|
wilderthanmild posted:All of the contact is through our realtor. Also, each time we went to the house, they included notes about what they wanted to leave or sell. Is your atty explicitly telling them you don't want this stuff and it needs to be out? I still think this is your best bet - have your atty reach out now with your concerns and ask/demand for some sort of cash hold back, just a few grand, that is released to seller once you've had the WT and its not full of junk. There should be plenty of time for a quick addendum like this. This assumes they don't already have to bring cash to the table. If they say "no", that tells you their plan for certain and you left with dealing, postponing or cxling. If I remember the story correctly you're fairly certain they are having money issues, correct? Dukket fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Aug 2, 2018 |
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
The day before still lets them call a junk removal service in time. Has your realtor asked them point blank when the house will be empty?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
haha welp the original lender called to ask why went wrong and say how shocked they were that I was dropping them. I told them straight up that they told me i had to pay them supposedly due to rates going up and instead found another lender giving me a lower rate. They actually had the gall to ask what the offered rate was after they’d spent the last week telling me how much money I’d lose due to all the rates being higher. Afterwards they let me know that they work on commission and how what I did ‘wasn’t very nice’. I told them have a nice day and hung up. gently caress bankers jfc
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
I strongly dislike the entire real estate transaction process and almost all the people involved with it. The wholesale mortgage broker business is especially shady. Don't feel bad for them one second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:haha welp the original lender called to ask why went wrong and say how shocked they were that I was dropping them. I told them straight up that they told me i had to pay them supposedly due to rates going up and instead found another lender giving me a lower rate. They actually had the gall to ask what the offered rate was after they’d spent the last week telling me how much money I’d lose due to all the rates being higher. It’s not personal, it’s business. No reason to get emotionally involved. That’s why I shopped around so many lenders and made it clear they were bidding for my business. Good job getting a better deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Re: stuff left behind. When we toured our current house, there was a sweet Tom Selleck glamor shot poster in the hall. Unfortunately they took that down before we actually moved in. We would have probably framed it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:haha welp the original lender called to ask why went wrong and say how shocked they were that I was dropping them. I told them straight up that they told me i had to pay them supposedly due to rates going up and instead found another lender giving me a lower rate. They actually had the gall to ask what the offered rate was after they’d spent the last week telling me how much money I’d lose due to all the rates being higher. Yup they had an opportunity to not lie about rates rising and offer you a free lock to keep your business, and they failed to take advantage of that opportunity so gently caress them. If that underwriter feels betrayed by your behavior, it's misdirected and ought to be towards whatever policy or training or supervisor led them to treating you as if they had leverage on you that they did not in fact actually have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Yeah, re: stuff being left in the house, seconding doing a walk through just prior to closing. Our closing was around the corner from the house, so we had the realtor pop in with us just before and did a walk through. Discovered that the POs had taken the washer and dryer when they weren't supposed to. We settled that at the table during closing very simply (ended up being miscommunication). I think it's always worth doing that last walk through as close to closing as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Tell them to remove the junk or bring you a check for the removal service to closing
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
hot sauce posted:Tell them to remove the junk or bring you a check for the removal service to closing x2 because my time is worth money too
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
that happened to my wife and I when we bought our house; we had two separate walktthrus where we said “get all this out of here” and lo and behold it wasn’t gone The problem is that at that point, we could have walked but that wasn’t in our interest, and the seller’s position was “I bet you won’t walk over this so you deal with it” It was resolved by my realtor turning to the seller’s realtor and saying, “I’m going to cover this out of my commission to make them whole and then I will be coming after you for the money because your client is an idiot” then wrote me a check for a thousand bucks to take care of it, which is pretty much the first time I have seen or heard of a realtor adding value like that, thanks realtor lady
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Tim Thomas posted:that happened to my wife and I when we bought our house; we had two separate walktthrus where we said “get all this out of here” and lo and behold it wasn’t gone They... wouldn't have any standing to get that money out of the other agent though? Always nice to see closing pressure hit the agents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
