16 Responses to “Two real estate agents lie about property square footage” »»

1. Jason
   Comment by Jason | 03/03/08 at 1:10 pm

   Hey John,

   I feel that I fell victim to this unethical tactic when I purchased my place in 2003. The listing sheet had my place at 1100+/-, but the condo docs, which had already been prepared, listed my place at 1020 sq ft. Based on simple math, 1020 sounds more like 1000 +/- to me (if under halfway, round down….if over halfway, round up….seems like 4th grade math to me).

   During the time between my deposit and closing, I brought this to everyone’s attention and attempted to renegotiate. Basically, I was told by the seller’s agent that they had another “full price” offer, and I could take it or leave it (I took it, the market was moving quite swifty at the time). It’s my only gripe about my purchase process actually, but I will certainly never work with the seller’s agent again. Let me know if you need me to name names

2. anon
   Comment by anon | 03/03/08 at 1:46 pm

   John, can you report this to The NAR/MAR and get the offending agents’ membership revoked? Isn’t there some sort of code of ethics that The NAR was promoting awhile ago? I think it would be good for public relations if people saw that your industry was self policing and the Realtor ranks were holding each other to being honest.

3. andrew
   Comment by andrew | 03/03/08 at 2:50 pm

   i see this all the time and always report to MLSPIN but it continues to happen. Reporting doesn’t do anything from an ethical standpoint. its bs.

4. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 03/03/08 at 3:17 pm

   Well, this is not encouraging.

   From MLSPIN:

   Section 8.1 of the Rules and Regulations states:

   “The Service does not, and has no obligation to, verify the completeness or accuracy of any data or information Filed with it, or the accuracy of or the rights to ownership or use of any Image Filed with it, and the Service disclaims any responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of any of such data or information or the accuracy of or rights to ownership or use of any such Image.”

   The responsibility lies with the listing agent, which really means with the listing broker.

   Since the listing broker, himself, is the one who is being deceptive, you’re not going to get very far going that route.

   MLSPIN has suggested if I feel it is a misrepresentation, I should take this up with the Mass Association of Realtors / National Association of Realtors.

   Doesn’t seem worth the trouble, does it?

   Buyer beware, indeed.

5. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 03/03/08 at 4:14 pm

   The agents have seen the light, apparently, as their listings now show the “correct” square footage.

6. anon
   Comment by anon | 03/03/08 at 4:27 pm

   “Doesn’t seem worth the trouble, does it?”

   I’d say the trouble is worth the same amount as The NAR’s “Code of Ethics.” That is what you would be helping to enforce, after all.

7. anon
   Comment by anon | 03/03/08 at 10:54 pm

   John,
   What is the correct strategy to use? I have looked at a condo in downtown where it was a top floor unit. The MLS sheet shows roughly 800 square feet, the realtor’s website shows 600, feet and the actual unit size is 540 feet. The realtor is including the stairs up to the roof access as part of the unit (60 sq feet). The agent is also including the fact that the unit has deeded roof rights and assumes a deck will be built by whomever buys. Their assumption is a 200 sq foot deck. If thats the case, could I build a 400 sq foot deck and call the unit 1,000 sq feet when I sell? I just dont get it. To top it off the unit pays condo fees as if it was actually 800 square feet even though there is no roof deck currently built.

8. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 03/04/08 at 12:47 am

   Use the floorplan filed with the condo docs and/or the paperwork at http://cityofboston.gov/isd.

   Roof deck is not “livable space” so should not be included. Stairs, however, are commonly included in livable space.

   Tell me the agent’s name. She deserves a kick in the ass for the roof deck calculation.

9. Anthony Longo
   Comment by Anthony Longo | 03/04/08 at 8:18 am

   In high density markets like Boston where every single sq/ft matters – these agents should know better! Yes competition is fierce…but c’mon…we have a duty hear to represent this most expensive housing market professionally and accurately.

   Johnny Boy – Whats your feelings about a listing that is “U/A” but still kept ACTIVE in MLS? (but the agents still wont show the property? False advertising – now that VOW is the most common medium to promote listing exposure?

10. Henry
    Comment by Henry | 03/04/08 at 2:49 pm

    John, I just came across a listing in response to a blog posting on Boston.com about sq. footage.

    The unit I have a question about is actually 488 sf + 60 sf of hallway space deeded to the unit – totaling 548 on the deed from suffolkdeeds.com

    The MLS listing has the unit listed at 645 sf. The disclosure says the source is the unit floor plan. Going back to the suffolkdeeds.com website there is roof access granted to this unit. There is currently no roof deck but the unit deed shows that unit 4 has exclusive use of the roof and that the size of the roof deck would be 125 sf. So basically add all this up and you end up with 673 including a landing for stairs that are outside the unit and a hypothetical roof deck that may never be built.

