There are all kinds of ways to choose a real estate agent to sell your house. You may use your brother-in-law, for example, or take a recommendation from a co-worker. But according to an informal survey of agents from across the country, there are plenty of things you shouldn't consider.

The aforementioned relative is one. "I'm sorry, but you just can't mix business and family," said Liane Jamason of Smith & Associates Real Estate in Tampa, Fla.

Don't go with an agent just because he or she has the most listings or the most signs up in the neighborhood, say some of the realty pros. Those agents are probably overextended. If they have lots of listings, said Karen Netterstrom-Dooley of RE/MAX Elite in Melbourne, Fla., "they are not going to give you much attention."

Somewhat surprisingly, the agents who answered the question, "What one attribute would you look for if you were hiring an agent to sell your house?" tend not to think too much of professional designations, the agent's brand or whether he is part of a team.

While the letters behind a name signal a certain degree of professionalism and extra education, many agents said they meant little. "Designations mean nothing to me. I have worked with agents who have their walls lined with them and they are lost," said Kenneth Nance of Only Way Realty in North Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Some respondents believe being affiliated with a large, well-known brokerage is an advantage. But Bev Hourlier of HC Realty Services in San Diego said it doesn't guarantee the agent is any better qualified or trained than an agent from a smaller firm.

Respondents had plenty of comments about the attributes that indicate a standout agent. Here are the ones that seemed to rise to the top:

-- Fit. Agents used all kids of terms to indicate how you "click" with an agent, including philosophy, presence, personality, integrity and trust.

"Chemistry," said Allan Glass of ASG Real Estate in Los Angeles. "Clients who don't establish a personal connection with their agent or broker will put themselves at a disadvantage."

Emily Morrison Griffin of John L. Scott Real Estate in Seattle agreed. "There has to be that special spark that makes you and your Realtor a great team."

"All other characteristics are secondary ... to the ability to trust your agent," said Lou Sansevero of the RE/MAX Alliance Group in Sarasota, Fla.

-- Referrals. Referrals are "golden," advised Joshua Hanoud of Tropic Shores Realty in Spring Hill, Fla. Without them, "you don't know you've gotten a bad apple until you are too far into the process to make a change easily," he said. "As a result, going into the game with someone who has a strong recommendation from a friend or relative can make a huge difference."

Beware, though, warned Paul Howard of NJHomeBuyer.com Realty in Cherry Hill, N.J. "Recommendations are based on the outcome of a particular transaction that may have been uneventful and may have little relevance to a future transaction that may have obstacles the agent has to help the consumer navigate."

-- References. Cindy Greenwald of Prudential California Realty in La Jolla wants to see the agent's current list -- not more than 90 days old -- of clients. Brenda Cunningham of West USA Realty in Mesa, Ariz., looks for someone who has used the agent for more than one transaction. Kimberly Tapscott of Keller Williams Prestige Properties in Stamford, Conn., said the agent should bring the names of at least three past clients that you can call on the spot.

-- Experience. There's nothing like a proven track record, said Sandra Geary of RE/MAX Pros in Rohnert Park, Calif. "While experience is no guarantee of skill, real estate, like many other professions, is mostly learned on the job," said Rae Catanese of Prudential Tropical Realty in Tampa.

-- Sales volume. Isabel Williams of Keller Williams Luxury Homes in Jupiter, Fla., said it's better to work with an agent who's closing 40 deals a year than the industry average of four.

Kirstin Willingham of Bergman Beach Properties in Marina del Rey, Calif., pointed out that recent sales volume is most important because today's market is far different from just a few months ago. And Harold Huggins of Harold H. Huggins Realty in Burtonsville, Md., suggested looking at sales similar to yours.

-- Other statistics. A key ratio for Robert Kelly of RE/MAX Main St. Realty in Moorestown, N.J., is the selling price of recent transactions in comparison to the listing price. An agent who is getting 95-plus percent of the asking price is doing a great job, he says.

Another important number is average days on the market. "An agent whose days-on-market average is 35 or less also is doing a great job," Kelly says.

It's not a good sign if the agent does not provide these key statistics at the first interview, according to Jamason, the Tampa agent. If they don't know their list-to-sale ratio, it's an even worse sign, she said.

-- Technology. Because nearly eight out of 10 buyers start their home searches online, today's marketing is more than just sticking a sign in the front yard. Technology is essential for word-of-mouth advertising and viral media campaigns, said Florida agent Catanese. Can your agent prepare a YouTube video? Can he or she respond in an instant?

Check the agent's online presence, advised Ines Hegedus-Garcia of Majestic Properties in Miami. An agent who knows how to market himself should also be able to market properties, she said.

