A report released this week by St. Louis-based Clever Real Estate found that recent homebuyers, as well as people who are considering a home purchase in the next year, are experiencing a laundry list of difficulties.

Last month, Clever surveyed a total of 920 Americans about their views of the home purchase process and real estate agents. The respondents included 420 people who bought a home in 2023 or 2024, and another 500 who plan to do so in 2024 or 2025.

“We found that buyers stepping into the 2024 housing market have much to learn from previous shoppers,” the report stated.

Even after navigating the climate of higher mortgage rates and a dearth of available listings, 82% of recent buyers had regrets about their purchase, Clever reported. More than 40% of this group said they’ve struggled to make on-time mortgage payments or have taken on new debt to maintain their current lifestyle.

Another of the key findings is that there may be a mismatch in consumer expectations regarding home prices. People who are planning to buy a home by the end of 2025 expect to pay $483,490 on average, but 52% of those who have purchased since the start of 2023 have spent more than $500,000.

Nearly one-third of recent buyers said that “purchasing a home was harder than expected because of financial reasons,” with high interest rates and a purchase price that exceeded their budget topping the list of reasons why. And nearly half (47%) said they “feel in over their heads financially since purchasing their home.”

The vast majority (85%) of these recent buyers also reported making compromises on their home purchase. “Although 48% of buyers wanted an affordable home, a whopping 37% bought a home that was more expensive than they planned,” the report explained.

More than 80% of recent buyers asked for at least one seller concession. The most frequently mentioned concessions were a lower asking price, funds to make repairs, and the ability to keep existing appliances or furniture.

Importantly, however, 65% of these recent buyers also reported making at least one concession to the seller, indicative of the seller’s market that exists in many parts of the country. Among this group, about one in four agreed to purchase their home “as is.”

The survey also delved into the use of real estate agents. It noted the upcoming changes to agent commission structures following the nationwide settlement by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several major brokerage firms.

Roughly three-quarters of respondents said that it’s “important to have an agent represent them in the homebuying process.” But half of the prospective buyers surveyed said they would forgo representation due to the possibility of having to pay their agent’s commission.

“Buyers are understandably wary of a new commission model that would increase their upfront expenses,” the report noted. “Yet proposed changes could lead to greater benefits, such as increased transparency about how commission is paid and what services are included.”

Three in four survey respondents said they’d be more likely to use an agent if they had a “detailed breakdown of services” included in the cost. And 67% said they’d prefer “a la carte real estate services” that allow them to pick and choose what they want while saving money on things they can do on their own.

Some brokerages have already announced their intention to better illustrate the value of agents to clients.

Compass, for example, is planning to launch a portal in which buyers and sellers will be able to track agent tasks, include comparative market analyses, tour scheduling and negotiations with listing agents. And RE/MAX CEO Erik Carlson recently noted that his firm is developing new training and educational materials for its affiliates so that agents can be better prepared to answer client questions.

Although nearly 80% of prospective buyers in the Clever survey plan to hire an agent, 42% of recent buyers reported that “their agent was less helpful than expected,” while 54% said that the agent “care more about making a deal than their best interests.” Nearly 30% of recent buyers were not represented by an agent.

Clever conducted a previous survey in which 94% of respondents who plan to sell their home in the next year expressed support for a commission structure in which buyers are responsible for paying their agent. That share dropped to 61% in the buyer survey.

Originally Appeared Here

In a filing earlier this week, HomeServices of America asked Judge Stephen Bough, who is overseeing the Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit, to deny the plaintiffs motion for entry of judgement.

In their mid-March filing, the Sitzer/Burnett plaintiffs asked the court to order HomeServices of America, the sole remaining defendant in the suit, to pay $4.7 billion in damages. This is 88% of the trebled damages award by the Missouri jury in October.

HomeServices of America called the plaintiffs’ motion premature, noting that the court has yet to approve the four other settlement agreements reached by the other defendants in the lawsuit. The date for the final approval hearing for the settlement agreements in this suit is set for May 9, 2024.  

