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®.
