Recently, I represented a buyer purchasing a condominium. According to the Multiple Listing Service, or MLS, the HOA dues covered water, sewer, garbage, internet, gas, and electricity. That is a substantial list. It is also information that matters when calculating what a home will actually cost each month. An HOA payment looks considerably different when it includes keeping the lights on, heating the house and maintaining the internet connection. My client was purchasing this as an investment, so he wouldn’t be living there, but the numbers still had to work to make sense for him. We made it through inspections, repairs and appraisal and were getting ready for closing. A few days before we had scheduled to sign, the listing agent sent an email instructing us to have the utilities transferred over to my client’s name.

This was, understandably, confusing to me. I emailed back stating that the utilities were included in the HOA dues and asked him to please double check. I attached the actual listing outlining where this was stated. He assured me that it was just a standard form his office sends at closing. I asked him to double check anyway. Despite my follow-up attempts, I never received an answer resolving the discrepancy. Now before throwing me under the proverbial bus about doing my own due diligence on behalf of my client, keep reading.

Several days later, I received an email from his office explaining that the gas and electricity had never been transferred into my client’s name. The seller was still paying, and the utilities would be shut off. Apparently, we had reached the part of homeownership where the advertised amenities began disconnecting themselves. I again attached the MLS sheet and reminded him what it stated. The response? I should have verified.

Now, verification is important. I recommend it. I practice it. In this case, I had also requested clarification from the very person who published the information. That is good practice. It also does not excuse careless advertising. Here is where “you should have verified” becomes a particularly irritating response.

I had the HOA documents in front of me, including the budget. Water, sewer and garbage were listed. I could not find gas, electricity or internet identified as covered expenses. That omission did not conclusively establish what was included, but it certainly raised a question. Actually, three questions, all of which tend to arrive with monthly bills. I had, in fact, sent the documents to my client and explained that I suspected the MLS was inaccurate. Then I contacted both the HOA management company and the listing agent to confirm, and contacted them again, and again. If you have ever tried to get an answer from an unresponsive HOA management company, you know that leaving a message can feel like placing a small note in a bottle and hoping the ocean has a particularly organized accounting department. The listing agent was not providing much more enlightenment.

Nevertheless, I continued calling, emailing and texting. This was not idle curiosity. There was a discrepancy between the advertised expenses and the documents, and I wanted a clear answer for my client. After closing, when the listing agent told me it was my responsibility to verify the information, I agreed that verification was important. Then I showed him the numerous emails and a screenshot of my unanswered texts requesting precisely that.

Being instructed to ask a question by the person who has repeatedly failed to answer it requires a level of composure that should probably qualify for continuing education credit. There is a larger issue here than one incorrectly checked box. When an agent publishes information, receives specific questions about its accuracy and then fails to resolve those questions, “buyer to verify” is an awfully convenient place to seek shelter.

What, exactly, is the proposed verification process when the people positioned to provide the answer will not respond? Buyers and their agents should review documents, identify inconsistencies and pursue answers. We did those things. The discrepancy was disclosed to my client; it was never resolved by the people I contacted before closing. That distinction matters. So does the difference between making a mistake and taking responsibility for correcting it.

I do not expect every listing to be flawless. I do expect a question about an apparent error to produce something more useful than silence before closing and a lecture afterward. We should be able to expect buyers and their agents to investigate important details while expecting listing agents to take reasonable care with the information they publish. Those responsibilities can exist at the same time. Otherwise, we are asking consumers to make one of the largest purchases of their lives using a document everyone consults and no one wants to stand behind.

“Buyer to verify” is useful advice. It would be considerably more reassuring if it were accompanied by “Listing agent already checked.”

Jen Fischer is an associate broker and Realtor. She can be reached at 801-645-2134 or jen@jen–fischer.com.