The brokerage firm argued that if these settlements are rejected or challenged, the math for the final judgement amount would change. In their motion, the plaintiffs said they reached the damages amount by trebling the initial damages award and then subtracting the total amounts of the settlements.

“Plaintiffs’ penciled-in numbers for the amount by which the jury’s award should be offset by settlements are provisional because the settlements are subject to objection from the absent class members and judicial scrutiny prior to approval by this court in order to ensure that the settlements comply with due process,” HomeServices’ filing states. “Plaintiffs’ attempt to treat the settlement amounts as effectively final ignores the fact that courts commonly reject class-action settlements when reviewing them for fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy.”

Additionally, HomeServices wrote that it does not expect the approval process for the settlement agreement to be smooth.

“These purportedly nationwide settlements were negotiated with attorneys representing only a fraction of the nationwide class of people who would be affected by the settlements,” the filing states. “And the Department of Justice has already objected to settlements of similar claims in other cases. Thus, the judgment Plaintiffs seek for this court to enter would necessarily be provisional because of its relation to contested issues.”

In their motion, the plaintiffs also noted that they are seeking an award of the attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit and interest on the damages amount at a yearly rate of 5.4% starting Nov. 1, the day after the verdict. In its filing HomeServices wrote that the interest on the damages amount should begin accruing on the date Judge Bough enters his final judgement.

The HomeServices filing also notes that the law requires the plaintiffs to “demonstrate a danger of hardship if its request is not granted,” which HomeServices says they failed to do.

“Plaintiffs point to no hardship or prejudice that they will suffer if judgment is not entered until all claims against all parties in this case are fully resolved,” the filing states. “Nor can they in light of the fact that, by the parties’ mutual agreement and as subsequently ordered by the Court, any judgment cannot be executed until thirty days after the court has resolved all post-trial motions, briefing for which is still not complete. Even then, Plaintiffs could not execute a judgment with an uncertain damages amount — each of the settlements must receive final approval first.”

The filing also stated that HomeServices doesn’t see what the reason for the plaintiffs’ desire to rush the final judgement, noting that they “don’t have an appeal that they seek to hasten” or that HomeServices does not feel they will be “prejudiced by having withheld money owed to them by HomeServices because they would not be entitled to receipt of those funds unless HomeServices’ appeal rights were exhausted without success.”

In addition, the brokerage firm noted that it does not have an immediate interest in appeal as they are still dealing with their post-trial motions.

Besides its post-trial motions, HomeServices is also waiting to hear about a writ of certiorari it filed in February. In its filing, HomeServices petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court and asked for a review of an August 2023 ruling by the Eight Circuit Court, which found that HomeServices could not enforce arbitration agreements signed by seller clients of its franchisees. The appeals court said that this was because the contracts signed by the sellers were not directly signed by HomeServices.

Originally Appeared Here

Three agents formerly affiliated with Keller Williams Realty — Jerri L. Moulder, David L. Bueker and Robert E. Hill — have taken legal action against the real estate brokerage by filing three separate class-action lawsuits, Inman first reported on Tuesday. 

The lawsuits contest alterations made to Keller Williams’ profit-sharing program, with one of them seeking a court order to halt further payouts until the case concludes.

On March 22, Moulder, who worked with Keller Williams from 2002 to 2011, filed a complaint aiming for class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in  San Antonio. Allegations include breach of contract and unjust enrichment, with damages sought at $250 million. Moulder’s complaint challenges adjustments made to Keller Williams’ profit-sharing program and calls for a rollback of the new policy.

The following day, Bueker, a former KW agent from 2003 to 2011, filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis. Bueker’s filing echoes Moulder’s, but it also requests a preliminary injunction “specifically prohibiting the redistribution of disputed payments under the Profit Sharing Program.”

“To the extent that disputed Profit Sharing Program funds are distributed to other Profit Sharing Program participants during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff, Class Members and Sub-Class Members risk suffering irreparable harm absent an injunction because Profit Sharing Program funds will be distributed without any method or ability to recapture those funds from the recipients,” the Bueker complaint states. 

