New rules that went into effect in August changing who pays real estate commissions have resulted in more paperwork and some anxiety for home buyers and sellers but have had little, if any, impact on home prices in the state’s hot real estate market.
The changes, which stem from a settlement in a lawsuit accusing real estate agents of conspiring to keep their commissions high, altered the way commission fees are set nationally.
For decades, most home sales in the United States have included a commission fee, typically between 5 and 6 percent of the sale price.
The typical Maine home went for around $400,000 this fall. A 5 to 6 percent commission on a $400,000 home would be between $20,000 and $24,000, split between the agents for the buyer and the seller.
Advertisement
Before the changes in August, the split for each agent was predetermined by the seller, who paid the fee for both agents. That usually resulted in fees being baked into the list price of a home.
In some states (although not in Maine) agents were able to search the multiple listing service, a catalogue of homes for sale, by the commission split, which critics said incentivized agents to steer clients toward more expensive properties with higher commissions.
Now, fees are negotiated sale-by-sale. Buyers and sellers are now each responsible for paying their own agents, meaning a buyer may have to come with more cash up front if a seller doesn’t want to pay the commission fee for a buyer’s agent. Sellers are also no longer allowed to include commission fees in their listings.
Tacy Ridlon, a listing agent with Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate The Masiello Group in Ellsworth, who has been in real estate for 32 years, said it is a bit jarring to have a conversation with buyers about whether they are willing to pay part of their agent’s commission.
Once the commission is established and the agreement signed, she said, the buyer’s agent then approaches the seller’s agent to see what part of their commission the seller is willing to cover, if any.
Advertisement
Ridlon said 3 percent for the buyer’s agent is a typical starting point.
“We have to start high. If the seller is willing to offer 2 percent for the buyer’s agent, then our buyer only has to pay one percent… If the seller is not offering anything, then we ask the buyer to pay a certain amount. Some can pay and some can’t. For some it’s very difficult because they don’t have a lot of money to play around with.”
The change has resulted in some confusion for many buyers and even some agents around the country, as rules differ from state-to-state. Photo by Kate Cough.
Some agents said they found the changes minimal; others find the paperwork and negotiating with buyers daunting. One agency owner said the ruling has done little to bring prices down.
“This ruling has done nothing to save buyers or sellers any money,” said Billy Milliken, a designated broker and owner of Bold Coast Properties, LLC, in Jonesport. “If anything, it’s made the cost of buying a home even more expensive.”
Milliken said his sellers have had no problem agreeing to pay both buyers’ and sellers’ commissions. The cost has been embedded in the price of the property.
Advertisement
“The real loser is first time home buyers who are not educated in buying a home and also have limited cash resources,” said Milliken. “It puts them at a disadvantage.”
The change has resulted in some confusion for many buyers and even some agents around the country, as rules differ from state-to-state.
People are slowly getting used to the changes, said Monet Yarnell, president of the Midcoast Board of Realtors, who owns her own agency, Sell 207 in Belfast, adding that Maine’s real estate practices were already more transparent than many other areas of the country.
“I think it was a little confusing in the beginning, more doom and gloom,” said Yarnell. But sellers are still incentivized to offer something to the buyers’ agents, she said. And the changes have increased the level of communication between agents and their clients.
“It’s more how the money flows rather than the actual dollars.”
Advertisement
Ridlon, in Ellsworth, said she has been fortunate that most sellers have offered some compensation toward the buyer’s agent commission. “I have not had a buyer who can’t do the 3 percent.”
Ridlon had one seller who was not willing to pay any part of the buyer’s agent’s commission. The property had a lot of showings, but many of the buyers asked for closing costs to be covered or for concessions in lieu of picking up part of the commission.
“That didn’t really work for my seller either,” she said. “Then he relented and said he would pay one percent.”
The property sold.
Debbie Walter sold her condominium in Stockton Springs via Yarnell and then bought another condominium in New London, N.H., with another real estate agent.
Advertisement
“We’re kind of guinea pigs,” said Walter. “We were very concerned about that whole piece, both as sellers and buyers.”
Fearful the sale of their house might not proceed smoothly the couple readily agreed to pay a 3 percent commission for the buyer’s agent.
