Do you have a problem with dual agency in real estate?

In FL we don’t have dual agency we have transaction sales people or brokers. Their main duty is to keep the transaction together, they have limited duties to the sellers and buyers. I like this set up better than when the realtor was always representing the seller, even when the buyer had no realtor. If a realtor takes a listing in FL and starts off as a single agent to the seller, and the buyer interested doesn’t have a realtor, the broker must transition to a transaction broker and everyone is informed of the agents fiduciary duties and the legal expectations. Both parties can still get a lawyer and the agent still can’t lie about anything pertinent to the sale. No matter what the “agency” the broker 9 times out of 10 would want a deal that is in motion to close.

I’ll send your Q to a California realtor.

@2davidc8 – agreed. Having the same person representing both seems fundamentally unfair and potentially dishonest.

I can see how it could be a problem, and I can also see how it could be useful, such as when you’re trying to sell a piece of property to a family member. Neither member has a desire to “make money” on the deal, and yet they want it to be legal.

If done correctly then it wouldn’t pose an issue with me. They allow it here in MA and if the agent remained neutral to each party and acted more as a mediator rather than providing advice it works. If the agent gave advice to the parties invovled then then that would pose a problem because they could inadvertently say something that could hurt the best possible outcome for both people.

Thank you all for your replies. I’m afraid I haven’t followed up with further thoughts on this subject, to encourage more discussion, and the question has become “stale”.

I will revisit this topic with a related question in the near future.

I have no problem.