[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not asking for a temporary reassessment to market value, rather I am challenging the assessment that occurred as part of the transfer of ownership last fall. As far as I know these “initial” assessments are limited to 2% a year change regardless of whether or not the market improves.

I went back and looked at all of the sales in my neighborhood going back 6 months and forward 3 months. The only way they could have possibly got the price they did was to use “turn-key” properties that were heavily upgraded which our house is not.

My personal opinion is that they are basing their estimate of value on the fact that the property tax valuation was once in the stratosphere and they just can’t accept that prices really have come down that far.

Thanks for all the advice … we plan to fight this with every means we have available.[/quote]

pemeliza, I have not sought out the exact RevTax Code in the CA legislation that applies to Adjusted Base Year Value upon filing of a Change of Ownership form (done in escrow on an “arms-length” sale),” but I believe it is entirely possible that Mission Hills was NOT AMOUNG the assessor’s parcel maps that were/are eligible for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program.” I know my area was/is eligible as some of my neighbors who are NOT Prop. 13 eligible received automatically-lowered tax bills last fall. (I did too, but mine was nearly $1000 lower due to a stipulated agreement upon appeal, foregoing my right to a hg.) My appeal was filed July 2008 and I was presented with and signed the agreement just after Thanksgiving 2009 (just before the first installment of FY 09/10 taxes were due).

In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

In any case, you have only 60 days from the postmark on your supplemental bill to file an appeal on it, so don’t let the co. appraiser string you along.

Who knows? Maybe you’ll succeed in getting your particular parcel map included in the DVAP 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not asking for a temporary reassessment to market value, rather I am challenging the assessment that occurred as part of the transfer of ownership last fall. As far as I know these “initial” assessments are limited to 2% a year change regardless of whether or not the market improves.

I went back and looked at all of the sales in my neighborhood going back 6 months and forward 3 months. The only way they could have possibly got the price they did was to use “turn-key” properties that were heavily upgraded which our house is not.

My personal opinion is that they are basing their estimate of value on the fact that the property tax valuation was once in the stratosphere and they just can’t accept that prices really have come down that far.

Thanks for all the advice … we plan to fight this with every means we have available.[/quote]

pemeliza, I have not sought out the exact RevTax Code in the CA legislation that applies to Adjusted Base Year Value upon filing of a Change of Ownership form (done in escrow on an “arms-length” sale),” but I believe it is entirely possible that Mission Hills was NOT AMOUNG the assessor’s parcel maps that were/are eligible for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program.” I know my area was/is eligible as some of my neighbors who are NOT Prop. 13 eligible received automatically-lowered tax bills last fall. (I did too, but mine was nearly $1000 lower due to a stipulated agreement upon appeal, foregoing my right to a hg.) My appeal was filed July 2008 and I was presented with and signed the agreement just after Thanksgiving 2009 (just before the first installment of FY 09/10 taxes were due).

In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

In any case, you have only 60 days from the postmark on your supplemental bill to file an appeal on it, so don’t let the co. appraiser string you along.

Who knows? Maybe you’ll succeed in getting your particular parcel map included in the DVAP 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not asking for a temporary reassessment to market value, rather I am challenging the assessment that occurred as part of the transfer of ownership last fall. As far as I know these “initial” assessments are limited to 2% a year change regardless of whether or not the market improves.

I went back and looked at all of the sales in my neighborhood going back 6 months and forward 3 months. The only way they could have possibly got the price they did was to use “turn-key” properties that were heavily upgraded which our house is not.

My personal opinion is that they are basing their estimate of value on the fact that the property tax valuation was once in the stratosphere and they just can’t accept that prices really have come down that far.

Thanks for all the advice … we plan to fight this with every means we have available.[/quote]

pemeliza, I have not sought out the exact RevTax Code in the CA legislation that applies to Adjusted Base Year Value upon filing of a Change of Ownership form (done in escrow on an “arms-length” sale),” but I believe it is entirely possible that Mission Hills was NOT AMOUNG the assessor’s parcel maps that were/are eligible for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program.” I know my area was/is eligible as some of my neighbors who are NOT Prop. 13 eligible received automatically-lowered tax bills last fall. (I did too, but mine was nearly $1000 lower due to a stipulated agreement upon appeal, foregoing my right to a hg.) My appeal was filed July 2008 and I was presented with and signed the agreement just after Thanksgiving 2009 (just before the first installment of FY 09/10 taxes were due).

