|
gvibes posted:If you can only put 3.5% down, should you really be buying a house? I kind of agree. I'm surprised that after the whole homeownership debacle of the past few years, with people losing their houses because they're underwater, that people are putting down the absolute minimum amount of equity into a house that with a slight change in the market would put them underwater.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Strict 9 posted:I kind of agree. I'm surprised that after the whole homeownership debacle of the past few years, with people losing their houses because they're underwater, that people are putting down the absolute minimum amount of equity into a house that with a slight change in the market would put them underwater. If you can only afford 3.5% down then I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:I kind of agree. I'm surprised that after the whole homeownership debacle of the past few years, with people losing their houses because they're underwater, that people are putting down the absolute minimum amount of equity into a house that with a slight change in the market would put them underwater. Putting the min down is the best way to buy a house because it creates the least amount of risk to the purchaser. If the market goes bad, they can just walk away. If the market gets better they can make a lot of money. If they decide to stay long term, they can pay off the loan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Putting the min down is the best way to buy a house because it creates the least amount of risk to the purchaser. If the market goes bad, they can just walk away. If the market gets better they can make a lot of money. If they decide to stay long term, they can pay off the loan. This exactly. The housing crisis is not caused by low equity (being underwater) by itself; it's caused by A)balloon-style mortgages, where the rising cost isn't affordable and an owner can't sell because they're also underwater, B)unemployment (and again, can't sell because underwater), and C)financial chicanery by the mortgage companies and banks (which indirectly affects everyone because of difficult credit, which stifles the market). There are other factors in play, but simply being 'underwater' on a loan is only a crisis if you can't afford the payments anymore. As long as buyers putting minimum down are careful to be certain they can always afford the payments, they can wait out further declines in prices on the belief that those prices will eventually recover. Or, as poofactory said, they can walk away, although at the cost of their credit, although I don't think that's a good way to plan for things. Edit: having said all that, I'm not actually arguing that making a big down payment is a bad idea; just that it depends on a buyer's particular situation, tolerance for risk, and the nature of their local housing market. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
After offer then counter offer then counter-counter offer, I've settled on buying at the asking price with the seller paying $2500 towards closing costs. Now it's in that 1-2 day limbo where fannie mae has to approve the sell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Putting the min down is the best way to buy a house because it creates the least amount of risk to the purchaser. If the market goes bad, they can just walk away. If the market gets better they can make a lot of money. If they decide to stay long term, they can pay off the loan. This is only true in non-recourse states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, FL, ID, MN, NC, ND, TX, UT, WA) where you can walk away and not have the bank come after you for the difference. In other states walking away either means going through a short sale or declaring bankruptcy. The minimum is also not good when you are paying PMI (not to mention the added interest by having a 16.5% larger loan by only putting down 3.5% instead of 20%). I guess you could consider it paying for the privilege of not losing your 20% if your home value goes down though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Putting the min down is the best way to buy a house because it creates the least amount of risk to the purchaser. If the market goes bad, they can just walk away. If the market gets better they can make a lot of money. If they decide to stay long term, they can pay off the loan. And destroy your credit? I guess for some people that might be an option, but I would never consider that to be viable. Waiting it out for the balance to go positive might be possible for some people, but there are so many times when your life situation changes and you _need_ to move. I can't think of what it'd be like to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just for the ability to sell your house. And who knows how long it might take for a house to recover its value. Besides all the equity issues, like Arzakon said, you now have a loan for 96.5% of the value of the house instead of 80% or whatever. Plus PMI. On my house, over the course of the loan that would have been $33,000 in PMI and $75,000 in additional interest, nearly double the interest I'm actually paying. That is a loving ton of money to give to the bank, and it's why I waited 5 years longer than I wanted to before buying a house. Oh and plus $525/mo in additional monthly payments, $125 of that being PMI. Of course, those numbers are significantly less when you're looking at houses in the midwest and such, but the principle is still the same. I'm not someone like Dave