baquerd posted:They... wouldn't have any standing to get that money out of the other agent though? Always nice to see closing pressure hit the agents. None, an agent has zero authority to make a client preform in this case. The seller's agent and both of their mangers would tell the buyer's agent to go after the sellers, his brokerage might even help him. It seems like a legit small claim court case. That would be Wilderthanmild's other option, it seems like it should work, but then you have to go through that process, which would suck. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but - get a hold back addendum for 1 to 3 grand (or whatever, but make it reasonable). If the seller clears their poo poo out they get their money, if they don't then Wilderthanmild does. Yes, he has the hassle of clearing it out, but he at least guaranteed compensation. Of course, they can refuse the addendum and then he knows what to expect when he goes to the walk through. Any other option leaves them room to play chicken with him, why go through through that. EDIT: it also bolsters his paper trail of "no really, empty house" Dukket fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Dukket posted:None, an agent has zero authority to make a client preform in this case. The seller's agent and both of their mangers would tell the buyer's agent to go after the sellers, his brokerage might even help him. It seems like a legit small claim court case. I'm assuming there was no written agreement that the stuff needs to be removed and that the agent was hot garbage like most agents, where as you seem to be assuming the opposite and that their agent was actually capable of negotiating these waters to the benefit of their client.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I'm assuming there was no written agreement that the stuff needs to be removed and that the agent was hot garbage like most agents, where as you seem to be assuming the opposite and that their agent was actually capable of negotiating these waters to the benefit of their client. From what Wilderthanmild said the contract has the same basic paragraph that I posted earlier and that was all most certainly in the contract you had when you bought your place out in the burbs - "it should be empty of any stuff we didn't agree that you'd be leaving behind" and that there were no repercussions listed. Thats normal (in our market and probably most). It isn't an issue most of the time and nobody wants to futz round with a hold back if they don't have to. Hold backs come into play when the situation arises. Frankly having them automatically included would likely cause more issues at close. Based on what he's said, I think this is one of those situations where its a good idea, the sellers have made repeated efforts to unload a great many of their personal items onto the buyer - but there almost certainly wasn't the data needed during the initial negotiations to make that call - most people take all of their stuff and leave it broom cleanish. Some people are just assholes Moving stresses people out Money problems stress people out When a HOME is involved it tends to magnify Stressed people do and say weird and inconsiderate stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Having a standard clause without teeth doing nothing to actually protect a client because it makes closing easier? Color me shocked that a real estate agent would handwave that away by saying most people don't have a problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Having a standard clause without teeth doing nothing to actually protect a client because it makes closing easier? Color me shocked that a real estate agent would handwave that away by saying most people don't have a problem with it. In my opinion - whatever value you place on it - is that it would cause more issues than it would solve. I think most sellers and their agents would wary - those agents need to protect their client, it works both ways. Are they going to lose money because they left a folding chair, snow sled, or a bike behind? If you think I'm exaggerating you haven't met very many people. It really depends on how its phrased. Contracts are full of words like "reasonable". That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. EDIT: I'm not hand waving - I'm just saying an agent is not a terrible person for following local (legal and ethical) convention. I am quick to talk about how terrible many agents are and how weird the industry is and it bothers a lot of people I work with. It's another contingency. As a seller - you have two offers, with with the hold back, one without? As a buyer in multiple offers and you're the only with the hold back? Dukket fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Dukket posted:It's another contingency. As a seller - you have two offers, with with the hold back, one without? As a buyer in multiple offers and you're the only with the hold back? That's a double standard, on one hand no one pays attention to this innocuous clause but on the other if you make it enforceable then it'll probably sink your offer? No, the real reason to not give that clause teeth is to maximize the likelihood of closing as soon as possible. If realtors weren't on average scum then everyone would either have an enforceable version of the clause or not have the clause at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Hey, sorry for taking a while to reply. Thank you for all the replies. We worked through our realtor to