[SD Realtor]

Good comments by all…

PW I guess I didn’t illustrate my point well… and yes Counselor did present a clean clear view which he does pretty much in all his posts and yes as you said the foreclosure clause is to protect the lender.

I guess the responsibility that I was trying to allude to is that there is (or should be) an inherent responsibility in home ownership that is not present or needed for simple ownership of assets. I think in order to reform the system to help prevent rampant speculation we need to up the ante for people who want to play.

Should there be any different treatment from Joe imbecile who was awarded a 600k loan on his meager 50k salary and he has to walk because of his loan resetting verses Shiela the educated homeowner who has an 600k loan and she is going to walk simply because she is tired of paying money for a depreciating asset?

No there should be no treatment. However, if Joe would have known that he will FOREVER BE A SLAVE to that loan UNLESS he had some major event that prevented him from being able to pay, then perhaps he would have never taken the risk.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that real reform would help really keep prices in check but that reform has to be pretty heavy handed in order to wipe out or severely minimize speculation. That the reform is possible through being heavy handed with the buyers.

Lenders will ALWAYS have short memories. I do not think it is reliable that they will remember the licks they take.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Good comments by all…

PW I guess I didn’t illustrate my point well… and yes Counselor did present a clean clear view which he does pretty much in all his posts and yes as you said the foreclosure clause is to protect the lender.

I guess the responsibility that I was trying to allude to is that there is (or should be) an inherent responsibility in home ownership that is not present or needed for simple ownership of assets. I think in order to reform the system to help prevent rampant speculation we need to up the ante for people who want to play.

Should there be any different treatment from Joe imbecile who was awarded a 600k loan on his meager 50k salary and he has to walk because of his loan resetting verses Shiela the educated homeowner who has an 600k loan and she is going to walk simply because she is tired of paying money for a depreciating asset?

No there should be no treatment. However, if Joe would have known that he will FOREVER BE A SLAVE to that loan UNLESS he had some major event that prevented him from being able to pay, then perhaps he would have never taken the risk.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that real reform would help really keep prices in check but that reform has to be pretty heavy handed in order to wipe out or severely minimize speculation. That the reform is possible through being heavy handed with the buyers.

Lenders will ALWAYS have short memories. I do not think it is reliable that they will remember the licks they take.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Good comments by all…

PW I guess I didn’t illustrate my point well… and yes Counselor did present a clean clear view which he does pretty much in all his posts and yes as you said the foreclosure clause is to protect the lender.

I guess the responsibility that I was trying to allude to is that there is (or should be) an inherent responsibility in home ownership that is not present or needed for simple ownership of assets. I think in order to reform the system to help prevent rampant speculation we need to up the ante for people who want to play.

Should there be any different treatment from Joe imbecile who was awarded a 600k loan on his meager 50k salary and he has to walk because of his loan resetting verses Shiela the educated homeowner who has an 600k loan and she is going to walk simply because she is tired of paying money for a depreciating asset?

No there should be no treatment. However, if Joe would have known that he will FOREVER BE A SLAVE to that loan UNLESS he had some major event that prevented him from being able to pay, then perhaps he would have never taken the risk.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that real reform would help really keep prices in check but that reform has to be pretty heavy handed in order to wipe out or severely minimize speculation. That the reform is possible through being heavy handed with the buyers.

Lenders will ALWAYS have short memories. I do not think it is reliable that they will remember the licks they take.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Good comments by all…

PW I guess I didn’t illustrate my point well… and yes Counselor did present a clean clear view which he does pretty much in all his posts and yes as you said the foreclosure clause is to protect the lender.

I guess the responsibility that I was trying to allude to is that there is (or should be) an inherent responsibility in home ownership that is not present or needed for simple ownership of assets. I think in order to reform the system to help prevent rampant speculation we need to up the ante for people who want to play.

Should there be any different treatment from Joe imbecile who was awarded a 600k loan on his meager 50k salary and he has to walk because of his loan resetting verses Shiela the educated homeowner who has an 600k loan and she is going to walk simply because she is tired of paying money for a depreciating asset?

No there should be no treatment. However, if Joe would have known that he will FOREVER BE A SLAVE to that loan UNLESS he had some major event that prevented him from being able to pay, then perhaps he would have never taken the risk.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that real reform would help really keep prices in check but that reform has to be pretty heavy handed in order to wipe out or severely minimize speculation. That the reform is possible through being heavy handed with the buyers.

Lenders will ALWAYS have short memories. I do not think it is reliable that they will remember the licks they take.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Good comments by all…

PW I guess I didn’t illustrate my point well… and yes Counselor did present a clean clear view which he does pretty much in all his posts and yes as you said the foreclosure clause is to protect the lender.

I guess the responsibility that I was trying to allude to is that there is (or should be) an inherent responsibility in home ownership that is not present or needed for simple ownership of assets. I think in order to reform the system to help prevent rampant speculation we need to up the ante for people who want to play.

Should there be any different treatment from Joe imbecile who was awarded a 600k loan on his meager 50k salary and he has to walk because of his loan resetting verses Shiela the educated homeowner who has an 600k loan and she is going to walk simply because she is tired of paying money for a depreciating asset?