Ramsey who thinks all loans are evil, but at least personally only putting 3.5% down on a house would make me feel incredibly uneasy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:And destroy your credit? I guess for some people that might be an option, but I would never consider that to be viable. So for example, say you bought in Nevada or Arizona at the boom, and are currently 150K upside down on your house. You owe 300K on a house that might sell for 150K tomorrow. (If you're lucky) You would continue to keep paying your mortgage to avoid a temporary credit hit, even thought the smart financial decision is to walk away from the house? You're kidding right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:So for example, say you bought in Nevada or Arizona at the boom, and are currently 150K upside down on your house. You owe 300K on a house that might sell for 150K tomorrow. (If you're lucky) Would it be also possible, if your credit was good enough, to buy another house (for 150k) before walking away from the other one as well? Seems like a good move to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:So for example, say you bought in Nevada or Arizona at the boom, and are currently 150K upside down on your house. You owe 300K on a house that might sell for 150K tomorrow. (If you're lucky) In a situation like that walking away makes sense if you can no longer afford the payments or need to move. If you do not need to sell the house then what's wrong with the value being low? I also think the point being made about not considering walking away a viable option is simply that it should really be the last resort option, not a matter-of-fact way of dealing with a poorly thought out decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Would it be also possible, if your credit was good enough, to buy another house (for 150k) before walking away from the other one as well? Seems like a good move to me. Some people are doing this. senor punk posted:I also think the point being made about not considering walking away a viable option is simply that it should really be the last resort option, not a matter-of-fact way of dealing with a poorly thought out decision. Why should it be a last resort?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:This is only true in non-recourse states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, FL, ID, MN, NC, ND, TX, UT, WA) where you can walk away and not have the bank come after you for the difference. And really, I'm not incredibly anti-buying or anything, I just think that you should be in a very stable financial situation before considering it. If you can only afford to put 3.5% down, you probably aren't in that position. I could see some exceptions for low but fixed and really stable incomes or something like that. I bought myself about five years ago, and I regret it quite a bit. I have seen stagnant to no appreciation, and a bunch of repair costs. I am looking to sell and start renting actually. skipdogg posted:Why should it be a last resort? gvibes fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
The House of Representatives passed the tax credit extension nearly unanimously last night....instead of just passing the bill in the Senate, the geniuses decide to again tie it to the jobs bill (it was ALREADY attached to the jobs bill last week and voted down)! Hooray! Politics! Hopefully they get their heads out of their asses and just pass the drat thing. The $8000 won't make or break my home purchase (contract signed April 29th, close date set for late July), but it sure would help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:Waiting it out for the balance to go positive might be possible for some people, but there are so many times when your life situation changes and you _need_ to move. I can't think of what it'd be like to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just for the ability to sell your house. And who knows how long it might take for a house to recover its value. Generally, I don't disagree with what you've said (and I've always reminded people that there are a lot of individual factors that might make this kind of calculation a bad one or a good one), but this little bit doesn't make sense to me. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that you're buying the house regardless, and that the price then drops so that you are going to lose money if you sell the house, then how does having made a big down payment make you lose less money than a small down payment? Even in a state where you have to make up the difference out of pocket, if you lose $30k on your house you either lose it in the equity (which is money you put in) or you lose it in paying back the bank the difference on the loss (which is money out of your pocket). So, looking at it from the point of view of the buyer, if the risk of having to sell at a loss is high, since money now is worth more than money later, it's better to protect your money now by not putting it into a down payment. As for PMI: if you're paying 3.5% down, you're definitely not paying conventional PMI. You're getting an FHA loan or some other program that has alternative insurance that's much cheaper than the equivalent PMI from a bank. For example, on my $240k loan, I put 3.5% down, and the FHA insurance costs me about $100 a month. Even if you compare that to making a full 20% down conventional loan with no PMI at all, I'm paying $1200 a year for the privilege of keeping (16.5%x240k) $39,600 in my pocket (or doing something else with it, such as putting it into an IRA $8000/year at a time and earning interest on it). Like I say, it's not always the better way to go, but it is a reasonable idea for some buyers, and therefore we should not just make a blanket advisement that it's always best to put at least 20% down and if you can/do only put down 3.5% you shouldn't be buying a house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
