{"id":20944,"date":"2023-07-06T11:19:00","date_gmt":"2023-07-06T16:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theamericangenius.com\/housing\/?p=20944"},"modified":"2023-07-06T12:08:32","modified_gmt":"2023-07-06T17:08:32","slug":"the-case-for-realtors-nar-vs-missouri","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theamericangenius.com\/housing\/board-associations\/the-case-for-realtors-nar-vs-missouri\/","title":{"rendered":"The case for Realtors: The National Association of Realtors vs Missouri"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Burnett v. The National Association Of Realtors | Introduction<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Introducing The Phillips Report-Burnett, a meticulously prepared dissection to unravel the flawed assertions against Realtors in Burnett v. The National Association Of Realtors. This edition of The Phillips Report is the second installment in a series of perspectives that extend the counterarguments explored in The Phillips Report: A Critical Examination And Rebuttal Of Claims Asserted In Commission Lawsuits Vs. The National Association Of Realtors<\/a>. An industry authority has described The Phillips Report as the definitive guide on how to counteract the class action assaults against The National Association of Realtors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burnett v. The National Association Of Realtors | Regurgitation Of Defective Claims<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Far from presenting original arguments, Burnett v. The National Association Of Realtors merely echoes the allegations forwarded in other legally deficient lawsuits. The choice to lodge the case in Missouri introduces further counterarguments, which only serve to expose the extent of the misguided thinking underlying Burnett\u2019s assertions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burnett | Claims Of Damages Based On Comparable Foreign Markets<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys cite a study published in 2002, stating, \u201cGlobally, we see much lower residential commission rates in most of the other highly industrialized nations, including the United Kingdom (UK), Hong Kong, Ireland, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand . . . . In the UK, the [total] commission rates average less than 2%. . . . In New Zealand and South Africa, [total] commission rates average 3.14%. In Singapore, the [total] commission rates also tend to run around 3%.\u201d<\/strong><\/em>

Firstly, applying an outdated study as the primary basis to predict contemporary conclusions is patently unacademic. Market dynamics, technology utilization, and consumer behavior have evolved significantly since 2002, rendering this data largely irrelevant.

The iPhone was launched in 2007. Shall we expand the class to all transactions from 1776?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Singapore vs. Missouri<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Burnett\u2019s intent to conflate fees and rates is misleading and deceptive. While the lawsuit attempts to draw parallels between international markets, including Singapore and U.S. brokerage fees, it completely neglects the crucial aspect of average home values in the comparative markets. To illustrate this point, let us consider Singapore and claims that brokerage fees are significantly lower than in the U.S. The average value of a cluster house (townhome) in Singapore is approximately $2,504,215 when converted to U.S. dollars. Based on available data for 2020, Missouri\u2019s average home value was approximately $210,000. A 3% commission in Singapore would yield a $75,126 fee, while a 6% commission in Missouri would result in a $12,600 fee.<\/strong>

Even if Realtors increased their rates to match the suspiciously similar average rate of 33% imposed by contingency-based law firms, the average fee is $69,300, which falls short of average selling fees in Singapore.<\/strong>

A glaring example of conflation is displayed as Burnett states, \u201cIn comparison, THE TOTAL BROKER COMMISSIONS (I.E., THE AGGREGATE COMMISSION PAID TO THE SELLER BROKER AND BUYER BROKER) IN THE AREAS IN WHICH THE SUBJECT MLSS OPERATE AVERAGE BETWEEN 5% AND 6%, with buyer broker commissions by themselves holding steady in a range between 2.5% and 3%.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on data believed to be provided by expert witnesses, Burnett attempts to create two opposing definitions related to commissions in the same sentence. For clarity, Rates or percentages refer to a specific portion or part of a total amount, usually calculated as a fraction of 100. For instance, a real estate agent\u2019s commission rate might be 3% of a home\u2019s selling price. On the other hand, aggregate fees paid represent the total sum of money paid for a service. While rates and percentages provide a method for determining how much to charge, the aggregate fees paid represent the actual out-of-pocket expense incurred by the client or consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expert Witnesses<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

An \u201cexpert witness\u201d<\/em> cited in various claims, who seems confused regarding the difference between rates and aggregate fees, appears to be a professor at Harvard University. The Phillips family includes dozens of current and former professors at Harvard and founded Phillips Exeter Academy and Phillips Academy in Andover. Exeter traditionally educates its students for Harvard, much as Andover traditionally educates its students for Yale.

I can say with certainty that Harvard professors have access to dictionaries.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n