We are not even sure if the agent was acting as a buyer's agent. She could have been working as a transaction agent. FL agents that show property to people are required to disclose this in writing prior to showing the buyers any property. Jane...was she acting as a buyer's agent or transaction agent?

Exactly what terriks said. "You can't have it both ways."

You expressed more than the usual interest about this house to your agent, and even though the info the renter told you wasn't on the MLS, she did her job by attempting to verify the home's status. The easiest way is to call up the listing agent and ask "what the hey" about the info you heard from the tenant. If it's not on the MLS, then the owner or the agent is being deceptive, not your agent. Unless the tenant said that this was priviledged information known only to her because she was the tenant, the buyer's agent has no reason to not divulge the source of the info she was asking about. She was doing her job and you let her go for doing her job. And you're complaining about her doing her job under the system as it exists. That wasn't a fair reaction from you. You had a guilt response from speaking with the tenant, and instead of blaming the a-hole seller who is responsible for how he treats his tenant, you looked to put blame on your agent because deep down, you really didn't want to move there anyway.

I really feel for this agent, because, well, the title of your post could well apply to your behavior to her. You represented yourself as an actual buyer to her, and consequently she spent a lot of time on you. That was deeptive on your part. Your lack of knowledge of the reality of Florida living led you to this deception , but that's no excuse. If you have family there as you've said, and you've spent time there, it seems you should know the place well enough to be able to decide yes or no about moving there. Don't engage the services of another realtor until you are 100% sure of that question, because it's dishonest of you to engage their services on a false pretense. I agree that you owe the realtor an apology for your behavior. It would also be fair to give her a gift certificate for all of the gas she spent driving you around.

Are there many people looking in Florida in JULY?

I think 'half-backer' refers to a northerner who moves far south, then moves midway between north and south. Jane can skip the whole thing and buy in NC. lol We gave up on moving in retirement. We just stay at home in Chicagoland most of the year and shuttle to Maui for a break in winter.

Usually, the earlier contract takes precedence, so when the house is sold the lease would remain in force *normally*.

Sometimes there's a clause that the tenant agrees to move if the house is sold, usually for a fee or some kind of consideration;
even so, the tenant doesn't want to move & sabotages the owner's sale.

Also, if the house is in foreclosure or about to be in foreclosure, the tenant may be able to remain in the house, without making any more rental payments, until the new owner (the mortgage company) completes an eviction process.

The tenant could get several months of free rent if the house went to foreclosure sale, but would have to move or at least keep making rental payments if the house were sold by the current owner.

mpinto and greendesigns are exactly right.
Look folks, usually the explanation to something that happened is the most simple one. Same with most conspiracy theories.
You asked your agent to find out the status of the home, so she called the LA, who in turn called the seller, who in turn called the tenant. Pretty simple to understand. I would have done the same thing.

GreenDesigns said, "You had a guilt response from speaking with the tenant, and instead of blaming the a-hole seller who is responsible for how he treats his tenant, you looked to put blame on your agent because deep down, you really didn't want to move there anyway."

Even though you ripped apart my house one time, I've got to say, you're a pretty smart cookie. I think you hit the nail on the head.

OK, I just got here and I am left with one question:

How can anyone here who wasn't actually involved in this fiasco say they know what really happened?

But to the OP - if you felt there was something "not right" with the way the agent handled things, then that is reason enough to move on. You aren't obligated to make one of the biggest decisions of your life relying on someone you don't trust. I don't see how anyone here could advise you otherwise.

LoveInTheHouse, you and GreenDesigns, it makes two smart cookies.

Thank you Azmom.

Somehow my original question has gotten muddled. I asked if I should expect my Realtor to know if a house is about to be foreclosed? When an agent shows a house, it is not their responsibility to 'check' when asked directly by the buyer, if a house is a short sale or foreclosure?

I suppose it is my responsibility to check public court records on any house I am interested in?

My question was whether I was deceived by my agent, or whether she just didn't know. She could have said she didn't know.

Regarding the tenant. I doubt she had a lease. I know she planned to stop paying rent when the house went to auction. Her hope was that she could remain there, rent free for as long as it took the bank to tell her to leave. She was savvy.

