Dear Monty: An agent showed us a house we are interested in, but they want us to pay an additional fee above the typical split. We are aware of another agent who does not charge an extra fee, only the fee we would negotiate. We haven't signed any papers yet. Have the new rules about dealing with a buyer agent affected the 'procuring cause' theory?

Monty's Answer: You are asking an excellent and timely question. Your situation sits right at the intersection of buyer-agent fee flexibility and lingering confusion about "procuring cause." I'll assume you're in a typical U.S. residential market and you have no signed buyer-broker agreement with the first agent.

Here's the key shift:

Procuring cause still exists, but written buyer-broker agreements now matter far more than who unlocked the door first. Per the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the industry's 2024 rule changes require buyer-agent compensation to be negotiated, and "procuring cause remains a relevant legal concept" in resolving commission disputes between brokers.

In plain English:

— Before the settlement, an agent could argue, "I showed the house, so I should get paid."

— Now, if you haven't signed an agreement promising to pay that agent, their procuring-cause argument is weaker. Negotiated written agreements take priority over who initiated the showing.

That said, procuring cause has not disappeared. It can still surface in commission-arbitration battles between brokerages, but the fight is typically between brokers rather than between brokers and consumers. Your financial exposure today is much lower when you have not signed anything.

Your Options

No. 1: Politely Decline the Extra Fee and Walk Away

— Pros: Cleanest, avoids conflict and aligns with the buyer-choice era.

— Cons: You lose continuity if you liked the first agent.

— Tip: A simple script: "We are not agreeing to an additional buyer fee. Since no agreement is signed, we're choosing alternative representation."

No. 2: Ask The Broker for a "No Procuring-Cause Claim" Letter

— Pros: Creates certainty and prevents later disputes.

— Cons: Some brokers may resist; requires confidence to make the request.

— Why it works: Brokers dislike arbitration and consumer transparency is a key expectation under the new rules.

No. 3: Hire the Second Agent — But Sign an Explicit Buyer-Agency Agreement

— Pros: Ensures clarity on fees and duties; aligns with the new norm that buyers choose and negotiate representation.

— Cons: It is still wise to verify that no prior agreement exists.

— Pro Tip: Confirm in writing: "I have no financial obligation to any other brokerage."

Practical Takeaway

Showing a house does not automatically create a right to compensation, especially now. Written agreements control compensation more than procuring-cause theories. This new rule is one of the most precise modern shifts in consumer empowerment in residential real estate.

How to Decide

Ask yourself:

— Did I sign anything? (You didn't — advantage, you.)

— Is the first agent offering unique value worth a premium?

— Which agent is transparent, cost-aligned and proactive?

In a market where buyers must increasingly negotiate representation, choosing an agent is a business decision, not an obligation created by a showing. It is unclear why the agent is asking for an additional fee. The reason may be that the negotiated buyer agent fee is shared with others, where the second fee would be constructed to increase the agent's revenue. This might be a reason to proceed cautiously.

Richard Montgomery is a syndicated columnist, published author, retired real estate executive, serial entrepreneur and the founder of DearMonty.com and PropBox, Inc. He provides consumers with options to real estate issues. Follow him on Twitter (X) @montgomRM or DearMonty.com.

Photo credit: Jacob Sutherland at Unsplash