confirm through their realtor that they are taking everything out as well and to express that we definitely did not want anything "free" unless we explicitly said they could leave it. She said the majority of the house has already been emptied, especially the large furniture which was my biggest concern, and they are finishing the rest up this weekend. We didn't see a need to do the holdback addendum at this point, as I am reasonably satisfied with that answer. The thing making me so uncomfortable before was just that they hadn't answered that question before when we were pushing for them to inventory what they were leaving since they seemed to be asking about leaving a lot of stuff. If they hadn't gotten back to us like that I would have definitely gone the holdback route or ended up delaying closing for them to get the furniture removed. I'm also a little surprised those contracts are so toothless for this. Though it does make sense as I probably would assume someone was trying to cheat me if I was the seller and they wanted to push for that hold back front. Especially if I had another offer which didn't have that same holdback. I'm curious if someone would be able to get the EM back if they backed out after a seller pulled that, I assume not as a simpler remedy would just be to delay closing until the stuff was cleared? Also, I'm not sure where people thought they were having money problems I don't think that's the case here. I assume that was just mixed up with someone else's story as my only other post was me being curious about how "on-the-head" the appraisal was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's a double standard, on one hand no one pays attention to this innocuous clause but on the other if you make it enforceable then it'll probably sink your offer? No, the real reason to not give that clause teeth is to maximize the likelihood of closing as soon as possible. If realtors weren't on average scum then everyone would either have an enforceable version of the clause or not have the clause at all Buyers and their agents would want it, sellers and their agents wouldn't (not because they intend to leave anything) - each deal has two sides and in each deal the needs of the buyer and seller are a little different from any other deal. I agree that a lot of Realtors are shifty, but if there were a good way to stop sellers from leaving poo poo behind and buyers from abusing the system you wouldn't find many agents complaining. Anything that makes a deal cleaner would get support from agents. I've cleaned my fair share of fridges, cleared out more than one storage unit and I'd rather never do any of that poo poo ever again. wilderthanmild posted:Hey, sorry for taking a while to reply. Thank you for all the replies. We worked through our realtor to confirm through their realtor that they are taking everything out as well and to express that we definitely did not want anything "free" unless we explicitly said they could leave it. She said the majority of the house has already been emptied, especially the large furniture which was my biggest concern, and they are finishing the rest up this weekend. We didn't see a need to do the holdback addendum at this point, as I am reasonably satisfied with that answer. The thing making me so uncomfortable before was just that they hadn't answered that question before when we were pushing for them to inventory what they were leaving since they seemed to be asking about leaving a lot of stuff. If they hadn't gotten back to us like that I would have definitely gone the holdback route or ended up delaying closing for them to get the furniture removed. That great! Sounds like it'll work out. I thought you had mentioned them having money trouble - could be a different post or different thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Dukket posted:In my opinion - whatever value you place on it - is that it would cause more issues than it would solve. I think most sellers and their agents would wary - those agents need to protect their client, it works both ways. Are they going to lose money because they left a folding chair, snow sled, or a bike behind? If you think I'm exaggerating you haven't met very many people. Yeah, that's the contract - if crap is left that is a problem. I get that there is a need to balance the two sides of the transaction, but instead of zealous representation of a client, we have a murky, milquetoast "standard agreement" that is primarily aimed at getting the transaction done and avoiding conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Dukket posted:Buyers and their agents would want it, sellers and their agents wouldn't (not because they intend to leave anything) - each deal has two sides and in each deal the needs of the buyer and seller are a little different from any other deal. The buyer's agent is not helped in any way by that clause having teeth, which is why it never does. Only the buyer would see any potential benefit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The buyer's agent is not helped in any way by that clause having teeth, which is why it never does. Only the buyer would see any potential benefit. How do you see this working? (This is an honest question). Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how this realistically works for buyers and has any negative effect on their agent. I mean if we're talking about multiple closing dates that everyone has to show up for then frankly I don't see it working for the buyer in most cases. Dukket fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Dukket posted:How do you see this working? (This is an honest question). Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how this realistically works for buyers and has any negative effect on their agent. The clause just needs to add dollar amount that the seller forfeits in the event that the seller fails to vacate on time. Think of it is a cleaning fee if you want, it'd be no different than any other seller concession and wouldn't require multiple closing dates But seller concessions don't help close houses so buyer agents don't care to encode such a contingency fee into a common purchase agreement; such a thing would only protect the buyer, not the buyer's agent
