How TAR responded to TREC’s many proposed changes

The Texas Real Estate Commission at its August 7 meeting proposed many rule changes, and you can submit comments on these proposals until September 24 at general.counsel@trec.texas.gov.

The Texas Association of REALTORS® submitted its comments on several aspects of the proposals: advertisements, consumer information, Paragraph 5 (Earnest Money) in the TREC contracts, and the use of standard contract forms. See the association’s comment letter below:

 

About Texas Association of REALTORS®

The voice for Texas real estate
This entry was posted in TREC and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to How TAR responded to TREC’s many proposed changes

  1. Rick DeVoss says:

    IABS Form vs. a “link” —
    It would seem that the requirement to have a link to the IABS form on a website is ignoring the original purpose of the rule, …which was to get the information in the hands of the consumer, and give them an opportunity to ask questions. …It also leads to a discussion of “Buyer Representation” and Agency.
    It would be my bet that many people will not ever “click” on the required link, and so it has not served its purpose. ~You can’t force someone to click on a link! And even if they do, what proof do you have that you have given them the information?
    Maybe I’m missing something… ~Are agents now selling properties from a website, and no longer meeting people to show them houses…??
    ~Wow, I must be getting older than I thought!

    In the practical sense, giving the information to the customer at the first face-to-face meeting makes a lot more sense. …If anyone agrees with me, would you please forward this comment to TREC.?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Donald Moore says:

    I agree with TAR’s response and objections to TREC changes in the rules. It sounds like attorneys have take over TREC. If TREC does not back off, TAR should take this up with the Texas Legislature to rescind the changes and rein in TREC.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. GINGER EDWARDS says:

    How about, get the so-called lawyers out of real estate! Stop changing things period! I’m not the only one sick of constant crapola!!

    Like

  4. Dwayne Clark says:

    All of this is to solve what problem? Are there THAT many “renegade” agents out there doing harm to the industry? Lawyers don’t have to do this, car dealers don’t have to do this, doctors don’t have to do this, stock brokers don’t do this, and etc. and for sure the politicians don’t have to do this. I don’t know of any other profession that is so overly regulated than us. .

    Like

  5. Alison R Street says:

    I agree with TAR’s response! Also, most of the proposed changes just make the contract forms more onerous to the consumer, who wants more simplification!! Contracts are too long already, and too much for many consumers to absorb and understand..

    Like

  6. I personally like the change proposed on the earnest money. It puts a real tangible deadline on depositing the money. When it says a reasonable amount of time that’s too vague.

    Like

    • Jed Kleppen says:

      As a compromise between being too vague and a hard-and-fast number, why couldn’t it be a blank to be filled in? “Within ___ days after the Effective Date…” That seems like a fair balance between the proposed written-in-stone “3 days” and the current language, which many agree is a bit too vague.

      Like

  7. Jeff Knox says:

    Fair responses by TAR. There definitely needs to be a time limit set for the deposit of earnest monies, but I also see the issues with a three day, holiday weekend. As the prior comment states, the current wording is too vague and open for interpretation.

    Like

  8. Great topic for discussion!

    Like

  9. Diane White says:

    I, too, like the proposed change on the earnest money having a deadline. Perhaps a 2 or 3 BUSINESS-day rule (counting only days when title companies would be open for business). And, I agree with Rick DeVoss about the link being required on the website–there is no guarantee that clients will read or understand it and no way to know if they have read it. Therefore, it seems the agent still needs to make sure to provide it on the first substantive discussion, whether in person or by phone/email. Having it in the website footer makes sense, though, just as an added measure to get the word out. Would it hold up in court to protect brokers/agents if the agent didn’t provide it AND the client didn’t read it online? If not, why make it a requirement to have anywhere on the website, instead of just encouraging brokers/agents to do that as a courtesy/convenience. Everything else, I like the way TAR responded and encourage you to stand your ground.

    Liked by 1 person

    • suzannspann says:

      This must be changed to BUSINESS days or title companies must receipt money on holidays. Otherwise, a buyer in a transaction executed late Friday before a Monday holiday will always lose this earnest money.

      Like

  10. Ronda M Needham says:

    While I’m in 100% agreement with TAR’s stance on all items covered in this letter, there was still no reference made in regard to those Realtors who have achieved a higher education level and hold Brokers licenses, and have paid additional dues for many years, even though we may not be the Designated Broker of our firm. I believe our companies: Ebby Halliday/Dave Perry-Miller/Williams True have been using the term “Broker Associate” in our marketing etc. as a nod that we have achieved a higher education, etc.

    If we are no longer allowed to let the public know that we may be more educated or experienced than someone who has not taken courses beyond what’s required to get a license, is a slap in the face to those of us who have gone the extra mile to further education, possibly have multiple designations, and deserve the public recognition for that information to be readily available to consumers via our signature, website, etc. TKX

    Texas Real Estate Commission Consumer Protection Notice
    Information About Brokerage Services

    Licensed Texas Broker, ABR, CRB

    c | 214.801.5828
    o | 214.526.6600
    e | ronda@daveperrymiller.com

    Dave Perry-Miller Real Estate, Highland Park Office
    5500 Preston Road, Suite 290, Dallas TX 75205
    A Division of Ebby Halliday Real Estate, Inc.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. suzannspann says:

    Yes, Broker Associate needs to be allowed!

    Like

  12. Alison Street says:

    Yes, I have Broker’s License & taken Broker Responsibility CE course too. We who have earned this should continue to be allowed to put this with our names on cards, etc! It is a lot MORE than just designations!!

    Like

  13. Great feedback from everyone so far. Agree with a lot of what Diane and Rick said. Interesting to hear all sides of the conversation!

    Like

  14. Keith Cummins says:

    Whoa! What are we fixing here? What’s broke? Let’s slow down a little and get more information.

    Like

    • Donald Moore says:

      I am amazed that most comment are fixated on the earnest money change. While that is important and would be a great change with TAR’s minor changes, I think everyone is missing the big issue. TREC’s changes are the beginning of attorneys moving Realtors away from having legal forms that we now use without the involvement of an attorney. If TAR’s forms are watered down and eventually eliminated, than where will that leave us? Our clients will need the assistance of a lawyer on most real estate transactions which will cost the home buyers and sellers more money and move Texas real estate into the control of attorneys.putting more money into their pockets and less in ours. Why use a Realtor if you have to hire a lawyer anyway. Many states already require attorneys in real estate transactions.

      As Keith said; “What’s broke?”. Ask yourself: Why are these changes needed? What direction is this leading? To Realtors or to attorneys? I applaud TAR for taking a stance now before it goes to far. Once they have a foothold, your license will not be worth very much because they will not stop until they have full control. .

      Bottom line. This is about money and control. Ultimately, in my opinion, this will lead to attorneys being involved in every real estate transaction. Realtors will be regulated to real estate taxis drivers.

      Like

  15. Robert Morris says:

    Absolutely should read 3 business days, especially if “time is of the essence” is used. And the current 2 days is in TREC Rules, for anyone that thinks the current contract is vague.

    Like

  16. Brenda C Stahelin says:

    We often have out of state and out of area buyers making offers on the local property in this area. We have a very hard time with the option fee 3 day limit. On a holiday weekend, for instance, it is almost impossible for an out of area person to get option fee to the agent, or the seller. Especially if the contract is agreed upon on Friday afternoon or evening. If earnest money is required by a deadline, it should be extended to a number of days that cannot be impossible to arrange. Five days could be tough in some instances, but it would at least be possible to abide by as a rule.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s