I did have a guilt response when I found out the conversation, with my agent cause problems for the tenant. However, I had an 'angry response' when I found out my agent didn't provide us the information. My reason for firing her had to do with the fact that she either deceived us or didn't check to see if the house was a short sale, when I asked her. I was angry she gave out information on a private conversation. If she was trying to gather facts, she could have been discreet.

GreenDesigns, are you saying I should have called the LA to find out the information on the house? I think most people would ask their agent.

....."I really feel for this agent, because, well, the title of your post could well apply to your behavior to her. You represented yourself as an actual buyer to her, and consequently she spent a lot of time on you. That was deeptive on your part. Your lack of knowledge of the reality of Florida living led you to this deception , but that's no excuse."

I was/am an 'actual buyer.' Do you think I traveled 2,000 miles to play games with a Realtor? What lack of knowledge of the area? How do you know that?? My entire family has lived in Sarasota for over 40 years.

We are moving to a State we are not crazy about, but we are going to do it. People have their reasons for moving and we have ours. One doesn't always have the luxury of moving to the 'perfect place.' I did not deceive anyone.

I think my original question has been lost in this thread. I would like to have the information on the status of any house I look at.

BTW, GreenDesign, this was the first house she showed to us.
This was the first day we worked together. Not much gas wasted.

Jane

Jane Wrote:

"Somehow my original question has gotten muddled. I asked if I should expect my Realtor to know if a house is about to be foreclosed? When an agent shows a house, it is not their responsibility to 'check' when asked directly by the buyer, if a house is a short sale or foreclosure?"

Jane, One more time. It is the listing agent's responsibility to gather the material facts about the listings they advertise. This LA, for some reason, did not post this fact in the MLS. When you asked your agent if it was a foreclosure, she told you "NO", because it was not advertised as one by the LA. How hard is that to understand? When you kept asking, and because you were showing interest in the home, and because the tenant was saying otherwise, she called the LA to find out why there was a discrepancy. And the fact that the seller now knows that you know that it is a foreclosure, gives YOU the upperhand, not the seller. Your agent DID NOT give away any material facts that the seller could have used against you. You felt bad for the tenant, so you blamed the agent. You say the tenant is savvy for not paying rent, but I call that freeloading.
And again, if the home was such a great deal, why did you walk away from it? Foreclosures close in the same amount of time as a regular sale.

"I asked if I should expect my Realtor to know if a house is about to be foreclosed? When an agent shows a house, it is not their responsibility to 'check' when asked directly by the buyer, if a house is a short sale or foreclosure? "

Unless the seller is wiling to reveal the information to at least their listing agent there may be NO WAY for anyone to tell that is not directly involved between the owner and the lender.
There is only so much available in the public record until the foreclosure actually proceeds in many places.
Many lenders do NOT record a lis pendans since they control the release of the existing note lien already.

Why pay money to establish a power you already have?
The owner cannot convey title in any case without a release from the lien.

If you are dissatisfied with the agent, find another.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

"I did have a guilt response when I found out the conversation, with my agent cause problems for the tenant. However, I had an 'angry response' when I found out my agent didn't provide us the information. My reason for firing her had to do with the fact that she either deceived us or didn't check to see if the house was a short sale, when I asked her. I was angry she gave out information on a private conversation. If she was trying to gather facts, she could have been discreet."

The agents were the ones who caused the problem. The listing agent for not telling the BA and the BA for getting tenant in trouble (shooting the messenger) once she told you the truth.

I'd want to wash my hands of this situation as well. Not only because of the agents, but because of permits not being pulled for all the work that was done. ("We also discovered he did major work on the house, adding a huge family room, and a master bedroom suite. He added another bathroom and updated 2 other bathrooms. He did not have any permits filed.")

At least you know to look at the public records and talk to neighbors before believing what your so-called hired rep wants to you to believe.

I think the original poster pulled the Lis Pendens from public record for this property via the web. So agent could have done the same.

Maybe when asked whether ift was a foreclosure/short sale, the listing agent should have replied that the MLS is showing it as a normal sale, but she could have offerred to check public records if there was further interest on this home from the potential buyer. However, if buyer already stated that she was NOT interested in the home for other reasons, then no need to waste time on this home.

