ERA Real Estate Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $33K – $260K
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- 27.3%
- on 11 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
ERA Real Estate is a residential real-estate brokerage franchise. Franchisees run offices recruiting and supporting agents, managing listings and transactions, and earning from commissions.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A ERA Real Estate franchise requires a total initial investment of $33K – $260K, including a $25K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. SBA 7(a) loans show a 27.3% charge-off rate across 11 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: C (Average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2024 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: high - figures are from a filing two or more years old
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $33K – $260K
- 15th pct Real Estate
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 24th pct Real Estate
- Units
- 464
- 80th pct Real Estate
- SBA charge-off
- 27.3%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Real Estate · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Real Estate median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $33K – $260K including a $25K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
- RISKVerdict C (Average), verdict score 40/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 27.3% across 11 loans (well above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -6 franchised outlets in the latest year (31 opened, 25 closed); 10 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL17 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 5 name the franchisor itself, 10 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- ERA Franchise Systems LLC
- Parent company
- Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2024 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Anywhere Real Estate Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2024 FDD
- CEO title
- President
- Alex Vidal
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 175 Park Avenue, Madison, New Jersey 07940
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $5.6B
- vs $6.9B prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 9
5 other brands on this site name Anywhere Real Estate Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Better Homes and Gardens Real EstateD
- CENTURY 21®B
- Coldwell BankerB
- CorcoranB
- Sotheby’s International RealtyB
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2024 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Alex Vidal
- Headquarters
- NJ
- Founded
- 1972
- FDD year
- 2024
- States available
- 44
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 10% above the typical real estate franchise.
Source: FDD 2024 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown19 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Feenot refundable | $0 | $25K | |
| Real Estate | — | — | |
| Leasehold Improvements | $0 | $105K | |
| Yard Signs/Posts/Frames | $5K | $10K | |
| Open House Signs | $800 | $2K | |
| Exterior Signs | $700 | $20K | |
| Miscellaneous Riders | $200 | $400 | |
| Name Badges | $120 | $400 | |
| Miscellaneous | $250 | $500 | |
| Printed Materials | $5K | $8K | |
| Computer Equipment and Electronic Data System | $5K | $10K | |
| Website | $0 | $10K | |
| Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Dues | $0 | $3K | |
| Data Feed Transmission | $0 | $5K | |
| Insurance Deposits and Premiums | $500 | $4K | |
| Travel and Living Expenses During LaunchERA | $500 | $3K | |
| Legal Expenses | $0 | $4K | |
| Advertising/Public Relations, including Grand Opening Promotion | $0 | $10K | |
| Additional Funds (3 months) | $15K | $40K | |
| Total initial investment | $33K | $260K |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $33K – $260K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $15K – $40K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $25K – $25K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 1.5%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 7.5%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 1.5% of gross sales |
| Transfer fee | $5K |
| Renewal fee | $0 |
| Total fee load | 7.5% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
ERA Real Estate makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one ERA Real Estate unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2024 FDD
Financial Performance
No financial performance representation
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 7.5% (near the Real Estate median).
Disclosure
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator retention
System roughly stable (-1.7% 3-year CAGR) with 464 units.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Real Estate medians
How ERA Real Estate Compares
Category median of published Real Estate brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2024 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 464
- Opened
- 31
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 25
- Terminated
- 2
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 10
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 8.0%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -1.7%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -1.7%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 2
- Not renewed
- 10
- Transferred
- 2
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 10
- 0.02 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 40
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 0.4%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 2.5%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 5.3%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 45 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Available to sell in · Item 12
- California
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Michigan
- New York
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Wisconsin
States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
450 current owners across 45 states.
