I'd go with the first Realtor, not only because I think it's the right thing to do:

The Realtor who held the open house is the listing agent;
he represents the seller, so his job is to get the best price & terms for the seller;

The first Realtor can act as your Buyer's Representative, whose job is the mirror image of the listing agent's job:

his/her goal is to get the best price & terms for the buyer.

I wish you the best.

Thanks, sylvia. Good point.

The realtor who held the open house is NOT the listing agent. The listing agent, the agent who held the open house and the agent we met with first are all in the same office.

I decided that the "right" thing to do was present our offer with the first realtor we had been dealing with. She wants us to "pre-date" and sign a contract with her to avoid any commission conflict. I'm not comfortable with this and won't do it.

What do you realtors think?

tlbb

I don't think it'll matter that the date is current/correct;
any buyer can select any Realtor as a buyer's rep.

Just to be extra-cautious, some Realtors will make an appointment & show the buyer the house even though the buyer has seen it already.

I'm not a realtor, but I wouldn't have a problem dating the buyers agent contract to the day I was out looking at properties with the agent. I would do so with a clean conscience because when I go out and look at several properties with an agent, I know I have every intention to use them as my agent.

I guess I should mention too, that if I had seen another place and it had an open house, even if done, I would have called the agent I spent time looking at properties with and tell him/her and ask if she could arrange for me to view it.

OK. It turns out we put an offer on this condo using our first agent (I did not pre-date the contract). We go back and forth with the price when in the middle of everything my realtor informs me that the place is designated a "Condo-tel" and not a regular Condominium.

We explicitly told her we were only interested in straight condos. How could she let this get so far? She says she was mis-informed by the mortgage guy in her office. I'm irritated to say the least. Isn't this something she should have known up front?

Also, what the heck is the difference between the two? This place has no "office" or rental pool that you have to use like a lot of the condo-tels in the area.

Can someone please, please explain the difference?

Thanks.

tlbb

"I'm not a realtor, but I wouldn't have a problem dating the buyers agent contract to the day I was out looking at properties with the agent. I would do so with a clean conscience because when I go out and look at several properties with an agent, I know I have every intention to use them as my agent."

The agent that showed you the unit is the 'procuring agent.'

The other agent wants the 'buyers agent' agreement back-dated since she knows this, and is trying to cut the guy out of his commission.

Let the agents fight it out with their broker.
It is not actually your problem.

No one here is qualified to determine "procuring cause of sale";

it's a very complicated issue, & it's probably the main cause of disputes filed with our Associations.

If showing the house entitled an agent to the fee for the buyer's side of the transaction, then none of us would have to ask potential buyers "Are you working with a Realtor?" before we showed them a house or even answered any very detailed questions.

If you want to work with Agent X, Y, or Z, it's your choice.

wish I could help you on the condo-tel question, but it's a new market to me.

I wish you the best.

A condo-tel is a condominium which is managed as a hotel, with all that entails. They were a hot item in certain markets, until the economy crashed. Some onwers have taken a real bath on them. Google the term for details.

That information should have been in the MLS and the agent should have seen it if it was. Perhaps the seller didn't disclose the information to the listing agent.

"No one here is qualified to determine "procuring cause of sale""

Well, I don't know what you are doing down in Texas, but in Northern Virginia the first agent to show the place to a buyer usually has first call on the commission.

My long time agent has always made very sure she personally shows be the house.

There is probably a lot of fighting when things like back dated agreements get involved.

"but in Northern Virginia the first agent to show the place to a buyer usually has first call on the commission."

There is alot more to procuring cause than opening a door for a buyer and local interpretations don't circumvent NAR's COE.

Here is a link that might be useful: Procuring Cause

As far as I know, no one who posts on this forum is an attorney.

One of the reasons I doubt that anyone here is an attorney is that attorneys almost always charge for an opinion.

Showing someone a property at an open house does not necessarily result in procurring cause, and having a signed Buyers Agency Agreement does not necessarily result in procurring cause niether.
Just use the first agent and let the agents worry about the commisssion.

"There is alot more to procuring cause than opening a door for a buyer and local interpretations don't circumvent NAR's COE."

NAR can promulgate all the rules they want, they ONLY apply to members who agree to abide by them, and are not law.

You are not required to be a member of NAR to be a broker or sales.

The first person to shopw a house has a strong case for being entitled to at least a share of the ciommision for a subsequent sale.

Every person at an open house is asked ti 'sign in' to help establish who will get a cut of the commission.

Or maybe in Texas you spend all your time with a code of ethics instead of the actual law.

No wonder there are so many fights.

In Texas, & I'd guess in every other state, codes of ethics are in effect & real estate practitioners sign agreements to abide by them, to help keep us all out of court.

much better to abide by a code of ethics than to have no recourse but lawsuit.