Realty One, The Agency settle in homebuyer commissions case
The firms are the latest to opt into Tuccori, a settlement NAR also joined — but that deal is now under fire. Plus, Veterans United pushes back in RESPA case.
Key points:
- Realty One and The Agency — brokerages facing litigation in a case known as Cwynar — have opted into a similar lawsuit, Tuccori, to settle claims brought by homebuyers.
- The National Association of Realtors also joined the Tuccori settlement last week, but that deal is now being opposed by plaintiffs in Batton.
- Veterans United has asked the court to dismiss a RESPA case filed against the lender in February, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing.
Two more brokerages have chosen to join a commissions settlement stemming from a lawsuit brought by homebuyers.
In an April 14 filing, attorneys for Realty One Group and The Agency announced their decisions to opt into the Tuccori settlement, which is being overseen by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The filing did not disclose the amount either company would pay into the settlement fund.
The original lawsuit: Neither Realty One nor The Agency was a named defendant in Tuccori. Both brokerages were sued by another homebuyer in a related case known as Cwynar, filed in June 2025 in the same court, but joined Tuccori via an opt-in clause included as part of an settlement reached last October.
The attorneys for the two firms requested that the court pause proceedings in Cwynar in light of the pending settlements.
Other brokerages named in Cwynar include Real, which also joined the Tuccori settlement earlier this year, and Vanguard, which joined in late February. With these latest settlements from Realty One and The Agency, all Cwynar defendants have now reached preliminary agreements.
A flurry of deals (and pushback): These two settlements continue what has been a busy period for the Tuccori case. Last week, the National Association of Realtors and Douglas Elliman opted in, with NAR paying $52.25 million into the fund — the largest amount paid so far in a commissions case brought by a homebuyer. The NAR settlement casts a wide net, covering state and local Realtor associations as well as both Realtor-owned and non-Realtor-owned Multiple Listing Services.
Other major brokerages, including Anywhere and Hanna Holdings, opted in earlier this year, but those settlements are being challenged in court by plaintiffs in other cases — and now the NAR deal is facing the same pushback.
In an April 14 filing, plaintiffs in a similar lawsuit known as Batton requested that proceedings against NAR not be paused, calling the association's opt-in settlement a "reverse auction" and noting that the court denied a similar request by Anywhere — also a defendant in Batton — to stay its case.
"NAR presents no compelling reason to effectively overturn the denial of Anywhere's stay motion and grant NAR's motion for the same relief," the filing states.
The Batton plaintiffs made a similar reverse auction claim when contesting the Anywhere deal, accusing the brokerage of trying to "end-run" the Batton litigation in order to settle "on the cheap." The argument didn't appear to convince the judge, who granted preliminary approval of Anywhere's settlement on Mar. 4.
VU fires back in RESPA case
In other legal news, the home loan company Veterans United has asked the court to dismiss a complaint over steering and misrepresentation.
The case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in February, alleges that the private lender misled consumers "by falsely presenting itself as part of the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs]."
The lawsuit also alleges that VU used a referral network of real estate agents to steer clients its way in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiffs are being represented by Hagens Berman, which was involved in the Moehrl commissions lawsuit and is currently representing a homebuyer in a steering-related lawsuit against Zillow.
The push to dismiss: In their motion requesting a dismissal, attorneys for Veterans United argued that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim where relief may be granted and do not provide evidence of any deceptive or fraudulent act. They also make a jurisdictional argument, noting that the claims are based on transactions that occurred outside of Missouri, according to the filing.
"The Complaint gets almost nothing right about (Veterans United Home Loans) or (Veterans United Realty)," according to the April 13 filing. "In fact, it is fueled by 'confidential' competitors and largely recycled from complaints filed against other large mortgage lenders."
'We're proud of our track record': Veterans United Home Loans' goal has been to help veterans become homeowners and to dispel myths and misconceptions about their hard-earned home loan benefit, Communications Manager Chad Moller said in an email to Real Estate News.
"To be crystal clear, Veterans United Home Loans and Veterans United Realty have never held themselves out as the VA or any other government agency. Never," Moller said. "We're proud of our track record over the last 24 years, the positive impact we've had on our communities, the exceptional experience we provide our customers, and the growing role of the VA loan in the mortgage market."
Editor's note: This story has been updated to include comments from Veterans United Home Loans Communications Manager Chad Moller and additional details on the NAR settlement.