In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

In any case, you have only 60 days from the postmark on your supplemental bill to file an appeal on it, so don’t let the co. appraiser string you along.

Who knows? Maybe you’ll succeed in getting your particular parcel map included in the DVAP 🙂

[bearishgurl]

pemeliza, your reciept of a supplemental bill nine months after purchase is well within the time frame for receiving a supplemental bill from a county assessor. As you know, the tax collected from you in escrow was reflective of your portion of the previous owners bill. You probably thought you were due a refund instead of receiving a supplemental bill because you pd. LESS for the property than the prev. owner’s assessment. Hopefully, there is enough in your “overpayment” to cover the supplemental bill.

CA assessors not only have the right to add 2% per year onto a non-exempted homeowner’s property tax bill pursuant to Prop 13, they have the right to assess the property by sq. ft. using the sales comps of the last six months from the area it is located in. (Co. assessors actually haven’t been routinely increasing tax bills by 2% in the last two years of those properties which were purchased since about 2004, but voluntarily decreasing them to avoid more assessment appeal applicants.)

Make sure when you are faxing the SD ARCC appraiser sales comps that you keep your cover sheet and fax confirmation sheet or e-mails as Econprof posted. Even though the comps you provided were “open market at arms length,” they are “distress” sales. If that is all that sold around there with similar sq. footage to your property, then the assessor will have to accept them. Are there any “non-distress” comparable sales to your property which took place in the last six months that the appraiser may want to use? If so, find out what they are, now.

Even if you can get the assessor to agree to assess your property for FY 10/11 at it’s REO price + 2%, once the rest of the REOs “shake out” in your area of 92103 and non-distress sales begin being routinely conducted once more, the assessor will have the right to increase your assessment for the next tax year to the market-rate purchased comparable properties.

Did the people you know that “scammed the system” buy an REO in Mission Hills, Pt. Loma or other similarly-situated coveted coastal area, such as you did?? If they purchased in areas with high or very high numbers of foreclosures and REO’s, then the assessor knows they cannot recover taxes from a “market-rate assessment” from these properties for at least several years. They agreed to the supplemental refund on these buyers because they are just trying to save themselves and the Clerk of the Board work by reducing the amount of assessment-appeal applicants in their already two-year long overcrowded pipeline.

If the appraiser doesn’t satisfy you informally within 30-45 days, you will have to pay the supp. bill and immed. file an assessment appeal, to get yourself in the pipeline. You will then receive a postcard within about a month telling you where your numbered position is in the pipeline.

pemeliza, I know the supp. bill came as a shock but just be grateful you got a good deal in a coveted area. I don’t believe you’ll be sorry for your purchase down the line, as so many buyers are now.

[bearishgurl]

pemeliza, your reciept of a supplemental bill nine months after purchase is well within the time frame for receiving a supplemental bill from a county assessor. As you know, the tax collected from you in escrow was reflective of your portion of the previous owners bill. You probably thought you were due a refund instead of receiving a supplemental bill because you pd. LESS for the property than the prev. owner’s assessment. Hopefully, there is enough in your “overpayment” to cover the supplemental bill.

CA assessors not only have the right to add 2% per year onto a non-exempted homeowner’s property tax bill pursuant to Prop 13, they have the right to assess the property by sq. ft. using the sales comps of the last six months from the area it is located in. (Co. assessors actually haven’t been routinely increasing tax bills by 2% in the last two years of those properties which were purchased since about 2004, but voluntarily decreasing them to avoid more assessment appeal applicants.)

Make sure when you are faxing the SD ARCC appraiser sales comps that you keep your cover sheet and fax confirmation sheet or e-mails as Econprof posted. Even though the comps you provided were “open market at arms length,” they are “distress” sales. If that is all that sold around there with similar sq. footage to your property, then the assessor will have to accept them. Are there any “non-distress” comparable sales to your property which took place in the last six months that the appraiser may want to use? If so, find out what they are, now.

Even if you can get the assessor to agree to assess your property for FY 10/11 at it’s REO price + 2%, once the rest of the REOs “shake out” in your area of 92103 and non-distress sales begin being routinely conducted once more, the assessor will have the right to increase your assessment for the next tax year to the market-rate purchased comparable properties.

Did the people you know that “scammed the system” buy an REO in Mission Hills, Pt. Loma or other similarly-situated coveted coastal area, such as you did?? If they purchased in areas with high or very high numbers of foreclosures and REO’s, then the assessor knows they cannot recover taxes from a “market-rate assessment” from these properties for at least several years. They agreed to the supplemental refund on these buyers because they are just trying to save themselves and the Clerk of the Board work by reducing the amount of assessment-appeal applicants in their already two-year long overcrowded pipeline.

