Sparks and personal insults flew between him and broker owner Anthony Lamacchia. lamacchia real estatein a virtual discussion hosted by Michael Ketchmark, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Sitzer-Barnett Commission case. housing wire Friday afternoon.
The hour-long discussion began with both participants discussing their motivations for participating. It escalated into a fight over historical facts, classic MLS list books, pronunciation corrections, and even references to the children's restaurant chain Chuck E. Cheese.
Mr. LaMacchia kicked things off by saying that he chose to begin speaking publicly about the lawsuit in mid-October because of some of the rhetoric used by Mr. Ketchmark in the media.
“I was sitting on my couch and Michael was on CNBC calling us a cartel and saying we were taking money that didn't belong to us. I was furious at that rhetoric, and it was I was furious that they were making assumptions about real estate agents,” LaMacchia said. “It dehumanizes real estate agents and turns us into money-making machines.”
He also said the idea that the agency and MLS are colluding is “ridiculous.”
In response, Ketchmark said he was not trying to dehumanize real estate agents.
“I think real estate agents are great,” Ketchmark said. “My lawsuit was not brought against individual real estate agents. It was filed against the industry.”
Ketchmark told webinar viewers that when he and his wife went shopping for their first home, they sat down with an agent and looked at properties for sale in a phone book-style MLS listing. Ketchmark said the list book he created in front of the camera stated it was for MLS members only and that if distributed, the agent responsible would be fined.
“It was an attempt to strangle data, and they did it for the sole reason of securing funding,” Ketchmark said. “The advent of the Internet changed everything except one thing. It didn't change the way this business is run. It's the big companies that are doing it.”
Ketchmark also told viewers that he had not heard anything like that. National Association of Realtors However, he decided to enter a legal battle with the industry group. “After I started learning about what the trade associations have been doing and how they're going to divide the country into 800 different MLSs and try to free homeowners to live in the opposing teams at their MLS home.” Ketchmark said the practice of “offering money to someone” is “wrong.” He added that NAR's participation rules with this requirement are “used to stabilize prices.”
Next, Mr. Ketchmark refuted the claim that the various commission cases are a money grab for lawyers like himself.
“It's not the plaintiff's lawyers who are making money. It's the defendants who are making money. It's the National Association of Realtors that sets these rules,” Ketchmark said. “The premise of our lawsuit is that the rules are rigged to stabilize prices and fees, so that it costs more to sell a home than it would have had there been no collusion among competitors. about it.”
Attorney LaMacchia, who was often seen shaking his head and rolling his eyes at Ketchmark's comments, began his rebuttal by correcting Ketchmark's pronunciation of “real estate agent,” but the attorney repeatedly said, ” It was pronounced “real estate agent.”
“It’s just one of the little details of our business that Michael isn’t aware of,” LaMacchia said.
Regarding fines related to MLS listbooks, LaMacchia said he never used hardcopy listbooks during his playing days, but because they contain sensitive consumer information, LaMacchia said that Of course it should be protected. Mr. Lamacchia also said it is impossible to argue that the system is rigged because sellers can choose how much compensation they want to offer to the buyer's broker, or whether they want to offer cooperative compensation. He emphasized that it is possible.
“This is a free and open capitalist society,” Lamacchia said. “Home sellers can do whatever they want, and if they don't want to hire a real estate agent, they don't have to. If they want to just hire a regular agent, they're free to do that. If you would like to list your home on the Internet as an entry-only listing, you are free to do so.”
Ketchmark responded that while those claims may be true, no testimony or research conducted by him and his team supports them.
“We have statistically proven that this is happening,” he said. “Out of 253,000 transactions, what is the probability that all transactions match exactly? If not collusion, what is?”
As he did in the Sitzer-Barnett trial, Ketchmark referenced training materials from brokerage firms and speeches by CEOs like Gary Keller. keller williamshere we will discuss the fees.
“The reason something like this is done is because everyone knows that half of the money these agencies and companies are making is from the seller side and half is from the buyer side. That’s just wrong,” Ketchmark said. “Name another industry where something like that happens. It's not appropriate for something like that to happen and it shouldn't happen here.”
Plaintiffs' attorneys also noted that they argued during Sitzer-Barnett that there was no need to have a buyer's representative in the Zillow era.
“I have never said that a buyer's agent is not necessary or that home buyers should not have an agent, but if you want one, you can pay for one. Don't demand payment from sellers,” Ketchmark said.
Mr Ketchmark said he also took issue with the fact that the current fee structure does not allow sellers to consider the skills of buyer agents when determining compensation.
