[EDITORS: This is the second column in a two-part series.]

Homebuyers looking to pay their agents directly have found little success, according to a new consumer group study.

Instead, buyers are being told not to worry -- that the seller would pay the commission. Some are being told that buyers never pay any agent fees, just sellers.

That’s not what was supposed to happen as a result of two landmark antitrust lawsuits, settled a year ago, between disgruntled homebuyers, the National Association of Realtors and several large brokerages.

Under the new compensation rules put in place because of the class-action cases, sellers and their agents were no longer required to post how they intended to pay agents who were working with buyers. Also, before being shown any houses, agents are now required to have buyers sign a contract that includes how, and how much, the agents will be paid for their services.

It was hoped that both steps would “uncouple” buy- and sell-side commissions, allow for more negotiation over sales fees on both sides of the table and eventually lead to lower costs for both buyers and sellers.

For the most part, though, it’s pretty much business as usual, per a report by the Consumer Policy Center, an independent think tank.

Removing the barriers to negotiation “was not sufficient” to move the needle, according to the report’s authors, CPC Senior Fellow Stephen Brobeck and Fellow Wendy Gilch.

The reason: The real estate profession has found ways to minimize the settlements’ impact.

While attempts to negotiate "might increase" as buyers and sellers learn about the new regulations, Brobeck and Gilch write that "it has become increasingly apparent that successful agent work-arounds have greatly limited these opportunities. Buyers are still assured by most agents that sellers will pay their commissions.”

Other studies have found similar results, and other groups agree that commission rates have barely budged since the NAR settlements. But the CPC was the first to take a ground-level look at what’s actually happening in the realty trenches.

To wit, CPC’s researchers mystery-shopped 281 buy-side agents from "the most active brokerages in 26 diverse metro areas."

They found it “very difficult” for buyers to bargain lower fees, with those who try being “met with a barrage of arguments.” Typical excuses included insisting that most sellers in a particular market pay the commissions, or that buyers are never expected to pay these fees.

Buyers are also often told that if the seller and their agent don’t pay the buyer-agent’s share, buyer-agents won’t show their houses. “Typically sellers pay because they don’t want to be at a disadvantage,” is a frequent refrain.

Based on these findings, Brobeck and Gilch believe the presettlement goal of truly separating commissions “should be revived and prioritized.”

They also call for allowing buyers to include agents' commissions in their mortgages, calling it “the most practical mechanism” for driving down costs. Right now, federal regulators do not allow borrowers to finance sales commissions, even though it is generally accepted that sellers include their fees in their selling prices.

Until lenders are permitted to include commission charges as part of the loan amount, buyers are on their own in trying to negotiate what their agents charge. But they should not take no for answer.

Interviews with the agents revealed that while they resisted at first, they were willing to bargain when faced with pushback. A full two-thirds said they would accept a lower fee, and of those, a third would agree to lower their fee by a full percentage point.

If your agent balks, find another one who is more amenable to cutting their levy -- at least a little.

Sellers also should try to negotiate their side of the commission, but Brobeck and Gilch advise against offering a specific percentage. Instead, sellers should just indicate they want to bargain.

Researchers also found that a number of agents ignored the requirement calling on them to have buyers sign contracts before showing them the first property, with some saying it wasn’t necessary.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with these contracts, but buyers should be careful of their terms. Some tie you to the agent for months, while others allow the broker to turn you over to another agent if you are dissatisfied with the original one.

However, rather than signing formal agreements, nearly half of the agents interviewed said they would offer short-term “touring” contracts, which could be terminated without penalty if you became unhappy with the agent's services.

Meanwhile, industry practices remain a fertile ground for more class-action suits, the CPC report warns, if only because agents and their brokers all tend to charge the same rate. Some 95% of the agents interviewed quoted a commission between 2.5% and 3%, with nearly three times as many citing the higher figure.

“The continuing uniformity of rates provides prima-facie evidence of price fixing and an easy, tempting target for critics,” reads the CPC report.

Interestingly, all agents quoted their fees as a percentage rather than as a fixed dollar amount. Some believe that if commissions were presented in flat monetary terms, buyers and sellers alike would realize how much they are spending -- and would be more likely to try to bargain those fees down.