- NY 49
- FL 45
- CA 22
- TX 22
- MA 21
- SC 20
- NC 18
- NJ 18
- OH 18
- GA 17
- PA 15
- AL 13
- +33 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20; 5 entries carry no state. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 11
- Loan volume
- $818K
- Median loan
- $60K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 27.3%
- on 11 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 72.7%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 9
- Defaults
- 3
- Typical loan rate
- N/A
- Franchised industry avg
- 21.5%
- brand above franchise avg ↑
- Jobs supported
- 12
- 1.5 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 18%
- top lender's share
Franchise vs independent — in residential property managers, franchised businesses charge off at 21.5% vs 27.5% for independents — franchising is associated with 22% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Top lenders financing ERA Real Estate franchisees
Showing 3 of 9 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for ERA Real Estate from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 13.9%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 78%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $38K
- Lender concentration
- 18.2%
- Job velocity
- 1.5 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 13.7%
- NAICS 531311
- Jobs supported
- 12
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 18% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bank of America, National Association | 2 | $151K | 0.0% |
| 2 | Citizens Bank, National Association | 2 | $50K | 0.0% |
| 3 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 1 | $62K | 100.0% |
| 4 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 1 | $70K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Truist Bank | 1 | $259K | 0.0% |
| 6 | Byline Bank | 1 | $47K | 100.0% |
| 7 | Fulton Bank, National Association | 1 | $60K | 100.0% |
| 8 | First Bank | 1 | $100K | 0.0% |
| 9 | TD Bank, National Association | 1 | $20K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZArizona | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| CTConnecticut | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 2 | 1 | 50.0% |
| CACalifornia | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MDMaryland | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| NJNew Jersey | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
A 27.3% charge-off rate means roughly 1 in 4 franchisees failed to repay their SBA loan. Investigate what changed.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 27.3% — 70% above the 16.0% national norm, i.e. higher lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
ERA Real Estate presents high-risk investment characteristics: a shrinking franchise network, hidden financial performance metrics, active antitrust litigation threatening the business model, unprotected territory, and documented franchisor-franchisee disputes.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Multiple matters disclosed including antitrust class actions related to NAR commission practices (Moehrl, Burnett, Nosalek settled for $83.5M by Anywhere), TCPA class action against Anywhere Advisors, and various franchise collection actions resolved in favor of ERA.
Largest disclosed settlement: $83,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Consolidated financial statements of parent/guarantor companies Anywhere Real Estate Inc. and Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (no stand-alone statements of franchisor ERA Franchise Systems LLC are included). Net revenues in millions: $5,636 (2023), $6,908 (2022), $7,983 (2021). 2023 revenue components: gross commission income $4,570M, service revenue $569M, franchise fees $351M, other $146M. Net loss of $(98)M for 2023. Total stockholders' equity $1,679M; total equity (incl. noncontrolling interests) $1,681M. As of December 31, 2023.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 40 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORDeclining unit count (-1.3% YoY) signals system contraction and potential franchisee dissatisfaction
- 02MEDNo disclosed average revenue or net income (missing FTC Item 19) prevents accurate ROI assessment and suggests underperformance
- 03MEDMultiple active antitrust class actions (Moehrl, Burnett, etc.) regarding commission practices create regulatory and reputational risk to franchisees
- 04MINORUnprotected territory exposes franchisees to direct competition from other ERA licensees and internal cannibalization
- 05MINORPending and resolved contract disputes with former franchisees indicate potential franchisor-franchisee relationship issues
- 06HIGHTrademark infringement litigation suggests brand IP vulnerabilities that could affect franchisee operations
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail17 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (2)
Thomas Stravecky, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Cika, individually and as guarantor of Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, and Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, Defendants; and Ronald Cika and Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. Thomas Stravecky, Infinity International Properties, Inc., an
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2023 · Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida · CACE-23002707
“Thomas Stravecky, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Cika, individually and as guarantor of Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, and Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, Defendants; and Ronald Cika and Coral Shores Realty Florida, LLC, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. Thomas Stravecky, Infinity International Properties, Inc., and ERA Franchise Systems LLC, Counter-Defendants”Page 18 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, Sotheby's Internation
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2020-12-17 · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1:20-cv-12244
“Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC, Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC, ERA Franchise Systems LLC,,”Page 23 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 14, 2024, this matter as well as other potential related matters, were administratively stayed in their entirety pending the ruling from the Multidistrict Litigation Panel on the motion to reassign all or part of these matters as MDL litigation.” (page 24)
Concluded (3)
ERA Franchise Systems LLC v. LBH National Corporation and Roger Herman
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2016-02-22 · Superior Court of California: County of Los Angeles · YC 071137
“ERA Franchise Systems LLC v. LBH National Corporation and Roger Herman (Case No. YC 071137, Superior Court of California: County of Los Angeles). On February 22, 2016, we filed a complaint against the franchisee and its guarantor for breach of contract, breach of promissory note, breach of Guaranty, breach of Security Agreement, account stated, money lent, quantum meruit and accounting.”Page 19 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“By order dated, September 29, 2017, the bankruptcy court approved our settlement with the Trustee for the former franchisee, granting us an allowed claim in both the bankruptcy and the state court action against the former franchisee (but not the guarantor) for $5,407,991.75, plus $362,851.47 in legal fees, dismissing the former franchisee’s counterclaims and ordering the Trustee to release to us $55,353.29 in cash ...”