On March 25, Robert E. Hill, a former KW agent from 2002 to 2013, filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court of Kansas in Kansas City. Hill also demands a preliminary injunction to prohibit the redistribution of disputed payments.

In February 2020, KW introduced a more restrictive policy to its profit-sharing program. It stated that associates who joined the brokerage on or after April 1, 2020, and subsequently jumped to a competitor would lose their revenues from the company’s lifelong revenue program. But that policy did not impact agents who joined before April 1, 2020. 

The change introduced in 2020 also extended the wait period to become a vested member. But in August 2023, during KW’s Mega Agent Camp event in Austin, the company’s International Associate Leadership Council (IALC) voted to revise the profit-sharing distribution policy. Under the updated policy, vested agents who joined before April 1, 2020, and actively compete with KW brokerages would see their profit share reduced from 100% to 5%.

An incentive to go back to Keller Williams remained. Former agents who return to the company within six months of the effective reduction date will have their profit share restored to 100%, KW President Marc King wrote in an email in August 2023. Also, former KW agents who have retired or left the industry altogether will retain their full profit-share distribution. The new policy is supposed to be implemented on or before July 1, 2024.

“On August 16, 2023, the IALC — the voice of Keller Williams Realty, Inc.’s franchisees and agents — voted to update their profit share distribution policy, set to go into effect July 1, 2024,” KW spokesperson Darryl Frost told Inman in a statement Monday.

“Under the revised policy, former KW agents who actively compete against our brokerages will receive less profit share, with more redistributed to the agents who continue to partner in our growth. This change will not affect agents that retire or leave the real estate brokerage business. Importantly, this change does not enrich Keller Williams Realty, Inc. — these funds continue to enrich only affiliated real estate agents, investors, brokers, and staff.”

Both the Moulder and Bueker lawsuits — filed by the firm of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, based in Independence, Missouri — focus on the contention that Keller Williams breached its contract with agents by retroactively altering the profit-share program. They also highlight a provision added by the IALC in August, allowing KW to utilize profit-share program funds for legal defense against disputes.

According to the complaints, a report presented to the IALC in August 2019 revealed that approximately $25 million to $40 million had been paid in profit-sharing distributions to non-Keller Williams participants who were directly competing with the company.

Gary Keller, co-founder of Keller Williams, introduced the concept of profit sharing for agents in 1986. Keller and the company’s first Associate Leadership Council created the profit-share system, and an early version of the program was officially launched in 1987.

The tenets of the program are simple: Owners of individual Keller Williams market centers allocate roughly 50% of their monthly office profits to associates who play an instrumental role in attracting new talents to the company’s fold. When an associate agent joins any KW market center, they have to name their sponsor. 

On the 21st of the following month, a portion of the market center’s profit is automatically deposited to the sponsor’s account. The sponsor does not receive a portion of the associate’s commission but is sharing in the owner’s profits, although a market center must be profitable for a share to be paid. 

Originally Appeared Here

The highly anticipated trial of the Sitzer/Burnett buyer broker compensation class action lawsuit kicked off in earnest on Tuesday morning, with opening arguments taking place in the Kansas City courtroom belonging to U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough.

According to reports from Inman News, the plaintiffs opening arguments leaned heavily on the video depositions of Keller Williams CEO Gary Keller and HomeServices of America CEO Gino Blefari.

In agent training videos, Blefari said he pre-writes a 6% commission into all his listing agreements and that he only negotiates commissions if they go up.

“I was showing them [agents] what I did so they can learn from that,” Blefari said in his video deposition, according to Inman.

When asked by Michael Ketchmark, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, in the video deposition if his actions consisted of price-fixing, Blefari replied: “No, it’s just negotiating.”

The National Association of Realtors, whose Participation Rule lies at the center of the this and other lawsuits, used its opening remarks to note that the rule has been around for 25 years and has been clearly published on NAR’s website. Ethan Glass, an attorney for the trade association who spoke on behalf of NAR, said that from this it is clear the industry is not engaged in a conspiracy.

