More Confusion, Less Transparency: Law Professor Objects to NAR Settlement

By Dennis Norman, on October 30th, 2024

Legal Counsel Behind Billion-Dollar Verdict Vows to Enforce NAR Settlement Strictly

Tanya Monestier, a tenured law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law and former professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has stepped into the Sitzer v. NAR lawsuit with a compelling and meticulously researched objection to the proposed settlement. Monestier, whose academic work on contract law and consumer protection has been cited by courts across North America—including the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Canada—brings a formidable legal background to her critique. Her objection portrays the settlement as a superficial, paper-only solution that leaves consumers vulnerable to the same anti-competitive practices it claimed to remedy. As Monestier puts it, “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper… In the real world, the implementation of the settlement has been a disaster.”

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.