Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
ParticipantSD_R/ Adam:
You make a very cogent and thoughtful set of points.
If most of his detractors were that intelligent in their criticisms, I would not be as annoyed and discouraged with political debate as I a currently am.For example, there is a case to be made that low taxes spur industry to greater action.
However, as a percentage of gdp, tax revenue is pretty low.
However, dressing up in 18th century attire and mocking the Sons of Liberty to complain about having already-pretty-low taxes is not a strong way to make that case.There is a case to be made for lower spending.
A damn strong one too.
However, loads of legislative gridlock while holding sacrosanct the (non-performing) “job-creators” is not a compelling argument.Its like some weird world where Ayn Rand counts as economic scholarship (and Green Day counts as punk and “Twilight” counts as literature and the Mikey Show counts as thoughtful discourse)
My point is this:
Thanks for improving the conversation.Participantla/r:
It was foolish of the agent not to be upfront with everything from the beginning.Its really impressive how dumb agents can be by being secretive.
If she had just said: “here are the numbers we need to reach to have an acceptable short sale” (which she obviously had in mind), she probably could have foregone all that bullshit.
If you had an objection to a seller kick out, you could have walked away then.
Instead this turned into a dumb game where she shows you the communication logs (which I would not do) and you decide if you can deal with the bullshit.
Not cool.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Allan and UR I agree that the GOP is pretty laughable right now.
I do think that if Hillary ran she would beat everyone in the field including Obama…
The debate I would pay to read about would be Brian and his passion for Obama and the young rookie upstart Markmax and his blind faith for Ron Paul.
Let the games begin![/quote]
I wouldn’t pay for it but I would torrent it.
ParticipantAnd he only smokes newports.
The cigs for the fit and fashionable among us.ParticipantGood post.
John Stewart recently had a lot to say about how reactionary the GOP has gotten.
I believe Larry Wilmore actually referred to Reagan as a Homo-loving Hollywood type or something.It astounds me that the GOP choice is no-experience Cain, no-feasible-solutions Paul (though I truly respect his consistency), for-sale Perry, and change-my-view-with-each-poll Romney.
Dude.
That is a fucking grim field.As a liberal, I honestly find myself yearning for the geriatrically sarcastic days of Bob Dole.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Wow that is a doozy. Even if the school stays open it seems like your client can say he is concerned about the school closing in the future given the current budget issues. Has your broker called the listing broker? Seems like a very frivolous situation.[/quote]
I am the broker.
So is he.ParticipantPretty much anything other than “I just changed my mind”.
ParticipantNew one:
I have a couple trying to buy in Del Cerro.
They have looked at a lot of stuff and made a few (but only a few) offers.
Only one was accepted and seemed like it would work.
The seller accepted our offer and we opened escrow.
Our offer specified 17 days for investigation contingencies and the entire escrow for lending contingencies.
That means you have 17 calendar days after acceptance to investigate, inspect, and review disclosures.
If a new disclosure is made, then there is a minimum 5 day contingency period after that disclosure.
Also, the contingency removal is active.
That means that the buyer has to sign a piece of paper saying “I remove contingencies” before his deposit is in jeopardy.So here is what happened:
On day 9 of escrow, the buyer was at a party with a friend who works at SD USD’s administration office.
This friend commented that he should not be moving to that location because it is across the street from a school scheduled to be closed.
The buyer did some research and confirmed with the district that the school was under consideration for closure.
He advised me of this on day 11 and canceled escrow.
I submitted the cancellation notice to the listing agent on day 12.
The listing agent (who is very well-known up there) called me and stated that this school was not on the list to be closed and that he had confirmed same.
Thats not the problem.
That would have actually been really good (had it been definitive and confirmable).
However, he then went on to say that since he had information contradicting our reason for cancellation, therefore the cancellation in bad faith and the deposit was forfeit.
I tried to research this issue directly with the district and was advised that they could not confirm that this school would close but that many schools in the area would be closing and they would have to wait and see.
The buyer was unimpressed (as I would be) with this maybe-we’re-going-to-close-the-school thing and declined to rescind his cancellation.So now the buyer is small-claiming the seller and his agent for the amount of the deposit and then some.
To me this is unbelievable because the whole point of an investigation period is for confirming the property meets your requirements.
Almost any reason (including not liking the neighbors dog) are valid reasons to back out.
I am just astounded (more irritated really than surprised) to see a known agent act in such a way.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
I do have a great ethical story for you as well but it was not my transaction. Knew of a guy in a short sale. He had crappy representation. There were two loans… the second wanted 2500 from the buyer PRIOR to sending formal acceptance. Realtor didn’t know better and allowed him to do it however they waited until the last minute, sent the money in and the home went to foreclosure… that is not even the bad part…
The listing agent was using a third party short sale processor who worked for a broker. Another agent for THAT broker ended up buying the home at trustee sale. The original buyer who lost the 2500 ended up buying the home from the realtor who bought it at trustee sale for a little more then what they had it for during the short sale.
Unreal man…[/quote]
That is very fucked up.
On the bright side, the original buyer got the property they wanted….Eventually.
ParticipantThe issue with a bona fide lease is whether it was created before the “notice of foreclosure”.