These remarks were expansions of arguments both the plaintiffs and the defendants laid out in trial briefs filed on Monday.

Plaintiffs allege collusion

In their trial brief, the plaintiffs in the suit allege that NAR’s Participation Rule, which they refer to as the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, is “a market-shaping and distorting rule” that stifles innovation and competition.

“The Rule requires every home seller to offer payment to the broker representing their adversary, the buyer, even though the buyer’s broker is retained by and owes a fiduciary obligation to the buyer (who may be told, falsely, that the services of the buyer broker are “free”),” the brief said.

They argue that the current practice of the seller’s agent splitting their commission with the buyer’s agent, who typically negotiates for a lower selling price for their client, works against the seller’s interest and only exists due to the alleged anticompetitive rules. The plaintiffs also note that the NAR rule in question requires a blanket offer of compensation for the buyer’s broker regardless of their experience or the level of service they provide the buyers with, and that the compensation offer was only visible to the buyer’s agent and not their clients, until very recently.

“This artificial and severed market structure created by Defendants’ conduct deters price-cutting competition and innovation, resulting in inflated commissions,” the brief states. “The Mandatory NAR Rules impede the ability of a free market to function in the residential real estate industry, and the plain purpose and/or effect of the Rules is to raise, inflate, or stabilize commission rates.”

In the brief, the plaintiffs claim that the other defendants in the suit colluded with NAR to enforce this and other NAR and MLS policies.

“The Corporate Defendants compel compliance in multiple ways, including by requiring their franchisees, subsidiaries, brokers, and agents become members of NAR; writing the NAR Rules into their own corporate documents; and requiring that their franchisees, subsidiaries, brokers, and agents become members of and participants in the Subject MLSs — entities that compel NAR membership and adopt the mandatory NAR Rules,” the brief reads.

The brief notes that Craig Schulman, the director of Berkeley Research Group and professor of economic data analytics at Texas A&M University, will be an expert witness for the plaintiffs at trial. In studying transaction data from NAR and other parties, the brief states the Schulman has concluded that “(a) the NAR Rules have anticompetitive effects; (b) the NAR Rules caused a seller to pay his adversary (buyer broker) and that, but for the conspiracy, a seller would not pay the buyer broker; and (c) all class members were impacted.”

The brief also notes that Schulman will testify that NAR’s rules have stabilized commission rates at an “anticompetitive level,” noting that commissions have remained at 6% for several year.

NAR’s opening arguments

For its part, NAR noted in its own trial brief that the trade group does not receive, study or track commissions, set commission amounts, determine who receives commissions, or decide how commissions are paid.

According to the brief, NAR’s rules do not require Realtors to “share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker,” and they “do not require sellers to do anything, and do not prevent sellers from doing anything” or “fix, set, inflate, or suggest commission amounts.”

NAR’s filing also makes three assertions about the trade group’s Participation Rule, which lies at the heart of the investigation. These assertions include that the rule “imposes no obligations on sellers,” that “it imposes no particular amount the agent representing the seller must offer to pay the agents helping her sell the home; and [that] it explains that its purpose is to make sure agents know how much they will be paid before they do any work.”

Additionally, the brief does not mention NAR’s MLS policy than an MLS “shall not publish listings that do not include an offer of compensation expressed as a percentage of the gross selling price or as a definite dollar amount, nor shall they include general invitations by listing brokers to other participants to discuss terms and conditions of possible cooperative relationships.”

The brief also does not mention NAR’s recent announcement that seller’s brokers could offer $0 (before it was “as little as one cent”) and still be in compliance with the trade group’s policies.

NAR does, however, note that it sellers are able to negotiate the commission rate with their agent, and agents are able to negotiate with one another.

“While NAR prohibits one agent from unilaterally changing the compensation she is being paid … it ‘does not preclude the listing broker and cooperating broker from entering into an agreement to change cooperative compensation,’” the filing states.

The trade group also took a clear stance on the conspiracy accusations.

“There is no direct evidence that the Defendants agreed with each other to enforce or follow NAR’s Model Rules,” the brief states. “Plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations boil down to an argument that trade associations are walking conspiracies, which courts routinely have rejected.”

