Business

Dear John: Realtor’s liable to sue

Dear John: I was trying to sell my home, FSBO — For Sale By Owner — for four weeks, but on Thursday I listed with Coldwell Banker. Now I have two people who attended my FSBO Open House and want to make an offer.

My agent tells me to put them in touch with her since the house is no longer FSBO.

I have no problem with that but my question is: Do I have to pay 5 percent (2.5 seller/2.5 buyer) commission as there is no buyer’s Realtor involved at all? Please let me know your thoughts.

Thank you, as I feel they want to bring the buyers into my Realtor’s office so he can “work” with my Realtor’s manager. Sue.

Dear Sue: Your name is very appropriate for this question because you will probably get sued if you try to beat the Realtor out of the 5 percent.

But it all depends on the listing agreement you signed with Coldwell, according to Anthony Gatto, director of legal services for New York State Association of Realtors. “There’s no easy answer.”

Most agreements in New York State are exclusives, although there is no universal language. But unless you had the foresight to exclude possible buyers from your FSBO Open House — and have it stated in your contract with Coldwell — you are out of luck.

You could, of course, pull the house from the market, or refuse all offers brought to you by Coldwell. And then find the potential buyers from the FSBO Open House and hope they are still interested.

But you’ll probably get sued, Sue. And it’ll end up costing you more in the long run.

That being said, you should ask Coldwell for a lower commission. It can’t hurt. And the Realtor might be swayed by the idea of fairness and the good publicity she would gain from the move.

Just don’t count on this outcome.

If that fails, look at the broker’s fee as part of the tuition we pay to get smarter.

Dear John: I always enjoy your columns, including the recent one on college athletes. I’ve long felt that the big problem is the hypocrisy around the whole NCAA structure and have proposed two crystal-clear alternatives.

The first is slightly cynical, but realistic: Acknowledge that Division I football and basketball players are essentially professional entertainers, not students,
then allow them five years to complete four years of competitive athletic eligibility.

Pay them all $50K, plus room and board and reasonable travel home on weekends, etc.

Do not require that they be students at all. Let them take advantage of the university setting and attend classes if they want, but don’t make scholastic performance any part of their contract.

The main ethical advantage is that this eliminates the charade and hypocrisy of making them falsely try to act like students. They are gladiators — pay them to fill the seats, and if they want to read some books while there, well, go for it.

Alternative two: Make all students of the university achieve the same level of academic performance. So, let’s say Allen Iverson wants to go to Georgetown. That means, like every other student, he has to have a high (not minimum) SAT score and four years of high grades in science, math, English and a foreign language.

No athletic scholarships, only grants for scholars from poor families (which would still be most of them).

And no loopholes, no exemptions.

Either approach would be fine with me … either they are pros ( I vote for this approach) and we don’t make believe they are students; or they are students, and athletics is definitely the lower priority.

What do you think? L.F.

Dear L.F. As you know, I think student athletics should be paid SOMETHING in addition to their scholarships. Maybe they should be paid and have to kick back some of that money for room and board.

We should stop pretending that the empty chairs they fill in an already overcrowded classroom actually have some value. The empty chairs they filled become valuable only after they graduate. It’s kinda like a car idling: The car’s value isn’t realized until it goes somewhere.

And I do sympathize with these student/athletes. The NCAA has already given them a rigorous schedule of games and practices and the time commitment is ever increasing. That’s the nature of any business — if you have a product that people like, give them more of it.

How are these kids supposed to take school seriously and graduate when they are always on the field/court/diamond/track or wherever? I know that I would have never graduated from college if all my time was taken up by activities.

The courts will probably decide the matter of college sports. But I’ve already made up my mind, and I see that you have, too.