Buying a house without even seeing it!

[kev374]

I found a townhouse in Cypress, CA recently and contacted the Realtor, here is what she said…

“Only a drive by is permitted after which you make an offer subject to inspection”

The home is 1500 sqft, listed for $350,000 and is a short sale.

Am I reading this correctly? A Realtor expects me to make an offer without even seeing the inside of the house? That seems a bit insane to me, do people actually do this?

[Coronita]

yes. it’s normal

[spdrun]

You’re not “buying” anything just yet. You have a certain time period where you can walk away from an offer with nothing lost other than your time. An “offer” in CA is worth the paper it’s written on and no more.

Your broker fills out a standard form and 3-4 addenda, you sign, send proof of funds/proof of mortgage approval, and the seller either accepts or declines. You then have a certain time period written into the offer to do due diligence, waive contingencies, and put a deposit down.

This is less true on the East Coast, but in CA, people seem to throw out 20 offers on short sales in a month and see what sticks.

O’ya, and check the HOA financials and meeting minutes really carefully. If those can’t be provided and/or there’s a history of random special assessments, run screaming. Don’t walk.

[The-Shoveler]

From my limited experience with short sales.

They may just be going through the motions (not intending to leave quickly).

Things I have seen with short sales.
For sale signs pointing at the wrong house,
Not trespassing signs.
listing agent can never get a hold of seller to make
appointment.

Make an offer if you want, me I just move on.

[The-Shoveler]

I have also seen where the bank has cut a deal with the seller that they will be able to rent the place from the new owners,

The owners never saw the seller until the escrow inspection period was over, once the new owner have the first encounter (not going to say what transpired), but after that encounter, the buyers walked away from the deal and their deposit, making the agent very happy (the agent at that time this was the third deposit they got).

[spdrun]

Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=spdrun]Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.[/quote]

Almost LOL, I guess they should have been carrying a bug,

Usually that is the case, but not in this case, the seller somehow got a deal with the bank to rent the place for a certain period of time (which was several months after close would have been).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.[/quote]

Absolutely, and I have put that clause in ALL the Offers to Purchase I have prepared, whether for clients or for myself.

As a matter of fact, I have demanded that the property be vacant for the final walk-through, which is usually 3 businesses day before COE. This provision goes in the offer even if the property is owner-occupied.

These SS seller-clowns have had many months and even years to pack their stuff and get ready to move. There is no excuse for still occupying at the 11th hour or leaving it full of their junk for the new owner to deal with and pay to dispose of.

If the final walk-thru turns up occupants and/or their furniture, personal effects, debris, non-running vehicle, etc, it is time to walk from the transaction after you have already told them in writing what the terms of your purchase would be and they agreed to it.

Sometimes a buyer and/or their agent can see in advance that the owner/tenant situation is going to be problematic and can bail out of the deal before spending too much time and money on it.

If the LA/broker can’t even control the behavior of their (short) sellers (as it applies to successfully consummating a sale) than no one can and it is time to walk away.

Most short sellers, ESP those who are collecting rent and not paying their mortgage payments, have to be carefully reined in and controlled. If they refuse to get on board and “play ball” to the satisfaction of the LA, then the LA should drop them and let them foreclose.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=spdrun]Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.[/quote]

Almost LOL, I guess they should have been carrying a bug,

Usually that is the case, but not in this case, the seller somehow got a deal with the bank to rent the place for a certain period of time (which was several months after close would have been).[/quote]

shoveler, if this is the case, these “sellers” had no business listing their property as a SS as it is currently not conveyable.

A conveyance means possession. Most investors buying rental properties want to take a fine-toothed comb over their new acquisition first and fix it up to rent and then vet their OWN tenants. They don’t want to be stuck with deadbeat short sellers who don’t have any agreement with them whatsoever.

[The-Shoveler]

Not saying it was right or anything,
Just saying there are things one needs to be aware and be wary of out there.
Especially with short sales, not every deal is hmmm how to put it,
Well there are things to be wary of especially with short sales.

[spdrun]

Why was the broker/seller allowed to keep the deposit, though? Seems that there would be a default expectation of a house being delivered vacant (unless otherwise stated), and the buyer should have been able to sue for the deposit back.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]I have also seen where the bank has cut a deal with the seller that they will be able to rent the place from the new owners,

The owners never saw the seller until the escrow inspection period was over, once the new owner have the first encounter (not going to say what transpired), but after that encounter, the buyers walked away from the deal and their deposit, making the agent very happy (the agent at that time this was the third deposit they got).[/quote]

Shoveler, a lender has no authority to do this. If the lender decides to approve a short sale where a provision in the contract was that the property be delivered vacant, then the lender agreed to that provision when they approved the offer.

They can’t rescind this part of the offer and agree to the price without countering the buyers (or having the “sellers” counter the buyers).

If this really happened, then the buyers didn’t ask for the property vacant (they had an incompetent agent).

If the lender countered the buyers (or the seller countered the buyers) with an occupancy provision for a period of weeks/months after COE (carryover occupancy or possession) and these buyers agreed and signed it without ever meeting the sellers, then they screwed themselves (again, with the help of an incompetent agent, IMO).

The Statute of Frauds in CA requires that all provisions of a RE contract (incl an offer to purchase or listing agreement) to be in writing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Not saying it was right or anything,
Just saying there are things one needs to be aware and be wary of out there.
Especially with short sales, not every deal is hmmm how to put it,
Well there are things to be wary of especially with short sales.[/quote]

I understand all these problems because the nature of a SS is adversarial and most of the SS “sellers” are deadbeats without a shred of integrity.

But that is where a competent buyer’s agent comes in, representing ONLY the interests of the buyer. Anyone who uses the listing agent of a SS for their buyer’s agent is a fool, IMHO.

[spdrun]

I didn’t think that dual agency in the case of short sales was actually legal. I suppose the buyer could agree to represent themselves without the seller’s agent working for them.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Why was the broker/seller allowed to keep the deposit, though? Seems that there would be a default expectation of a house being delivered vacant (unless otherwise stated), and the buyer should have been able to sue for the deposit back.[/quote]

There is no “default expectation.” It has to be marked or written on the offer to purchase form.

(Not sure, but the newer CAR forms may have a box to check for this.)

[Author]

Posts