NAR also argued in the brief that the plaintiffs do not have the ability to sue for damages —which some believe could reach as much as $4 billion in this case — because under federal and Missouri antitrust law, only “direct purchasers” can be allowed to sue and the plaintiffs have not bought anything directly from NAR or the other defendants.

“And, according to those same Model Rules and listing agreements, Plaintiffs did not directly pay cooperating agents, NAR, or the other Defendants; sellers only directly pay their listing agents and only directly receive services from their own agents,” the brief states. “Therefore, at best, Plaintiffs might claim that they paid their listing agents (who are not parties to this case) who, only then, paid Defendants. But such an indirect claim is prohibited by Supreme Court case law.”

In their briefs, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America, which are the only two brokerage defendants left after both RE/MAX and Anywhere filed settlement agreements, both claim that they did not participate in a conspiracy to enforce or create NAR’s Participation Rule.

Both defendants also said they joined in NAR’s trial brief.

The court noted that it expects a verdict in the suit, which was originally filed in April 2019, by mid- November.

Originally Appeared Here

Yet another national real estate brokerage firm has reached a settlement agreement in two of the major class action antitrust lawsuits facing the real estate industry.

According to court documents filed on Monday, RE/MAX and the home sellers suing the firm in both the Moehrl and Sitzer/Burnett cases, which both deal with buyer brokers’ commissions, have reached a preliminary settlement agreement, settling all claims in both suits.

RE/MAX’s settlement agreements, as well as the earlier settlement agreements reached by Anywhere Real Estate, must be approved by the U.S. District Court judges in Illinois (Moehrl) and Missouri (Sitzer/Burnett), who are overseeing the two lawsuits.

Details of the settlement agreements will not be disclosed until the plaintiffs file a motion to approve the settlement agreements.

However, a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals some details of the RE/MAX settlement.

“The Settlement resolves all claims in the Lawsuits and similar claims on a nationwide basis against RE/MAX … and releases RE/MAX and the Company, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and RE/MAX sub-franchisors, franchisees and their sales associates in the United States from the Claims,” the SEC filing reads.

“By the terms of the Settlement, RE/MAX agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $55.0 million … into a qualified settlement fund. In addition, RE/MAX agreed to make certain changes to its business practices.”

According to Steve Berman, the managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which represents the plaintiffs in the Moehrl suit, the Anywhere “settlement includes significant changes to Anywhere’s practices relating to the conduct that we have challenged,” as well as an agreement for the firm to pay a total of $83.5 million for both lawsuits.

In addition, RealTrends Consulting co-founder Steve Murray notes that the settlement agreements might prevent firms that operate under a franchise model from requiring that franchises belong to a Realtor association at any level, that franchises abide by the Realtor Code of Ethics, and that franchise abide by Realtor-affiliated MLS guidelines.

In the SEC filing, RE/MAX stated that the settlement was not an admission of liability.

“The Settlement and any actions taken to carry out the Settlement are not an admission or concession of liability, or of the validity of any claim, defense, or point of fact or law on the part of any party,” the filing stated. “RE/MAX continues to deny the material allegations of the complaints in the Lawsuits. RE/MAX entered into the Settlement after considering the risks and costs of continuing the litigation.”

In an emailed statement, a RE/MAX spokeperson wrote: “RE/MAX, LLC has entered into a nationwide class settlement with plaintiffs in the Burnett (formerly Sitzer) and Moehrl cases. If approved by the court, the settlement paves the way for a clear path forward for the RE/MAX brand, its franchisees and its agents, removing the uncertainty of ongoing litigation related to these cases. While RE/MAX, LLC steadfastly refutes the allegations presented in the lawsuits, this forward-looking decision was made in the best interest of RE/MAX, LLC, its agents and its franchisees, after carefully considering the significant risks and costs associated with continued litigation. Co-Founders Dave and Gail Liniger built the RE/MAX brand with Broker/Owners, agents and consumers at the center of the business and, if approved, the settlement specifically includes releases of liability for RE/MAX franchisees and agents.”