When they made their offer to buy the condominium in N.H., they offered as buyers to cover their buyer’s agent’s commission as well. But the seller in that case took an equally cautious approach and offered to cover 2.5 percent of the buyer’s agent’s commission, which Walters’ agent accepted.
“It was very stressful,” Walter said. Offering to cover their buyer’s agent’s commission, she said, created “one less headache for the whole closing procedure.”
Tom McKee, president of the Maine Realtors Association, said the settlement and new rules have had little impact.
Advertisement
“It hasn’t changed anything for me,” said McKee, who is with Keller Williams in Portland. Now that the commission split is no longer listed in the M.L.S., said McKee, “there are just more questions in the transaction.”
McKee said there is no set percentage, that everything is negotiable.
“If we do our job right and are meeting with the client first, they already understand.”
Steve Heinz of Cumberland is a member of the Maine Council of Trout Unlimited (Merrymeeting Bay chapter).
Man’s got to eat.
It’s a simple truth, and in Maine it carries a lot of weight. For generations, people here have hunted, fished and gathered food not just as a pastime, but as a practical part of life. That reality helps explain why Maine voters embraced a constitutional right to food — and why emotions run high when fishing regulations are challenged in court.
A recent lawsuit targeting Maine’s fly-fishing-only regulations has sparked exactly that reaction. The Maine Council of Trout Unlimited believes this moment calls for clarity and restraint. The management of Maine’s fisheries belongs with professional biologists and the public process they oversee, not in the courtroom.
Advertisement
Trout Unlimited is not an anti-harvest organization, nor a club devoted to elevating one style of angling over another. We are a coldwater conservation organization focused on sustaining healthy, resilient fisheries.
Maine’s reputation as the last great stronghold of wild brook trout did not happen by accident; it is the product of decades of careful management by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), guided by science, field experience and public participation.
Fly-fishing-only waters are one of the tools MDIFW uses to protect vulnerable fisheries. They are not about exclusivity. In most cases, fly fishing involves a single hook, results in lower hooking mortality and lends itself to catch-and-release practices. The practical effect is straightforward: more fish survive and more people get a chance to fish.
Maine’s trout waters are fundamentally different from the fertile rivers of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. Our freestone streams are cold, fast and naturally nutrient-poor. Thin soils, granite bedrock and dense forests limit aquatic productivity, meaning brook trout grow more slowly and reproduce in smaller numbers.
A single season of low flows, high water temperatures or habitat disturbance can set a population back for years. In Maine, conservation is not a luxury; it is a biological necessity.
Advertisement
In more fertile southern waters, abundant insects and richer soils allow trout populations to rebound quickly from heavy harvest and environmental stress. Maine’s waters simply do not have that buffer.
Every wild brook trout here is the product of limited resources and fragile conditions. When fish are removed faster than they can be replaced, recovery is slow and uncertain. That reality is why management tools such as fly-fishing-only waters, reduced bag limits and seasonal protections matter so much.
These rules are not about denying access; they are about matching human use to ecological capacity so fisheries remain viable over time. Climate change only raises the stakes, as warmer summers and lower late-season flows increasingly push cold-water fisheries to their limits.
Healthy trout streams also safeguard drinking water, support wildlife and sustain rural economies through guiding and outdoor tourism. Conservation investments ripple far beyond the streambank.
Lawsuits short-circuit the management system that has served Maine well for decades. Courts are not designed to weigh fisheries science or balance competing uses of a complex public resource. That work is best done through open meetings, public input and adaptive management informed by professionals who spend their careers studying Maine’s waters.
Advertisement
Man’s got to eat. But if we want Maine’s trout fisheries to endure, we also have to manage them wisely. That means trusting science, respecting process and recognizing that conservation — not confrontation — is what keeps food on the table and fish in the water.
TJ Biel scored 21 points and Newport native Ace Flagg added 10 points and seven rebounds as the University of Maine men’s basketball team held on for a 74-70 win over the New Jersey Institute of Technology on Saturday in Newark, New Jersey.
