So
far,
week
one
of
the

Sitzer/Burnett
bombshell
class
action
antitrust

buyer
broker
commission
lawsuit
has
seen
four
of
the
five
named
plaintiffs
testify
in
front
of
the
jury.

During
their
testimony,
attorneys
for
the
defendants,
which
now
include


National
Association
of
Realtors,


Keller
Williams
and


HomeServices
of
America,
had
the
opportunity,
if
they
wished,
to
cross-examine
the
witnesses
in
addition
to
the
questions
posed
by
Michael
Ketchmark,
the
lead
attorney
for
the
plaintiffs.

The
plaintiff
to
appear
before
the
jury
was
Hollee
Ellis,
a
former
high
school
English
teacher,
who
took
the
stand
on
Wednesday,
according
to
reports
from

Inman
News.
Ellis
is
a
Missouri
homeowner
and
the
daughter
of
a
30-year
real
estate
industry
veteran.
During
her
life,
Ellis
has
sold
four
homes
and
bought
five,
one
of
which
was
sold
during
the
time
period
applicable
to
the
suit.
On
the
home
sale
at
issue,
Ellis
said
she
paid
6%
commission
on
the
home
sale.

According
to
Ketchmark,
the
buyer’s
agent
portion
of
the
commission
on
Ellis
home
sale
accounted
for
20.55%
of
her
net
equity,
meaning
the
commissions
for
both
agents
ate
up
roughly
40%
of
the
equity
she
had
accumulated
on
the
property.

“It
was
a
hard
pill
to
swallow
that
we
would
walk
away
with
so
little,”
Ellis
said.

Ellis’
home
sale
was
necessitated
by
a
move
to
South
Carolina
for
a
new
job.
During
questioning,
Ketchmark
asked
Ellis
is
she
considered
herself
a
“cash-strapped
buyer,”
which
NAR
has
claimed
its
Participation
Rule,
which
is
at
the
center
of
this
lawsuit,
helps
by
taking
away
the
burden
of
having
to
pay
their
own
agent.

Ellis,
who
said
she
did
consider
herself
a
“cash-strapped
buyer,”
noted
that
the
20%
of
the
equity
that
went
to
the
buyer’s
agent
in
the
sale
of
her
previous
home,
would
have
helped
improve
her
situation
as
a
buyer.

“The
buyer
who
chose
them
and
who
they’re
working
for
should
pay
them,”
Ellis
said.

She
said
that
prior
to
joining
the
lawsuit,
she
was
unaware
that
clients
could
negotiate
the
commission
and
claimed
that
she
would
have
“gone
a
different
direction”
if
she
had
known.

In
their
cross
examination,
attorneys
for
the
defendants
established
that
Ellis
had
knowingly
signed
a
contract
to
pay
a
certain
commission
and
that
she
knew
the
commission
would
be
shared
with
whoever
the
buyer’s
agent
was.

According
to
Ellis,
a
6%
commission
has
already
been
filled
in
on
the
contract
prior
to
her
signing.

Rhonda
Burnett
was
the
second
plaintiff
to
take
the
stand.
She
is
a
former
school
psychologist
and
public
school
advocate.
For
her
home
sale
related
to
the
suit,
Burnett
worked
with
a
listing
agent
from
a
HomeServices
of
America
subsidiary.
On
her
listing
agreement,
Burnett
said
it
asked
her
to
circle
the
commission
rate
she
wanted
to
pay,
offering
7%,
8%,
9%,
10%,
or
a
“blank”
option.
According
to
Burnett
6%
was
already
filled
in
on
the
blank
and
her
agent
told
her
that
“nothing
was
negotiable.”

Burnett’s
home
was
originally
listed
at
$275,000,
but
ultimately
sold
for
$250,000
with
the
agents
involved
receiving
a
total
of
$15,298
in
commissions.

“I
paid
the
buyer’s
broker
to
negotiate
against
me
and
my
husband,
which
resulted
in
a
lower
sales
price,”
Burnett
said.
“She
did
a
good
job
for
him
[the
buyer],
but
I
had
to
pay
her
commission.”