Jane, you said, "Somehow my original question has gotten muddled. I asked if I should expect my Realtor to know if a house is about to be foreclosed? When an agent shows a house, it is not their responsibility to 'check' when asked directly by the buyer, if a house is a short sale or foreclosure?"

But Jane, she DID check. She looked at the MLS. She had no reason to believe the information was incorrect. Then when you said that you found out otherwise, she called the listing agent.

I don't understand why your loyalties were for that tenant who is trying to live there for free. If you ask me, that's stealing. Really, I think all that agent was trying to do was find out for you.

LITH Wrote:

"I don't understand why your loyalties were for that tenant who is trying to live there for free. If you ask me, that's stealing. Really, I think all that agent was trying to do was find out for you."

Like I have said, usually the simplist answer is the correct answer.

Love - I asked her 'three times' if the house was a SHORT SALE!

She should have said, "I'll check and get back to you."

"Love - I asked her 'three times' if the house was a SHORT SALE!"

And it wasn't a short sale. It also wasn't a foreclosure. It was about to be foreclosed on, but that is an entirely different matter. An owner that is about to be foreclosed on BUT has enough equity to not have to do a short sale is an IDEAL seller in terms of wanting to get a sale done quickly.

Anyway, it is entirely within your right to fire an agent for any or no reason. If you weren't comfortable working with her, it is better for both of you to just part company. As an ethical matter though, it really isn't fair of you to go around bashing her as either deceptive or incompetent. She was just relying on the MLS data. That is the whole point of the MLS - to quickly communicate the important data about a property that is for sale.

"Anyway, it is entirely within your right to fire an agent for any or no reason. If you weren't comfortable working with her, it is better for both of you to just part company. As an ethical matter though, it really isn't fair of you to go around bashing her as either deceptive or incompetent. She was just relying on the MLS data. That is the whole point of the MLS - to quickly communicate the important data about a property that is for sale."

The Buyers Agent yapped to the listing agent and got the tenant evicted for telling the TRUTH! How ethical is that?

That alone would be enough to make me back out.

"The Buyers Agent yapped to the listing agent and got the tenant evicted for telling the TRUTH! How ethical is that?"

The owner evicted a tenant.
They must have been month to month or there would be no grounds for an eviction under a normal lease contrsct.

"The Buyers Agent yapped to the listing agent and got the tenant evicted for telling the TRUTH! How ethical is that? "

100% ethical. The buyers agent has a duty to the buyer to look into the discrepancy after it was brought to her attention.

The seller is the unethical person here. They are the ones who were hiding the status of the home. They are the one that kicked out the tenant. I say "kicked out" because there is no way they had the tenant legally evicted in this time frame.

jane_ny "Somehow my original question has gotten muddled. I asked if I should expect my Realtor to know if a house is about to be foreclosed? When an agent shows a house, it is not their responsibility to 'check' when asked directly by the buyer, if a house is a short sale or foreclosure?"

I think it should not be your responsibility to do the legwork. What is % does a realtor earn in commission in FL? Wouldn't the disclosure status of the home be the ultimate responsiblity of the agent? Also, wouldn't any of these problems the owner having be an issue with the title report, in the event jane went forward with this purchase?

While I don't frequent this forum, I think this is a very good cautionary tale. If I ever sell my home I will do so FSBO, with a full review of all documents from a legal standpoint. Not sure what I would do to buy a home. I don't have much faith in realtors after hearing many tales similar to this one, as well as reading this particular thread.

So glad I wandered to this forum.

I don't think I am bashing the agent. I asked if a Realtor should have this info. I asked because I am still looking at properties and would like to feel a little more secure knowing my agent DOES have my best interests at heart.

FWIW, I am also looking at property in NY and working with another Realtor. I told her the story. She said she would have known and the permits should have been pulled. She said the agent should have had the information. She thought it was wrong for her to mention the tenant at all. She said the status of the house could have been checked by simply asking the LA.

But isn't that what she did?! Ask the listing agent? Don't worry, this is the last time I'm piping in on this one. Whew.

Last for me too: She did a lot more than just asking. She never told me she'd check, she told me, it is a 'straight sale.' She ratted on me and the tenant...she should have simply asked the LA if it was a distressed sale. She could have maintained our privacy. My conversation with her was private. She didn't!