    What would be the correct way of listing this unit. Also, how should the condo fees be calculated on this unit?

    Thanks,
    Henry

11. John A Keith
    Comment by John A Keith | 03/04/08 at 3:27 pm

    Hi.

    I have never heard of roofdeck space being included in a unit’s square footage – built or unbuilt. We just had our home re-appraised, and the appraiser didn’t ask to see the roof, so he wasn’t interested in it, for valuation purposes.

    So, you should remove that square footage from the calculation.

    The listing is accurate in the sense it is simply reporting what the public record says. Of course, the public record appears to be wrong.

    It is perfectly acceptable to include interior staircases in square footage. In this case, it’s a bit odd since it appears the staircase is “exterior”, but since it is deeded, I would give them a pass on that.

    Regarding condo fees, it’s an inexact science. It is not based on square footage of each unit, but on the “perceived value” of each unit. A unit on the top floor benefits from having no upstairs neighbor, plus roof rights, plus better views. But, the negatives include that people don’t always want to walk up stairs.

    In the case of the Endicott St property, it appears the owner did it pretty straight forward, based on square footage.

    In the case of condo fees, though, perhaps it was okay to give extra value to the top floor – even though it is roof rights and not a roof deck. There is extra value to the roofdeck, so why not add in the square footage to get its “value”.

    Not sure if the owner did the same thing with the first floor unit – it says the bottom unit has exclusive use of storage room. So, I assume the developer added in square footage to the first floor, to get its value.

    So, pretty much, the square footage seems inflated – which makes the per square foot price seem more appealing to people, plus the space seem bigger.

    Some buyers don’t care about that sort of thing. It’s a common complaint that square footage measurements are not universal – but no one has ever come up with a good solution.

    Measuring by a building’s exterior includes a lot of space inside that shouldn’t count. Going around with a tape measure would solve the problem, I guess.

    In my travels, it hasn’t been much of an issue, but perhaps it’s just luck?

12. Hopkinton MA Homes
    Comment by Hopkinton MA Homes | 03/04/08 at 8:49 pm

    These are the type of actions that will get an agent sued. Like you said a buyer may not see the actual MLS sheet and never realize what the true square footage is.

13. Louis
    Comment by Louis | 03/08/08 at 10:09 am

    As a Realtor, I’ve seen many cases where the living space quoted in the assessment record or the condo docs is different from the real living space.

    If you use the lower, honest square footage, how will you explain to the angry seller why you chose to use a different figure than what all the other agents are using, a figure that has already been published by another source? Why would any buyer look at your listing when you’ve got the lowest posted living space in the MLS? Do you think any buyer will say “this condo has the highest price per square foot; the listing agent must be honest! That’s the one I’ll buy!” Most likely, your listing won’t sell and the seller will give the listing to another agent.

    As a buyer, you’ll know once you view the condos for yourself which has the largest interior space and whether or not the space works for you.

14. mem
    Comment by mem | 03/10/08 at 1:17 pm

    lying seems to plague the industry … my favorite is the advertisement of studios as 1 bedrooms … gotta love this listing agent who does it on both her back bay studio listings. Since she has done it more than once she can’t chalk it up as a misprint.
    Very annoying as it wastes everyones time and kills her credibility.

    just two examples, i am sure there are more:
    70711998
    70705763

15. mel
    Comment by mel | 03/17/08 at 6:23 pm

    This is for “mem” regarding the two MLS listings he said had lies (70711998 and 70705763). Guess what – the details in both listings (GLA, rooms, etc) agree with the public records. And, both went under agreement in less than 3 weeks.

    You may not like the agent (and may have valid cause for that feeling) but you’re not being fair when her listing info is in exact agreement with the city’s records (in these 2 cases, anyway).

    MAR will sanction agents who misrepresent properties, but they have to be told about the offense before they can do anything. If you believe an agent is lying, REPORT THEM. But if you think it’s not worth a few minutes of your time, then you’re effectively sanctioning the behavior. (MLS will also sanction/fine agents who cheat, like those who “mispell” a street name so the historical DOM disappears).

16. Sue
    Comment by Sue | 03/27/08 at 11:40 pm

    Right now there is a agent from Coldwell Banker (Honig-Bell) in the sub of Chicago, IL his name is Ricky Gray Who lies about the size of the rooms in a home he has one at 211 EDGEWOOD DR
    MINOOKA, IL 60447
    MLS ID# 06840765
    I think all these realtors are starting to just show there homes to people and never show other ones on the market and it is becoming a fight over who can sale the most so there getting people to lower there prices and telling them the market is getting bad and it is just getting ready to get better but the realtors are making it bad by getting salers to lower there price so all you people out there make your own price and stay with it don’t let them win this game there playing!

Leave a Reply »»