The supposedly “earthshaking” legal settlement that was supposed to drive down real estate commissions, saving buyers and sellers thousands of dollars in the process, wasn’t so tumultuous after all.

Twelve months after the National Association of Realtors agreed to change the rules on how agents are paid, commission rates are roughly the same as they were prior to the settlement. That's according to research from RISMedia, a news service for real estate agents and brokers, which polled 623 real estate professionals on the topic.

Immediately after the settlement, rates dropped sharply. But now, based on a full year of data, the company says commissions did "snap back from their initial plunge."

Sales fees are still down a bit, averaging roughly 5.39% on a national basis. But they “remain within a historically normal range of year-to-year fluctuations,” RISMedia found.

Steve Brobeck, senior fellow at the Consumer Policy Center, is among those who thought the NAR deal would bring down real estate fees.

While the settlement called for greater buyer and seller negotiation of the buyer's agent's share, Brobeck believes some agents have “effectively used ‘work-arounds’ to thwart any negotiation that lowers overall rates.”

“Buyer efforts to negotiate lower rates are typically met with a barrage of arguments that begin with the statement that sellers compensate buyer agents and end with a promise to write a 0% rate into the buyer-agent contract,” he told me.

Brobeck often laments the fact that those who are relatively new to real estate sales are paid the same rates as experienced agents. The RISMedia poll found that that hasn’t changed, either.

For agents on both sides of the table, the difference in average commission rates was negligible between those who claimed industry experience of 10 years or more, and those with less than 10 years. Just after the NAR settlement, RISMedia found, less-experienced buyer’s agents were charging an average of 2.1% of the contract price for their services, while their more experienced counterparts were charging 2.33%.

Now, both groups have seen their average commission rates “return to the norm.”

This finding is at odds with what critics thought would happen. The trend is similar for listing agents, although those fees haven’t gone up quite as much as the buyer-side's.

Percentage changes might not mean a lot to buyers and sellers. But when presented in monetary terms, they are significant.

For a newer buyer-side agent, the 0.47% commission rebound represents $1,930 more per transaction on a median-priced house. For a buyer-side agent closing the median number of sales annually, the increase works out to just over $23,000.

Sellers, meanwhile, are paying $1,027 more on average per deal, which works out to an extra $12,324 in the pockets of agents who list and sell the median number of houses per year.

Again, that’s money out of sellers' pockets.

The NAR settlement was thought to be a game-changer in the way agents are paid. But that hasn’t happened, either.

Prior to the agreement, the seller generally paid their agent, who split the commission with the buyer’s agent. But the pact cut the two agents loose from one another, giving buyers the opportunity to negotiate their share of the commission with their own agents.

According to RISMedia’s research, in the early weeks of the settlement, 71% of the agents queried said sellers always paid the levy. Now, 78% say that’s the way it works.

This is “not quite matching the 86% of agents who saw this cooperative compensation pre-settlement, but (it's) still a notable rebound,” the company says.

More surprising, perhaps, is that just 2% of the sampled agents said the buyer paid their own agent in each of their transactions over the previous 12 months. And 95% said half or more of their deals involved cooperative compensation.

If that finding is not in direct violation of the NAR settlement, it is in violation of its spirit.

The report notes that multiple listing services that are not affiliated with NAR still allow listing agents to post what part of their commission they are willing to give the buyer’s agent -- a practice the settlement forbids.

In addition, some agents are modifying buyer-agent contracts to obtain additional compensation offered by a seller. And some listing agents are keeping excess commissions that are paid to the buyer’s agent.

The latter practice “is perfectly acceptable under the new rules,” the media company says. But it’s also a practice critics see as "evidence of underhanded and anti-consumer behavior."

The research shows that these practices "are at least somewhat common in the post-settlement world -- across brokerage models, regions and demographics."

On a brighter note, more and more buyers are signing contracts with their agents and detailing, among other things, what they will be paid. That, says the media company, “would appear to affirm both the practical implementation (of the settlement) and NAR’s argument that these agreements are an important and positive development.”