Whew..

Jane...
If your agent would have asked the LA what the status of the home was, the LA would have told her it was a straight sale, because she was lied to by the sellers. The only way your agent could have figured if the home was something other than advertised, was to let the LA know that the tenant had told you that the home was in the foreclosure process.
And by the sellers knowing that you now know, in no way gives the seller more leverage... just the opposite.
Did you ethically let your new agent know that you may be wasting her time, since you are still looking in Fl. too, per your post a few back?

Jane, your last post pretty much sums up what happened quiet simply. As I said before you where correct to dismiss your RA. She no longer had your trust due to her lack of ethics and speaking out of turn. As stated by a previous poster...I'll be selling our home FSBO when we decide to retire and downsize also. Due to my own personal experiences (and those of my family and friends)with agents and stories like these and others on this forum, they just aren't worth the commission price. NancyLouise

"Jane...
If your agent would have asked the LA what the status of the home was, the LA would have told her it was a straight sale, because she was lied to by the sellers."

When you are taking on a client, isn't it in your best interest to find out if the owner is telling the truth (still owns it/not a foreclosure/etc)? Can you trust a fellow realtor to give YOU all the facts? What would you do if you found out otherwise?

"Did you ethically let your new agent know that you may be wasting her time, since you are still looking in Fl. too, per your post a few back? "

Cheap shot.

Having read this whole thread, here's my two cents... it seems unreasonable to expect an agent who is showing houses to a prospective buyer to question everything that is stated by the seller. How can that possibly work? And how insulting to the sellers agent if there was such mistrust between agents. Only when there was evidence to the contrary was it logical for the buyers agent to ask for confirmation from the listing agent. Which she did.

Thank you, gardener.

Dreamgarden wrote:

"Did you ethically let your new agent know that you may be wasting her time, since you are still looking in Fl. too, per your post a few back? "

"Cheap shot."

Not a cheap shot at all. This entire thread was bought on by Jane thinking that someone was not treating her ethically... just saying...

"FWIW, I am also looking at property in NY and working with another Realtor. I told her the story. She said she would have known and the permits should have been pulled. She said the agent should have had the information. She thought it was wrong for her to mention the tenant at all. She said the status of the house could have been checked by simply asking the LA. "

There is no such thing as occupancy permit for resales in Florida. No one check if there has been any alterations to the buildings, so the fact that in NY you need to pull permits, does not mean you need to pull permits the same way in FL.
You stated that you asked if this was "short sale" and the agent said no, as per MLS it was not "short sale". I do not know any agent who would pull mortgage information from court papers to check if it is possibly a short sale, and even if the asking price is less than the stated mortgage amounts on court papers, the seller might have enough reserves to cover the difference, hence not short sale.

I wasn't going to answer any further, but I have to ask how I was wasting her time?
I posted a question. I'm looking at real estate and wanted to know if lack of knowledge or deception was the reason I was not told I was looking at a distressed property.

I don't appreciate being accused of something I didn't do.

Jane

I feel like my answer was not clear - in most likelihood the agent was neither deceptive nor lacking of knowledge.

ncrealestateguy-You never answered my first question:

("Jane... If your agent would have asked the LA what the status of the home was, the LA would have told her it was a straight sale, because she was lied to by the sellers.")

When you are taking on a client, isn't it in your best interest to find out if the owner is telling the truth (still owns it/not a foreclosure/etc)? Can you trust a fellow realtor to give YOU all the facts? What would you do if you found out otherwise?

"When you are taking on a client, isn't it in your best interest to find out if the owner is telling the truth (still owns it/not a foreclosure/etc)?"

That is a straw man argument. Of course it is better to know the facts. The question is how much time (and money) should someone spend verifying the facts and cross checking them against multiple sources? Generally, I think it is reasonable to say that there should be some additional verification of key items before an offer is made but not necessarily before every showing.

Exactly, Bill.
No LA is going to waste their time and energy by advertising a home as a straight sale, knowing that it is a short sale. The LA wants the home to sell to, in order to get paid. Every LA knows that the deception would be found sooner or later, and the deal probably would fall apart. Why would a LA do this sort of nonsense.
Dreamer, as soon as my buyers narrow their choice to 3 properties or less, I then go into research mode, and take nothing for granted nor do I assume what anything tells me about the properties.

