Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law
- This topic has 265 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM #660274January 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #659197
SD Realtor
ParticipantI agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.
January 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #659260ParticipantI agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.
January 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #659863ParticipantI agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.
January 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #660001ParticipantI agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.
January 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #660329ParticipantI agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.
January 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM #659417bearishgurl
ParticipantWhat makes it “landmark” is that sellers will now be required not only to reveal their properties will be “short sales” prior accepting ANY offers on it, they also must divulge to potential buyers the dollar amount of their total outstanding encumbrances (at the time of listing) and whether or not they have written approval (and possibly prove if they do) that their most senior TD holder will accept the price they are asking in the listing.
Perhaps this info will all need to be disclosed in the (public) listing.
In other words, as sellers most likely behind in their mortgage payments and thus are looking for a buyer to “bail them out,” they have LOST their right to privacy in these matters.
This is how I see it manifesting (in addition to all the usual and customary disclosures).
January 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM #659480ParticipantWhat makes it “landmark” is that sellers will now be required not only to reveal their properties will be “short sales” prior accepting ANY offers on it, they also must divulge to potential buyers the dollar amount of their total outstanding encumbrances (at the time of listing) and whether or not they have written approval (and possibly prove if they do) that their most senior TD holder will accept the price they are asking in the listing.
Perhaps this info will all need to be disclosed in the (public) listing.
In other words, as sellers most likely behind in their mortgage payments and thus are looking for a buyer to “bail them out,” they have LOST their right to privacy in these matters.
This is how I see it manifesting (in addition to all the usual and customary disclosures).
January 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM #660083ParticipantWhat makes it “landmark” is that sellers will now be required not only to reveal their properties will be “short sales” prior accepting ANY offers on it, they also must divulge to potential buyers the dollar amount of their total outstanding encumbrances (at the time of listing) and whether or not they have written approval (and possibly prove if they do) that their most senior TD holder will accept the price they are asking in the listing.
Perhaps this info will all need to be disclosed in the (public) listing.
In other words, as sellers most likely behind in their mortgage payments and thus are looking for a buyer to “bail them out,” they have LOST their right to privacy in these matters.
This is how I see it manifesting (in addition to all the usual and customary disclosures).
January 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM #660221ParticipantWhat makes it “landmark” is that sellers will now be required not only to reveal their properties will be “short sales” prior accepting ANY offers on it, they also must divulge to potential buyers the dollar amount of their total outstanding encumbrances (at the time of listing) and whether or not they have written approval (and possibly prove if they do) that their most senior TD holder will accept the price they are asking in the listing.
Perhaps this info will all need to be disclosed in the (public) listing.
In other words, as sellers most likely behind in their mortgage payments and thus are looking for a buyer to “bail them out,” they have LOST their right to privacy in these matters.
This is how I see it manifesting (in addition to all the usual and customary disclosures).
January 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM #660551ParticipantWhat makes it “landmark” is that sellers will now be required not only to reveal their properties will be “short sales” prior accepting ANY offers on it, they also must divulge to potential buyers the dollar amount of their total outstanding encumbrances (at the time of listing) and whether or not they have written approval (and possibly prove if they do) that their most senior TD holder will accept the price they are asking in the listing.
Perhaps this info will all need to be disclosed in the (public) listing.
In other words, as sellers most likely behind in their mortgage payments and thus are looking for a buyer to “bail them out,” they have LOST their right to privacy in these matters.
This is how I see it manifesting (in addition to all the usual and customary disclosures).
January 28, 2011 at 11:09 PM #659427Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).
January 28, 2011 at 11:09 PM #659490Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).
January 28, 2011 at 11:09 PM #660093Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).
January 28, 2011 at 11:09 PM #660231Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I agree with UR. I have no idea why this is so landmark. This is a simple case of dumb and dumber. Dumb seller and dumber agent.[/quote]
Don’t forget, SDR, that this “dumber” agent was acting as a “dual agent” in this case; that is, she had a fiduciary duty to Buyer(s) Holmes, as well, who SOLD their house and closed escrow on it during this transaction based solely upon the representations to them made my Seller’s agent and also THEIR agent (Summer).
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.