[urbanrealtor]

The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).

While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.

Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.

Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.

I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.

Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.

Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.

Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.

I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.

The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.

It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.

That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.

His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).

However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.

If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.

Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.

As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.

Fail.

[urbanrealtor]

The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).

While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.

Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.

Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.

I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.

Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.

Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.

Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.

I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.

The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.

It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.

That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.

His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).

However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.

If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.

Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.

As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.

Fail.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.

So he just called me.

We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).

I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.

Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.

Just thought I would mention.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.

So he just called me.

We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).

I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.

Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.

Just thought I would mention.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.

So he just called me.

We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).

I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.

Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.

Just thought I would mention.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.

So he just called me.

We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).

I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.

Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.

Just thought I would mention.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.

So he just called me.

We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).

I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.

Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.

Just thought I would mention.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay.
That’s it.
I have had enough.

1: Preliminary title reports (PR’s) are easy to get.

You totally don’t have to have an active transaction for a PR. I get them all the time for my short sale listings before I have a buyer.

2: A PR is not an authoritative statement of encumbrance.

A PR will generally show trust deeds and liens but not demands. Since you never know how much a place is encumbered without a demand, the PR is not much better than just the public records (or Realist). Generally a demand is lower than the full value (in my experience) showing on the PR. Further, if there were other non-liened obligations (eg: a year of back HOA dues) they might not even show up on a PR. Fail.

3: Banks can add stuff in that is not known to anyone.

I just closed a buyer’s purchase in Murrieta. The seller had $50k of equity. They had lost some of their income and could not keep up. Wells put them through no less than 5 different modifcation programs (all the while telling them not to pay). Eventually, the sellers got frustrated and gave up. When they sold to my clients, the bank added in over $40k in fees for non-payment (non-payment which was done at the bank’s direction). Those fees were in excess of liened amounts and did not show on any PR or public record. It meant the sellers walked with $5k instead of $50k.

4: The duty does not change.

The agent’s duty is still to show all the warts of which he is aware. Even if he was banging both the buyer and seller simultaneously, he still failed utterly to disclose a known material fact. Specifically, he concealed major negative equity to a client.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay.
That’s it.
I have had enough.

1: Preliminary title reports (PR’s) are easy to get.

You totally don’t have to have an active transaction for a PR. I get them all the time for my short sale listings before I have a buyer.

2: A PR is not an authoritative statement of encumbrance.

A PR will generally show trust deeds and liens but not demands. Since you never know how much a place is encumbered without a demand, the PR is not much better than just the public records (or Realist). Generally a demand is lower than the full value (in my experience) showing on the PR. Further, if there were other non-liened obligations (eg: a year of back HOA dues) they might not even show up on a PR. Fail.

3: Banks can add stuff in that is not known to anyone.

I just closed a buyer’s purchase in Murrieta. The seller had $50k of equity. They had lost some of their income and could not keep up. Wells put them through no less than 5 different modifcation programs (all the while telling them not to pay). Eventually, the sellers got frustrated and gave up. When they sold to my clients, the bank added in over $40k in fees for non-payment (non-payment which was done at the bank’s direction). Those fees were in excess of liened amounts and did not show on any PR or public record. It meant the sellers walked with $5k instead of $50k.

4: The duty does not change.

The agent’s duty is still to show all the warts of which he is aware. Even if he was banging both the buyer and seller simultaneously, he still failed utterly to disclose a known material fact. Specifically, he concealed major negative equity to a client.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay.
That’s it.
I have had enough.

1: Preliminary title reports (PR’s) are easy to get.

You totally don’t have to have an active transaction for a PR. I get them all the time for my short sale listings before I have a buyer.

2: A PR is not an authoritative statement of encumbrance.

A PR will generally show trust deeds and liens but not demands. Since you never know how much a place is encumbered without a demand, the PR is not much better than just the public records (or Realist). Generally a demand is lower than the full value (in my experience) showing on the PR. Further, if there were other non-liened obligations (eg: a year of back HOA dues) they might not even show up on a PR. Fail.

3: Banks can add stuff in that is not known to anyone.

I just closed a buyer’s purchase in Murrieta. The seller had $50k of equity. They had lost some of their income and could not keep up. Wells put them through no less than 5 different modifcation programs (all the while telling them not to pay). Eventually, the sellers got frustrated and gave up. When they sold to my clients, the bank added in over $40k in fees for non-payment (non-payment which was done at the bank’s direction). Those fees were in excess of liened amounts and did not show on any PR or public record. It meant the sellers walked with $5k instead of $50k.

4: The duty does not change.

The agent’s duty is still to show all the warts of which he is aware. Even if he was banging both the buyer and seller simultaneously, he still failed utterly to disclose a known material fact. Specifically, he concealed major negative equity to a client.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay.
That’s it.
I have had enough.

1: Preliminary title reports (PR’s) are easy to get.

You totally don’t have to have an active transaction for a PR. I get them all the time for my short sale listings before I have a buyer.

