That might be a win-win, especially if the seller will offer a good price due to not having to wait for tenant's lease to end, find a buyer, and likely pay listing commissions.  

Even though in real life you should be able to buy it for 5% less the estate is saving in real estate commissions. 

Buyers now need legal representation before they can see a property with an agent and commission will no longer be advertised (In the Greater Cincinnati market it will still be standard for sellers to pay buyer broker commission)I wanted to ask everyone who sees this, how are you changing anyway you are doing business (if you are)?

Two percent for the listing agent is fair.With the new flexibility due to the NAR settlement, I wouldn’t, as a seller, offer to pay the buyer’s commission and have the buyer pay the buyer’s commission.

This could be normal for our market, but it makes me wonder if our agent is especially drawn to these prospective buyers because they’d earn him a bigger commission. 

Assuming a $2M Sale Price, Minus $100K (5%) RE commission, leaves $1.9M - MINUS their $270K in Debt leaves $ 1,630,000 for them to Split (he gets $815K and she gets $815K)

It is a pure commission sale “job” where the salesman must (1) pay for his own education (2) pay for his own leads (3) front his own money to put the sale “under contract” and put up his own money to pay all related expenses.  

Do not put rental properties in an S Corp.Generally, you should have an S Corp for flips, property management operations, commissions and any other activities that generate ordinary income.Passive investments should be held in pass-through entities like partnerships.I'm not an accountant, but I have clients and personally had to pay taxes to move long-term holds out of S Corps just to change title (e.g. for refinancing).

To represent themselves there would need to be a commission paid by someone to their broker to then pay them and with a family deal that makes no sense.

He wanted a $40k commission.