Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

Client Alert
January 17, 2024

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.

The Plaintiffs argument pivoted on the requirement that the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) requires that agents could only list properties for sale if they provided the commission for Buyer as a percentage of the gross sale price of the property.  No provision or exception is allowed for Sellers or Seller’s agents willing to pay a flat fee to a Buyer’s agent, for Buyer’s paying their realtor’s commission, or for any other variation in the payment structure.

Like many markets throughout the United States, the Sellers lived in areas where the compensation for Buyers’ agents is solely derived based on the commission from the properties buyers actually purchase. As such, it behooves them to show only those properties that offer better commission to the buyers. Additionally, realtors agree that they cannot attempt to negotiate or modify commission arrangements through the purchase-sale contract. The Plaintiffs contended, while sellers are still able to negotiate the percentage commission in theory, any attempt to meaningfully do so could significantly undermine the seller’s effort as it can affect whether their property is presented to Buyers and artificially restraining price competition among real estate brokerages.

Re/Max Holdings, Inc., one of the defendants, ultimately entered into a settlement agreement for $55 million, and they further agreed to change their business practices to no longer require their agents to be members of NAR nor have minimum commission requirements. Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (parent company for Better Homes and Garden Real Estate, Century 21, Coldwell Bank Realty, Corcoran, and Sotheby’s International Realty) was another defendant in the case. They entered into a $83.5 million settlement that also prohibits them and their brokerages from sorting home listings by commission amount unless requested by the client.

On October 31, 2023, the National Association of Realtors, HomeServices of America, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. received a verdict against them for $5.6 Billion.  The case has created additional ripple effects as at least 11 different suits have been filed in courts across the nation, including Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Additionally, the Justice Department argued to re-open its investigation against the National Association of Realtors in front of an appellate court panel in Washington DC in mid-December 2023.

Even though it may be years before the Burnett verdict or any of the new cases result in a systemic change in the payment system for realtors, the landscape of real estate sales and commissions is already shifting as a result of these cases.  Immediate effects include the changes in policies that Re/Max and Anywhere’s brokerage have agreed to as part of their settlement agreement; RedFin requiring its brokers and agents to withdraw from NAR; and, the “clarification” released from NAR that brokers can list commissions at any amount, including $0. While some realtor boards are changing its policies, including the Real Estate Board of New York and Miami Association of Realtors, 2024 will likely see additional changes once the judge’s order detailing what injunctive relief he is granting is released and takes effect, expected no sooner than April 2024.

For more information, please contact BMD Senior Counsel Audrey Wanich at aswanich@bmdpl.com.

Real Estate
Client Alert

Pondering Over Patient Billing: CARES Act and Provider Relief Fund Lead to More Questions

April 16, 2020On April 11, 2020, HHS, along with the Department of Labor and Department of the Treasury, issued jointly prepared FAQs regarding the FFCRA, the CARES Act, and other health coverage issues. The FFCRA was enacted on March 18, 2020 and requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide benefits for certain items and services related to diagnostic testing for COVID-19. Additionally, plans and issuers must provide coverage without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements.Client Alert

Important Update and FAQs: HHS Tweaks Guidance on The CARES Act Provider Relief Fund Terms and Conditions

April 16, 2020On April 10, 2020, many providers awoke to find electronic payment deposits from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in their bank accounts. This was the first round of $30 billion of payments from the HHS Provider Relief Fund as a result of the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020. All healthcare providers that received Medicare fee-for-service payments in 2019 should have received a payment.Client Alert

Returning to Work: Forecasting the New Normal in Business

April 16, 2020We cannot predict when businesses will reopen across the county. As we publish this Alert, dynamic business leaders are cooperating in comprehensive efforts to create safe work environments so that they can all re-engage the workforce. However, we can predict the new normal in business. Some important studies were published yesterday, and the new normal in business will be facemasks for all employees, and probably all business visitors.Client Alert

Updated Guidance on Ohio Department of Medicaid Telehealth Rules During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency

April 15, 2020In its initial response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) issued emergency rule 5160-1-21, which dramatically expanded reimbursable telehealth services, telehealth providers, allowable technology, location of both providers and patients, and covered billing provider types. See BMD’s initial COVID-19 and Telehealth Resource Guide here. This emergency rule provides wide flexibility for patients to receive necessary healthcare services while Ohio’s Stay-At-Home Order remains in place. Regulations are continually changing in response to the public health crisis, and on April 13, 2020, ODM issued new guidance further expanding telehealth services reimbursable under Ohio’s Medicaid program.Client Alert

Essential Businesses during COVID-19: Identification and Operation FAQs

April 14, 2020During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to classify your business as “essential” could be the key to its survival. Almost every state in the United States has imposed a “stay-at-home” or “shelter-in-place” order that restricts the types of businesses that can remain open. In fact, as of the writing of this alert, there are only seven states that have not imposed state-wide restrictions on which businesses can stay open during the Coronavirus pandemic and even those states have individual cities and counties that have imposed stricter orders. However, these orders are not always clear, and interpretation is often left to the individual business. This alert will answer some of the most common questions about essential businesses.
Older posts
Newer posts