peengers posted:Not what I'm talking about. It's not an extension to complete the purchase but an extension for the program itself. I was hoping you could extrapolate that the only extension taking place is for those already under contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
IndyPunkOne posted:I was hoping you could extrapolate that the only extension taking place is for those already under contract. Yes, I did. Someone told me that "things were in the works" for an actual extension of the program itself, which apparently is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The House of Representatives passed the tax credit extension nearly unanimously last night....instead of just passing the bill in the Senate, the geniuses decide to again tie it to the jobs bill (it was ALREADY attached to the jobs bill last week and voted down)! Hooray! Politics! Hopefully they get their heads out of their asses and just pass the drat thing. Senate passed it by itself! Sanity wins the day. Unless Obama vetoes it. I can only imagine all the chaos that went on today in order to try to squeeze every closing in by the end of the deadline. For naught.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:So for example, say you bought in Nevada or Arizona at the boom, and are currently 150K upside down on your house. You owe 300K on a house that might sell for 150K tomorrow. (If you're lucky) No, in that situation, of course I would walk away. I'm talking about not putting yourself in that situation in the first place. gvibes posted:I don't think it should be a "last resort" or anything. It is certainly an option in recourse states. I just see a pretty flippant attitude towards this quite a bit in internet discussions - I think people may be underestimating the damage to your credit. You are basically not going to be able borrow anything significant (at least on decent terms) for years. Exactly. I'd be curious to know if anyone does know what kind of effect this has on your credit. I would be surprised if any bank would ever lend money to someone who walked away from a several hundred thousand dollar loan. Leperflesh posted:Generally, I don't disagree with what you've said (and I've always reminded people that there are a lot of individual factors that might make this kind of calculation a bad one or a good one), but this little bit doesn't make sense to me. I see it as a cash in hand problem. Say I buy a house for $300,000 and put down $10,000. The house value drops down to $250,000 and I have to sell. I sell the house for $250,000, put all that towards my loan. Now I have to find a house to buy or rent knowing I have the burden of a $40,000 loan to still pay off. And that's assuming you can still pay off that loan over 30 years at whatever interest rate you got for it. On the other hand, say I saved up 20% and bought that $300,000 house with $60,000 down. I sell the house for $250,000, pay off my $240,000 loan, and have an extra $10,000 I can apply to the house I'm buying or renting. So that's what I'm talking about. Now if you're talking about having $60,000 in your bank account and still just putting 3.5% down, that's a different story, as you'd still in theory have that $50,000 in your account. I mean right now, with insanely low interest rates, in a lot of ways putting less down and taking out a bigger loan can make sense. My main point is that it's reckless to buy a house with the absolute minimum down because that's all you can afford, essentially wiping out your savings. To me that says you should spend more time saving before you go into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:Exactly. I'd be curious to know if anyone does know what kind of effect this has on your credit. I would be surprised if any bank would ever lend money to someone who walked away from a several hundred thousand dollar loan. Of course they will after a while, but if you have a new house you've already purchased and are happy to pay cash for used cars for 5 years, what do you need credit for? Throwing so much money away to protect your precious FICO score seems insane to me. The bank took a much bigger risk than the buyer in many of these situations, let them eat it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 13:58
|
|
|
Declared bankruptcy and had a foreclosure on a $200,000 mortgage with my ex-husband in December 2001 (we both worked for Enron and lost jobs on the same clusterfucky day, and then 9/11 happened and it was even longer before anyone was hiring again) and bought another house for $150,000 in 2004 with very little difficulty thanks to a decent down payment. Bankruptcy and foreclosure don't look good on your credit, but a lot of places will give you credit after a bankruptcy because they know you can't do it again for eight years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:Now I have to find a house to buy or rent knowing I have the burden of a $40,000 loan to still pay off. And that's assuming you can still pay off that loan over 30 years at whatever interest rate you got for it. You definitely can't. A mortgage is a secured loan, and the property is the security. You sell the house, you have to pay off the mortgage, you can't keep it. So yes, you'd have that $40k burden (in the relevant state), which would either be bankruptcy (if you don't have that money) or paid off from money you do have (if you do). In my case, I have a substantial sum in two 401(k) accounts, which I chose not to touch (but could have, without penalty). Thus I put the minimum down. But I'm in California, so my retirement account is actually protected during bankrupcty to some degree, and if I did have to sell the house at a loss, I've got enough to cover it if I decided not to declare bankruptcy. (And I have no kids, which I personally hold should be a factor to consider when you take financial risks.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