If the appraiser doesn’t satisfy you informally within 30-45 days, you will have to pay the supp. bill and immed. file an assessment appeal, to get yourself in the pipeline. You will then receive a postcard within about a month telling you where your numbered position is in the pipeline.

pemeliza, I know the supp. bill came as a shock but just be grateful you got a good deal in a coveted area. I don’t believe you’ll be sorry for your purchase down the line, as so many buyers are now.

[bearishgurl]

pemeliza, your reciept of a supplemental bill nine months after purchase is well within the time frame for receiving a supplemental bill from a county assessor. As you know, the tax collected from you in escrow was reflective of your portion of the previous owners bill. You probably thought you were due a refund instead of receiving a supplemental bill because you pd. LESS for the property than the prev. owner’s assessment. Hopefully, there is enough in your “overpayment” to cover the supplemental bill.

CA assessors not only have the right to add 2% per year onto a non-exempted homeowner’s property tax bill pursuant to Prop 13, they have the right to assess the property by sq. ft. using the sales comps of the last six months from the area it is located in. (Co. assessors actually haven’t been routinely increasing tax bills by 2% in the last two years of those properties which were purchased since about 2004, but voluntarily decreasing them to avoid more assessment appeal applicants.)

Make sure when you are faxing the SD ARCC appraiser sales comps that you keep your cover sheet and fax confirmation sheet or e-mails as Econprof posted. Even though the comps you provided were “open market at arms length,” they are “distress” sales. If that is all that sold around there with similar sq. footage to your property, then the assessor will have to accept them. Are there any “non-distress” comparable sales to your property which took place in the last six months that the appraiser may want to use? If so, find out what they are, now.

Even if you can get the assessor to agree to assess your property for FY 10/11 at it’s REO price + 2%, once the rest of the REOs “shake out” in your area of 92103 and non-distress sales begin being routinely conducted once more, the assessor will have the right to increase your assessment for the next tax year to the market-rate purchased comparable properties.

Did the people you know that “scammed the system” buy an REO in Mission Hills, Pt. Loma or other similarly-situated coveted coastal area, such as you did?? If they purchased in areas with high or very high numbers of foreclosures and REO’s, then the assessor knows they cannot recover taxes from a “market-rate assessment” from these properties for at least several years. They agreed to the supplemental refund on these buyers because they are just trying to save themselves and the Clerk of the Board work by reducing the amount of assessment-appeal applicants in their already two-year long overcrowded pipeline.

If the appraiser doesn’t satisfy you informally within 30-45 days, you will have to pay the supp. bill and immed. file an assessment appeal, to get yourself in the pipeline. You will then receive a postcard within about a month telling you where your numbered position is in the pipeline.

pemeliza, I know the supp. bill came as a shock but just be grateful you got a good deal in a coveted area. I don’t believe you’ll be sorry for your purchase down the line, as so many buyers are now.

[bearishgurl]

pemeliza, your reciept of a supplemental bill nine months after purchase is well within the time frame for receiving a supplemental bill from a county assessor. As you know, the tax collected from you in escrow was reflective of your portion of the previous owners bill. You probably thought you were due a refund instead of receiving a supplemental bill because you pd. LESS for the property than the prev. owner’s assessment. Hopefully, there is enough in your “overpayment” to cover the supplemental bill.

CA assessors not only have the right to add 2% per year onto a non-exempted homeowner’s property tax bill pursuant to Prop 13, they have the right to assess the property by sq. ft. using the sales comps of the last six months from the area it is located in. (Co. assessors actually haven’t been routinely increasing tax bills by 2% in the last two years of those properties which were purchased since about 2004, but voluntarily decreasing them to avoid more assessment appeal applicants.)

Make sure when you are faxing the SD ARCC appraiser sales comps that you keep your cover sheet and fax confirmation sheet or e-mails as Econprof posted. Even though the comps you provided were “open market at arms length,” they are “distress” sales. If that is all that sold around there with similar sq. footage to your property, then the assessor will have to accept them. Are there any “non-distress” comparable sales to your property which took place in the last six months that the appraiser may want to use? If so, find out what they are, now.

Even if you can get the assessor to agree to assess your property for FY 10/11 at it’s REO price + 2%, once the rest of the REOs “shake out” in your area of 92103 and non-distress sales begin being routinely conducted once more, the assessor will have the right to increase your assessment for the next tax year to the market-rate purchased comparable properties.