Okay, one more time. We sold our home in NY last year. Before listing, while interviewing Realtors, each went to the Town and looked at permits. I didn't even have a relationship with these people. There were three agents from different agencies.

I didn't know they would do this, but during the interview, each one told me I should check with the Town because there was no CO filed on my sunroom. I was not aware of that until met with these Realtors. Sunroom was built 15 years before.

I knew there should have been a CO but immediately went down to Town Hall and the CO had not been filed. It was a mistake and took a few visits to clear up.

Each had the square footage from the Town. Each had tax records, etc. They noticed I was grieving the taxes and was thrilled. All stated that would be included in the listing.

I would assume they would have noticed if I hadn't paid my taxes for two years. Wouldn't they??

They certainly knew I didn't have the CO for the sunroom.

These were not Realtors I had met before. It was my first meeting. One Realtor wanted to double-check the square-footage and proceeded to measure my rooms.

In my mind, those Realtors were professionals and I trusted each of them. My choice really had to do with personality and amount of sales.

One other point. I looked up the address of the above property on Trulia and it is still listed with the same agency. No mention of short-sale nor foreclosure. I realize it hasn't become a forclosure yet, but I wonder what the Realtor would say if someone asked if the property was distressed. Its obvious she knows the truth now! Why are they still listing the property if they were deceived by the seller?

I have no idea why this would be going on. In response to Bill, it doesn't make sense. But no one was asking anyone to check and cross-check. I asked if the house was a distressed property. Three times I was told no.

Jane

Jane, I am sorry but you are not hearing. There is no such CO system in FL. Once you build a brand new house, you get a CO and that's it. After that you can do what ever you want to your house and there is no more CO requirement. States are different, FL is very different from NY. How it works in one place has no reflection how it works in other. So what ever your NY agents are telling you is irrelevant when it comes to FL.
I know people who did not pay their real estate taxes for two years because of cash flow reasons and then started paying the older ones, because after two years they counties start selling the delinquencies. So even the fact that real estate taxes were not paid two years is not iron glad proof of distressed property. Your buyer agent had no way to know for sure that this was distressed property unless she was told so by selling agent.

"One other point. I looked up the address of the above property on Trulia and it is still listed with the same agency. No mention of short-sale nor foreclosure. I realize it hasn't become a forclosure yet, but I wonder what the Realtor would say if someone asked if the property was distressed. Its obvious she knows the truth now! Why are they still listing the property if they were deceived by the seller?

I have no idea why this would be going on. In response to Bill, it doesn't make sense. But no one was asking anyone to check and cross-check. I asked if the house was a distressed property. Three times I was told no."

Jane, what was the point in hiring someone who didn't know anymore about the house than you?

Your experience made me think of an article in Smart Money mag about why so many people are looking on their own without an agent.

A link that might be useful:

www.smartmoney.com/spend/real-estate/do-you-need-a-buyers-agent-1304523622290/?cid=1122

When buying a house it will be important to build an ideal relationship with the realtor because most likely, they will be the one in charge of the house search and you will rely on the details that they provide.
A smart realtor will know right away if a house is good buy or not and of course, he/she will go out of his/her way to make sure that your investment will be protected.
We cannot easily judge if it was an honest mistake or of there was really some shortcoming from the part of the realtor but this should be a lesson for every buyer that they should try to be more assertive in dealing with a very important transaction.

Jane,
What is the address of the property?

"I have no idea why this would be going on. In response to Bill, it doesn't make sense. But no one was asking anyone to check and cross-check. I asked if the house was a distressed property. Three times I was told no." "

There is no official thing called "distressed". The bank can foreclose and then it would be bank owned. That didn't happen. The seller can be trying to do a short sale. They weren't. If the seller was selling above the amount they owed, it doesn't matter if the bank wanted to foreclose in the future. It would have no impact on the sale to you.

Also, you have repeatedly said you expected your agent to cross check. In the same breath, you are saying you think it is the Listing Agents job to verify the info. Whose job is it?

As for the LA disclosing that her client is having financial trouble - I should hope not. That would be a serious ethical violation. It would be the equivalent of saying "Please lowball my client. They will take any offer to get this thing sold and avoid foreclosure."

