and suppliers. Their streamlined approach ensures that you can focus on your sale without worrying about these details. Even if time is tight, Greg Miller, the manager, and his team at M&I Title can help you close your sale on schedule, providing peace of mind and professional support every step of the way. Of course, the professional agents at MORE will be there along the way to guide you as well.
For more information on how a NOIS can benefit you and to get expert assistance, contact Greg Miller at M&I Title Company. They are ready to help make your home selling experience as smooth as possible.
A Springfield, Missouri business owner, Brian Scroggs, has been indicted by a federal grand jury for orchestrating a fraudulent timeshare exit scheme, according to an announcement from the FBI. Scroggs, who owned Vacation Consulting Services, LLC, and The Transfer Group, LLC, promised clients he could help them exit their timeshare contracts for a fee. Despite knowing that timeshare companies had stopped working with exit firms, Scroggs continued to solicit new clients under false pretenses.
The indictment reveals that Scroggs defrauded clients of over $32,000 by falsely claiming his companies could release them from their timeshare agreements. His scheme involved hosting seminars across the country where he assured timeshare owners they could either get out of their contracts or receive a refund. However, none of these promises were fulfilled, leaving clients trapped in their timeshare agreements without the refunds they were promised.
This case, prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Carney and investigated by the IRS-Criminal Investigation and the FBI, serves as a stark reminder for timeshare owners to exercise caution and thoroughly vet any exit companies they consider using. Always seek advice from trusted real estate professionals, such as those at MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website
MORE, REALTORS®, to avoid falling victim to similar scams.
From 2021 to 2023, the median total loan costs for home purchase loans surged by over 36%, with the median dollar amount paid by borrowers in 2022 nearing $6,000. These rising costs, coupled with increased home prices and interest rates, have significantly strained household budgets. The CFPB’s focus is on understanding the impact of these fees on home affordability and access to credit, particularly for first-time and lower-income buyers who are disproportionately affected.
The CFPB has launched a public inquiry into what they term “junk fees” in mortgage closing costs. According to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, these excessive fees can drain down payments and push up monthly mortgage costs, making homeownership less accessible. The Bureau is seeking to uncover why these costs are rising, who benefits from them, and how they might be reduced to alleviate the financial burden on both borrowers and lenders.
Mortgage lenders are also affected by these rising costs. Increased expenses for services like credit reports and title insurance can limit lenders’ ability to offer competitive mortgages, as they either pass these costs onto borrowers or absorb them, affecting their bottom line. The CFPB is particularly interested in understanding the competitive pressures and market barriers affecting these fees, as well as gathering data on the broader impacts on housing affordability and home equity.
The CFPB is calling on homeowners, homebuyers, and industry participants to share their stories, data, and insights on mortgage closing costs. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or by email. Your feedback will help shape future regulations and policies aimed at ensuring fair and transparent mortgage practices. For more details, including submission instructions, refer to the full notice from the CFPB below.
In a landmark case held on October 31, 2023, a Missouri jury found HomeServices of America, along with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Keller Williams, culpable of conspiring to inflate commission fees, resulting in nearly $1.8 billion in damages. While this settlement absolves HomeServices of America from further claims in this specific litigation, it does not extend to Berkshire Hathaway Energy or its affiliates, maintaining their exposure to potential liabilities.
The recent $250 million agreement contributes to a total exceeding $943.25 million in settlements reached in related cases over the past year. Earlier settlements include a $418 million agreement with NAR in March 2024, and others involving major industry players such as Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Compass, and Real Brokerage Inc., underscoring a significant reform movement within the real estate brokerage sector.
“These settlements mark a pivotal moment for American home sellers, who have historically been burdened with excessive commission fees,” remarked Benjamin D. Brown, Managing Partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. The lawsuit originated from Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, which challenged the NAR’s policy requiring home sellers to offer non-negotiable compensation to buyer brokers, significantly affecting the cost transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.
For more detailed information on the implications of these settlements and how they might affect your next real estate decision, consider consulting with a knowledgeable professional at MORE, REALTORS®, whose agents remain at the forefront of industry standards and practices.
Additional Resources:
The complete details can be found in the courts order below.
Since the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the plaintiffs in the following lawsuits—Christopher Moehrl v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Rhonda Burnett (originally Sitzer) v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Dawin Niel Umpa v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., and Don Gibson v. The National Association of Realtors—reached a settlement agreement on March 15, 2024, which is still pending court approval and thus preliminary at this point, the topic has dominated industry conversations. The focus of these lawsuits on buyer’s agent commissions has attracted more media attention since mid-March than it seems to have received in the over 40 years I’ve been in the business before that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying all this attention is bad. In fact, I believe it is beneficial. I’ve long advocated for educating consumers, feeling that the more home buyers and sellers know, the better decisions they can make. This is why I’m rapidly approaching the milestone of 3,000 articles on the topic of real estate in St. Louis on this site.
Now, I don’t do this solely for altruistic reasons; sharing the information and knowledge I’ve gained either through experience or research is also self-serving. As a broker-owner of MORE, REALTORS®, I’ve put forth just as much effort in sharing knowledge with our agents, and I am blessed to be surrounded by real estate professionals who are as eager as I am to increase their knowledge and hone their skills to better serve clients. Here’s the reward for me: informed and knowledgeable consumers seek out better and more professional agents, like the ones we’re in business with, creating a win-win situation.
Having said all that, while the attention from the media is beneficial, unfortunately, there is a lot of incorrect information out there and assertions being made that don’t seem to be based on facts, but rather on opinion. Oh yes, I have opinions too, plenty of them, many of which are shared on this site, but to the extent possible, I try to base them on facts and include the sources of my opinions.
Background: George Sheetz was mandated to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition for obtaining a residential building permit, which he contested as an unlawful exaction under the Takings Clause.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Barrett, vacated the ruling of the California Court of Appeal. The decision clarified that the Takings Clause does not differentiate between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions, reinforcing property rights protections against arbitrary government exactions.
Legal Principles Invoked: The Court applied the tests from Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, emphasizing that permit conditions must both have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the proposed development.
Impact and Precedent: The ruling underscores the necessity for governmental authorities, whether legislative or administrative, to adhere strictly to constitutional principles when imposing conditions on building permits. This decision is a significant affirmation of property rights, setting a precedent that both legislative and administrative exactions are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny.
This decision marks a critical juncture in property law, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting individual property rights against overreach by local governments.
Supreme Court Decision: SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO
(Click below to view the entire decision)