Did the people you know that “scammed the system” buy an REO in Mission Hills, Pt. Loma or other similarly-situated coveted coastal area, such as you did?? If they purchased in areas with high or very high numbers of foreclosures and REO’s, then the assessor knows they cannot recover taxes from a “market-rate assessment” from these properties for at least several years. They agreed to the supplemental refund on these buyers because they are just trying to save themselves and the Clerk of the Board work by reducing the amount of assessment-appeal applicants in their already two-year long overcrowded pipeline.

If the appraiser doesn’t satisfy you informally within 30-45 days, you will have to pay the supp. bill and immed. file an assessment appeal, to get yourself in the pipeline. You will then receive a postcard within about a month telling you where your numbered position is in the pipeline.

pemeliza, I know the supp. bill came as a shock but just be grateful you got a good deal in a coveted area. I don’t believe you’ll be sorry for your purchase down the line, as so many buyers are now.

[bearishgurl]

pemeliza, your reciept of a supplemental bill nine months after purchase is well within the time frame for receiving a supplemental bill from a county assessor. As you know, the tax collected from you in escrow was reflective of your portion of the previous owners bill. You probably thought you were due a refund instead of receiving a supplemental bill because you pd. LESS for the property than the prev. owner’s assessment. Hopefully, there is enough in your “overpayment” to cover the supplemental bill.

CA assessors not only have the right to add 2% per year onto a non-exempted homeowner’s property tax bill pursuant to Prop 13, they have the right to assess the property by sq. ft. using the sales comps of the last six months from the area it is located in. (Co. assessors actually haven’t been routinely increasing tax bills by 2% in the last two years of those properties which were purchased since about 2004, but voluntarily decreasing them to avoid more assessment appeal applicants.)

Make sure when you are faxing the SD ARCC appraiser sales comps that you keep your cover sheet and fax confirmation sheet or e-mails as Econprof posted. Even though the comps you provided were “open market at arms length,” they are “distress” sales. If that is all that sold around there with similar sq. footage to your property, then the assessor will have to accept them. Are there any “non-distress” comparable sales to your property which took place in the last six months that the appraiser may want to use? If so, find out what they are, now.

Even if you can get the assessor to agree to assess your property for FY 10/11 at it’s REO price + 2%, once the rest of the REOs “shake out” in your area of 92103 and non-distress sales begin being routinely conducted once more, the assessor will have the right to increase your assessment for the next tax year to the market-rate purchased comparable properties.

Did the people you know that “scammed the system” buy an REO in Mission Hills, Pt. Loma or other similarly-situated coveted coastal area, such as you did?? If they purchased in areas with high or very high numbers of foreclosures and REO’s, then the assessor knows they cannot recover taxes from a “market-rate assessment” from these properties for at least several years. They agreed to the supplemental refund on these buyers because they are just trying to save themselves and the Clerk of the Board work by reducing the amount of assessment-appeal applicants in their already two-year long overcrowded pipeline.

If the appraiser doesn’t satisfy you informally within 30-45 days, you will have to pay the supp. bill and immed. file an assessment appeal, to get yourself in the pipeline. You will then receive a postcard within about a month telling you where your numbered position is in the pipeline.

pemeliza, I know the supp. bill came as a shock but just be grateful you got a good deal in a coveted area. I don’t believe you’ll be sorry for your purchase down the line, as so many buyers are now.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]I said the problems could be resolved by good experienced agents. Obviously bad inexperienced ones can exacerbate things.[/quote]

sdr, what also stated in your post was that “Your lawyer will advise you endlessly at $300/hour when simple common sense solutions are readily available among reasonable people,” intimating that agents with “common sense” can fix everything. My point is, sellers are often neither reasonable or fair. The parties’ agents are often too ignorant to be reasonable or only want to close the transaction ASAP so they can get paid.

In Trojan4life’s earlier thread, you suggested that he get an attorney if his sellers couldn’t make it right for essentially THE SAME PROBLEM that I brought up (seller’s failure to comply with a contract term). Unfortunately, in our society, attorneys are a necessary evil. Often, if consulted early on in a transaction, their advice can save your a$$, by preventing a big expensive problem in the first place.

After an attorney gets a mucked up RE deal from a client who’s been damaged by it, it ends up in the lap of yours truly. These messes are often complicated and DIFFICULT to rectify after the damage has already been done. That’s my perspective. Perhaps it comes off as a bit jaded..

