There's no law that says you have to list with the agent representing the seller of the house you buy. And there's no law that requires the agent to lower his commission because you buy one of his listings.

Not every negotiation ends up in a meeting of minds.

Wrong - No. More like greedy in my mind, but I can't blame him for wanting to try to get the most amount of money possible in this market.

I'd negotiate it to what you think is fair. If you handle your side of the transaction with a sale of your house (you could hire a lawyer) - then no I don't think he should get that commission. If he does all the paperwork and work on your end I do think he should get something for his time, however full 6% on both sales (I know trade, but it will really be like 2 sales) is imo too much for not having the listing to start with and being out any money for marketing etc.

If it were me I would negotiate a flat fee for his work on your house or hire an experienced real estate lawyer. I imagine the seller still will have to pay him from their end.

"If you handle your side of the transaction with a sale of your house (you could hire a lawyer) - then no I don't think he should get that commission."

The problem is that that never happens in just that way.

The agent ends up managing both transactions -
*has* to in order to protect his/her fee on the one already listed.

(Have the sellers seen your house & indicated that they want it?)

sylviatexas, yes the sellers have seen our home and are willing to do the trade if we can agree on the prices of each others homes.

The agent ends up managing both transactions -
*has* to in order to protect his/her fee on the one already listed.

That is true no matter what if he is selling to somebody with a buyers agent. He only gets 1/2 then so he is getting the full commission this time so it seems like he is ahead anyways if the OP handles their parts themselves or with a lawyer.

I think it actually saves him some time and he makes more in that if the seller also was using the agent as a their buyers agent all the agent get is another half unless he sold them his/her own listing. If they are trading down they are probably buying something smaller and the commission would end up less.

Unless he has another prospect to bring in a buyer to get the full commission himself (or herself) it seems to me like this gets him more pay for the same work except having to drag his client around looking at homes as well.

I don't think the OP should be obligated to pay him commission too. A flat fee if they want him to handle some stuff for them seems reasonable.

No this isn't the same thing at all;

there are *2* transactions here.

Yes there are two transactions. In one case he acts as the listing agent and in the other he is the buyers agent if the OP handle their own paper work on the purchase of his listing and the selling of their residence to his client by themselves or using a lawyer.

Unless he has a buyer lined up for his listing that doesn't have a buyers agent he is likely making more with this scenario than he would if somebody with a buyers agent bought his listing as he'd have to split the comission and then when his client goes and buys something at a lower price (since they are moving down) he again has to split it with the buyers agent, however it will be lower.

Say the current listing is 200K and he gets 6% - That is 12K.

If he didn't have this deal he splits this and gets 3% - 6K and then his client buys something else that is less lets say 180K (which isn't that much less) and he gets 3% of that then he gets 5.4K for a total of 11.4K which is less.

He still has to work on his end for both these and he has to find listings to show etc, and he may make less.

I can't blame him for trying to get more out of this, it is his business, but I completely understand the OP not wanting to do that and I wouldn't either. They can hire somebody for a flat fee to handle their end and come out way ahead and probably be more flexible in their negotiating to make this deal work as well.

I truly appreciate all the feedback. I feel better with my opinion on this matter.

Hey - sorry - but 6% is the absolute minimum that the buyer's (downsizer - homeowner 'A') RE A deserves.

Original Poster (buyer 'B') has no written contract with RE Agent.

'A' signed a contract with RE Agent. Probably 3% to Listing Office Commission; and 3% to Selling Office Commission.

The Listing Agent for homeowner 'A' - brought the purchaser to the deal. He/She is BOTH the Listing and the Selling agent in this transaction.

They are legally, and by CONTRACT entitled to the full 6% commission. Period. They do need to have given both parties a 'Dual Agency disclosure.'

That is for the selling of the ONE house which has a signed contract.

Now, for the Original Poster - this Agent has also brought them a buyer. And, although they do not have a contract with this agent - the agent has done work for them, showing them houses, etc. And brought a potential buyer for THEIR house...

Morally - that requires that 'B' should pay a commission as well. Or - do they expect that the RE Agent should work for free??

"B" can sign a contract with another Agent. "B" can go to an attorney, and possibly get a better rate on the selling of THEIR home...

And the selling of the home which "B" occupies is another transaction. Which if "A" RE Agent is involved with - entitles the RE Agent to ANOTHER commission. That commission can be negotiated... and "B" does not have to use this RE Agent who has been showing them homes, doing Comp's etc. That is their choice.

But on the deal described by 'B' - if they purchase the home they have been looking at, and talked about in their post - then the RE Agent is LEGALLY entitled to the full 6%.

And, although people might want to say that it is 'selfish' and 'unfair' - if they help 'B' sell their home - then they are entitled to MORE commission - on THAT transaction!