2: A PR is not an authoritative statement of encumbrance.

A PR will generally show trust deeds and liens but not demands. Since you never know how much a place is encumbered without a demand, the PR is not much better than just the public records (or Realist). Generally a demand is lower than the full value (in my experience) showing on the PR. Further, if there were other non-liened obligations (eg: a year of back HOA dues) they might not even show up on a PR. Fail.

3: Banks can add stuff in that is not known to anyone.

I just closed a buyer’s purchase in Murrieta. The seller had $50k of equity. They had lost some of their income and could not keep up. Wells put them through no less than 5 different modifcation programs (all the while telling them not to pay). Eventually, the sellers got frustrated and gave up. When they sold to my clients, the bank added in over $40k in fees for non-payment (non-payment which was done at the bank’s direction). Those fees were in excess of liened amounts and did not show on any PR or public record. It meant the sellers walked with $5k instead of $50k.

4: The duty does not change.

The agent’s duty is still to show all the warts of which he is aware. Even if he was banging both the buyer and seller simultaneously, he still failed utterly to disclose a known material fact. Specifically, he concealed major negative equity to a client.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay.
That’s it.
I have had enough.

1: Preliminary title reports (PR’s) are easy to get.

You totally don’t have to have an active transaction for a PR. I get them all the time for my short sale listings before I have a buyer.

2: A PR is not an authoritative statement of encumbrance.

A PR will generally show trust deeds and liens but not demands. Since you never know how much a place is encumbered without a demand, the PR is not much better than just the public records (or Realist). Generally a demand is lower than the full value (in my experience) showing on the PR. Further, if there were other non-liened obligations (eg: a year of back HOA dues) they might not even show up on a PR. Fail.

3: Banks can add stuff in that is not known to anyone.

I just closed a buyer’s purchase in Murrieta. The seller had $50k of equity. They had lost some of their income and could not keep up. Wells put them through no less than 5 different modifcation programs (all the while telling them not to pay). Eventually, the sellers got frustrated and gave up. When they sold to my clients, the bank added in over $40k in fees for non-payment (non-payment which was done at the bank’s direction). Those fees were in excess of liened amounts and did not show on any PR or public record. It meant the sellers walked with $5k instead of $50k.

4: The duty does not change.

The agent’s duty is still to show all the warts of which he is aware. Even if he was banging both the buyer and seller simultaneously, he still failed utterly to disclose a known material fact. Specifically, he concealed major negative equity to a client.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sunny88]I found it very interesting that she mentioned on her website how she was still taking care of her customers while giving birth to her child. Sounds to me that having a child is less important than her career. I wonder how good a Mom she is…[/quote]

Hey there.
None of that.
Those of us who study the dumb science still have people who rely upon us.
The week my kid was born (as I blogged here) I was fired by 5 different clients.
Why?
Because they wanted me to spend more time with my son.
They felt that they were helping me somehow.
The reality is that I don’t get sick leave or time off.
If I take a day off, I probably won’t lose a day’s pay but I might lose a month’s pay.
Having kids is a great motivator and working is a way to help feed those kids.
When you are self-employed the concept of your career is not exactly the same.
I don’t fault her for working while having a kid.
Those clients who tried to help me actually were part of the reason it was one of my slowest years.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sunny88]I found it very interesting that she mentioned on her website how she was still taking care of her customers while giving birth to her child. Sounds to me that having a child is less important than her career. I wonder how good a Mom she is…[/quote]

Hey there.
None of that.
Those of us who study the dumb science still have people who rely upon us.
The week my kid was born (as I blogged here) I was fired by 5 different clients.
Why?
Because they wanted me to spend more time with my son.
They felt that they were helping me somehow.
The reality is that I don’t get sick leave or time off.
If I take a day off, I probably won’t lose a day’s pay but I might lose a month’s pay.
Having kids is a great motivator and working is a way to help feed those kids.
When you are self-employed the concept of your career is not exactly the same.
I don’t fault her for working while having a kid.
Those clients who tried to help me actually were part of the reason it was one of my slowest years.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sunny88]I found it very interesting that she mentioned on her website how she was still taking care of her customers while giving birth to her child. Sounds to me that having a child is less important than her career. I wonder how good a Mom she is…[/quote]

Hey there.
None of that.
Those of us who study the dumb science still have people who rely upon us.
The week my kid was born (as I blogged here) I was fired by 5 different clients.
Why?
Because they wanted me to spend more time with my son.
They felt that they were helping me somehow.
The reality is that I don’t get sick leave or time off.
If I take a day off, I probably won’t lose a day’s pay but I might lose a month’s pay.
Having kids is a great motivator and working is a way to help feed those kids.
When you are self-employed the concept of your career is not exactly the same.
I don’t fault her for working while having a kid.
Those clients who tried to help me actually were part of the reason it was one of my slowest years.

[Author]

Posts