[quote=sdrealtor]Two short sales 18 years does not an expert make you. Hell I’ve done about 50 the last year and still learn every day.[/quote]

I never professed to be an “expert” in short sales. At the time of my two SS transactions, selling short was not even widely known of or common. My background assisted me greatly, however. What I stated was that they were way too much work for me, esp. since I also had a 40+ hr wk. job and a family as well. If you’ve done “50 in the last year,” I hope you have a transaction coordinator and other help. With dozens going on at once, you can afford to spend 100+ hours on an indiv. transaction and have a few fall apart here and there (buyer disgust/property foreclosed/recalcitrant lender, etc.) IMO the outcome of short-sale transactions is nearly all OUT OF THE CONTROL of the agent(s). Life’s too short – it’s not worth the headache to me to even be a party to one.

I totally understand how much harder it must be to make a commission these days.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]I said the problems could be resolved by good experienced agents. Obviously bad inexperienced ones can exacerbate things.[/quote]

sdr, what also stated in your post was that “Your lawyer will advise you endlessly at $300/hour when simple common sense solutions are readily available among reasonable people,” intimating that agents with “common sense” can fix everything. My point is, sellers are often neither reasonable or fair. The parties’ agents are often too ignorant to be reasonable or only want to close the transaction ASAP so they can get paid.

In Trojan4life’s earlier thread, you suggested that he get an attorney if his sellers couldn’t make it right for essentially THE SAME PROBLEM that I brought up (seller’s failure to comply with a contract term). Unfortunately, in our society, attorneys are a necessary evil. Often, if consulted early on in a transaction, their advice can save your a$$, by preventing a big expensive problem in the first place.

After an attorney gets a mucked up RE deal from a client who’s been damaged by it, it ends up in the lap of yours truly. These messes are often complicated and DIFFICULT to rectify after the damage has already been done. That’s my perspective. Perhaps it comes off as a bit jaded..

[quote=sdrealtor]Two short sales 18 years does not an expert make you. Hell I’ve done about 50 the last year and still learn every day.[/quote]

I never professed to be an “expert” in short sales. At the time of my two SS transactions, selling short was not even widely known of or common. My background assisted me greatly, however. What I stated was that they were way too much work for me, esp. since I also had a 40+ hr wk. job and a family as well. If you’ve done “50 in the last year,” I hope you have a transaction coordinator and other help. With dozens going on at once, you can afford to spend 100+ hours on an indiv. transaction and have a few fall apart here and there (buyer disgust/property foreclosed/recalcitrant lender, etc.) IMO the outcome of short-sale transactions is nearly all OUT OF THE CONTROL of the agent(s). Life’s too short – it’s not worth the headache to me to even be a party to one.

I totally understand how much harder it must be to make a commission these days.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]I said the problems could be resolved by good experienced agents. Obviously bad inexperienced ones can exacerbate things.[/quote]

sdr, what also stated in your post was that “Your lawyer will advise you endlessly at $300/hour when simple common sense solutions are readily available among reasonable people,” intimating that agents with “common sense” can fix everything. My point is, sellers are often neither reasonable or fair. The parties’ agents are often too ignorant to be reasonable or only want to close the transaction ASAP so they can get paid.

In Trojan4life’s earlier thread, you suggested that he get an attorney if his sellers couldn’t make it right for essentially THE SAME PROBLEM that I brought up (seller’s failure to comply with a contract term). Unfortunately, in our society, attorneys are a necessary evil. Often, if consulted early on in a transaction, their advice can save your a$$, by preventing a big expensive problem in the first place.

After an attorney gets a mucked up RE deal from a client who’s been damaged by it, it ends up in the lap of yours truly. These messes are often complicated and DIFFICULT to rectify after the damage has already been done. That’s my perspective. Perhaps it comes off as a bit jaded..

[quote=sdrealtor]Two short sales 18 years does not an expert make you. Hell I’ve done about 50 the last year and still learn every day.[/quote]

I never professed to be an “expert” in short sales. At the time of my two SS transactions, selling short was not even widely known of or common. My background assisted me greatly, however. What I stated was that they were way too much work for me, esp. since I also had a 40+ hr wk. job and a family as well. If you’ve done “50 in the last year,” I hope you have a transaction coordinator and other help. With dozens going on at once, you can afford to spend 100+ hours on an indiv. transaction and have a few fall apart here and there (buyer disgust/property foreclosed/recalcitrant lender, etc.) IMO the outcome of short-sale transactions is nearly all OUT OF THE CONTROL of the agent(s). Life’s too short – it’s not worth the headache to me to even be a party to one.

