ethical question; short sales

[sdrealtor]

Seller has the right to sell for whatever they to whomever they want unless they discriminate against you and you are part of a protected class (btw, lawyers arent). The only remedy I can see would be in the case of a fair housing violation.

[LA Reader]

Why don’t you resubmit your offer at lower price and whatever you deducted from original offer price..add to your “offer” for the appliances.

As far as I know Bank only looks at the offers the seller presents to them.

Of course you all of sudden risk bank asking for more money to approve.

Also just because you “offered” to buy appliances nothing says you have to actually go through with it after your offer is submitted to the bank. Two can play at un-ethical game.

[LA Reader]

Why don’t you resubmit your offer at lower price and whatever you deducted from original offer price..add to your “offer” for the appliances.

As far as I know Bank only looks at the offers the seller presents to them.

Of course you all of sudden risk bank asking for more money to approve.

Also just because you “offered” to buy appliances nothing says you have to actually go through with it after your offer is submitted to the bank. Two can play at un-ethical game.

[LA Reader]

Why don’t you resubmit your offer at lower price and whatever you deducted from original offer price..add to your “offer” for the appliances.

As far as I know Bank only looks at the offers the seller presents to them.

Of course you all of sudden risk bank asking for more money to approve.

Also just because you “offered” to buy appliances nothing says you have to actually go through with it after your offer is submitted to the bank. Two can play at un-ethical game.

[LA Reader]

Why don’t you resubmit your offer at lower price and whatever you deducted from original offer price..add to your “offer” for the appliances.

As far as I know Bank only looks at the offers the seller presents to them.

Of course you all of sudden risk bank asking for more money to approve.

Also just because you “offered” to buy appliances nothing says you have to actually go through with it after your offer is submitted to the bank. Two can play at un-ethical game.

[LA Reader]

Why don’t you resubmit your offer at lower price and whatever you deducted from original offer price..add to your “offer” for the appliances.

As far as I know Bank only looks at the offers the seller presents to them.

Of course you all of sudden risk bank asking for more money to approve.

Also just because you “offered” to buy appliances nothing says you have to actually go through with it after your offer is submitted to the bank. Two can play at un-ethical game.

[scaredyclassic]

SDRealtor, i think your position that sellers can sell whatever personal effects they want is untrue, wrong and silly.

In a situation where a Seller is sorting through offers on a short sale, and they are selling personal items at above-market value as part of a transaction where they are willing to accept a short sale offer the seller wouldn’t otherwise have accepted.

The seller is basically cheating the bank out of the money the bank would have gotten from the higher offer by accepting a lower offer and getting a great price on their used personal junk.

i think that portion of the excess monies received above fair market value for the personal junk is what is called a “bribe” or maybe just a “payment” in order to select the buyer. Isn’t the rule that sellers aren’t supposed to receive money from a short sale? I mean, if i pay 35,000 for an old couch if you accept my lowball offer, that’s bad, right? so your position that they can sell whatever they want for whatever price they can get at their pre-sale yard sale isn’t really true. Actually it’s just flat-out wrong. Maybe even criminal.

[scaredyclassic]

SDRealtor, i think your position that sellers can sell whatever personal effects they want is untrue, wrong and silly.

In a situation where a Seller is sorting through offers on a short sale, and they are selling personal items at above-market value as part of a transaction where they are willing to accept a short sale offer the seller wouldn’t otherwise have accepted.

The seller is basically cheating the bank out of the money the bank would have gotten from the higher offer by accepting a lower offer and getting a great price on their used personal junk.

i think that portion of the excess monies received above fair market value for the personal junk is what is called a “bribe” or maybe just a “payment” in order to select the buyer. Isn’t the rule that sellers aren’t supposed to receive money from a short sale? I mean, if i pay 35,000 for an old couch if you accept my lowball offer, that’s bad, right? so your position that they can sell whatever they want for whatever price they can get at their pre-sale yard sale isn’t really true. Actually it’s just flat-out wrong. Maybe even criminal.

[scaredyclassic]

SDRealtor, i think your position that sellers can sell whatever personal effects they want is untrue, wrong and silly.

In a situation where a Seller is sorting through offers on a short sale, and they are selling personal items at above-market value as part of a transaction where they are willing to accept a short sale offer the seller wouldn’t otherwise have accepted.

The seller is basically cheating the bank out of the money the bank would have gotten from the higher offer by accepting a lower offer and getting a great price on their used personal junk.

i think that portion of the excess monies received above fair market value for the personal junk is what is called a “bribe” or maybe just a “payment” in order to select the buyer. Isn’t the rule that sellers aren’t supposed to receive money from a short sale? I mean, if i pay 35,000 for an old couch if you accept my lowball offer, that’s bad, right? so your position that they can sell whatever they want for whatever price they can get at their pre-sale yard sale isn’t really true. Actually it’s just flat-out wrong. Maybe even criminal.

