If it is not illegal or ethical at the very least it is stupid.

The Department of State here would have a field day!

Wow that is a first. I know that forcing a buyer to use any lender is illegal. That's seems pretty forceful doesn't it.

what the heck is that about!!!! you can't fix stupid...

That is a new one on me.

My first thought was what Joe Pryor said before I saw his answe

Richard Weeks - can't answer this. Your question is missing a picture! (just kidding!)

It should be from seller - or else...a picture of handcuffs...

I have not seen anything worded quite like that but do see where REO properties require financed buyers to get prequalified with their mortgage person. I think that stinks.

WHOA!  SOS would definitely hit them with a fine here in NC - and I'm sure our MLS wouldn't approve either!  Just WOW!

One thing is for certain. The agent is in trouble for uploading it to the MLS.

Hummm..doesn't sound kosher to me! 

Who cares where it came from? 

It is illegal and unethical.  Google "CFP fines Prospect".  It made headlines 2 weeks ago and there are many stories about how the listing agent CANNOT request a buyer PQ with their preferred lender.

http://www.news4jax.com/consumer/mortgage-lender-fined-35m-over-alleged-kickbacks

http://www.news4jax.com/consumer/mortgage-lender-fined-35m-over-alleged-kickbacks

Someone need to turn this greedy agent in...

Eve

Unbelievable!

Richard Weeks it can be a violation if it is from an agent.

If my buyer were interested, I would call the California real estate legal hotline. It sounds like the listing agent is "in bed" with the lender and the title company. And I would call both of them as well; they must have knowledge that this is being done. At the very least, the listing agent is treading a very fine line...whether the seller is dictating these terms or not. 

Wow!  What were they thinking? That borders on "Not Thinking"

We see listings that state buyer must be approved through a certain lender, though the end choice is still theirs and that they prefer a certain title company and if seller is paying for title and escrow fees they want to use that company but the end choice is buyers. I am not a fan of that, and in most cases it is the listing agent making the request, even if they get it in writing from the seller. I do not think the way this is worded is appropriate. All offers must be presented timely, nobody should get a 'first review.'

Not very bright in my book!!!   Depending on who said it depends on the law suit.

Hum ... let me take a guess   

Richard,

Wow!  What were they thinking...CRAZY!

I'm not an attorney but that almost sounds like a conflict of interest to me!

Bizzare and Wow that is a first for me. I know that forcing a buyer to use any lender is illegal. That's seems pretty forceful doesn't it.

I hope the agent didn't take liberty and put that language in there. I truly hope the seller directed this to be done. 

Thanks for sharing this.

Not sure this isn't some sort of restraint of trade issue with the first sentence. 

Will Hamm nailed this one!

Really?  Just not right, someone must have ties in Southlake.

I would say it is illegal on both parts especially if the agent is taking any sort of payment from either. I just went through my CE and we discussed a seller requiring a pre qual from a certain bank, but could not mandate they use any such lender.

Unless the seller's family works there...it smells of agent direction

Give them both a call and see.

I have seen this numerous times.  Don't think this should be done.

I didn't do it! At leaset give yourself an out and require cross-qualification with this lender. Dumb at best!

I usually see something similar, but it's more like " Sellers prefer X Title". The way yours is worded could invite trouble.

I hope that it's under the direction of the Seller. All I want to see is the follow-up on the property status in tomorrow's MLS.

The last two sentences are good.  First one seems like the agent is specifying the seller's preferred service providers, but in a rather poor way.

I hate seeing things like this.  

curious if it is an REO, they have tried to have me put such verbiage in a listing.

I've seen REOs where the bank wants the buyer to have their prequal done but only states that they are not required to use that lender. This wording is snaky because they're not saying it's required but that it'll get first review. I agree with Joe that it's stupid.

I've seen that before in the Realtor Remarks. I'm not sure if it's a RESPA violation or not, but it doesn't seem to be a very smart move on the listing agent's part.

I would think the Seller would have to approve this kind of verbage on their listing, but it is even legal? and a confict of interest?

Did the seller instruct the agent in writing to include it in the MLS?

I steered one listing where in the contract sellers have to use the no-name broker for loan only.  While not a referral I urge the seller to change the wording to consider but not have to use them.

As your comment I see it legal but not ethical...  I have seen preferred agent names posted at even public companies.... 

Nope, I've never seen a financial provider named as a preference Richard Weeks . Is the property a bank owned property owned by FFM&T?

For my buyer I would suggest we move on! Nice try listing agent!

Hmm, that doesn't sound like it should be allowed.  I would definitely not do something like that.

call the agent

We don't see these type of requests, interesting! 

I have no idea.