|
Find CA real estate agents and Escondido real estate on ActiveRain.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
© 2013 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
8 Comments on Do Your Duty—Disclose
It is so true...and agents around here I think, are in a grey area....yes they are disclosing that the property is a short sale by checking a box ....but in the comments they dont' address commission and the fact that the commission may be lower than what is offered. I would rather give more information to the agent up front than to risk a problem later!
Disclose, disclose, disclose. It is sooooo important!!
You would think that by now, agents would understand that it is much better to disclose than to get sued later!
Melissa - Just had a listing where the seller was upside down, but said they planned on bringing the difference to closing, so that's what was stated in the broker remarks. I can't count how many times my research showed the owner mortgaged more than the house was worth and it wasn't listed as a short sale and the seller had zero intention of bringing money to closing. Over the years it has gotten much better, but I still come across this situation occasionally.
Hi Melissa, I was wondering about the preliminary title work too - no surprises there. Why didn't the buyer's agent ask about those encumbrances in excess of the sales price? Unfortunately sellers sometimes have to bring money to closing these days - heads up to listing agents to verify the seller funds, too. This sounds like a fiasco all the way around, thanks for the interesting post.
Melissa,
I like this topic and I also read Younglove's article. We dealt with this issue in the early 1990s and it was a frequent topic of discussion between brokers. How do you notify the buyer without weakening or harming the seller's negotiating position when the seller's equity hovers around zero; when it's not so obviously underwater? I do realize the court case was unambiguously underwater by several hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that makes a Realtor's decisions easier.
The court said the buyer needs to know about the possibility that the seller can't close escrow because the property is over encumbered. Of course, that's right. But how much is "substantial amount of cash into escrow?" The court leaves that critical question unanswered, I think.
Here's the scenario from the early 1990s which we may face again in a year or two. You're listing a $600,000 home. You calculate the seller's net at +$20,000. But if the struggling seller stops making loan payments when you list the home, and if the home sells for a little less than you estimate, it'll be a negative net. The seller says he can bring in up to $10,000 to close, if needed, but you don't know if that's true, or not.
If you disclose it's a short sale in the MLS, which it isn't when you list the home, some Short Seller's attorney could argue that that isn't true, or that it discloses "confidential" information which weakens the seller's negotiating leverage. Either way the listing agent has breached his/her fiduciary to the seller. The thinking in the early 1990s was to include the disclosure in the TDS since the buyer's offer is conditioned upon its approval anyway. The court decision said it needs to be disclosed, not that it needs to be disclosed in the MLS.
Your larger point that the selling agent probably didn't read the pre is well taken. But again it applies when the property is obviously underwater as it was in the court case. As you know, the pre just shows the original loans, not the current balance which may be higher (on negative amortizing loans), or lower.
To make things more interesting, if the listing office doesn't disclose the problem to the selling office, the listing office may be responsible for paying a commission to the selling office if the transaction doesn't close. Especially if the seller can't bring cash in to close as he/she said they would.
I don't think the issue is settled. As equities get closer to zero (+/- ~$20,000), it'll become more interesting.
Thanks for the provocative post.
Lloyd: Thanks for the compelling comments. I think that 362,000 (the example in Younglove's article) is significant (but perhaps not so signigicant to Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg). So, basically, I totally agree with you on all fronts.
That is a very good question to why the buyer's agent didn't know the property was underwater, it would be easy to see from the prelim.

Login or register to leave a comment