I think you already know the answer.

I know what I would have done. But I am not a Realtor.

I would like to hear from the Realtors what they would actually do in this instance - the process one follows. I know there are a few good ones (from all appearances) here so I would like to hear what is customary when this situation arises from the agents.

If the agent represents both it's called Dual Agency which is illegal in 8 states.

If the Listing Agent wanted to represent the buyer then they should have signed a contract with them. At the same time the buyer was under no obligation to sign on with them even after a showing.

When I was a Realtor I was always willing to show homes I was selling to unrepresented buyers because the buyer may not even like that house and use me moving forward.

I'm a Realtor, and Denita was spot on.

Thank you for that answer, Denita. This was my impression though I was a bit unclear as to what "cutting ties" would mean in practice, as I have read if Buyer specifically cuts ties with Agent and indicates he doesn't think it's a good fit, he is free to move to another and submit an offer. But that didn't happen here, from my understanding. Buyer just put off List Agent with vague "I'm considering it" sort of representations and then came in through another Agent with an offer.

The "I'm considering it" (cutting ties) answer is a lot like the "Not Really" answer in many cases. The words themselves convey one thing, but the buyers intent is something else. Buyers do cut ties with agents. It can sometimes be difficult to discern when the buyer really has cut ties or not.

A different perspective...

Before I start I know this is going to be a bit rude, but these things have real financial consequences for sellers and if I am paying someone to sell a property for me and I have rather high expectations.

I look at properties in about a 30 mile radius from my home which is about 15 miles from my realtor's home. I often don't feel like dragging my realtor 40 miles from her home to show me a property when the selling agent lives 3 miles from the home. I explain that over the phone and expect to be shown the house. I don't particularly like subterfuge but I like the idea of a selling agent refusing to show a house to a potential buyer a heck of a lot less.

If I find out you refused to show my property to a potential buyer when you were available, then I am going to take my business elsewhere in the future. The marginal cost for showing a house that you have listed is pretty small, certainly it is lower than the marginal cost of not selling a home.

I don't see how there is an ethical violation in this case, in fact, it seems very unlikely unless you are trying to lure a buyer away from their agent. You are the disclosed selling agent, you are contacted to show the house because of that. Where is the ethical violation there? There may be an ethical violation if you were to represent or pretend to represent the buyer, but so long as you only attempt to represent the seller there is no ethical dilemma.

---

From a seller's perspective...

None of the properties I sold this year made it 48 hours on the market. I just sold one this week that had a dozen showings on the first day it was listed. I insist that my realtor have someone available to show the house for most of the day on the day we list it. I expect that everyone who is even potentially interested in presenting an offer have an opportunity to see the property before the offer review deadline, and I expect my agent to help facilitate that in order to get me more offers. I expect my agent to contact the buyer's agent and offer to facilitate making the house available for buyers who make appointments after the offer review deadline. I have had several offers from people whose agents never managed to see the property before the offer deadline. That added competition means more money for me.

---

In the OP's case: Your agent sold the house, for the commission agreed upon to sell the house. What was your agent's marginal cost for showing the house to one buyer in order to accomplish that? What was the marginal savings by showing the house to one buyer? Suppose your agent spent $5 in gas to drive to the house and the whole deal took an hour. Now compare that to the cost of not selling the house and continuing efforts to market it.

Your post isn't rude. You disclosed right up front that you are the buyer and who your agent is and that s/he won't be able to show it....just like I mentioned in my post responding to the OP's question. Win-win situation.

I am not sure that disclosing up front is material though. It seems to me that this is a bit of a Catch 22 and is largely a defect in the monetization of real estate transactions.

Think of it like this...

Suppose someone contacts you and doesn't reveal that they have an agent but you are aware they actually do. Suppose you have a crystal ball that is always 100% correct, it tells you that if you show the house to this person they will make an offer and the house will get sold, but you will not get the selling agent commission.

Knowing the showing will sell the house, do you show it?

