LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Thursday, January 01, 2015

Real Estate Brokers are statutorily permitted to give rebates

A new line of negotiating brokerage commission is now available in the State of New York.

Buyers can now ask for a rebate of the seller's agent's brokerage commission in exchange for buying the property.

So, buyers should inquire of their prospective agents if the agent is offering a rebate on the transaction in consideration for being hired by the buyer. Alternatively, unrepresented buyers should inquire of the seller's agent if they offer a rebate in consideration of the buyer's offer to consummate a transaction.

At the least, it never hurts to ask.

Think about it ... a buyer's broker can now promote their services by incentivising prospective buyers to work with them by offering a rebate of the co-brokerage commission offered by the seller's agent.

To illustrate, a seller offers his seller's agent 6% on a deal whereby the seller's agent offers a buyer's agent a 3% share of that commission, in turn, for procuring a buyer, under a co-brokerage agreement. Now, that buyer's agent can motivate buyers to come to that deal by offering prospective buyers 1% of that 3%, or an alternative discount on the deal, for working with that buyer's agent.

Before the enactment of this statutory amendment, brokers did rebate commissions, but they have done so under a gray legal framework where there was no express authority for the practice (beyond a No Action Opinion Letter by the Department of State dated February 2008) and consequently it never became an overt marketing tactic by buyer's agents. Look for that to change.  


Real Property Law 442 was amended as 2014 came to a close. It now reads as follows (capitals represent additions to the statute):

Splitting commissions.
1. No real estate broker shall pay any part of a fee, commission or other compensation received by the broker to any person for any service, help or aid rendered in any place in which this article is applicable, by such person to the broker in buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, renting or negotiating a loan upon any real estate including the resale of a condominium OR COOPERATIVE APARTMENT unless such a person be a duly licensed real estate salesman regularly associated with such broker or a duly licensed real estate broker or a person regularly engaged in the real estate brokerage business in a state outside of New York; provided, however, that notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it shall be permissible for a real estate broker to pay any part of a fee, commission, or other compensation received to an unlicensed corporation or an unlicensed limited liability company if each of its shareholders or members, respectively, is associated as an individual with the broker as a duly licensed associate broker or salesman.

2. Furthermore, notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be permissible for a broker properly registered pursuant to the provisions of article twenty-three-A of the general business law who earns a commission on the original sale of a cooperative or homeowners association interest in real estate, including condominium units to pay any part of a fee, commission or other compensation received for bringing about such sale to a person whose [prinicipal] PRINCIPAL business is not  the sale or offering of cooperatives or homeowners association interests in real property, including condominium units in this state but who is either: (i) a real estate salesman duly licensed under this article who is regularly associated with such broker; (ii) a broker duly licensed under this article; or a person regularly engaged in  the  real estate brokerage business in a state outside of New York.
Except when permitted pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this section no real estate broker shall pay or agree to pay any part of a fee, commission, or other compensation received by the broker, or due, or to become due to the broker to any person, firm or corporation who or which is or is to be a party to the transaction in which such fee, commission or other compensation shall be or become due to the broker; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A REAL ESTATE BROKER FROM OFFERING ANY PART OF A FEE, COMMISSION, OR OTHER COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE BROKER TO THE SELLER, BUYER, LANDLORD OR TENANT WHO IS BUYING, SELLING, EXCHANGING, LEASING, RENTING OR NEGOTIATING A LOAN UPON ANY REAL ESTATE INCLUDING THE RESALE OF A CONDOMINIUM OR COOPERATIVE  APARTMENT. SUCH FEE, COMMISSION, OR OTHER COMPENSATION MUST NOT BE MADE TO THE SELLER, BUYER, LANDLORD OR TENANT FOR PERFORMING ANY ACTIVITY REQUIRING A LICENSE UNDER THIS ARTICLE.


Read NYSAR's Memorandum in Support of this legislation, which quotes a 2008 opinion letter of the Department of State speaking specifically about using these rebates "to attract a new customer or client".  

At the least, this legislation represents a job well done by Zeldin and Lavine, the sponsors of this legislation, to clarify a gray area of real estate brokerage license law. 

Monday, December 29, 2014

Tenants of Properties in Foreclosure May Be in Trouble in 2015

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), tenants comprise 40% of the families facing foreclosure.  In the past, many tenants did not know their homes were in foreclosure until they were forced to move out with little to no notice after the foreclosure sale date. Landlords had incentive to keep the foreclosure a secret from their tenants so that they could collect rent in the meantime. As a result, tenants had little recourse and were among the families hurt most by foreclosure.

In 2009, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act was enacted in order to protect tenants of properties in foreclosure from being evicted from their homes without due notice. Under this Act, a tenant had the right to stay in the property until the end of his or her lease unless the new owner intended to live in the property. If the property were to be owner-occupied, a 90-day notice was required before the tenant could be evicted. Month-to-month tenants also required 90 days’ notice. No longer were tenants forced to move out within a few days of being given an eviction notice.

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act was set to expire on December 31, 2012 but Section 1484 of the Dodd-Frank Act extended it to December 31, 2014. Two bills, S.1761 and H.R. 3543, were introduced in 2013 to permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. However, neither bill has been passed, and it is unlikely that they will be passed in the next 2 days. It is possible, however, that the bills can be enacted retroactively in 2015.

Without this Act, tenants will not have the same heightened protections during the foreclosure process. It is imperative that a bill is passed to ensure that tenants are given due notice after a foreclosure sale date.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

No Fracking Way - New York to ban fracking based on adverse health data (lawsuits likely to follow)

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will issue a legally binding findings statement to prohibit High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) in the State of New York.

New York's move should motivate the Erin Brokoviches of this world to start their lawsuits against companies involved in fracking based on the plethora of adverse health data exposed.

This DEC's statement comes on the heels of the Acting Department of Health Commissioner recommending that fracking should not move forward in the State.

According to the Commissioner "I have considered all of the data and find significant questions and risks to public health which as of yet are unanswered,". The review by the Department of Health, entitled "A Public Health Review of High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Development", is the basis for the DEC's decision to ban fracking.

The review states, in pertinent part, that "there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health."

The review summarizes "some of the environmental impacts and health outcomes potentially associated with HVHF activities:
• Air impacts that could affect respiratory health due to increased levels of particulate matter, diesel exhaust, or volatile organic chemicals.
• Climate change impacts due to methane and other volatile organic chemical releases to the atmosphere.
• Drinking water impacts from underground migration of methane and/or fracking chemicals associated with faulty well construction.
• Surface spills potentially resulting in soil and water contamination.
• Surface-water contamination resulting from inadequate wastewater treatment.
• Earthquakes induced during fracturing.
• Community impacts associated with boom-town economic effects such as increased vehicle traffic, road damage, noise, odor complaints, increased demand for housing and medical care, and stress."

Today is a bad day to own a fracking company. Yet, so many lives will be bettered as a result of this new rule.