That term is kind of confusing for CA.
Some banks define that as the date of the NOD, some as the date of the NOT, some as the date on the original note (not kidding).
HUD finally weighed in and clarified that the “notice of foreclosure” occurs when there is a clear winner of a trustee auction.In other words, the repo date.
You can’t create a bona fide lease after the house is no longer the ex-landlords.
ParticipantI have been in the game for the last decade.
My family have been in the game for the last century.
I am a fourth-generation Realtor.The above-referenced info is accurate.
If I were buying outside of CA, I would never go without a buyer’s agent.
I might lose a few bidding war situations but I would know I had someone looking out for me.
Not everybody is the same, but having an informed advocate is really important to me.
Participant[quote=recordsclerk]In your scenario I think you should ask the original owner to return said deposit and refund 28-29 days worth of prepaid rent. There is nothing wrong with collecting rent while not paying mortgage, but collecting rents beyond your ownership and not refunding deposit is crap. I still don’t see your point that the new owners are bad people because they want rent from tenants that live in their property. They should credit them this month’s rent, but starting next month rent should be paid. If the home would have been sold through the short sale process, would this not be the same outcome for the tenants. Why is this scenario any different? If the new owners want the tenants to leave quick, the tenants should be paid a fair amount (cash for keys) to leave quick.[/quote]
The scenario is different because the law is dramatically different and the type of sale is dramatically different.
In a normal sale or in a short sale, there is a process by which the tenant’s deposit is transferred to the custody of the new owner as is the already-paid rent.
That usually is not a separate check or anything.
Its usually just an additional line item on a closing statement or just a contract addendum stating that “x-dollars are credited to tenant’s ledger for deposit and y-dollars are credited to cover rent through (random date)”.That’s fine.
However, in a foreclosure, the lease/rental agreement is wiped out.
It ceases to exist as does the mechanism tying the payment to the detainment of the property.
So the money spent no longer actually pertains to any use of the property.
It just becomes money owed by the (former) landlord to the tenant.
The tenant’s only recourse to recover this is to ask or to pursue collection activities (like a lawsuit).
Suing a person who just lost a house in foreclosure is not a very fruitful endeavor.
Ask any HOA president (I am one).
What was happening for a few years was that the deadbeat homeowner would rent out a home and include the maximum legal deposit (3x rent in CA).
Then they would get foreclosed upon with a debt owing to the tenant of 3-4 months worth of cash (deposit + rent already paid).
This was usually followed by bankruptcy.
The end result was very often a tenant who was now totally broke and homeless with their only solution to be a petition to the bk trustee.
I had one client who had this happen 3 times as a tenant (which was why she was buying).
As a way to avoid more bankruptcies by tenants (which were surging) and lawsuits that followed, the federal government created the 90 day rule.
The notice to quit (called the notice to vacate or the eviction notice) had to be 90 days and any new rental agreement had to be voluntary.Cash for keys refers to the new landlord (bank or investor) basically bribing the tenant to move early.
And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
In fact the landlords that were the subject of this rant just offered a hefty sum to make this problem go away.
My only issue here was the violation of the 90-day rule and the standards of practice.
Participant[quote=captcha]Isn’t there a non-profit that is supposed to assist the tenants?
But don’t the tenants have to pay the rent, since the new owner has to honor the current lease until it expires (or 90 days)? My impression was that in reality banks don’t collect rent because they do not want to be landlords, not because the law forces them to forfeit.[/quote]
I actually went over this with a couple of different attorneys.
At a literal level, the tenants are not excused from rent.
However, collecting rent requires the voluntary adoption of a new rental agreement.
There is no requirement for the tenants to adopt such an agreement.
If they choose not to, then they can be served with a notice to quit.
A 90-day notice.
If the tenant pays rent, then they can be credited for rent they have paid.
In this case, they had paid rent on the 15th (their normal day) and the property was foreclosed on the 17th.
Further, if the landlord asserts that the tenants are bound by the old lease, then he is also bound to it.
That is a dumb idea because it can mean that the landlord owes them the deposit based on the terms of that lease.
Accepting rent creates this relationship.So, again, there is no real way for the landlord to have it both ways.
Either they are landlords with tenants or they are successors in interest with holdover occupants.And yes there are non-profits that help with this.
But I wanted them to have the benefit of a legal bulldog.ParticipantYeah sorry.
The 2009 law said that someone who gets the property on the courthouse steps (the bank, an investor, FannieMae) has specific requirements in how they treat the tenant.
They are required to either respect the existing lease (by creating an identical lease with their name) or to give a 90 days notice to vacate to the tenant.
There is no provision to charge those tenants rent during the 90 days (its not quite that simple but that’s what it boils down to).That is why every bank pays giant scary law firms (like Wolfram & Hart or Pite Duncan or Morrison Forrester) to offer a contract to decide if the tenant wants 90 days or $5000 to move out in a few weeks.
This law does not extend to former owners, but usually a bank does not care that much who is occupying and will treat any occupant as a bona fide tenant.
The Realtor-Investor-Landlord-Douchbags obviously have not researched this at all and are trying to intimidate the tenants.
And yes, I know that Wolfram and Hart is not real.
-
AuthorPosts
