[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
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![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] 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.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] 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.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
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![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] 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.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] 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.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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.[/quote]

In rereading the post it looks like the op is asking if the purchase agreement (which likely assumes that a seller is able to convey clear title) is binding in a short sale.
It makes no mention of a agreed costs re HOA stuff. It looks like the “reneging” or “breach of contract” is the seller being unwilling to buy off a lien holder (which would be a normal thing). That is why the SSA or APA would normally be used.

Where do you see that they had an agreement regarding specific lien holder costs?

I suspect there is an addendum (ssa, apa, or otherwise) that addresses short pay situations.
If the listing agent suggested moving forward without it, then the agent stands to lose his license and the seller his money.

You’re right that one should not make agreements has no reasonable expectation to fulfill.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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.[/quote]

In rereading the post it looks like the op is asking if the purchase agreement (which likely assumes that a seller is able to convey clear title) is binding in a short sale.
It makes no mention of a agreed costs re HOA stuff. It looks like the “reneging” or “breach of contract” is the seller being unwilling to buy off a lien holder (which would be a normal thing). That is why the SSA or APA would normally be used.

Where do you see that they had an agreement regarding specific lien holder costs?

I suspect there is an addendum (ssa, apa, or otherwise) that addresses short pay situations.
If the listing agent suggested moving forward without it, then the agent stands to lose his license and the seller his money.

You’re right that one should not make agreements has no reasonable expectation to fulfill.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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.[/quote]

In rereading the post it looks like the op is asking if the purchase agreement (which likely assumes that a seller is able to convey clear title) is binding in a short sale.
It makes no mention of a agreed costs re HOA stuff. It looks like the “reneging” or “breach of contract” is the seller being unwilling to buy off a lien holder (which would be a normal thing). That is why the SSA or APA would normally be used.

Where do you see that they had an agreement regarding specific lien holder costs?

I suspect there is an addendum (ssa, apa, or otherwise) that addresses short pay situations.
If the listing agent suggested moving forward without it, then the agent stands to lose his license and the seller his money.

You’re right that one should not make agreements has no reasonable expectation to fulfill.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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.[/quote]

In rereading the post it looks like the op is asking if the purchase agreement (which likely assumes that a seller is able to convey clear title) is binding in a short sale.
It makes no mention of a agreed costs re HOA stuff. It looks like the “reneging” or “breach of contract” is the seller being unwilling to buy off a lien holder (which would be a normal thing). That is why the SSA or APA would normally be used.

Where do you see that they had an agreement regarding specific lien holder costs?

I suspect there is an addendum (ssa, apa, or otherwise) that addresses short pay situations.
If the listing agent suggested moving forward without it, then the agent stands to lose his license and the seller his money.

You’re right that one should not make agreements has no reasonable expectation to fulfill.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=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.[/quote]

In rereading the post it looks like the op is asking if the purchase agreement (which likely assumes that a seller is able to convey clear title) is binding in a short sale.
It makes no mention of a agreed costs re HOA stuff. It looks like the “reneging” or “breach of contract” is the seller being unwilling to buy off a lien holder (which would be a normal thing). That is why the SSA or APA would normally be used.

Where do you see that they had an agreement regarding specific lien holder costs?

I suspect there is an addendum (ssa, apa, or otherwise) that addresses short pay situations.
If the listing agent suggested moving forward without it, then the agent stands to lose his license and the seller his money.

You’re right that one should not make agreements has no reasonable expectation to fulfill.

[urbanrealtor]

bump (I have a doozy coming up that relates)

Know more soon.

[urbanrealtor]

bump (I have a doozy coming up that relates)

Know more soon.

[urbanrealtor]

bump (I have a doozy coming up that relates)

Know more soon.

[urbanrealtor]

bump (I have a doozy coming up that relates)

Know more soon.

[urbanrealtor]

bump (I have a doozy coming up that relates)

Know more soon.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=urbanrealtor]Before you go all legalistic on their asses, you might want to recall that the seller is broke (hence the short sale)….[/quote]

A short sale is not the same as a bankruptcy. You can own an expensive BMW, a 401k, a stock portfolio, another property, and… lots of other things, and still get a short sale.[/quote]

Correct.
However, the seller has already indicated an unwillingness or inability to contribute additional funds to this deal. Even if this were an elective short sale for a rich person (which is rare but not unheard of) there are additional measures protecting the seller from action. Specifically, the CAR RPA (which is, I suspect, the document the OP references) generally gets coupled with either the CAR Short Sale Addendum or the San Diego Association of Realtors Addendum to Purchase Agreement (SDAR APA) either of which specifically excludes the claim option for buyers.

Either way, it is very tough to force somebody to pay a debt to a third party so that they can lose money selling a house to you.

There are exceptions to this but they are pretty rare.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=urbanrealtor]Before you go all legalistic on their asses, you might want to recall that the seller is broke (hence the short sale)….[/quote]

A short sale is not the same as a bankruptcy. You can own an expensive BMW, a 401k, a stock portfolio, another property, and… lots of other things, and still get a short sale.[/quote]

Correct.
However, the seller has already indicated an unwillingness or inability to contribute additional funds to this deal. Even if this were an elective short sale for a rich person (which is rare but not unheard of) there are additional measures protecting the seller from action. Specifically, the CAR RPA (which is, I suspect, the document the OP references) generally gets coupled with either the CAR Short Sale Addendum or the San Diego Association of Realtors Addendum to Purchase Agreement (SDAR APA) either of which specifically excludes the claim option for buyers.

Either way, it is very tough to force somebody to pay a debt to a third party so that they can lose money selling a house to you.

There are exceptions to this but they are pretty rare.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=urbanrealtor]Before you go all legalistic on their asses, you might want to recall that the seller is broke (hence the short sale)….[/quote]

A short sale is not the same as a bankruptcy. You can own an expensive BMW, a 401k, a stock portfolio, another property, and… lots of other things, and still get a short sale.[/quote]

Correct.
However, the seller has already indicated an unwillingness or inability to contribute additional funds to this deal. Even if this were an elective short sale for a rich person (which is rare but not unheard of) there are additional measures protecting the seller from action. Specifically, the CAR RPA (which is, I suspect, the document the OP references) generally gets coupled with either the CAR Short Sale Addendum or the San Diego Association of Realtors Addendum to Purchase Agreement (SDAR APA) either of which specifically excludes the claim option for buyers.

Either way, it is very tough to force somebody to pay a debt to a third party so that they can lose money selling a house to you.

There are exceptions to this but they are pretty rare.

[Author]

Posts