"The agent who walks into my home should at the very least have a tablet and know how to use it, and show me examples of his listings' social media footprints," said Tapscott in Connecticut.

-- Photography. Pictures are "the language of real estate, yet most agents' look like they were taking pictures while drunk with a cellphone," said Hanoud in Florida. "The level of detail needed for good photography is usually indicative of an agent's attention to detail throughout the process."

Ken Pozek of Keller Williams Realty in Novi, Mich., said good photos can result in a 15 percent to 20 percent increase in showings.

-- Listening skills. "I want (agents) to answer my questions clearly and be able to explain the process of buying and selling," said Teri Andrews-Murch of Lyon Real Estate in Auburn Calif.

Asked Barry Sulpor of Shorewood Realtors in Manhattan Beach, Calif.: "Do you get a strong feeling that this is an agent who will listen to your needs?"

So listen up and follow the advice of these experts to find an agent who's just right for you.

A federal agency's strange and unexplained decision to nix a plan that would have saved consumers and the government millions of dollars is even more curious when you consider what happened to a Southern California couple who lost their house in a 2003 fire.

Harold Turnbull and his wife were forced to pay for costly homeowner insurance, even though there was no longer a house to insure. Actually, "costly" isn't the word. "Exorbitant" or "outrageous" are better choices.

At one point, according to their lawsuit against Bank of America, the Claremont couple were paying $2,783 for $50,000 in coverage. That's five times more than what they paid for their $100,000 market-rate policy before the house burned down in the Padua Hills wildfire.

Welcome to the wild and highly profitable world of force-placed insurance, in which a lender can maintain coverage on a house if the homeowner doesn't. And if the homeowner doesn't pay on the policy, the lender can foreclose.

It's all right there, spelled out in the fine print in your mortgage papers -- and for good reason. Lenders need to know that the collateral for their mortgages is protected by insurance should something happen to it.

So lenders have every right to force you to pay for coverage of their choice if you don't maintain your own policy. But some lenders have turned forced coverage into a huge profit center by allegedly contracting with insurers that charge hefty premiums and then kick back some of their fees to the lenders who hired them in the first place.

A plan put forth by Fannie Mae would have stopped all that. Rather than allowing the lenders from which it buys mortgages to purchase hazard insurance, the big secondary market company wanted to buy coverage directly from insurers at as much as a 40 percent discount, according to some reports.

Fannie's plan to purchase insurance from its own vendors would have saved the government and consumers upward of $1 billion, consumer groups maintain. But the company's overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, scuttled the idea.

An FHFA spokesman told trade publication American Banker that it wants to put its own forced-place rules into effect, rules that include Fannie Mae's sister company, Freddie Mac, which also covers primary lenders under the FHFA's stewardship. But clearly, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes intrigue going on among the agency, big banks and the carriers that dominate the force-placed insurance business.

The decision did not sit well with consumer advocates. "The FHFA's action maintains the status quo of massive overcharges to borrowers and taxpayers," said Birny Birnbaum of the Center for Economic Justice. Attorney Andrew Pizor of the National Consumer Law Center agreed: "FHFA's decision harms nearly everyone."

Certainly, Fannie's plan would have helped the Turnbulls, who were paying $501 a year for a $100,000 policy on their home until the fire. Then, since there was no house, they dropped coverage. That's when Countrywide Home Loans, which was subsequently acquired by Bank of America, began charging for force-placed insurance.

Originally, the couple was charged $367 for $50,000 in coverage, according to their suit, which alleges fraud. After the merger, the suit maintains, Bank of America jacked up the premium to $1,508.

Twenty months later, the premium was increased again, to $2,783. That's a 658 percent jump from the original fee and more than five times the amount the Turnbulls paid for twice as much coverage before the fateful fire.

"Unbeknownst to them," the suit alleges, "the Turnbulls were funding the commission and the kickback" between Bank of America and the insurance carrier.

During all this, Harold Turnbull, a college professor, says he repeatedly tried to undo the force-placed coverage by telling the bank "that their property was devoid of a home and that they maintained umbrella liability coverage on the vacant lot."

It wasn't until the couple filed suit in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County that the bank returned their money, about $14,000 plus a "tiny bit" of interest, says their attorney, Travis Corby of the Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley law firm in Beverly Hills.

But the Turnbulls aren't quitters. Not only have they continued to pay their mortgage on a nonexistent house -- the couple still hopes to rebuild one day, says Corby -- but also they are going ahead with their suit. It's about principle now, not money.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Rep. Maxine Waters of California has written FHFA's acting director, Edward DeMarco, asking for an explanation of why his agency gave Fannie Mae's proposal a thumbs-down.