ERA Franchise Systems v. The Herman Group, LLC and Roger Herman
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2016-02-22 · District Court, County of Denver, State of Colorado · 2016 CV 30606
“ERA Franchise Systems v. The Herman Group, LLC and Roger Herman (Case No. 2016 CV 30606, District Court, County of Denver, State of Colorado). On February 22, 2016, we filed a Complaint against the former franchisee and its guarantor alleging breach of contract, breach of promissory note, breach of Guaranty, replevin, account stated, money lent, quantum meruit and accounting.”Page 19 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“By settlement agreement dated September 15, 2017, former franchisee and its guarantor executed a stipulated judgment in the amount of $3,794,248.06 in our favor.” (page 20)
ERA Franchise Systems LLC v. Holiday Real Estate, Inc., Jerome E. Milko, and Denise A. Milko
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2014-11-25 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Morris County · MRS-L-2893-14
“ERA Franchise Systems LLC v. Holiday Real Estate, Inc., Jerome E. Milko, and Denise A. Milko, (Case No. MRS-L-2893-14, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Morris County). On November 25, 2014, we filed suit against the former franchisee and its guarantors for trademark infringement and collection of amounts due.”Page 18 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter settled on April 8, 2016, and the former franchisee and guarantors agreed to pay us $20,000 over time.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (5)
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington
pendingGovernment or regulatory action · Sotheby's International Realty, Inc. and Century 21 Real Estate LLC · filed 2024 · Washington Office of the Attorney General
“The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington. The Washington Office of the Attorney General is conducting an investigation of Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., a Related Party of SIR and Real Estate Affiliate, Century 21, involving possible past or current violations of RCW 19.86.020, RCW 19.86.030, RCW 19.86.040, RCW 19.86.050 and the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.”Page 27 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Anywhere, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc. and Century 21 will continue to work with the Office of the Attorney General to provide the requested information.” (page 28)
Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc. BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (formerly captioned
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.) · filed 2021-01-25 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 1:21-cv-430
“Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc. BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (Case No. 1:21- cv-430, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) (formerly captioned Leeder).”Page 24 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“By Minute Order, dated February 28, 2024, the Court ordered defendants to answer the Amended Class Action Complaint and file any Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by April 15, 2024.”
Christopher Moehrl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., Re/Max Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.) · filed 2019-03-06 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:19-cv-01610
“Christopher Moehrl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., Re/Max Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., (Case No. 1:19-cv-01610, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).”Page 21 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On November 20, 2023, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the Anywhere Settlement Agreement. A final approval hearing for the Anywhere Settlement Agreement is scheduled for May 9, 2024.” (page 22)
Ronald Chinitz, Sarah Bumpus, David Gritz, Micheline Peker, Nathan Rowan, Cheryl Rowan, Daniel Caruso, and Paramjit Lalli, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC,
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries (Anywhere Advisors LLC and the 'Anywhere defendants') · filed 2019-06-11 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division · 3:19-cv-03309-JD
“Ronald Chinitz, Sarah Bumpus, David Gritz, Micheline Peker, Nathan Rowan, Cheryl Rowan, Daniel Caruso, and Paramjit Lalli, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC, Realogy Brokerage Group LLC (f/k/a NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC,”Page 24 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The pretrial conference and trial dates are vacated pending further order.” (page 25)
Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jarod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, Re/Max LLC and Kel
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.) · filed 2019-04-29 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri · 4:19-cv-00332-SRB
“Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jarod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, Re/Max LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., (Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB,”Page 22 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This case went to trial on October 16, 2023, with all defendants except the Anywhere defendants and Re/Max LLC. On October 5, 2023, Anywhere entered into the nationwide Anywhere Settlement Agreement with the Moehrl and Burnett plaintiffs for $83.5 million.” (page 23)
Concluded (5)
Sheri Dodge and Neil Dodge and Ram Agrawal and Sarita Agrawal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Corporation, Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (formerly captioned Timothy L. Strader, Sr. and Lester L. Hall, Jr. v. PHH Corporation, et al.)
settledThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries (with PHH defendants) · filed 2015-11-25 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 8:15-CV-01973
“Sheri Dodge and Neil Dodge and Ram Agrawal and Sarita Agrawal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Corporation, Realogy Holdings Corp., PHH Home Loans LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, RMR Financial, LLC, NE Moves Mortgage LLC, PHH Broker Partner Corporation, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC,”Page 26 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 10, 2018, Realogy paid its portion of the settlement in the amount of $8,375,000.” (page 27)
Christopher Bulen and Janith Martinez v. Realogy Corporation, Realogy Operations, Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Realogy Services Group, LLC
settledThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Corporation, Realogy Operations, Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Realogy Services Group, LLC · filed 2010-12-03 · United States District Court, District of Nevada · 3:10-CV-00755-RCJ-VPC
“Christopher Bulen and Janith Martinez v. Realogy Corporation, Realogy Operations, Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Realogy Services Group, LLC, (Case No. 3:10-CV-00755-RCJ-VPC, United States District Court, District of Nevada). This litigation concerns the Preferred Alliance Agreement between RSG and Townsend Hoffman Corporation initially effective June 18, 2007,”Page 25 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The settlement was funded on November 17, 2014, in the amount of $530,630.42.” (page 26)
Matter with no printed caption
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Realogy Group, NRT and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage (the 'Realogy parties'); Cendant Real Estate Services Group LLC as joint-venture partner · filed 2007 · United States District Court, Central District of California (HUD lawsuit); FTC investigation
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the FTC conducted a joint regulatory investigation of the activities of Property I.D. Associates, LLC (“Associates”), a joint venture between Property I.D. Corporation, Cendant Real Estate Services Group LLC and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Corporation.”Page 27 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In May 2008, HUD and the Realogy parties agreed to settle the matter with no imposition of fines or penalties and a permanent injunction to refrain from future joint ventures for hazard disclosure reports operated in violation of RESPA.”
Cendant Global Services, B.V. v. Look & Find, S.A. et al.
dismissedBrought against a franchisee · Cendant Global Services, B.V. · filed 1999-07-26 · First Instance Court No. 42 of Madrid · Civil Case No. 525/99
“Cendant Global Services, B.V. v. Look & Find, S.A. et al., (Civil Case No. 525/99, First Instance Court No. 42 of Madrid). On July 26, 1999, Cendant Global filed a complaint seeking a judgment (1) declaring termination of agreement with Look & Find, S.A., in accordance with law,”Page 20 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 5, 2016, the Court affirmed its prior decision that Look & Find must pay Cendant Global damages of approximately $1 million, and that the infringing franchisees (78 in total) must pay damages for trademark infringement.”
Look & Find, S.A. v. Orlando Gonzales Arias, Fajardo, Ltd., Cendant Corporation, Cendant Global Services, B.V. and Century 21 Iberia
judgmentBrought by a franchisee · Cendant Corporation and Cendant Global Services, B.V. · filed 1999-06-17 · Madrid First Instance Court No. 42 · Civil Case No. 393/99
“Look & Find, S.A. v. Orlando Gonzales Arias, Fajardo, Ltd., Cendant Corporation, Cendant Global Services, B.V. and Century 21 Iberia, (Civil Case No. 393/99 Madrid First Instance Court No. 42). On June 17, 1999, Look & Find, S.A. a former ERA master franchisor, filed a 200-page writ alleging unfair competition and seeks U.S. $41 million in damages.”Page 20 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In January 2004, the former master franchisor’s claims were denied and the defendants were awarded costs.”
This list shows 15 of the 17 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 7.5% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2024 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 0 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 120 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 7 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | NJ |
| Litigation count | 17 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Multiple matters disclosed including antitrust class actions related to NAR commission practices (Moehrl, Burnett, Nosalek settled for $83.5M by Anywhere), TCPA class action against Anywhere Advisors, and various franchise collection actions resolved in favor of ERA.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 25 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- ERA headquarters in Madison, New Jersey, or virtually
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 1 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Internet Reporting System
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Internet Reporting System
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
455 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a ERA Real Estate franchise?
The total investment to open a ERA Real Estate franchise ranges from $33K – $260K, with an initial franchise fee of $25K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do ERA Real Estate franchise owners earn?
ERA Real Estate makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns ERA Real Estate?
ERA Real Estate is franchised by ERA Franchise Systems LLC. Its parent company is Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Anywhere Real Estate Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2024 filing.
What is Item 19 in the ERA Real Estate FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the ERA Real Estate FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is ERA Real Estate's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, ERA Real Estate has a charge-off rate of 27.3% across 11 loans, meaning 27.3% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many ERA Real Estate franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, ERA Real Estate has 464 total units in the United States, including 464 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 31 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is ERA Real Estate a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates ERA Real Estate as a C-grade franchise with a verdict score of 40 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent ERA Real Estate, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Real Estate franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Real Estate category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.