We made an offer on a house in early June. The counteroffer (that we accepted) came back right before we left the country for vacation. Holy poo poo is it a pain in the rear end to do all of that initial paperwork while you're away. Especially with a 6-hour time difference and $1.50/min international roaming rate. Can't wait to see my cell phone bill this month. And christ have the banks gotten strict on their underwriting guidelines. Our initial app failed underwriting because they (incorrectly) calculated DTI at 47% and 45% is their hard limit. So I've got to figure out what went wrong there and fix it. Except our loan officer at this bank is completely unresponsive this week, presumably due to the homebuyer tax credit fiasco. And I also come to find out those loving morons at comcast have erroneously listed an account in collections om my report, so I get to clean that up as well. I love buying real estate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
I bought my house just under a year ago, right when there was a little bump in rates, so I'm at 5 3/8. Tonight I applied for a refinance at 4 3/8. Wish me luck...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
OK, that foreclosure I posted about earlier just dropped $3k in listing price. If this is some sort of auction thing, why would they do that? Also, why wouldn't they mention the auction in the listing? I know that tax foreclosures are listed on the county web site; is there some central location for bank foreclosures that might have the info on any auction this house might involve? Sorry to be a pain in the rear end about this; our realtor has been largely unheard from this week so I haven't gotten any answers back from her. I understand that this week was hosed up with the tax credit and all, but the level of actual help we've gotten from her has been practically zero all along and I think a firing is in the near future if we can figure out how to go about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 08:45
|
|
|
My wife and I just Moved into our new home a few weeks ago. We were under contract on May 9th and closed on June 9th. Is there any chance that the under contract date will be extended at some point, or did we miss out on $8000 by a week?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
BubsFart posted:My wife and I just Moved into our new home a few weeks ago. We were under contract on May 9th and closed on June 9th. Is there any chance that the under contract date will be extended at some point, or did we miss out on $8000 by a week? I think it was extended last week by the Senate, I could be wrong though. I'm waiting till the benefit ends just so I can cut all my offers by 10k and say "well the tax credit ended hurrr".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
The closing date was extended from june 30 to sept 30 to stop the banks from being flooded by everyone trying to close in 60 days. I'm just hoping that the under contract date is extended too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:Exactly. I'd be curious to know if anyone does know what kind of effect this has on your credit. I would be surprised if any bank would ever lend money to someone who walked away from a several hundred thousand dollar loan. As people have said before, even the nuclear option of bankruptcy doesn't prevent people from getting mortgages. I've seen people who have defaulted on their mortgages and declared Chapter 7 end up buying another house 3 or 4 years later. In the very worst case, it's a ten year wait, after which all record of the filing falls off of your credit report (the actual filing is public record forever but it cannot be used in factoring creditworthiness after ten years).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
Question: my wife and I are setting down the course of first-time homebuying. We're prequalified for up to $380k but lower is always better. We know what specifically we want in a house, where to look, alternative areas, and we can look up what questions to ask of sellers and sellers' agents. My father is an attorney and either he or his partner should be able to take us on either for free or a reduced price (both of them are licensed to practice in the counties we're looking at). Should we even bother signing with a realtor for our search? It seems like we might be best off going directly to the listing agent to see the houses that we like. Would we be better off negotiating directly with the seller's agent in the hopes of doing the sale for 3% (as opposed to the 6% going to the buyer and seller agent)? Or is this such that the $9750-$11400 price increase (going down to a $350k and up to a $380k) buys more than just someone who knows how to look through NJMLS and make appointments?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
