BB~ Thanks for the comment. I respect your opinion; however, would like to know why you think the SSA-2 is a piece of "junk." It outlines the expectations and required time periods for all parties and puts clarity to those issues related to short sales.

Honestly, I'm surprised by your statement that you "would never let your buyer or seller agree to that clause in the addendum" as I would think that it is your duty to communicate the information and to offer advice, and then allow them make their own decision as to what they are comfortable with. Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want your seller to be able to continue to market their home and secure a back-up offer if their first offer fell through?

And yes, in a perfect world, all short sale deals would close, but as we all know (unless your marketplace is different than mine) that a lot can happen while the buyer's offer is "under review" by the lender. I see no reason why the property cannot remain "Active-Under Review" in the MLS until such time when the bank approves or rejects the Buyer's offer within the time period allowed for on the SSA-2.

Please know that I'm not suggesting that there be a "submission period" like there is in most REO listings, but I do believe that Buyers will be more committed to the offers they write if they know the property is still being shown. AND Sellers will not lose other potential Buyers while waiting for their lender(s) approval. Having a new "status" in the MLS can be a win-win situation for all if done properly.

In closing, I very much respect you and TLW and hope that we can agree to disagree on this topic. I still hope to be able to come out and visit and would hate to have a brawl when I get there :-)

Hey BB~ Thanks again for sharing your opinion and the reasoning behind it. You are a smart guy with ethics, so I know you would never give advice that could hurt your customer's position, but I also know that not everyone in this business operates like you do.

In the spirit of continuing our healthy dialogue... I do not agree with your statement that "by continuing to market the property, you are giving the Buyer an out." It that were truly the case, we would all take the "For Sale" signs out the of the yard, remove the listing from our websites and not accept calls derived from prior marketing efforts because we would be fearful the current Buyer would have an "out" as a result.

While I do agree that the Buyer and Seller should do everything they can to honor the agreement, I don't think it's fair to ask the Seller to take their house off the market (via MLS) during the 3^rd party approval period if the Buyer isn't required have "skin" in the game as well. All to often, Buyers are now wanting the time period for deposits, inspections, appraisal and financing to not begin until AFTER the lender has given their approval...

..which means Buyers are more likely to "walk away" when they find something else and/or get frustrated with the time it takes to get the contract approved by the third party.

And when the Buyer "walks away" they lose nothing...but the Seller has lost crucial marketing time and potentially those Buyers who might have considered submitting a back up offer.

Lastly, I appreciate your statement about the MLS place for short sales that are under contract, but would in turn say that "Pending-Waiting 3^rd Party Approval" might as well just say "Off the Radar," since no website that promotes property to the public pulls from any other status than "Active" in the MLS.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do feel that the playing field should be more balanced. I was hoping more would share their opinions too...as I believe we can all learn and respect one another even though we may not agree with them.

Have a great Sunday & please tell TLW I said Hi!

Oh my, it looks as though there are some strong emotions out there related to short sales. If you haven't, I would encourage each of you to read the post so that you can see where the "issue" really is. The problem at hand is that the Florida Association of REALTORS Short Sale Addendum makes it challenging for both the Buyer and the Seller. The SSA-2 states the Seller can continue to market the property and take other offers while allowing the Buyer not to place money in escrow, complete inspections or proceed with financing until the Seller's lender(s) give approval...which basically means they are agreeing to purchase by signature alone, but have nothing at stake should they elect to walk away before the final approval by the 3rd party.

The only real way to make the short sale work is as Bryant says...to have both sides do everything they can to honor the agreement, which would mean the Seller is to take the house off the market and the Buyer is to put money in escrow and proceed with inspections & financing as they would in a regular transaction.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that additional offers be taken and submitted to the bank for review once the Seller has already accepted (whether they are a higher price or not), but I do think that if the Buyer is not required to have skin in the game, then the Seller should be permitted to continue to market the property and take BACK UP offers that will only be presented should the Buyer walk away during the review period.

Bill~ I must have missed something. I don't recall writing anything about soliciting higher offers so that I could get a higher commission. What I did write was:

"I believe that the MFRMLS should consider creating a new "Under Review" status for short sales that have received an offer, but are awaiting approval from the Seller's lender(s). During the "Under Review" period, the property would remain "Active-Under Review" in the MLS and could continue to be marketed as such, in hopes to create interest from additional Buyers who may consider submitting back up offers that can quickly be submitted if the "Under Review" offer falls through."

At no time did I recommend undermining the Buyer's contract, I only suggested that back up offers would be beneficial in the event the Buyer walks away. Who is to say the back up offers would even be the same or higher price as the original offer anyway?

Ken~ I'm not so sure what "deal muddling politics" you are referring to. Could you please elaborate on that comment?

To all~ Bryant and I have always had a very respectful relationship, which is something we should all have with each other. When it comes to real estate (or anything else, for that matter), we all have opinions and Active Rain is a great place to share those...without becoming ugly or accusatory.

In the spirit of positive communications, I welcome your additional comments.

Bryant~Thanks for clarifying. I too agree that the Buyer should have skin in the game! In seeing your two points, I'll be selling your listings now that I know the co-broke won't change (you must be the only person in the State who honors that one :-0) and the deal will get closed! In the MFRMLS, the stats indicate that less than 20% of the short-sale properties that are under contract actually close...which I'm sure is due to the lender(s) inability to respond in a timely manner, the Buyer getting frustrated and walking away, the Seller deciding to file bankruptcy after-the-fact, or the agent who should have never listed it in the first place without knowing all the facts.

Like you, I just want the deal to stay together and get closed...which is good for everybody.

Hope we're still friends :-)

Bill~ The reason for my comments is simple. According to the stats of short sale homes that actually close, less than 20% of them are successful...and I'm fairly certain (based on those lenders, title companies & agents that I've spoken to who have Buyers who write offers on short sales), that the main reason the properties fail to close is because the Buyer walks away during the "review period" as they have no skin in the game and become frustrated with the time is takes to get an answer from the bank.

Given the above stats, it's clear that as much as I would hope the contract will close, the Seller and I can do nothing to prevent the Buyer from walking during the "review period," other than demand a high deposit that will be non-refundable, which most Buyers will refuse to give because they have the attitude that they are doing the Sellers a favor in the first place by writing an offer.

As far as soliciting other offers, there is never a guarantee that back up offers will be higher, lower or the same as the one the bank has in their possession for review. Regardless of what they are, I don't think they should be submitted unless the contract falls through due to the Buyer walking away. These offers are for back up purposes only to reduce the time it may take to secure a new offer if and when the first Buyer fails to follow through the entire process.

While I appreciate your comment, it's way off base. I am not questioning my competence or putting my commssion ahead of my clients best interest...and wonder how you could possibly think that helping the Seller secure back up offers is doing either of those two things. Even when the Seller and I do everything we can to honor the agreement, we have no control over what the Buyer does or does not do.

Isn't it my job to get the Seller's home sold? If so, how can I possibly do that if the Buyer they are under contract with flakes out and I have no one else who can step in and proceed to closing? Again, I am not suggesting that multiple offers be sent to the lender for review...but I am suggesting that more Buyers may be more committed to following through with their end of the contract if they know that others may be in line behind them if they withdraw.

That, my friend, is what I define as helping the Seller.

Michele~ Thanks for commenting! It's great to get feedback on how short sales are handled in different markets. Hope you are doing well!

Bryant~ Thank you for stopping back by! I like the interaction, as challenging as it may be at times! No reason to get upset...we all are trying to find our way in this market these days and I find the opinions of others a valuable thing! Have a great week!