[SD Realtor]

Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments.

In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.

On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off! However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.

My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.

I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.

[SD Realtor]

Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments.

In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.

On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off! However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.

My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.

I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.

[SD Realtor]

Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments.

In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.

On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off! However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.

My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.

I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.

[SD Realtor]

Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments.

In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.

On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off! However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.

My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.

I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I did not understand the original post. It appeared to me that the poster was irritated because there were statements made to and agreed upon by both parties in the purchase contract and SIGNED by both parties and now the seller is reneging. Thus the buyer is seeking legal recourse. The question is, can he get it?

Typically if you are a seller in a short sale and you receive an offer you must not agree to costs AT THAT TIME. The listing agent should have advised to NOT agree to them and counter the offer at that time. You don’t agree to terms and then later say sorry I am broke I cannot pay for what I told you I could pay for.

Now will a court uphold it? Don’t know but there is no excuse for it even if the seller is broke.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I did not understand the original post. It appeared to me that the poster was irritated because there were statements made to and agreed upon by both parties in the purchase contract and SIGNED by both parties and now the seller is reneging. Thus the buyer is seeking legal recourse. The question is, can he get it?

Typically if you are a seller in a short sale and you receive an offer you must not agree to costs AT THAT TIME. The listing agent should have advised to NOT agree to them and counter the offer at that time. You don’t agree to terms and then later say sorry I am broke I cannot pay for what I told you I could pay for.

Now will a court uphold it? Don’t know but there is no excuse for it even if the seller is broke.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I did not understand the original post. It appeared to me that the poster was irritated because there were statements made to and agreed upon by both parties in the purchase contract and SIGNED by both parties and now the seller is reneging. Thus the buyer is seeking legal recourse. The question is, can he get it?

Typically if you are a seller in a short sale and you receive an offer you must not agree to costs AT THAT TIME. The listing agent should have advised to NOT agree to them and counter the offer at that time. You don’t agree to terms and then later say sorry I am broke I cannot pay for what I told you I could pay for.

Now will a court uphold it? Don’t know but there is no excuse for it even if the seller is broke.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I did not understand the original post. It appeared to me that the poster was irritated because there were statements made to and agreed upon by both parties in the purchase contract and SIGNED by both parties and now the seller is reneging. Thus the buyer is seeking legal recourse. The question is, can he get it?

Typically if you are a seller in a short sale and you receive an offer you must not agree to costs AT THAT TIME. The listing agent should have advised to NOT agree to them and counter the offer at that time. You don’t agree to terms and then later say sorry I am broke I cannot pay for what I told you I could pay for.

Now will a court uphold it? Don’t know but there is no excuse for it even if the seller is broke.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I did not understand the original post. It appeared to me that the poster was irritated because there were statements made to and agreed upon by both parties in the purchase contract and SIGNED by both parties and now the seller is reneging. Thus the buyer is seeking legal recourse. The question is, can he get it?

Typically if you are a seller in a short sale and you receive an offer you must not agree to costs AT THAT TIME. The listing agent should have advised to NOT agree to them and counter the offer at that time. You don’t agree to terms and then later say sorry I am broke I cannot pay for what I told you I could pay for.

Now will a court uphold it? Don’t know but there is no excuse for it even if the seller is broke.

[SD Realtor]

All material facts must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[SD Realtor]

All material facts must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[SD Realtor]

All material facts must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[SD Realtor]

All material facts must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[SD Realtor]

All material facts must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[SD Realtor]

Ox you may want to give HLS a call.

[Author]

Posts