Another shift that some expected to emerge from the settlement was that agents -- particularly buyer-side agents -- would work for a flat fee or under a fee-for-service platform. But a full year after the settlement, the study found no significant movement on that front.

NEXT WEEK: Agents still refuse to bargain.

What happens when the person buying your house dies before the closing date? Or when your tenant passes away mid-lease?

The short answer: Everything changes.

Typically, when a homebuyer passes, their right to the contract passes to their beneficiaries or heirs, who then decide whether or not to proceed to closing. Usually, they decide not to. If the buyer’s spouse is on the contract, the transaction can proceed if they so desire -- and if the lender will still approve the loan despite the loss of the deceased’s income.

If the sale is canceled, the seller may be able to keep the earnest money deposit, depending on state law. They can also file a claim against the buyer’s estate for lost profits, but it is rare that a seller wins such a case. Generally, the best remedy is to start over with a new buyer.

It’s much more complicated when a tenant dies, especially if the death occurs in the rental property. There are all kinds of variables to consider, including the number of people on the lease and whether the deceased was the victim of a crime. Since we can't cover every scenario, the following is a brief discussion of the general protocol around the unexpected death of a sole tenant.

Nothing here should be construed as legal advice. For that, speak with a lawyer, especially because laws vary from state to state.

Usually, you’ll learn about the death of a tenant in one of two ways: Either a family member (or the executor of the will) notifies you, or you discover the body. If it's the latter, immediately call 911. The authorities will remove the remains and notify the next of kin.

From there, you will work with the deceased’s relatives, so be mindful of their feelings.

“Landlording is a business, and your tenants are not your friends,” writes Kimberly Rau in a post on MassLandlords.net. “However, that doesn’t mean that you should check your humanity at the door.”

If there are no relatives, then the executor of the tenant’s estate will come forward. If the tenant died without an executor, a personal or court-appointed representative will handle the estate.

Whomever you deal with, your first step is to secure the premises. This not only protects the tenant’s personal property until their loved ones can collect it -- which is your responsibility under the law -- but also protects you from liability if something is missing. Lock all windows and doors, and change the locks just in case the tenant had given keys to someone else.

Next, obtain a written notice of death, which will allow you to begin the legal process of ending the deceased’s lease. “Receiving a written notice is essential,” according to a column by Ava Johns at TurboTenant.

With a death notice in hand, you can begin the process of removing the tenant’s possessions and preparing the property for the next renter. You can arrange a time for the next of kin to remove any belongings, but you cannot remove them on your own without the estate’s cooperation.

“The process will take a bit of time, so have patience,” writes Stephen Michael White of RentPrep. “The original lease agreement stands until you and the executor can close it out, so you must continue as if the tenant were still occupying the property.”

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the tenant’s passing, the lease and all its terms and obligations transfer to their estate, which is legally responsible for paying rent until the contract is terminated.

If the tenant was on a month-to-month lease, the official death notice acts as the 30-day notice of the lease’s termination. If the executor asks for an extension, you can grant it. In that case, the estate owes you rent for not just the last 30 days, but also for as long as the extension lasts.

Even if the tenant had a long-term lease, the estate is still legally responsible for the rent until the lease expires. However, your state may forbid so-called “death penalty” lease clauses that require leases to run to term. Pennsylvania, for example, prevents landlords from collecting more than two months’ rent after a tenant dies.

As for the tenant’s deposit: It's considered part of the estate. You can use the deposit to cover unpaid rent, property damages or cleanup expenses, but the remaining amount must be returned to the estate. If the deposit doesn’t cover the cost of returning the place to acceptable livability, you'll have to work with the executor for reimbursement.

If the estate does not remove the deceased’s belongings in a timely manner, you should obtain written permission to clear the place yourself. But again, check with the authorities first, and proceed with caution.

Cleaning could be another problem -- and an expensive one. In some states, depending on the circumstances of the death, you may be required to hire biohazard specialists before renting the place out again. Such remediation costs may be covered by the tenant's renter's insurance policy, or perhaps by your own policy.

When the place is empty and has been cleaned thoroughly, the estate will sign a form called "release to the rights of possession," which says that the tenant is no longer an occupant and that all their belongings have been removed. With that form in hand, you are now free to rent the place again.