..."Also, you have repeatedly said you expected your agent to cross check. In the same breath, you are saying you think it is the Listing Agents job to verify the info. Whose job is it? "

My listing agents checked on my house before listing it.

I never said I repeatedly expected my agent to cross check! I said, I asked her if the sale was a distressed, a short sale. I never asked her to check because I assumed she already had the information. I thought, that's what a real estate agent would be expected to know. If the LA had checked, she would have the information...no? Why did no one know? Seems sloppy work to me.

Distressed is a term frequently used, I am not a Realtor. I don't understand short-sales, foreclosures, etc. I made it clear to my Realtor that we did not want to be involved in any of those. We wanted a straight, direct sale. We wanted to close as soon as possible.

If the only role a Realtor has is to open the door to a property, what is the point? I know that isn't true because I have worked and continue to work, with Realtors who are professionals.

I don't understand why this argument continues. I asked a valid question and got mixed opinions. I still don't understand what the answer is.

If I remember correctly, the house goes to auction on July 24th.

Here is a link that might be useful: Siesta Key

Okay, Jane. Sorry, I just returned from vacation and noticed this thread involved my neck 'o the woods.
My MLS just merged into the same MLS as the home in question, so I'm new to the format, but I can answer your question about what is visible to your ex-Realtor.
Firstly, "distressed" is our unofficial term that includes short sales and pre-foreclosures, REO (bank-owned), foreclosures, etc.
Since you were specific to your ex-Realtor that you did not want to consider distressed homes, "REO/Bank Owned" and "Short Sale" can be excluded in the search criteria. When I did a search for REO/Bank Owned, this house did not pop up, so that criteria was not entered into MLS (I don't know whether that is a required field, so I can't tell you if this is a violation or not.)
You did specifically ask whether this home was a short sale, and there is absolutely NO WAY an agent can not know that a home is a short sale because there is very specific verbiage that is required to be the first thing in the remarks. This home is not a short sale.
Next, I see that the owner is listed as "American Land Investors" which doesn't sound like a person. One click of my mouse takes me to the public records that tells me the foreclosure was filed on 8/6/2009. I can't see anything about an auction.
Of note, public records state that the home is 1592sf heated, while MLS states 2541sf. So it makes sense that the listing agent specifies that the "as-is contract" is to be used, because the standard contract is very specific about permits and correcting non-permitted work.

Here's how it would've worked with me. You would have told me your criteria. I would've told you that I don't do short sales or distressed properties because (1) I'm not an expert, and I'd refer you to someone who is if that's the direction you wanted to go and (2) they are just too emotional and draining for me. An acquaintance just took almost two years to get his short sale home. (Cape Coral is a unique area and I'm not surprised a short sale took a month. I doubt that would happen on Siesta Key.)
I would have sent you listings that met your criteria and you'd tell me which ones you were interested in seeing when you were in town. This would be updated within a day or two of your visit. If you popped a property on me that was listed with a Realtor (i.e. you saw a sign that was not a FSBO), I would assume that there was a problem or else it would have been on the list I provided you, right?
I'd still look it up, because there's always the chance that it's a brand-new listing. A quick look at the MLS - about all I'd have time for if you wanted to see it ASAP - wouldn't have flagged anything to me. I probably would not have noticed the ownership nor looked at the public record. I would have scanned it and immediately tried to get a hold of the listing agent to schedule that showing, because it can take a while to work out. Later, after the showing, if you were still interested in the home, then I'd find out all that stuff before you made an offer.

What I find interesting is how the square footage doesn't match. That's an auto-fill from public records, normally. I haven't tried to change that field, but obviously the listing agent manually entered everything (ugh) or was able to change the fields that auto-populate. The permitting issue is HUGE and I would RUN, not walk away from that house. If the owner did the work, you have no idea if the work was done to code. Electrical is behind drywall and no inspector would sign that off unless you ripped the house apart.

I hope this actually answers your question. I'm being kicked off the computer so I don't have time to proofread this!!!.....Lisa

Sounds like perhaps we have a disgruntled tenant that does not want the home to be sold.
Lisa, what about the public access that so many people mentioned in this thread that allows anyone to check the foreclosure status of any property? What does THIS site say to you?