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
It has teeth, in the sense that you don’t have to close if they don’t remove the crap. What sort of teeth are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The clause just needs to add dollar amount that the seller forfeits in the event that the seller fails to vacate on time. Think of it is a cleaning fee if you want, it'd be no different than any other seller concession and wouldn't require multiple closing dates That’s the concept, how does work in practice? How do you make it fair to sellers – read this as – why would any seller agree to this, especially in a seller’s market. It sounds like an invitation to have your money held hostage. Also, would probably lead to more sellers leaving more behind. In your opinion what is a good amount of money range? $100, $500, $1,000, $2,000? Who would decide whether or not the conditions were satisfied or not? “These floors aren’t broom swept clean enough!”, “They left a night stand in the corner of the attic!” Would it be all or nothing or graduated (negotiated) depending on condition? The buyer gets the same amount whether it’s a house full of furniture or a single dining room chair or box of hats and gloves in a closet? Are we back in negotiations over this hold back? That’s fine, but if the deal has closed why should either party agree to anything other than “I want it all”? I mean reasonable human beings come to an agreement, but you can't count on that. When a seller leaves a house full of furniture, that can be a big deal, I agree - but does a buyer deserve $500 or $1,000 because the sellers left a couch behind or didn’t clean the fridge? Negotiate it down to $20? You're a seller, you have two offers, basically the same - one with a $XXX hold back and the other with a $0 hold back, what do you do? You're a buyer asking for $XXX hold back, the seller says "we'll accept your offer if you drop the hold back", what do you do? Like everything else during the negotiations, its up to you: see if its a bluff, reduce it, drop it completely? Its the house you want, at a price you like. Most sellers clear their poo poo out, would you kill the deal on the off chance they don't you can get a few hundred bucks? For some people the answer is yes, but I would probably just take my chances, it just isn't usually a problem. I'd rather push something else, a repair credit, for example. Dukket fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Dukket posted:That’s the concept, how does work in practice? Why not just hold them liable for the actual costs of hiring a junk removal service to remove whatever was left? Not going to get into the levels of cleanliness, but having a physical item left and a clear receipt from junk removal is pretty cut and dried. Sure, not all sellers would agree in every market, but again you seem to be approaching this from an angle where the job of the agent is to make the transaction go through successfully, not to fight for their client's best possible deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
baquerd posted:
What? You put an offer in because you want the place, right? You want the deal to go through - within certain terms, right? Price, time frame, certain repairs/credits, etc. Part of an agents job is putting things in perspective, talking them down off of a ledge, Forest for the trees, whatever. The seller/buyer is refusing to concede - "Do you want to kill this $XXX,XXX deal over $XXX?" That's not trying to cram a deal through, that's trying to give perspective. Sometimes the answer is "yes, gently caress this guy", sometimes its "Its not worth killing the deal, I just caught up in it" Dukket fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
gvibes posted:It has teeth, in the sense that you don’t have to close if they don’t remove the crap. What sort of teeth are you talking about? Teeth such as: QuarkJets posted:The clause just needs to add dollar amount that the seller forfeits in the event that the seller fails to vacate on time. Think of it is a cleaning fee if you want, it'd be no different than any other seller concession and wouldn't require multiple closing dates
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Dukket posted:That’s the concept, how does work in practice? Why would any seller agree to an inspection contingency, a repair concession, etc.? You're raising a roadblock that doesn't actually exist; sellers often agree to all kinds of terms that really only benefit the buyer. quote:In your opinion what is a good amount of money range? $100, $500, $1,000, $2,000? Whatever amount is reasonable for cleaning junk out of a house. This really depends on average square footage and geography and isn't something that needs to be decided in this thread quote:Who would decide whether or not the conditions were satisfied or not? “These floors aren’t broom swept clean enough!”, “They left a night stand in the corner of the attic!” Would it be all or nothing or graduated (negotiated) depending on condition? The buyer gets the same amount whether it’s a house full of furniture or a single dining