Menu

Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Bank accepted offer – scarry addendum

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM #443167
    disimilar1
    Participant

    Hi Piggs,
    On a foreclosure which requires reairs what could one ask the RE Agt to kick in on a % of sale. He reps both sides. Buyer and seller. And yes, these docs are what I saw.

    August 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM #442483
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]This is so inequitable I wonder if it’s legally enforceable.

    I think anyone who wants to buy an REO is obviously weighing the risk of buying an “As Is” property with all the “Defects” in order to get a good deal. (Some times 30% off). So, it is essentially a “Venture Capital” operation. You buy a 600K property for 400K with a small chance of having a surprise $50K repair.[/quote]

    Did you even read what I posted?

    I was talking about an addendum that gave the servicer the right to void a signed contract at any time before closing, with no guarantee that the buyer would be reimbursed for costs incurred.

    Only a bank or a servicer would consider that clause to be fair 🙂

    And anyone who thinks that REOs are going for 30% off true market value … must’ve bought in 2005 🙂

    August 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM #442679
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]This is so inequitable I wonder if it’s legally enforceable.

    I think anyone who wants to buy an REO is obviously weighing the risk of buying an “As Is” property with all the “Defects” in order to get a good deal. (Some times 30% off). So, it is essentially a “Venture Capital” operation. You buy a 600K property for 400K with a small chance of having a surprise $50K repair.[/quote]

    Did you even read what I posted?

    I was talking about an addendum that gave the servicer the right to void a signed contract at any time before closing, with no guarantee that the buyer would be reimbursed for costs incurred.

    Only a bank or a servicer would consider that clause to be fair 🙂

    And anyone who thinks that REOs are going for 30% off true market value … must’ve bought in 2005 🙂

    August 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM #443016
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]This is so inequitable I wonder if it’s legally enforceable.

    I think anyone who wants to buy an REO is obviously weighing the risk of buying an “As Is” property with all the “Defects” in order to get a good deal. (Some times 30% off). So, it is essentially a “Venture Capital” operation. You buy a 600K property for 400K with a small chance of having a surprise $50K repair.[/quote]

    Did you even read what I posted?

    I was talking about an addendum that gave the servicer the right to void a signed contract at any time before closing, with no guarantee that the buyer would be reimbursed for costs incurred.

    Only a bank or a servicer would consider that clause to be fair 🙂

    And anyone who thinks that REOs are going for 30% off true market value … must’ve bought in 2005 🙂

    August 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM #443085
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]This is so inequitable I wonder if it’s legally enforceable.

    I think anyone who wants to buy an REO is obviously weighing the risk of buying an “As Is” property with all the “Defects” in order to get a good deal. (Some times 30% off). So, it is essentially a “Venture Capital” operation. You buy a 600K property for 400K with a small chance of having a surprise $50K repair.[/quote]

    Did you even read what I posted?

    I was talking about an addendum that gave the servicer the right to void a signed contract at any time before closing, with no guarantee that the buyer would be reimbursed for costs incurred.

    Only a bank or a servicer would consider that clause to be fair 🙂

    And anyone who thinks that REOs are going for 30% off true market value … must’ve bought in 2005 🙂

    August 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM #443262
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]This is so inequitable I wonder if it’s legally enforceable.

    I think anyone who wants to buy an REO is obviously weighing the risk of buying an “As Is” property with all the “Defects” in order to get a good deal. (Some times 30% off). So, it is essentially a “Venture Capital” operation. You buy a 600K property for 400K with a small chance of having a surprise $50K repair.[/quote]

    Did you even read what I posted?

    I was talking about an addendum that gave the servicer the right to void a signed contract at any time before closing, with no guarantee that the buyer would be reimbursed for costs incurred.

    Only a bank or a servicer would consider that clause to be fair 🙂

    And anyone who thinks that REOs are going for 30% off true market value … must’ve bought in 2005 🙂

    August 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM #442498
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.

    August 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM #442694
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.

    August 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM #443031
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.

    August 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM #443100
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.

    August 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM #443278
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.

    August 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM #442713
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.[/quote]

    Sorry for the sharp response bsrsharma, I was a bit frazzled earlier 🙂

    Not that I think there’s much of a difference … most sellers these days have no assets to sue over.

    August 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM #442908
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.[/quote]

    Sorry for the sharp response bsrsharma, I was a bit frazzled earlier 🙂

    Not that I think there’s much of a difference … most sellers these days have no assets to sue over.

    August 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM #443246
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.[/quote]

    Sorry for the sharp response bsrsharma, I was a bit frazzled earlier 🙂

    Not that I think there’s much of a difference … most sellers these days have no assets to sue over.

    August 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM #443315
    AK
    Participant

    [quote=bsrsharma]Sorry, I was not clear. My argument is REO’s are obviously one sided contracts and have to be recognized for what they are. Hence, it only makes sense if you get at least 30% advantage over a more equitable contract. My main argument was the value of “As Is” with “defects” clause. That should be considered like buying a used car with no warranties compared to a new car.[/quote]

    Sorry for the sharp response bsrsharma, I was a bit frazzled earlier 🙂

    Not that I think there’s much of a difference … most sellers these days have no assets to sue over.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.