[quote=SD Realtor]Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.
So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.