room chair or box of hats and gloves in a closet? Are we back in negotiations over this hold back? That’s fine, but if the deal has closed why should either party agree to anything other than “I want it all”? I mean reasonable human beings come to an agreement, but you can't count on that. The escrow company is the obvious choice here. The buyer and seller have already agreed to a concession contingency so there's no renegotiation necessary, if the buyer is unhappy then they provide proof to the escrow company and the escrow company makes a decision. A number is written in the contract, that's the amount that the buyer receives back for the seller failing to move out. quote:You're a seller, you have two offers, basically the same - one with a $XXX hold back and the other with a $0 hold back, what do you do? See my comment above; this is an irrational reductionist argument that also argues against the buyer ever getting any kind of concession or contingency. There are markets where no one asks for an inspection contingency where you're not going to get a "move-out" contingency either, and there are other markets where there's plenty of room for clauses like this to be the norm. quote:You're a buyer asking for $XXX hold back, the seller says "we'll accept your offer if you drop the hold back", what do you do? Like everything else during the negotiations, its up to you: see if its a bluff, reduce it, drop it completely? Its the house you want, at a price you like. Most sellers clear their poo poo out, would you kill the deal on the off chance they don't you can get a few hundred bucks? For some people the answer is yes, but I would probably just take my chances, it just isn't usually a problem. I'd rather push something else, a repair credit, for example. This is a decision that each buyer has to make, just like if any seller asks for some other contingency or term to be dropped. If it's not usually a problem then the seller has no reason to ask for the clause to be dropped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:haha welp the original lender called to ask why went wrong and say how shocked they were that I was dropping them. I told them straight up that they told me i had to pay them supposedly due to rates going up and instead found another lender giving me a lower rate. They actually had the gall to ask what the offered rate was after they’d spent the last week telling me how much money I’d lose due to all the rates being higher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Jesus christ. Sellers (and their agents) accept conditions of sale that are customary and usual, because most or all of the bids they receive will have these conditions. So the bids are otherwise equal. Tacking on an unusual, uncustomary condition - regardless of its nature - is disadvantageous to the buyer, not just their agent, because of its unusualness. Exactly how reasonable that additional condition is, does matter of course; but just by not being normal, there is immediately and automatically a red flag to the seller. If this buyer wants something unusual, then what else is going to not go smoothly with this sale? How else are they going to be weird? If you got ten bids on your house, and only one of them has a special custom "must be empty or X happens" clause, then gently caress that buyer's bid. Or alternatively, only accept that buyer's bid if it's significantly better than the next-best bid. This is already the case with contingencies that are well-known but uncommon, like a buyer having a sale contingency on their previous home. At least most sellers (and their agents) will recognize that as a thing that does not automatically mean these buyers are weird, or aggressive, or "creative." But it still puts their bid well below any other similar-sized bid because of the added risk to the completion of the sale. So you have a choice, and this has nothing at all to do with buyer's agents being lovely: you can do things the normal way, or you can put your bid at risk. The more of a seller's market it is, the less room you have to get creative or interesting with your buyer's contingencies. Currently in most American markets it is very very much a seller's market. Ought things to be different? Sure. Buyers ought to have more legal protection, there ought to be a lot less insane piles of paperwork, real estate agents ought to work on flat fees rather than percentage commissions and other steps ought to be taken to eliminate the built-in conflicts of interest they typically have. But it's totally worthless to advise someone in this thread, asking questions about a specific real estate transaction, to put their own buy at risk by getting creative with contingencies just on principle, especially when all we're really talking about is worst-case scenario maybe a few hundred bucks and a day or two to hire a cleaning company to come clean out a house you just bought. If a $400 cleaning bill puts your guts in a twist, boy howdy are you not at all ready for home ownership!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
^^Most of that is what I've been trying to say, but he says it better^^ I had a post typed out and lost. I'm not writing out again. Dukket fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Jesus christ. I'm arguing that a move out contingency should become customary and usual, much like how asking that the refrigerator and dishwasher be left behind was at first unusual (when most homes didn't even have them) but over time became customary in most places. You guys are acting like the average purchase contract hasn't changed or evolved over time, which is just crazy. Of course what is usual and customary can change, these kinds of documents weren't handed down to Moses on stone tablets
