Doug Buenz
Real Estate Broker
Alain Pinel Realtors
(925) 463-2000
I am a local Real Estate Broker with
Alain Pinel Realtors serving the
Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley
area. I am an avid watcher of the
local real estate market, as well as
cultural and political events.
But that is what I do, not who I am... » read more
Real Estate Q & A
Unreasonable buyers asking for more money from Seller
I entered into a contract to sell my house a couple of weeks ago. Because the market is slow, I ended up taking a lot less for my house than I was planning on. Now the buyers have had inspections, and they want me to credit them $3500 for repairs, most of which are complete B.S. I am really mad about this. Should I tell them to take a hike? Fred W.
Fred, take a deep breath and relax. In some ways this market can be called "Revenge of the Buyers". Remember 4 or 5 years ago when Sellers told buyers things like "take it or leave it" or "don't ask for anything to be fixed... we have 2 other buyers who want it". Now the tables have turned. Don't get hung up on the details of what the buyer wants. Some may be legit, and some might be categorized as outright extortion. But so what. If you want to sell you house, swallow hard and sign it. If you think you can do better in this market, tell them no. It is really that simple. But tread carefully, because working with buyers today is a little like trying to feed a squirrel. They don't really trust you, they are skittish, and at the first sign of trouble they go scampering for the woods. If you refuse the $3500, it could end up costing you $5000, $10,000, or even $20,000 more to get the next buyer in contract.
Stubborn Seller Won't Move Out?
I am buying a house in Pleasanton, and the contract is signed and the escrow is getting ready to close, and the seller decides he does not want to move out at close of escrow, but wants a week after close to move out. When we express the fact that this will not work for us, he threatens to cancel the contract. Can he do this? Ben in Pleasanton
Ben, I have good news and not so good news. The good news is that no, the seller can not unilaterally cancel a ratified contract just because he doesn't get his way. If all contingencies are removed and you are coming down to the wire, the seller can't arbitrarily start changing the terms. And he certainly can not cancel a contract. Real estate contracts are bilateral. they require the agreement of both the buyer and seller. If he attempted to cancel the contract, you could likely tie up his property so he could not sell it to someone else, and take him to court to force him to sell to you under the terms of the contract. That is the good news. The not so good news is that this course of action is time consuming, emotionally draining, and costly. If the seller becomes difficult to deal with, try to relax and work around him if you really want the house. You can always take him to small claims court after the close to recoup any out of pocket expenses you incur. Unfortunately, there is virtually no protection in a contract for an obstinant seller. You can either put up with him as best you can, and then seek renumeration in small claims court, or threaten him back, but it is difficult if not impossible to physically force the seller out of the premises. As always, consult an attorney about the specifics of your case.
Confusion on Commission Agreement?
Doug, my friend listed her house with an agent with the understanding that if one of her friends (named specifically) buys her property, the agent would be compensated at 4% commission. So one of her friends has made an offer. When the agent sent my friend the estimated pay out from the transaction, the agent put in her commission as 6%. Her explanation is that the original deal was only good until she listed the house in MLS. Is this ethical? Or legal? Or standard practice? Ginny C.
Ginny, that is a great question. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. Any agreement involving the sale or transfer or brokerage of real estate in California must be in writing to be enforceable. So if there was no written clause regarding the friend, then your friends are out of luck. So is it legal? I think a better question is the agent legally entitled to the 6%. Based on what you have described, the answer is yes, since there obviously is no written agreement regarding this situation. Is this ethical? I always have a problem with any party that does not honor the spirit of an agreement, even if the details are not specifically spelled out. But keep in mind that neither you nor I heard what was actually said. Again, this is why all agreements dealing with real estate must be in writing. I this standard practice? Again, I am not sure what you are referring to, but if there is an exception or exclusion to the commission agreement for one party, there normally is a time limit during which the party must act. Whether or not that was clearly stated in writing, or clearly explained, is a matter of conjecture at this point. The lesson here is to always get agreements in writing, especially if they are modifications to standard agreements.
Now that our government has pledged almost a Trillion dollars to attempt to solve the continuing financial crisis, I thought it would be interesting to figure out what went wrong. Fortunately in the digital age we have access to an overwhelming amount of information that can be used to explain what the hell happened.
Check out this article from the New York Times originally published in 1999. It’s hard not to escape the conclusion that this whole mess was predictable. When you give loans to people who can’t afford them, you shouldn’t be surprised when they stop paying.
And check out this video on YouTube.
While it is produced by the Republican National Congressional Committee, it is nonetheless a stinging indictment of our politicians. And I’m willing to bet that plenty of lawmakers on the Republican side were getting campaign contributions from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
Housing has been subsidized by the Federal Government for decades… it has always been considered important to have a large percentage of the population owning homes. It adds to the stability of our society since more people have a stake in the success of our system. It also creates lots of jobs. And while these are certainly worthwhile goals, something changed under the Clinton Administration, and subsequently the Bush Administration. There was a definite policy shift in Washington. Previously, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac purchased loans based on sound and prudent underwriting. Loans were made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to pay. They even required (get ready for this one) downpayments from borrowers! But the politicians decided that wasn’t good enough. The rules were changed and political pressure was exerted to open up home ownership to more Americans, whether they could afford it or not. And a lot of people got rich doing it, creating a house of cards that is now tumbling down.
This writer from Edgelings.com hits the nail right on the head in my opinion:
From where I sit, the United States government has embarked on two pieces of social engineering in the last few years. One was to make oil expensive as expensive as possible to drive people to greater use of alternative energy sources - because anything less would be irresponsible and destructive to the environment. The other was to enshrine home ownership (i.e., easy-to-obtain mortgages) as a new American right - because anything less would be unequal and racist.
None of us voted on these decisions - indeed, neither was even spoken about directly, much less debated. But nevertheless, both became national policy… and both have sparked national, now international, crises. Then, once they became crises, both were blamed on ‘greedy capitalism’, instead of what they really were: legislative interference into market forces.
Now our wonderful politicians have pledged a staggering amount of money to try to turn the tide. I guess time will tell if it works. Seriously, how do these people keep their jobs in Washington?
Loading ...
RSS
Deconstructing the Mortgage Melt Down