I totally understand how much harder it must be to make a commission these days.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]I said the problems could be resolved by good experienced agents. Obviously bad inexperienced ones can exacerbate things.[/quote]

sdr, what also stated in your post was that “Your lawyer will advise you endlessly at $300/hour when simple common sense solutions are readily available among reasonable people,” intimating that agents with “common sense” can fix everything. My point is, sellers are often neither reasonable or fair. The parties’ agents are often too ignorant to be reasonable or only want to close the transaction ASAP so they can get paid.

In Trojan4life’s earlier thread, you suggested that he get an attorney if his sellers couldn’t make it right for essentially THE SAME PROBLEM that I brought up (seller’s failure to comply with a contract term). Unfortunately, in our society, attorneys are a necessary evil. Often, if consulted early on in a transaction, their advice can save your a$$, by preventing a big expensive problem in the first place.

After an attorney gets a mucked up RE deal from a client who’s been damaged by it, it ends up in the lap of yours truly. These messes are often complicated and DIFFICULT to rectify after the damage has already been done. That’s my perspective. Perhaps it comes off as a bit jaded..

[quote=sdrealtor]Two short sales 18 years does not an expert make you. Hell I’ve done about 50 the last year and still learn every day.[/quote]

I never professed to be an “expert” in short sales. At the time of my two SS transactions, selling short was not even widely known of or common. My background assisted me greatly, however. What I stated was that they were way too much work for me, esp. since I also had a 40+ hr wk. job and a family as well. If you’ve done “50 in the last year,” I hope you have a transaction coordinator and other help. With dozens going on at once, you can afford to spend 100+ hours on an indiv. transaction and have a few fall apart here and there (buyer disgust/property foreclosed/recalcitrant lender, etc.) IMO the outcome of short-sale transactions is nearly all OUT OF THE CONTROL of the agent(s). Life’s too short – it’s not worth the headache to me to even be a party to one.

I totally understand how much harder it must be to make a commission these days.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]I said the problems could be resolved by good experienced agents. Obviously bad inexperienced ones can exacerbate things.[/quote]

sdr, what also stated in your post was that “Your lawyer will advise you endlessly at $300/hour when simple common sense solutions are readily available among reasonable people,” intimating that agents with “common sense” can fix everything. My point is, sellers are often neither reasonable or fair. The parties’ agents are often too ignorant to be reasonable or only want to close the transaction ASAP so they can get paid.

In Trojan4life’s earlier thread, you suggested that he get an attorney if his sellers couldn’t make it right for essentially THE SAME PROBLEM that I brought up (seller’s failure to comply with a contract term). Unfortunately, in our society, attorneys are a necessary evil. Often, if consulted early on in a transaction, their advice can save your a$$, by preventing a big expensive problem in the first place.

After an attorney gets a mucked up RE deal from a client who’s been damaged by it, it ends up in the lap of yours truly. These messes are often complicated and DIFFICULT to rectify after the damage has already been done. That’s my perspective. Perhaps it comes off as a bit jaded..

[quote=sdrealtor]Two short sales 18 years does not an expert make you. Hell I’ve done about 50 the last year and still learn every day.[/quote]

I never professed to be an “expert” in short sales. At the time of my two SS transactions, selling short was not even widely known of or common. My background assisted me greatly, however. What I stated was that they were way too much work for me, esp. since I also had a 40+ hr wk. job and a family as well. If you’ve done “50 in the last year,” I hope you have a transaction coordinator and other help. With dozens going on at once, you can afford to spend 100+ hours on an indiv. transaction and have a few fall apart here and there (buyer disgust/property foreclosed/recalcitrant lender, etc.) IMO the outcome of short-sale transactions is nearly all OUT OF THE CONTROL of the agent(s). Life’s too short – it’s not worth the headache to me to even be a party to one.