After Anywhere and RE/MAX’s settlements, the only defendants left in the two lawsuits are the National Association of Realtors, HomeServices of America, and Keller Williams.

The two lawsuits take aim at NAR’s Participation Rule, which requires listing agents to make a blanket offer of compensation to buyers’ agents in order to list the property on a realtor-affiliated multiple listing service (MLS). According to the plaintiffs, commission sharing inflates the costs for consumers, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. NAR contends that the current commission structure, which has been in place for over 100 years, actually helps consumers.

Damages in the Sitzer/Burnett suit are anticipated to be up to $4 billion, while damages in the Moehrl suit are expected to reach up to $40 billion.

The Sitzer/Burnett trial is slated to head to trial on October 16, 2023. While a trial date for the Moehrl suit has yet to be set, it is expected start in early 2024.

“Settlement is always an option for any party in litigation. NAR’s commitment to defend ourselves in court remains unchanged and we are confident we will prevail in proving the lawfulness of the rules under attack. Pro-competitive, pro-consumer local MLS broker marketplaces ensure equity, efficiency, transparency and market-driven pricing options for home buyers and sellers,” Mantill Williams, NAR’s vice president of communication, wrote in an email.

He continued: “The practice of the listing broker paying the buyer broker’s compensation saves sellers time and money by having so many buyer brokers participating in that local marketplace and thus creates a larger pool of buyers for sellers. For buyers, these marketplaces save them the burden of extra costs at closing, enable them to receive professional representation and make homeownership possible for more people. In fact, the U.S. model of independent, local broker marketplaces is widely considered the best value and most efficient model in the world, with no hidden or extra costs and with more complete, verified information compared to other countries. We look forward to arguing our case in court.”

Keller Williams and HomeServices declined to comment and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not return a request for comment.

Originally Appeared Here

The past year hasn’t been particularly good for tech or housing. As a consequence, the number of real estate, mortgage and general housing tech firms to make the annual Inc. Magazine list of the 5,000 fastest growing private companies in America declined in 2023. In all, 37 companies made the cut this year, down from 53 a year ago.

The self-reported list ranks U.S. based firms on percentage revenue growth from 2019 to 2022. To qualify, companies must have been founded and generating revenue by March 31, 2019. They must be U.S.-based, privately held, for-profit, and independent–not subsidiaries or divisions of other companies–as of December 31, 2029. The minimum revenues required are $100,000 for 2019 and $2 million for 2022.

The fastest-growing housing tech firm in 2023 was OptiFunder, which claims to produce the mortgage industry’s only optimization software built to systematically decision warehouse funding allocations and automate the complicated process of funding through loan sale. Based in Missouri, OptiFunder had a three-year growth rate of 4,767%. It was ranked the 98th-fastest growing private company in America in 2023.

Transactly, a real estate transaction platform that provides automation, integrations and tech-enabled services that significantly reduce process time, placed 126th in 2023. Another Missouri-based company, Transactly had a three-year growth rate of 3,852%.

Also appearing in the top 200 list was CertifID, an Austin, Texas-based company that makes software to cut down on wire fraud in the real estate industry. The company, led by Tyler Adams, raised $12.5 million in a Series A funding round in 2022.

Interestingly, none of the top three companies on the 2023 list made the cut in 2022. But several well-established housing tech companies made consecutive appearances in this year’s Inc. 5000 edition.

Homelight, a platform for homebuyers and sellers, was No. 403 in this year’s ranking with a 1,444% three-year growth rate. The company was ranked 351 last year.

LoanStar Technologies, which connects lenders with borrowers who are traditionally underbanked or unbanked, also made the list again. The company was No. 469 in this year’s ranking, up from 958 last year. Its three-year growth rate was 1,241%.

Mortgage origination platform Maxwell, which was in the top 200 last year and a HW Tech 100 award winner in 2021, was ranked No. 658 in the 2023 Inc. 5000 list.

