W
hen law professor Tanya Monestier began examining buyer agreements, she had no idea it would lead her to become a leading voice in NAR's biggest battle. Her report on California Association of Realtors' draft agreement, commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America, uncovered provisions that seemed designed to circumvent the National Association of Realtors' settlement.

    Monestier, an expert in contract law, was initially focused on consumer protection but soon realized the contracts were not only confusing but also contained problematic clauses. After reviewing dozens of agreements and training materials from 19 state associations, she felt like she was "wrestling with an octopus."

    Her concerns about the settlement itself led her to file a lengthy objection, arguing that it would cause more confusion for consumers and that the attorney fees were excessive. Despite her efforts, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough rejected her objections.

    Undeterred, Monestier continues to push for change. She has joined other objectors in appealing the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. Even if the appeal is unsuccessful, she hopes that her arguments will prompt industry changes, particularly regarding workarounds that allow agents and brokerages to circumvent the settlement.

    Monestier's criticism of association forms and the NAR settlement has made her unpopular with some in the industry. However, she has had constructive conversations with those who disagree with her, and she has created a draft buyer agreement aimed at balancing consumer and agent needs. She believes that focusing on common ground between buyers, sellers, and agents is essential to finding solutions.