I don't understand why any of this would involve the tenant. The info is public as are the County records. Anyone can look up any address and get the information. The tenant didn't provide nor offer the County Records.

From what I could see, the owner changed the ownership from his name and put it into an Llc. From what I hear, that is done frequently to prevent the banks or creditors from going after them. I saw many homes in Florida listed as Llc's. Apparently, this is legal.

Realestateguy, why do you point a finger at the tenant? You can look up this information as can anyone else. I did and continue to look up houses through their Public Country Records. Its quite easy and user friendly. I wish it was offered in NY.

The tenant did nothing wrong. Whether the RA did is the question. I don't know and in the future will insist my agent try to get as much information as possible about a house I am planning to make an offer on. It is apparent this house is a tear-down.

Jane

Did the home go to auction last week as the tenant said it was going to?

Jane,
I took a fresh look at your postings and the listing this morning, which, BTW, expired yesterday. I'm really trying to determine your initial question: deception or lacking? on the part of your buyer's agent.

Also, I feel obligated to point out that the listing agent DID know that the home was in pre-foreclosure, not that this is relevant.

First, you got "hundreds" of listings forwarded to you based on MLS criteria:
The "special sale" field is mandatory, but would not show anything because the only options are "none", "short sale" or "REO/Bank Owned" (defined: a property which is being offered for sale by a lender or other party who: (i) holds legal title to such property, (ii) does not reside in the property, and (iii) is not in the business of acquiring, selling, holding for investment, or otherwise managing or renting, such property.)
The "auction" field is also mandatory, but honestly, I cannot see where it is to be auctioned. Again, this is a new system for me, and we (ex-Suncoast MLS agents, now MFRMLS) have a new public records access program (IMAPP) and I haven't been in town to take the classes on this new program. What I'm saying is that the way we look at public records is obviously different from how the public looks at it through the county website. Since I do business in Pinellas County, I'm not familiar with Sarasota County's public records. This is the first time I've heard of a discrepancy between what the public records say and what IMAPP tells us.
Anyway, these are the only two fields that can eliminate distressed homes from your list, and they wouldn't have worked for this home. You should not have gotten ANY short sales in your big list, but you can see how foreclosures can slip into an auto-generated list.

Then, you returned to the agent with the homes that you were most interested in seeing when you were in town. IMHO, this is where the agent actually "works" to screen each of the listings. This involves scouring the entire MLS listing, mapping the location, looking at the pictures, checking public records (using IMAPP), etc. As you mentioned, the owner's name doesn't necessarily mean anything (many homes are owned in trusts), but it does raise a flag of something to look deeper into. That the home is not homesteaded is a flag (home not the primary residence of the owner). Specifying use of the "as-is contract" is a flag. Just things to look at a bit closer.

So I think where your buyer's agent screwed up was not catching the foreclosure proceedings at this step, before the home was shown. And when you pointed this out to the agent, he/she should have been embarrassed for not catching it before you did. Sure, mistakes happen and can see how this could slip through the cracks if you had a pretty long list of houses to view. But it is in no way the fault of the listing agent (or tenant).

If you were seriously thinking about making an offer, the agent would have a second chance to catch it when going back into the system to do a quick CMA to help you make a good offer, and should have caught the square footage discrepancy as well. I did not see that you thought this was a tear-down until your last posting, which does change the strategy.

Keeping in mind that non-permitted work is not insurable, which is not usually a problem when it is below the main living areas (raised homes), and may not be an issue with a cash purchase, depending on the mindset of the buyer. (And as somebody mentioned, July - actually all of hurricane season - can be a difficult time to buy in Florida because you can't get insurance if there happens to be a named storm at the time of closing.) This is a non-issue if you're planning to tear down.

Bottom line: your buyer's agent works for you and should have caught this. After you pointed it out, the agent should have gone back to verify that what you were saying was true and apologized to you. Taking it out on the listing agent (and then the tenant) was inappropriate - it really has nothing to do with the listing agent unless there was an MLS violation and I don't see that. I can't imagine what your agent would have to gain by being deceptive, so I feel that it was more along the lines of ignorance. You were right to move on to a more knowledgeable agent.