I totally understand how much harder it must be to make a commission these days.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]- My mother rents a farm in Indiana. When she took bids for rent she asked for sealed bids. Why? The reason is that several farmers in the area gave bids that were essentially something like “I’ll pay 1$ an acre more than the highest bid”. She did not think that was fair and she was also afraid that if word got out that nobody would bid if they know the game was rigged. It turns out the bids for the most part were fairly close together and yes the highest bidder got to rent the land and was happy to so it at the price he offered. Some people were disappointed that they didn’t get the winning bid but they said they would bid again in the future. If a seller has something that many buyers would like to have this is a reasonable way to do business.[/quote]

pemeliza, I agree with your mom’s “system.” About 25 years ago, I became an authorized agent to show and write bids for VA repossessed properties. They used a different lockbox and key than the Realtor Boards used. Almost all the properties were cosmetic to heavy fixers and were to be sold “as-is.” There was only ONE property mgr. for them in town, located in a little house in PB on Grand Ave. Their duties were to check out lockbox keys to authorized agents, place lockboxes and conspicuous notices on the properties, see that all safety hazards around the properties were removed so they could be viewed (broken glass, old frig’s lying outside, mow down tall weeds, etc) and accept the sealed bids in person and thru their door slot and messenger them to the V.A. on the designated day of bid-closing. The Rules were all in writing and all agents knew them and explained them to their client bidders. Lists of properties were published in the newpaper twice monthly with a “suggested bid price.” Buyers bids had to be submitted on VA Forms by a certain date with their authorized agent, listing the lender they intended to use to buy the property along with a $1,000 bid “earnest money” check to be returned to the bidders who were not selected. A bidder had 60 days to close the transaction if selected. Bidders could bid up 10% under the VA’s suggested bid price if they didn’t feel the property was worth it and enclose recent sales comps to support their lower bid. The “winning bid” list was faxed to the agents about five bus. days after the close of bids took place and the names of the “winning” bidders and their broker were published in the newspaper the following week, along with the next list of properties. The VA in Los Angeles picked the “winner” by how much they would net. A bidder could ask the VA itself to fund the property, even if they were not VA eligible. These bids were considered ONLY if the VA didn’t have any qualifying conventional bids to get them out of the property (even if lower). If a bidder got into escrow and couldn’t get a loan to close the deal due to misrepresentation of their financial situation on the VA bid form they submitted, they lost their $1,000 as liquidated damages and the property was put back up on the next list.

There were NO counter offers. The VA never called the buyer’s agent to ask if his/her clients could “come up in price” or put in their “last, best and final offer” if they were still interested, etc.” The bids were opened by the VA and that was the end and they went on to the next list.

As a buyer you didn’t know how much the other bidders bid, but all the bids were in writing, including the financial details of the bidders, opened by a government entity in another County.

The whole operation was conducted fairly. My spouse and I even won two of these bids, fixed up the properties and later resold them for profit.

There’s nothing wrong with a legitimate sealed-bid system, but that’s not what’s happening in today’s residential RE market. What I have a problem with is when a buyer today responds to a “submit all offers” request after a listing agent tells his/her buyer’s agent that they do not have any offers yet. After the buyer’s agent submits buyer’s offer, the listing agent calls buyer’s agent back and states, “I have more offers coming in so we’re going to need longer than 3 days” (or whatever timeline you have put in your offer to accept/reject it). Or “We’ve now decided the seller is going to read all offers on the 15th so you’ll have to extend your timeline,” when Buyer #1 KNOWS they were the first one to put in an offer on the property. Seller doesn’t want to reject Buyer #1 outright RIGHT NOW, until they give themselves a little more time to amass offers (esp. if the prop. just came on the market). Instead of countering B#1, they want to string him/her along to try to make them think a few other “legitimate offers” are under consideration, hoping B#1 will be “nervous” enough to up the ante when a little more time passes. Listing agents have also been known to play B#1 against a legitimate second offer, when B#1’s offer came in a week earlier but they were successful in stringing B#1 along without countering them and thus scuttling the deal one way or the other in a timely fashion. I don’t think any buyer should have to bid against themselves. Essentially, unless a property is unusually desirable, I think most “bidding wars” are just trumped up by the listing agent to “seem like there are multiple bids” but are really just BS time wasters. That why I advocated calling their bluff and WALKING if sellers started “gaming” my clients by giving excuses why they can’t counter or reject a legitimate offer within a reasonable time period (3 days). I’ve just seen it all over the years, get it all and wrote the handbook. IMO, the whole practice of submitting and accepting/rejecting/countering offers has really gotten out of hand in recent years, most likely because buyers and their agents are willingly “playing the game.” RE practice is NOT a game. It’s purely business, with a live buyer’s REAL HARD-EARNED $$ at stake and should be treated as such.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]- My mother rents a farm in Indiana. When she took bids for rent she asked for sealed bids. Why? The reason is that several farmers in the area gave bids that were essentially something like “I’ll pay 1$ an acre more than the highest bid”. She did not think that was fair and she was also afraid that if word got out that nobody would bid if they know the game was rigged. It turns out the bids for the most part were fairly close together and yes the highest bidder got to rent the land and was happy to so it at the price he offered. Some people were disappointed that they didn’t get the winning bid but they said they would bid again in the future. If a seller has something that many buyers would like to have this is a reasonable way to do business.[/quote]