Are you ethically required to show a house that you are being paid to sell if you knew the showing would lead to a sell even if they hire a different selling agent?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, the problem isn't with the buyer. it is with all the other people who you did the same thing for, who didn't end up buying the house.

If I have a crystal ball and know 100% that the person that called is going to buy the house and has an agent (they didn't disclose), I show the house. When the offer comes in from their agent, then I present it immediately to the seller. I have been informed by virtue of the written offer that the buyer is represented by another agent. I'm not standing in the way of a sale - even if I'm not participating in that portion of the commission. Remember, I'm the listing agent so I am being compensated for the listing portion of the commission. It's the ethical thing to do.

In your scenario showing a potential buyer that listing under the conditions that we have been discussing and not having them buy is also part of the business.

Typically, your specific situation comes up in 2 ways: 1) buyer has a relative in the business (not working it but has an active RE license) and the relative doesn't want to show the properties because it's inconvenient or too far or doesn't have a supra key and 2) investor has an agent that they work with regularly and are loyal to (may or may not be a relative) and the investor wants to see it now and not bother his agent. From my personal POV, I am much more receptive when the buyer discloses right up front. Remember, the goal is to get the property sold.

I guess I am misunderstanding. In my view the conditions of the seller's agents are immaterial. Regardless of the reason the buyer feels uncomfortable asking their agent to show the property, if they can prove they are interested in, and capable of buying, the property, they should be shown the property.

In the end, whether their agent was out of town, or whether it was a relative, or really any other reason, doesn't matter. If you showed the house and sold it, then showing the house was the right move for the sellers. If you showed the house and didn't sell it that would be annoying and those people wasted your time, but the person who actually bought it didn't waste your time or the seller's.

I honestly don't understand how a realtor can ethically refuse to show a house they are selling regardless of commission arrangements. Dual agency is an ethical gray area at best, so being upset that a buyer didn't pay you for a disclosed conflict of interest seems a bit of stretch to me.

One of the reasons we want to know the buyers broker is our Code of Ethics (16-9) says we have an affirmative obligation to make reasonable efforts to determine if the prospect buyer has a current valid exclusive agreement with another Realtor. (16-9 COE Paraphrased).

I want to do what is right for the seller and the buyer. Normally it is best for the buyer to continue to work with their agent rather than hop from agent to agent.

I never said I was upset about a "disclosed conflict of interest" in any way, shape or form. Besides, selling the house is not a conflict of interest.

I'm the listing agent in your scenario. My job is to make sure as many people see the property as possible to get the maximum number of offers. I don't understand your last line of the previous post.

I want to do what is right for the seller and the buyer. Normally it is best for the buyer to continue to work with their agent rather than hop from agent to agent.

Why does this have anything to do with hopping from agent to agent? For whatever reason the buyer ask the seller's agent rather than their own agent to show them the property. They didn't disclose that they had an agent and so the selling agent may be working under the presumption that they are representing both the buyer and seller, but that doesn't mean the buyer is working under that same presumption. We can assume that the buyer knew all along that they would not use the seller's agent and thus were not agent hopping.

There is no ethical violation in showing a property, when contacted specifically because you are the disclosed selling agent of the property. Implicit in their contacting you is the acceptance that you are the representative of the seller rather than the buyer. In fact, that is why they contacted you.

Now that gets a little more cloudy if they then ask you to be their agent and represent them on the property. However, that conflict of interest doesn't exist until they ask you to represent them in the transaction rather than simply show the property to them. Which is why COE 16-9 specifically governs entering into a representation agreement. This is vastly different than showing a home. If this were the case then open houses would be unethical.

If it is not an ethical violation to show a house to someone whose realtor had a verifiable and accepted impediment to showing them the house, then it is not an ethical violation to show a house to someone whose realtor didn't have a verifiable and accepted impediment to showing them the house.

