Realtor vs No realtor?

[BarbaraL]

I didn't want to hijack the "how did you find your realtor" thread, so I started my own.

My mom died in June, and one of the many things I'll have to handle is selling her home. I already know of 2 people interested in buying it, including a woman who has already contacted me multiple times.

I'd planned to use a realtor, and let him/her do their thing. But since I already have some seriously interested buyers, is that just a waste of 3% (Foxton's) to 6% of the sale price? Or is NOT using a realtor not worth the hassle?

My only experience with real estate was buying my home years ago. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

[LaraW]

My parents had this happen years and years ago when they were selling a house, and had 2 people who were interested in buying. They had each person give their bid and went with the highest. Personally, I'd contact an attorney who handles real estate and not do the realtor, but that's just me.

[blazedog]

If you already have a purchaser, there is no reason to hire a realtor and essentially give away 6% of the price.

You are just as capable of figuring out comparables in the area as the realtor - you could always "interview" a few as they will generally give you the comps when they come to see the property.

My parents sold their house in New York without a realtor as did my friend's parents. In both instances, they were approached by purchasers through neighbors on the block. New York has a strange system anyway in which you have to hire an attorney in addition to the realtor. :rolleyes:

If you don't hire a realtor DEFINITELY hire an attorney to draw up the escrow papers and purchase and go through the agreement. Alternatively, you might find a real estate agent who would do it for a flat fee -- after all, it is "found" money for them as they don't have to do anything but the easy stuff.

Bottom line, I wouldn't hire a realtor and give away 6% of the purchase price but I would hire some expertise on a flat fee basis to make sure I covered all the bases legally.

[ChristieinMB]

If you are inexperienced, I would be very cautious with prospective buyers. Many people are interested but few buy. Even if you determine the sales price, be cautious in the agreement, not paying for expenses you shouldn't. If you use a realtor, the fee is negotiable. At least use a RE attorney to review your contract. I've bought and sold many houses and am still amazed at the new problems that keep popping up. It gets so tiresome, but I keep doing it. :confused:
Also, very sorry about you losing your mom, enjoy your memories in all her "stuff".
Christie

[muriel3002]

Ditto what ChristieinMB said, too. My grandfather died recently and all his properties are being sold. Lots of "tire kickers" and very few offers, so the family has decided to use a realtor instead. I guess, though, if the property was being offered at below market value, people would have jumped on it, but Auntie (who is executrix) wants fair market value and no deals, unless it is all family who buys the property.

[blazedog]

It obviously comes down to the bottom line -- not worth it unless you would net more -- i.e. assuming that the would be purchasers are offering FMV as opposed to getting a bargain. Those people who sold without a broker were not selling below market solely NOT to use a realtor.

A recent issue of MONEY Magazine had a study in which those utilizing a full service broker did not net more than those utilizing a discount broker.

If someone is offering you FMV, I don't see where the realtor is adding anything to the mix. However, you absolutely should pay for some sort of expertise in terms of the closing, escrow and purchase agreement.

[ChristyMarie]

If you have a serious offer there's no reason to pay a commission. Hire a good real estate lawyer to draw up the documents and save yourself a lot of cash.

And you could have threadjacked my post. :p