MJP posted:Should we even bother signing with a realtor for our search? It seems like we might be best off going directly to the listing agent to see the houses that we like. Would we be better off negotiating directly with the seller's agent in the hopes of doing the sale for 3% (as opposed to the 6% going to the buyer and seller agent)? Or is this such that the $9750-$11400 price increase (going down to a $350k and up to a $380k) buys more than just someone who knows how to look through NJMLS and make appointments? We just bought our first house this spring and I would say our realtor was invaluable. A lot is going to depend on the quality of the person you get but I think that it is definitely a good thing to have a person who is working explicitly for you. If you are just going to the selling agents their job is not to get you a house you are happy buying, its to get you to buy the house they are listing. As an aside to that I was very glad to have a person whose job it was to help navigate the purchase process. Regardless of even finding us houses to see just having someone who knows the process inside and out. Our realtor gave us his opinions of prices, counteroffers, whether or not it was productive to continue down certain roads and recommended inspection agencies as well as ordered and coordinated inspections both for companies he recommended and ones we requested (home inspection, termite inspection and structural engineer). So my advice is that yes its totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Definitely get a realtor. It will cost you nothing, because your agent takes a cut of the seller's fee; half goes to his agent, and half to yours. If you don't get an agent, the seller's agent just keeps the whole thing, so you don't save any money. At least in California, this arrangement was non-negotiable, there was no way we could claim that money (or reduce the price by that much). My wife and I initially started without an agent for the first couple of months, but then we found out we weren't going to save any money doing that so we went ahead and asked around our circle of friends until we got a few good recommendations. I suppose it might be one of those things that varies state-to-state (what state are you in?). Another thing an agent gets you is full access to MLS. There are websites that show you some of that info but you can't get all of it unless you are a licensed agent. Some of the other listing websites (realestate.com, zillow, etc.) are very useful, but we found discrepancies between them and MLS (including a lot of listings that had already stopped accepting offers, and some that had already sold). An agent also knows all the required paperwork, can send offer letters, etc. Some sellers will not deal with a buyer that doesn't have an agent, particularly banks (are you looking at foreclosures or short sales?) - they just don't have the time or patience to walk the buyer through all the steps and deal with all their mistakes. Having an attorney is fine, I guess, if they're going to look over your paperwork and stuff to make sure there's nothing suspicious in there, but you should only bother if the lawyer is experienced with real estate sales, or I guess if it's totally free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
MJP posted:Should we even bother signing with a realtor for our search? It seems like we might be best off going directly to the listing agent to see the houses that we like. Would we be better off negotiating directly with the seller's agent in the hopes of doing the sale for 3% (as opposed to the 6% going to the buyer and seller agent)? Or is this such that the $9750-$11400 price increase (going down to a $350k and up to a $380k) buys more than just someone who knows how to look through NJMLS and make appointments? My parents - who have bought and sold a lot of houses so they knew about as much as most realtors - just tried doing this in looking for a ~$800k house (in a fairly stable market, FWIW) and they were hosed over on two houses (truly hosed over, no exaggeration...one house they had the highest bid but the listing agent "forgot" to pass it along and then the sellers didn't feel right breaking their word when they accepted the lower offer). To top it off, none of the realtors would knock 3% (or whatever it was) off the price of the house. They all just took the entire commission for themselves. Realtors are a terrible lot on the whole, but they're a necessary evil. If by any chance you have USAA or qualify to join, they have a program called Mover's Advantage which will give you money back when they pair you with a realtor (which, in my case, was about .5% of cost of the house back in cash...not huge, but nice).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
If you have a Redfin in your area, I would give that a try. My wife and I had horrid experiences with actual realtors. Not only was Reffin a better experience overall, but getting a check for $5000 from them was pretty drat sweet as well. Also, I'd highly recommend a competent lawyer. This is most likely the most important transaction of your life, and spending a few extra hundred hiring a lawyer who works for you (and not the bank) is really worth it. Ours caught several discrepancies that could have f'ed us in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
People who don't hire a lawyer for their real estate closings are idiots. There, I said it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
Nevermind probably the wrong thread.