“The only reason is because of this rule, and it's wrong,” he said. “We have proven in court that the purpose and effect of this rule is to stabilize fees.”
In response, Lamacchia said he would not accept this as the purpose of NAR's rules of participation. The broker owner went on to discuss what he felt was a flaw in the way the case was handled, noting that the defense was not allowed to cite the Missouri law that allowed cooperation coverage (Ketchmark stated that this is not true).
LaMacchia also noted that while there is no information anywhere on the NAR website that indicates how much fees should be charged to agents, the American Bar Association and American Trial Lawyers Association websites have pages dedicated to the subject. He pointed out that there is. LaMacchia also took aim at the jury and the Kansas City courthouse where the trial was held.
“Michael was able to organize this case in a way that tied the defense's hands,” LaMacchia said. “I learned all sorts of things, including that Michael's sister-in-law is a judge in the same courtroom and that the wives of both of the plaintiff's attorneys are friends with the judge's wife on Facebook. Now, that's totally illegal. It's not, and I'm not insinuating that Michael is doing anything illegal, but it's interesting.
“When you go into a boxing match, it's much easier to win if the defendant can't use his arms,” Lamacchia added.
As expected, this also infuriated the lawyers.
“You're now representing the corporate defendants who came to court…and they argued everything you just said, and they lost, and you don't like the rules.” “I'm like a child who gets irritated when forced to do so,” Ketchmark replied.
He also noted that his sister-in-law is a federal prosecutor who currently handles criminal cases in another part of the court as a federal judge, and that the court has not tried a federal case since 1997. Mentioned.
Mr. LaMacchia went on to ask Mr. Ketchmark how this rule could be so anti-competitive, given that the real estate industry is widely considered to be highly competitive.
“I've been to hundreds of listing appointments over the course of my career, and I've always seen sellers only charge me X or Y, only to push the fee back. We’ve been talking about whether he has an agent,” LaMacchia said. “For consumers, our field is probably more competitive than any other.”
As an example, he said if you want to replace the windows in your home, there may be five local contractors you can call, but only three will return your call. But if he wanted to sell his house, he has 9,500 real estate agents covering the Boston metropolitan area, and at least he would have 9,000 to list his house.
“They're trying to act like consumers don't have a choice, which to me is completely crazy,” LaMacchia said.
The brokerage owner then asked Ketchmark how he could argue that he didn't want to kill NAR. new york times Earlier this month, he said he wanted to “overthrow” industry groups.
“What I said in the New York Times is that it's a game of whack-a-mole at Chuck E. Cheese every time NAR gets hit with something,” Ketchmark said. “In the 1920s, we were handing out cards to real estate people saying, 'Fix prices at this level,' and they were getting slammed. …What I'm saying is, it's a bit of a game of whack-a-mole. I want to disconnect the power.”
Ketchmark also claimed that he never said there was no competition in real estate. Rather, they're saying, “Competitors are banding together and using this rule to stabilize prices.”
LaMacchia responded that this is part of the misinformation that Ketchmark is perpetuating.
“There are so many misconceptions that Michael is spreading in the media,” LaMacchia said. “He consistently belittles the work of real estate agents and undermines the value of real estate agents and real estate agents.”
Discussion participants also touched on how the elimination of co-op coverage would affect first-time homebuyers and those with U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans.
“The current mortgage financial system does not allow for additional fees,” LaMacchia said. “First-time buyers have very little down payment money to buy a home. No one is going to be hurt more by this than first-time homebuyers who don't have the money to pay for this kind of thing out of pocket.” .”
The brokerage owner also pointed out that federal regulations prohibit Veterans Affairs borrowers from paying fees for representing buyers.
“It would be impossible to hire an agent to represent the fiduciary duties,” LaMacchia said. “Purchasers from all walks of life, especially veterans, are going to be left with no one to help them make financial and emotional decisions. I think this is terrible.”
Ketchmark said LaMacchia's claims were false and that down payment assistance programs would allow first-time buyers to pay for the agent's fees out of pocket.
“These programs are underutilized in Missouri because agencies and companies like the defendants do not train purchasers on how to use these programs,” Ketchmark said. . “But what would also be helpful for first-time buyers is if the system wasn’t rigged to inflate the value of the home by making fees so high.”
The debate ended with Ketchmark repeating the argument he had made throughout the Sitzer-Barnett case: “The system needs to change.''
“A system that brings competitors together to create and enforce rules aimed at stabilizing prices is wrong,” he said. “That's against the law. It was against the law in the 1890s. [when the Sherman Antitrust Act was created] And it's against the law today. As long as this continues, you can attack lawyers all you want, but the fact is, the law is the law, and the industry is not following it. ”