Really, there is no valid reason for the query asking if they are currently working with an agent other than not wanting to do that agent's job for them. Which is fine. I don't like doing other people's work either and wouldn't begrudge anyone hoping to avoid that, but if it is not avoidable with some gentle prodding, I submit you should show the home without any expectation of commission. In my opinion, your duty to the seller should overcome your reluctance to do a buying realtor's job for them.

As for my last sentence, while I am responding to you, my response is still directed to the original scenario. An agent showed a house and was not told the buyers had another agent. The agent then received an offer from that buyer but through a previously undisclosed realtor. The answser to the question of what should have happened, is exactly what did happen. The selling agent was contracted to sell a house, they showed the house and it sold, that is exactly what they get paid commission to do. The fact that someone else got a different commission because the buyer's were uncomfortable with dual agency is not really material.

Another interesting way to think about this is to stand it on its head and think of a time when a selling realtor gets a commission when their efforts didn't lead to the sale.

For example, on the house we just sold one of the offers came from a Facebook follower. She had been following the upgrades on Facebook and asked to be notified when we put the property on the market. My wife notified her the night before it was on the market and she saw the place and submitted an offer because of our marketing and subsequent notification rather than the realtor's marketing. What should happen in that situation?

Obviously the realtor is going to get her full commission but... If there is a concern about paying a buying realtor's full commission when they didn't participate in the successful showing of the house, then shouldn't there also be a concern about paying a selling realtor's full commission when they didn't participate in the successful marketing of the house?

bry911 from your post 2 posts above: "The agent then received an offer from that buyer but through a previously undisclosed realtor. The answser to the question of what should have happened, is exactly what did happen. The selling agent was contacted to sell a house, they showed the house and it sold, that is exactly what they get paid commission to do. The fact that someone else got commission because the buyer's were uncomfortable with dual agency is not really material "

^Your conclusion is exactly what my conclusion was to the OP in my original response.

In your second example above, presumably your Realtor does more to service the sale than just show the property. So I agree with your conclusion there too. The servicing of the listing doesn't start and stop with showing the property. It is one of the duties of the listing agent, but not the only one.

I haven't read all the back and (after the first few) but why do you assume the seller had an agent but didn't disclose. It certainly is possible that a person saw the house through the listing agent, was interested, and then got an agent to follow through on the sale because they wanted an agent to represent their interests, not the sellers.

I did mention that possibility originally.

However, it is pretty clear in this situation that the Buyer obscured/lied about having an agent, due to the fast sequence of events.

The Seller's Agent did the right thing here; the house got shown and it got sold.

I apologize up front that I did not read all the posts but read enough to get the idea.

What if you go to Open Houses to see a property without having an Agent?

When we were planning to list our house, we decided to interview various Realtors in our area. We met with three different Realtors from three different Agencies.

During this time, I would attend Open Houses in our area to try to decide how to price our home and what was for sale in our area. During one of these Open Houses, I met a Realtor who I really liked. I felt so comfortable talking to her. I told her we were planning to list and asked her to come to look at our house. She came and we decided to hire her.

I didn't realize the Realtor at the Open House, who we contracted with, was with the same Agency as one of the agents we previously interviewed.

At the time of closing, the other Realtor showed up from her Agency. This was one of the people we had called to give us their evaluation of our house and a price. I never signed with her nor contacted her again. Both my husband I and did not feel comfortable with her.

I was shocked to see her at the closing.

Long and short, I found out after that, my agent who sold our house, had to split her commission with the other woman from her agency. I was furious! When all was over, I gave our agent a check to make sure she got more than the woman who never showed, nor sold our house.

Our agent explained that it was the policy of their agency. I thought that was terrible and still do 6 yrs. later.

Jane

You certainly should have been informed of this policy, Jane.

And it should have been clear in the Listing Agreement, as well.

jane_ny, that was a very unusual experience unless the agent you actually hired was working for the agent that showed up to your closing. That would be common in a team where there is a lead agent and several agents working under the lead agent. That kind of team relationship should have been discussed with you at the time of the listing and in writing in the Listing Agreement as pointed out above.