Other established names to make the Inc. 5000 list in 2023 include home equity investment firm Point; co-living platform PadSplit; one-time unicorn Orchard, which operates a digital home buying and selling marketplace and was a 2023 HW Tech 100 award winner; single-family investment property marketplace Roofstock; RentSpree, a rental software platform that connects real estate agents, owners and renters; Curbio, one of leading tech-enabled pay-at-closing home improvement solutions; EasyKnock, a real estate firm that offers homeowners a way to access their home’s equity using a sale-leaseback program; and New Western, a marketplace that serves over 150,000 real estate investors across the country.

Two companies on the list have been on the Inc. 5000 list an impressive five times: Total Expert, which offers CRM and data-driven customer engagement solutions, turning customer insights into actions to increase loyalty and drive growth; and FirstClose, a tech solution provider for HELOC and home equity lenders.

Here’s the complete list of tech firms:

Additionally, two appraisal firms were named to the Inc. 5000 list in 2023: Kairos Appraisal Services, a national appraisal management company implementing technology to expedite the appraisal process through data, geocoding, scheduling and interactive communication tools. Kairos was No. 1,283 on the Inc. 5000 list with a three-year growth rate of 457%. Miami-based Marketwise Valuation Services, another AMC, was No. 2,629 overall with a three-year growth rate of 205%.

Sarah Wheeler compiled the list.

Originally Appeared Here

Monday was the final date for parties to file post-trial motions in the Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit and litigants took it down to the wire to file their motions. 

The parties had since Oct. 31, 2023, when a Missouri jury found the National Association of Realtors, HomeServices of America, and Keller Williams liable for colluding to artificially inflate real estate agent commissions, to prepare and file these motions. 

HomeServices of America filed three post-trial motions Monday evening. The motions includes a motion for judgement as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial and a motion to decertify the class. 

In its motion for judgement as a matter of law, HomeServices asks the court to set aside the jury’s verdict and damages award, claiming that the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to prove an antitrust violation. The motion for a new trial claims that the expert testimony used by the plaintiffs to prove their injury and damages case was unreliable and should not have been admitted. Finally, HomeService’s motion to decertify the class, asks the court to decertify the class because it feels that the court cannot rely on common evidence to prove that everyone in the class was harmed by any agreement to impose cooperative compensation. 

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for HomeServices wrote that the motions represent action that the firm believes is necessary to achieve justices and protect the interests of homebuyers. 

“Specifically, these motions make clear that the presented evidence and facts do not substantiate the claims of a conspiracy to enforce the Cooperative Compensation Rule. Furthermore, they do not demonstrate any antitrust impact or injury due to its enforcement. The significant issues related to the flawed verdict must be addressed,” Chris Kelly, a senior vice president at HomeServices of America, said in a statement. “In the face of this verdict’s potential far-reaching consequences for the real estate industry and, more critically, for the consumers we serve, our actions today are a resolute attempt to rectify certain trial issues, rulings, and conclusions that starkly contradict the actual dynamics of real estate transactions.”

Kelly said that the company was concerned about the verdict and the rash of copycat lawsuits that has followed.

“If left unchallenged, the recent verdict could have a chilling effect on the ability of these consumers to purchase a home. Correcting these legal and factual inaccuracies is paramount to show that the ongoing litigation against the real estate industry is misguided. HomeServices of America remains committed to ensuring that all consumers, regardless of their economic status, can access the expert advice and support necessary to make well-informed and beneficial real estate decisions.” 

During the course of the trial, HomeServices filed several motions including those for judgement as a matter of law and a mistrial.

Keller Williams joined HomeServices of America in its motions for a new trial and motion for judgement as a matter of law. The Gary Keller-helmed firm declined to comment beyond what was in the filings. 

As on Monday evening, NAR had not filed any post-trial motions and no motion for injunctive relief had been filed by the plaintiffs. 

In order to allow the defendants and plaintiffs time to file opposition briefs and responses, a final ruling on the injunction is not expected until May of 2024. The three remaining defendants in the lawsuit, NAR, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America have all vowed to appeal the verdict. 

Originally Appeared Here