Demonachizer fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:Also, I'd highly recommend a competent lawyer. This is most likely the most important transaction of your life, and spending a few extra hundred hiring a lawyer who works for you (and not the bank) is really worth it. Ours caught several discrepancies that could have f'ed us in the end. Can you elaborate on the discrepancies? gvibes posted:People who don't hire a lawyer for their real estate closings are idiots. There, I said it. As someone who didn't hire a lawyer (not common to hire one in the state where I am purchasing), I just did a brief search on the subject, and it doesn't seem to be quite as black and white as you are suggesting. Especially considering the fact that many contracts are cut and dry nowadays. What - besides peace of mind - does the lawyer bring to the table that justifies the cost? Would it be redundant if you had a competent real estate broker? If there are abnormal circumstances (foreclosure, etc.) then I could see the cost being justified. Arkane fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Can you elaborate on the discrepancies? The biggest issue that first arose was the purchase and sale agreement that the bank lawyer put together for us. It was laughable, in that this extremely important contract had repeating bullet points (i.e. 12, 13, 13, 14), missing bullet points, and he had accidentally removed the entire paragraph which served as the financial contingency (i.e. if buyer is not able to secure a loan). So he not only missed all these problems with the P&S the seller sent us, but added to them. Besides fixing all of that nonsense, our lawyer also offered us important protection which wasn't even mentioned by the bank lawyer, like owner's title insurance and a homestead declaration. Our lawyer also handled the multiple extensions that were needed due to financing and appraisal issues. Lastly, he was present at the closing, explaining in detail every form we were signing even though the bank and sellers were trying to rush the whole thing through, and also prevented us from signing two completely unnecessary agreements. It was definitely worth the $300 or so that we paid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:The biggest issue that first arose was the purchase and sale agreement that the bank lawyer put together for us. It was laughable, in that this extremely important contract had repeating bullet points (i.e. 12, 13, 13, 14), missing bullet points, and he had accidentally removed the entire paragraph which served as the financial contingency (i.e. if buyer is not able to secure a loan). So he not only missed all these problems with the P&S the seller sent us, but added to them. Typographical errors in a contract that are obviously such, do not affect it (the repeated numbering). The missing contingency statement is important, but our buyer's agent carefully explained all the contingencies in our contract, going over them point by point; without a lawyer, had ours been missing, we'd have caught it for sure regardless. quote:Besides fixing all of that nonsense, our lawyer also offered us important protection which wasn't even mentioned by the bank lawyer, like owner's title insurance and a homestead declaration. I'm not sure why the title needs to be double-insured, but I suppose this could be a valuable thing if you're worried about liens on the title that don't appear in the title search. I don't know what a homestead declaration is. quote:Our lawyer also handled the multiple extensions that were needed due to financing and appraisal issues. We wound up needing 4 extensions. These are rote forms that any agent can send, you don't need a lawyer to do this. quote:Lastly, he was present at the closing, explaining in detail every form we were signing even though the bank and sellers were trying to rush the whole thing through, and also prevented us from signing two completely unnecessary agreements. Our agent was present at the closing. The escrow agent (who is an independent third party) presented all the final paperwork and explained what it is. We weren't really confused by any of it. I suppose if you want peace of mind about what you're signing, that's good, but it's all pretty standard stuff... and if we'd objected to any of it, our only option would have been to walk away (and lose our earnest money deposit). You can't generally negotiate this stuff. I am curious which two 'completely unnecessary' agreements you got away with not signing, actually! quote:It was definitely worth the $300 or so that we paid. I'm glad it was, and I'm not going to dispute that you felt you got your money's worth. However, gvibes' statement that only an idiot goes without a lawyer is extreme and wrong. If you have a competent agent, and can read, a lawyer is optional. If you run up against a document that you don't like, or is confusing, you can read about it on the internet, and if you're still unhappy, then you can get a lawyer to look it over. I'd recommend that approach to most people who are fluent in english, reasonably intelligent, and have a good agent. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
I didn't have a lawyer either, and you can be sure I was looking carefully for the correct language regarding contingencies. Especially that one! I also checked for the owner's title insurance (the required title insurance only protects the lender). Everybody was using state standard boilerplate. I can't recall what my agent said about the legal details, but in general she knew stuff but didn't really know it, so if I had gone in not knowing what to look for I guess it could have been a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Arkane posted:As someone who didn't hire a lawyer (not common to hire one in the state where I am purchasing), I just did a brief search on the subject, and it doesn't seem to be quite as black and white as you are suggesting. Especially considering the fact that many contracts are cut and dry nowadays. A broker is supposed to represent your interests, but they only get paid if the deal closes. That's a substantial misalignment of interests. An attorney gets paid regardless. I am a lawyer, consider myself moderately intelligent and fluent in English, and would never even consider doing a real estate deal without a RE lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 20:47
|
|