Weekly Real Estate News
Summary
The Tuccori homebuyer commission settlement proposals total $120,334,500. A final fairness hearing was scheduled for November 2, 2026 before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. As of the November 3 morning review, no final approval order or reliable hearing disposition had been independently verified; the settlement must not be described as finally approved.
A federal judge in Chicago scheduled a November 2 hearing to consider final approval of more than $120 million in proposed homebuyer commission settlements, a consequential step in litigation alleging that real estate industry compensation practices inflated the costs of purchasing a home.
The hearing in Tuccori v. At World Properties, case No. 1:24-cv-00150, was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Central time on November 2 before U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. According to the court-authorized settlement administrator’s notice, the judge will review whether the agreements are fair, reasonable and adequate, along with requests for attorneys’ fees, expenses and service awards.
As of the November 4 review, WRE News had not verified a final approval order or reliable account of the hearing’s disposition. The scheduled hearing itself must not be described as a judgment approving the settlement.
Who is paying, and what the fund covers
The proposed global settlement fund totals $120,334,500, according to the administrator’s detailed breakdown. The largest contribution is $52.25 million from the National Association of Realtors. HomeServices of America and related entities account for $30 million; Anywhere Real Estate contributes $9.60 million, Hanna Holdings $8.25 million, Compass $7.33 million and eXp World Holdings $4.34 million. Other participating brokerages contribute the remainder.
These are settlement commitments across numerous defendants, not a single new $120 million payment by NAR. The court must still decide whether to approve the arrangements and any requested deductions. Class members’ eventual net recoveries will depend on fees, administration costs, valid claims and the allocation plan. The administrator says payments, if approved, may be distributed in installments over several years. No per-buyer payment has been fixed.
The underlying lawsuit alleges that NAR and residential brokerages maintained anticompetitive commission practices that harmed homebuyers by raising transaction costs and, in plaintiffs’ account, home prices. The defendants deny wrongdoing and legal liability. The administrator’s notice explicitly says no court or jury has determined which side is right.
The proposed settlements would resolve specified homebuyer claims and provide releases for qualifying parties. They are distinct from the earlier home-seller commission cases, including Burnett and Gibson. The NAR’s April 10 statement said its agreement would reaffirm existing practice changes without imposing a new set of changes on member agents, if approved.
Claim deadline has already passed
The administrator lists October 27, 2026 as the deadline to submit claims and states that new claims are no longer being accepted. That deadline preceded the scheduled November 2 hearing. A homebuyer who filed a timely claim does not receive an automatic payment simply because a fairness hearing is held.
The proposed class generally concerns people who purchased an MLS-listed home and paid a commission through the transaction during applicable class periods, which differ by defendant and state. Home sellers are not included solely because they sold property. Exclusions and overlaps with other settlements further narrow eligibility, making the full official class definition essential.
WRE News previously reported NAR’s April settlement and the October 27 claims deadline. The November 2 hearing was the next scheduled procedural milestone, not a second settlement announcement. Its outcome remains unverified.
The decision still has consequences for the industry
The court may approve the agreements, require changes or reserve decision after hearing objections. It will also consider the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses. Approval, if granted, would not itself establish that the defendants violated antitrust law.
For brokerages, MLS organizations and agents, the scope of the releases matters as much as the dollar amount. The settlement documents describe which entities may benefit from protections and what compliance conditions apply. For consumers, the questions are how the net fund will be divided and when eligible claimants may be paid.
WRE News will treat the judge’s eventual written order as the controlling development. Until that order is available and verified, the accurate posture is a proposed settlement without a confirmed final disposition.