pemeliza, I agree with your mom’s “system.” About 25 years ago, I became an authorized agent to show and write bids for VA repossessed properties. They used a different lockbox and key than the Realtor Boards used. Almost all the properties were cosmetic to heavy fixers and were to be sold “as-is.” There was only ONE property mgr. for them in town, located in a little house in PB on Grand Ave. Their duties were to check out lockbox keys to authorized agents, place lockboxes and conspicuous notices on the properties, see that all safety hazards around the properties were removed so they could be viewed (broken glass, old frig’s lying outside, mow down tall weeds, etc) and accept the sealed bids in person and thru their door slot and messenger them to the V.A. on the designated day of bid-closing. The Rules were all in writing and all agents knew them and explained them to their client bidders. Lists of properties were published in the newpaper twice monthly with a “suggested bid price.” Buyers bids had to be submitted on VA Forms by a certain date with their authorized agent, listing the lender they intended to use to buy the property along with a $1,000 bid “earnest money” check to be returned to the bidders who were not selected. A bidder had 60 days to close the transaction if selected. Bidders could bid up 10% under the VA’s suggested bid price if they didn’t feel the property was worth it and enclose recent sales comps to support their lower bid. The “winning bid” list was faxed to the agents about five bus. days after the close of bids took place and the names of the “winning” bidders and their broker were published in the newspaper the following week, along with the next list of properties. The VA in Los Angeles picked the “winner” by how much they would net. A bidder could ask the VA itself to fund the property, even if they were not VA eligible. These bids were considered ONLY if the VA didn’t have any qualifying conventional bids to get them out of the property (even if lower). If a bidder got into escrow and couldn’t get a loan to close the deal due to misrepresentation of their financial situation on the VA bid form they submitted, they lost their $1,000 as liquidated damages and the property was put back up on the next list.

There were NO counter offers. The VA never called the buyer’s agent to ask if his/her clients could “come up in price” or put in their “last, best and final offer” if they were still interested, etc.” The bids were opened by the VA and that was the end and they went on to the next list.

As a buyer you didn’t know how much the other bidders bid, but all the bids were in writing, including the financial details of the bidders, opened by a government entity in another County.

The whole operation was conducted fairly. My spouse and I even won two of these bids, fixed up the properties and later resold them for profit.

There’s nothing wrong with a legitimate sealed-bid system, but that’s not what’s happening in today’s residential RE market. What I have a problem with is when a buyer today responds to a “submit all offers” request after a listing agent tells his/her buyer’s agent that they do not have any offers yet. After the buyer’s agent submits buyer’s offer, the listing agent calls buyer’s agent back and states, “I have more offers coming in so we’re going to need longer than 3 days” (or whatever timeline you have put in your offer to accept/reject it). Or “We’ve now decided the seller is going to read all offers on the 15th so you’ll have to extend your timeline,” when Buyer #1 KNOWS they were the first one to put in an offer on the property. Seller doesn’t want to reject Buyer #1 outright RIGHT NOW, until they give themselves a little more time to amass offers (esp. if the prop. just came on the market). Instead of countering B#1, they want to string him/her along to try to make them think a few other “legitimate offers” are under consideration, hoping B#1 will be “nervous” enough to up the ante when a little more time passes. Listing agents have also been known to play B#1 against a legitimate second offer, when B#1’s offer came in a week earlier but they were successful in stringing B#1 along without countering them and thus scuttling the deal one way or the other in a timely fashion. I don’t think any buyer should have to bid against themselves. Essentially, unless a property is unusually desirable, I think most “bidding wars” are just trumped up by the listing agent to “seem like there are multiple bids” but are really just BS time wasters. That why I advocated calling their bluff and WALKING if sellers started “gaming” my clients by giving excuses why they can’t counter or reject a legitimate offer within a reasonable time period (3 days). I’ve just seen it all over the years, get it all and wrote the handbook. IMO, the whole practice of submitting and accepting/rejecting/countering offers has really gotten out of hand in recent years, most likely because buyers and their agents are willingly “playing the game.” RE practice is NOT a game. It’s purely business, with a live buyer’s REAL HARD-EARNED $$ at stake and should be treated as such.

[Author]

Posts