Thinking about carrying the note on Maplewood myself and wondering what the dual agency angle actually does to that negotiation

Your concern is structurally sound. In a standard sale, the agent's conflict mostly touches price, and price is visible to everyone. In a seller-financed deal, the negotiation has five or six moving parts, rate, balloon length, amortization schedule, personal guarantee, default terms, and the agent knows your priorities on all of them before the buyer says a word. That is a meaningful informational gap, and you are right that you cannot audit it afterward.

To define the term: a seller-carried note (also called seller financing or owner financing) is when you, the seller, act as the lender. The buyer pays you monthly instead of a bank. The rate, the balloon period (the date the remaining balance comes due in full), and the default terms are all negotiated, which is exactly what makes the dual-agent conflict sharper here than in a cash or conventional deal.

On your rate math: a half point on $160k over five years is roughly $4,000 in interest, so the stakes are real. The agent earns her commission when the deal closes, and a buyer-friendly note closes more easily than a seller-friendly one. That incentive is structural, not personal.

A few things worth knowing: some states do not allow dual agency at all, so the first thing I would confirm is whether New Jersey permits it and under what disclosure rules. A real estate attorney in your state can answer that in one call, and for a seller-finance transaction of this size I would treat that call as necessary rather than optional. An attorney can also review the note terms before you sign, which is where your real protection lives regardless of who the agent is.

The Rena strategy guide on dual agency covers the regulatory picture and the direction things are moving if you want more background, under the Guide tab on the strategy page.

What does your current listing agreement say about dual agency? That language affects your options before a buyer even appears.

The agent's fee doesn't scale with your note rate, which is actually the sharpest part of your concern, because her incentive isn't to soften the rate specifically, it's to close the transaction at all, and a buyer who feels they got a hard deal on the note terms sometimes walks. That pressure runs against you on the balloon period and the personal guarantee more than the rate, since those are the terms a hesitant buyer uses to justify walking.

The part worth pricing is what a transaction attorney costs versus what a half point over five years on 160k costs you. Write the note terms you would accept before anyone sits down, put them in writing to yourself, and make it clear to the agent that those terms are not part of her negotiation to conduct. The rate, the guarantee requirement, the default cure period, those get handed to the buyer as seller's stated terms, not as an opening bid she mediates.

What does your listing agreement actually say about dual agency disclosure and whether she has a duty to present your financing parameters to a buyer she represents?