Logan Carey added 11 points and five assists for the Black Bears, who improve to 3-15 overall and 1-2 in the conference. Yanis Bamba chipped in 14 points.
Maine led by seven at the half, but NJIT went on a 13-0 run in the first four minutes to take a 43-37 lead. The Black Bears recovered and took the lead on a dunk by Keelan Steele with 7:53 left and held on for the win.
Sebastian Robinson scored 24 points and Ari Fulton grabbed 11 rebounds for NJIT (7-11, 2-1).
Clarissa Sabattis, Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseets, foreground, and other leaders of Maine’s tribes are welcomed by lawmakers into the House Chamber in March, 2023 in Augusta. (Robert F. Bukaty, /Associated Press)
Maine’s gambling landscape is set to expand after Gov. Janet Mills decided Thursday to let tribes offer online casino games, but numerous questions remain over the launch of the new market and how much it will benefit the Wabanaki Nations.
Namely, there is no concrete timeline for when the new gambling options that make Maine the eighth “iGaming” state will become available. Maine’s current sports betting market that has been dominated by the Passamaquoddy Tribe through its partnership with DraftKings is evidence that not all tribes may reap equal rewards.
A national anti-online gaming group also vowed to ask Maine voters to overturn the law via a people’s veto effort and cited its own poll finding a majority of Mainers oppose online casino gaming.
Advertisement
Here are the big remaining questions around iGaming.
1. When will iGaming go into effect?
The law takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns this year. Adjournment is slated for mid-April, but Mills spokesperson Ben Goodman noted it is not yet known when lawmakers will actually finish their work.
2. Where will the iGaming revenue go?
The iGaming law gives the state 18% of the gross receipts, which will translate into millions of dollars annually for gambling addiction and opioid use treatment funds, Maine veterans, school renovation loans and emergency housing relief.
Leaders of the four federally recognized tribes in Maine highlighted the “life-changing revenue” that will come thanks to the decision from Mills, a Democrat who has clashed with the Wabanaki Nations over the years over more sweeping tribal sovereignty measures.
But one chief went so far Thursday as to call her the “greatest ever” governor for “Wabanaki economic progress.”
Advertisement
3. What gaming companies will the tribes work with?
DraftKings has partnered with the Passamaquoddy to dominate Maine’s sports betting market, while the Penobscot Nation, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi’kmaq Nation have partnered with Caesars Entertainment to garner a smaller share of the revenue.
Wall Street analysts predicted the two companies will likely remain the major players in Maine’s iGaming market.
The partnership between the Passamaquoddy and DraftKings has brought in more than $100 million in gross revenue since 2024, but the Press Herald reported last month that some members of the tribe’s Sipayik reservation have criticized Chief Amkuwiposohehs “Pos” Bassett, saying they haven’t reaped enough benefits from the gambling money.
4. Has Mills always supported gambling measures?
The iGaming measure from Rep. Ambureen Rana, D-Bangor, factored into a long-running debate in Maine over gambling. In 2022, lawmakers and Mills legalized online sports betting and gave tribes the exclusive rights to offer it beginning in 2023.
But allowing online casino games such as poker and roulette in Maine looked less likely to become reality under Mills. Her administration had previously testified against the bill by arguing the games are addictive.
Advertisement
But Mills, who is in the final year of her tenure and is running in the high-profile U.S. Senate primary for the chance to unseat U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday she would let the iGaming bill become law without her signature. She said she viewed iGaming as a way to “improve the lives and livelihoods of the Wabanaki Nations.”
5. Who is against iGaming?
Maine’s two casinos in Bangor and Oxford opposed the iGaming bill, as did Gambling Control Board Chair Steve Silver and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, among other opponents.
Silver noted Hollywood Casino Bangor and Oxford Casino employ nearly 1,000 Mainers, and he argued that giving tribes exclusive rights to iGaming will lead to job losses.
He also said in a Friday interview the new law will violate existing statutes by cutting out his board from iGaming oversight.
“I don’t think there’s anything the board can do at this point,” Silver said.
Advertisement
The National Association Against iGaming has pledged to mount an effort to overturn the law via a popular referendum process known as the “people’s veto.” But such attempts have a mixed record of success.