[scaredyclassic]

SDRealtor, i think your position that sellers can sell whatever personal effects they want is untrue, wrong and silly.

In a situation where a Seller is sorting through offers on a short sale, and they are selling personal items at above-market value as part of a transaction where they are willing to accept a short sale offer the seller wouldn’t otherwise have accepted.

The seller is basically cheating the bank out of the money the bank would have gotten from the higher offer by accepting a lower offer and getting a great price on their used personal junk.

i think that portion of the excess monies received above fair market value for the personal junk is what is called a “bribe” or maybe just a “payment” in order to select the buyer. Isn’t the rule that sellers aren’t supposed to receive money from a short sale? I mean, if i pay 35,000 for an old couch if you accept my lowball offer, that’s bad, right? so your position that they can sell whatever they want for whatever price they can get at their pre-sale yard sale isn’t really true. Actually it’s just flat-out wrong. Maybe even criminal.

[scaredyclassic]

SDRealtor, i think your position that sellers can sell whatever personal effects they want is untrue, wrong and silly.

In a situation where a Seller is sorting through offers on a short sale, and they are selling personal items at above-market value as part of a transaction where they are willing to accept a short sale offer the seller wouldn’t otherwise have accepted.

The seller is basically cheating the bank out of the money the bank would have gotten from the higher offer by accepting a lower offer and getting a great price on their used personal junk.

i think that portion of the excess monies received above fair market value for the personal junk is what is called a “bribe” or maybe just a “payment” in order to select the buyer. Isn’t the rule that sellers aren’t supposed to receive money from a short sale? I mean, if i pay 35,000 for an old couch if you accept my lowball offer, that’s bad, right? so your position that they can sell whatever they want for whatever price they can get at their pre-sale yard sale isn’t really true. Actually it’s just flat-out wrong. Maybe even criminal.

[sdrealtor]

First wrong guy, sdrealtor not SDRealtor.

Second, its not my personal position or nothing I would ever do or condone.

Third, standard I am not an attorney disclosure.

The problem is you have to prove that is why they accepted that offer. The seller can sell personal property outside of escrow and it would be difficult if not impossible to tie the two together. As long as it is outside of escrow the seller technically is not receiving anything from the sale.

The seller can submit whatever they want to the lender who makes the decision to decide what they will acept. The seller is under no obligation to deliver a best or highest offer and the lender is under no obligation to accept any offer even if its above FMV.

I do agree that it is wrong and maybe even criminal but I just dont know how you would ever prove it.

[sdrealtor]

First wrong guy, sdrealtor not SDRealtor.

Second, its not my personal position or nothing I would ever do or condone.

Third, standard I am not an attorney disclosure.

The problem is you have to prove that is why they accepted that offer. The seller can sell personal property outside of escrow and it would be difficult if not impossible to tie the two together. As long as it is outside of escrow the seller technically is not receiving anything from the sale.

The seller can submit whatever they want to the lender who makes the decision to decide what they will acept. The seller is under no obligation to deliver a best or highest offer and the lender is under no obligation to accept any offer even if its above FMV.

I do agree that it is wrong and maybe even criminal but I just dont know how you would ever prove it.

[sdrealtor]

First wrong guy, sdrealtor not SDRealtor.

Second, its not my personal position or nothing I would ever do or condone.

Third, standard I am not an attorney disclosure.

The problem is you have to prove that is why they accepted that offer. The seller can sell personal property outside of escrow and it would be difficult if not impossible to tie the two together. As long as it is outside of escrow the seller technically is not receiving anything from the sale.

The seller can submit whatever they want to the lender who makes the decision to decide what they will acept. The seller is under no obligation to deliver a best or highest offer and the lender is under no obligation to accept any offer even if its above FMV.

I do agree that it is wrong and maybe even criminal but I just dont know how you would ever prove it.

[sdrealtor]

First wrong guy, sdrealtor not SDRealtor.

Second, its not my personal position or nothing I would ever do or condone.

Third, standard I am not an attorney disclosure.

The problem is you have to prove that is why they accepted that offer. The seller can sell personal property outside of escrow and it would be difficult if not impossible to tie the two together. As long as it is outside of escrow the seller technically is not receiving anything from the sale.

The seller can submit whatever they want to the lender who makes the decision to decide what they will acept. The seller is under no obligation to deliver a best or highest offer and the lender is under no obligation to accept any offer even if its above FMV.

I do agree that it is wrong and maybe even criminal but I just dont know how you would ever prove it.

[Author]

Posts