No there should be no treatment. However, if Joe would have known that he will FOREVER BE A SLAVE to that loan UNLESS he had some major event that prevented him from being able to pay, then perhaps he would have never taken the risk.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that real reform would help really keep prices in check but that reform has to be pretty heavy handed in order to wipe out or severely minimize speculation. That the reform is possible through being heavy handed with the buyers.

Lenders will ALWAYS have short memories. I do not think it is reliable that they will remember the licks they take.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

FLU your questions (IMO) really have alot to do with your representation. For instance if you FSBO the home then you can do whatever you want, accept or reject any offers as you see fit. I don’t believe there are any legal cases of a FSBO seller being brought to court by a FSBO buyer where the buyer was bitter cuz the seller had no intent to sell at an advertised price.

Now if you are in a contract with a realtor for representation and you price the home at any price, and you reject an offer that comes in at price you may run into serious problems. When you sign that listing agreement you are indeed bound by the agreement and by neglecting to accept an offer that comes in at a price that you originally agreed to price it at with the Realtor, there may be a liability issue on your part, you see what I am saying? It all depends on the text in the contract. If you violate those terms you could be held liable not to sell your home but to pay the agreed to commission.

So based on your example above, forget about the neighbor, just worry about the liability you may incur by entering into a contract between yourself and the listing agent. Alternately FSBO it and do whatever you like…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

FLU your questions (IMO) really have alot to do with your representation. For instance if you FSBO the home then you can do whatever you want, accept or reject any offers as you see fit. I don’t believe there are any legal cases of a FSBO seller being brought to court by a FSBO buyer where the buyer was bitter cuz the seller had no intent to sell at an advertised price.

Now if you are in a contract with a realtor for representation and you price the home at any price, and you reject an offer that comes in at price you may run into serious problems. When you sign that listing agreement you are indeed bound by the agreement and by neglecting to accept an offer that comes in at a price that you originally agreed to price it at with the Realtor, there may be a liability issue on your part, you see what I am saying? It all depends on the text in the contract. If you violate those terms you could be held liable not to sell your home but to pay the agreed to commission.

So based on your example above, forget about the neighbor, just worry about the liability you may incur by entering into a contract between yourself and the listing agent. Alternately FSBO it and do whatever you like…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

FLU your questions (IMO) really have alot to do with your representation. For instance if you FSBO the home then you can do whatever you want, accept or reject any offers as you see fit. I don’t believe there are any legal cases of a FSBO seller being brought to court by a FSBO buyer where the buyer was bitter cuz the seller had no intent to sell at an advertised price.

Now if you are in a contract with a realtor for representation and you price the home at any price, and you reject an offer that comes in at price you may run into serious problems. When you sign that listing agreement you are indeed bound by the agreement and by neglecting to accept an offer that comes in at a price that you originally agreed to price it at with the Realtor, there may be a liability issue on your part, you see what I am saying? It all depends on the text in the contract. If you violate those terms you could be held liable not to sell your home but to pay the agreed to commission.

So based on your example above, forget about the neighbor, just worry about the liability you may incur by entering into a contract between yourself and the listing agent. Alternately FSBO it and do whatever you like…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

FLU your questions (IMO) really have alot to do with your representation. For instance if you FSBO the home then you can do whatever you want, accept or reject any offers as you see fit. I don’t believe there are any legal cases of a FSBO seller being brought to court by a FSBO buyer where the buyer was bitter cuz the seller had no intent to sell at an advertised price.

Now if you are in a contract with a realtor for representation and you price the home at any price, and you reject an offer that comes in at price you may run into serious problems. When you sign that listing agreement you are indeed bound by the agreement and by neglecting to accept an offer that comes in at a price that you originally agreed to price it at with the Realtor, there may be a liability issue on your part, you see what I am saying? It all depends on the text in the contract. If you violate those terms you could be held liable not to sell your home but to pay the agreed to commission.

So based on your example above, forget about the neighbor, just worry about the liability you may incur by entering into a contract between yourself and the listing agent. Alternately FSBO it and do whatever you like…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

FLU your questions (IMO) really have alot to do with your representation. For instance if you FSBO the home then you can do whatever you want, accept or reject any offers as you see fit. I don’t believe there are any legal cases of a FSBO seller being brought to court by a FSBO buyer where the buyer was bitter cuz the seller had no intent to sell at an advertised price.

Now if you are in a contract with a realtor for representation and you price the home at any price, and you reject an offer that comes in at price you may run into serious problems. When you sign that listing agreement you are indeed bound by the agreement and by neglecting to accept an offer that comes in at a price that you originally agreed to price it at with the Realtor, there may be a liability issue on your part, you see what I am saying? It all depends on the text in the contract. If you violate those terms you could be held liable not to sell your home but to pay the agreed to commission.

So based on your example above, forget about the neighbor, just worry about the liability you may incur by entering into a contract between yourself and the listing agent. Alternately FSBO it and do whatever you like…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

sdrealtor I noticed that. Have you dealt with the guy (that broker before?)

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

sdrealtor I noticed that. Have you dealt with the guy (that broker before?)

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

sdrealtor I noticed that. Have you dealt with the guy (that broker before?)

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

sdrealtor I noticed that. Have you dealt with the guy (that broker before?)

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

sdrealtor I noticed that. Have you dealt with the guy (that broker before?)

SD Realtor

[Author]

Posts