Under
cross
examination
from
Robert
MacGill,
the
attorney
for
HomeServices
of
America,
Burnett
said
she
had
considered
selling
the
home
as
a
for-sale-by-owner,
but
ultimately
decided
not
to,
citing
MLS
access.
She
said
she
also
considered
using
a
so-called
discount
broker,
which
only
charged
a
1%
listing
fee,
however,
she
would
still
have
been
required
to
pay
a
3%
commission
to
the
buyer’s
agent.

“We
had
no
problem
paying
for
an
agent
to
sell
our
house,”
Burnett
said.
But
she
was
“not
happy”
about
having
to
pay
the
buyer’s
agent.

The
third
plaintiff
to
testify
was
Jeremy
Keel,
who
works
in
elder
law.
Keel’s
home
sale
in
question
was
a
$205,000
transaction
in
which
he
paid
a
6%
commission
split
equally
between
his
Keller
Williams’
listing
agent
and
the
buyer’s
agent.

Keel
was
cross-examined
by
Barack
Echols
for
Keller
Williams.
During
his
examination,
Echols
pointed
out
that
Keel
did
not
pay
commissions
when
he
was
a
buyer
himself
and
that
in
one
particular
transaction
Keel
only
paid
a
5%
commission.
Keel
denied
negotiating
this
commission,
stating
that
he
was
unaware
you
could
negotiate
a
commission
as
the
figure
was
already
filled
in
on
all
the
contracts
he
signed.

Home
seller
plaintiff
Jerod
Breit,
a
former
police
officer
who
is
now
a
regional
executive
director
of
Mothers
Against
Drunk
Driving,
took
the
stand
on
Thursday.
Breit
said
he
joined
the
lawsuit
after
going
through
the
experience
of
selling
his
first
home.

“After
my
first
experience
selling
a
home,
I
was
exposed
for
the
first
time
to
how
it
works
and
I
didn’t
think
necessarily
that
it
was
fair,”
Breit
said.
“I
still
don’t
see
the
fairness
in
paying
for
somebody
you’re
never
going
to
meet
and
never
works
for
you
in
any
way.
I
don’t
think
it’s
fair.”

Breit,
who
did
note
he
was
satisfied
with
the
selling
experience
his


RE/MAX
agent
provided,
said
he
originally
signed
a
contract
to
pay
5.5%
in
commissions
with
buyer’s
agent
getting
2.7%.
However,
when
he
looked
at
the
sale’s
settlement
statement
with
his
attorney,
he
found
out
he
had
been
charged
a
6%
commission.

“It
was
preloaded
on
the
contract
and
I
thought
I
was
signing
what
I
needed
to
sign,”
Breit
added.

Under
cross
examination
by
MacGill,
Breit
acknowledged,
after
going
through
the
various
contract
that
he
signed,
that
he
knew
he
was
paying
the
buyer
agent
commission.

When
asked
by
Ketchmark
if
he
thought
RE/MAX
was
part
of
a
conspiracy
“designed
to
pick
your
pocket,”
Breit
said
“no.”

Craig
Schulman,
an
associate
professor
of
economics
at
Texas
A&M,
was
also
called
to
the
stand
on
Thursday.
He
stated
that
NAR
had
a
strong
economic
incentive
in
the
alleged
conspiracy
to
maintain
high
real
estate
commission
rates,
namely
the
$225
million
per
year,
the
trade
organization
brings
in,
in
NAR
member
dues.

In
addition
to
testimony,
Thursday’s
proceedings
had
a
touch
of
drama.
After
the
court
adjourned
for
the
day,
one
of
the
two
women
on
the
jury
approached
Judge
Stephen
Bough,
who
is
overseeing
the
trial.
The
woman,
who
is
a
new
mom
with
a
roughly
six-week-old
baby
at
home,
was
dismissed
from
the
jury.
The
jury
now
consists
of
seven
men
and
one
woman.
Despite
the
dismissal
the
trial
is
expected
to
continue
as
planned
as
federal
rules
require
between
six
and
12
jurors.

The
fifth
named
plaintiff,
Frances
Harvey,
is
expected
to
take
the
stand
on
Friday
or
Monday.
The
defendants
will
begin
their
defense
next
week.