Hat tip to Bull Dog Pundit. Before you read this, get out the duct tape and wrap your head.
The Ummels have already sunk $75,000 into legal fees. For what, I hear you ask. Read on.
Given the American obsession with litigation, it’s somewhat amazing that legal experts could not recall a case of a home buyer who may have overpaid suing a real estate agent before Marty Ummel came along.
Legal and real estate experts say that Ummel and her husband, Vernon Ummel, should have done their homework better before purchasing their four-bedroom home in a luxury development outside of San Diego in 2005 for $1.2 million, a price that the Ummels say was as much as $175,000 more than what similar houses in the development sold for.
They contend it was not their fault.
Yes, you read that right. They’re suing their real estate agent because they claim they paid too much for their house. Is anyone surprised these idiots are from California?
“We hired our agent because he was a real estate professional,†Marty Ummel told TODAY’s Ann Curry on Friday in New York. “He was expected to do his due diligence. And they have a code of ethics where they have to put the buyers first. I think he just wanted to go ahead and make his commission.â€
It looks like these idiots need to review the law. Real estate agents work for the seller, not the buyer. But you have to wonder: Who is the moron judge who let this go to court, and why hasn’t he been disbarred? And what is the point of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because you overpaid a few thousand dollars for your house? Are these two irony-challenged?
By the way, they’re not just from California. They’re from San Francisco, and they’re both university administrators.
Jay Thompson says:
“Real estate agents work for the seller, not the buyer.”
A common misconception. There is something called “buyer agency” where the real estate agent does work for the buyer, and has a fidicuary to the buyer.
That said, this is beyond stupid IMHO.
January 30, 2008, 3:04 pmMichael says:
Mr. Thompson is correct. In this case, if the agent worked only for the buyer, his duty was to them only.
February 1, 2008, 8:57 pm