In her request, Waters, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, asked for the documents that formed the basis of the FHFA's decision, plus a list of outside stakeholders it consulted.

Bank of America did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the Turnbulls' suit. But companies rarely have anything to say while an action is pending.

Lenders and others in the housing community have been warned -- repeatedly -- about misleading advertising. But precious few alerts have gone out to their potential victims.

The latest to bear the wrath of regulators were lenders approved to originate government-insured mortgages. They were told recently by Carol Galante, assistant secretary for housing and commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, to stop insinuating that loan approval is a slam dunk just three years after a foreclosure.

It's not, of course. Although you may be able to qualify, you first have to re-establish good credit, and fully documented underwriting is required. So the "suggestion" that someone automatically qualifies is just not so.

"Automatic" is one of those buzzwords solicitors like to use to snare unsuspecting victims. But it's far from the only one. "Free," of course, is another, as are phrases such as "no obligation" and "no payments necessary." Ha!

One of the most insidious ploys that mortgage market tricksters use is to make their messages appear as if they come from the government. There probably isn't a man or woman among us who hasn't been on the receiving end of an official-looking envelope from Uncle Sam. Only it's not.

Upon close inspection, that seal in the upper left corner isn't a real seal of a real agency. But if someone is at the end of his rope and hopes the government will ride to his rescue, he might give the envelope a quick glance and then open it. And once he does, the fish may be hooked.

In November, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission told a dozen mortgage lenders and brokers to clean up their acts regarding "potentially misleading" advertising, including mailings that contained official-looking logos or had other characteristics indicating a government affiliation or connection.

Some outfits have used a photo of the Statue of Liberty or other iconic federal structure to make recipients think the mailing is from a government agency. But there's no such thing as the Department of Residential Refinancing or the Office of Foreclosure Rescue.

Ladies and gentlemen, the government does not advertise. But if you are not sure, look up the agency in the blue pages of your telephone directory. If it exists, it will be listed. If it's not listed, it's phony.

Then there are what the FTC calls "official look-alikes," the ones that say something like "Important Notice From Your Mortgage Company" or "Open Immediately, Important Financial Information Enclosed."

Beware: These kinds of missives often are from a rival outfit trying to snatch you away from your current lender or loan servicer. They find your information legally in the public records and then use it to make you think you are dealing with your current company.

Lenders aren't alone in their zeal to corral unsuspecting consumers. Builders are sometimes guilty, too. And realty agents have been known to fudge listings -- adding a nonexistent fourth bedroom, for example -- to attract customers to an otherwise ordinary property.

The nefarious Top 10 list of complaints assembled by the Consumer Federation of America is riddled with housing-related gripes. Mortgage-associated grievances are the second most frequent complaint, followed by home improvement issues (third), utilities (fifth), landlord/tenant problems (seventh) and, new to the list last year, time shares (ninth).

Even media outlets that carry real estate advertising have been warned a time or two by the FTC to stop running bogus advertising.

Just how big a problem is deceptive advertising? Over the years, the FTC has brought numerous actions against companies in the mortgage lending field, nailing several large judgments that have returned millions of dollars to consumers.

Five years ago, the FTC sent letters to more than 200 advertisers and media outlets, warning about deceptive content. For example, some ads touting super-low loan costs used the term "payment rate" as opposed to "interest rate," while others failed to point out that the low advertised figure applied for only a short period.

In 2009, the consumer watchdog agency issued a rule to strengthen protections against deceptive mortgage ads. Among other things, the rule banned misrepresentations concerning fees and terms associated with home loans, the type of loan offered and the variability of payments, and the likelihood of obtaining financing at the stated terms.

The rule applies to all entities within the FTC's purview -- mortgage companies, brokers and servicers; real estate agents and brokerage firms; and homebuilders -- but not banks, savings institutions or credit unions. And the shady stuff keeps coming.

The joint CFPB-FTC advisory in November warned nearly a dozen mortgage firms and others to clean up their advertising acts, especially as they applied to senior adults and military veterans. The ads in question baited unsuspecting borrowers with false terms, much the way auto ads quote lower leasing costs to mask the much higher monthly payments associated with buying a car.

Now the FHA has told lenders that "misleading advertising will not be tolerated." Maybe so, but that won't stop advertisers from pushing the limits -- and going a step or two beyond. So buyer, beware. Be at least skeptical of what you read, and proceed cautiously.

As Sgt. Phil Esterhaus said on "Hill Street Blues," "Be careful out there." Or perhaps this stronger admonition from the 1986 Jeff Goldblum film "The Fly" is even more applicable: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."