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sellers (and their agents) accept conditions of sale that are customary and usual, because most or all of the bids they receive will have these conditions. So the bids are otherwise equal. You suggest that we should welcome bending over to get hosed and accept that real estate transactions are controlled by a cartel designed to make transactions flow smoothly regardless of the personal interests of the parties involved? Yeah, that's some victim blaming right there. How do you suppose that customary practices come into being? I'm not arguing that it's smart or to your advantage to go against the flow, but rather that the accepted flow is bullshit imposed by an industry designed to gently caress over anyone not in alignment with their cartel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
baquerd posted:You suggest that we should welcome bending over to get hosed and accept that real estate transactions are controlled by a cartel designed to make transactions flow smoothly regardless of the personal interests of the parties involved? Yeah, that's some victim blaming right there. How do you suppose that customary practices come into being? Leperflesh posted:Ought things to be different? Sure. Buyers ought to have more legal protection, there ought to be a lot less insane piles of paperwork, real estate agents ought to work on flat fees rather than percentage commissions and other steps ought to be taken to eliminate the built-in conflicts of interest they typically have. But it's totally worthless to advise someone in this thread, asking questions about a specific real estate transaction, to put their own buy at risk by getting creative with contingencies just on principle, especially when all we're really talking about is worst-case scenario maybe a few hundred bucks and a day or two to hire a cleaning company to come clean out a house you just bought. If a $400 cleaning bill puts your guts in a twist, boy howdy are you not at all ready for home ownership!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Reading comprehension is your friend. No single poster here has the power to unfuck the cartel that's formed around real estate. They can only give advice based on the reality of the situation, even if we all acknowledge that the reality is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't help the buyer(or seller) at all. The argument is basically over whether change to purchase agreement convention is impossible or merely difficult; baquerd and I are taking the position that it's merely difficult, and that positive changes in convention have occurred before and will probably occur again. (likewise, negative changes in convention can also occur; see the various markets where it's now standard to forego an inspection, which again further proves that purchase agreement convention is in no way universally standardized) e: Speaking of reading comprehension, no one was advising a specific goon to include the kind of clause that's being discussed (like Leperfish suggested), the idea was just being brought up as one of the reasons to despise the real estate industry. At the same time, change only occurs when people begin demanding it, and "what if I have to pay to have the seller's poo poo removed" is not something that a lot of people think about when they're comprehending all of the other costs of buying a home QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Aug 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
The goon who was concerned was already in the escrow process, so no, the suggestion would not apply to him specifically. But the suggestion if acted upon by anyone else reading this thread with similar concerns would absolutely have an affect on them, and nobody was presenting this argument as "in theory it'd be good if everyone did this but in practice don't try to do this" which is exactly how it ought to be couched. Especially because burdening your bid with unusual contingencies does nothing to inform others that they really ought to do the same, and in fact if you tried to spread that around would mostly just encourage others not to do that, to keep their bids more competetive. The reality is that in a seller's market, the buyer has less power and leverage in the transaction, and has to suck up bullshit from sellers. Perhaps change can be enacted through network effects the next time we're in a strong buyer's market. In the meantime there is another mechanism for enacting this kind of change that does not require sacrificial victims to throw away their bids until everyone somehow catches on that that's what they're doing, and it's called regulation. The realtors' (and the realty industry in general) lobby have been really effective for decades and that's how we are at where we're at. If we actually want broad reform, it's the only viable option, because the market is always going to ebb and flow, and leaving individual buyers (or sellers!) to enact change somehow through individual actions which mostly others will never hear about is not gonna work very well. Buyers and sellers are mostly individuals, while realtors belong to a well-organized cartel-like industry that no matter what happens to the market, is always gonna look out for itself first. So yeah. "Wouldn't it be nice if" is fine, and I totally agree. "People should do this" though? No, that's really terrible advice that people should not follow, especially not buyers shopping for houses in the current US market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Dukket posted:What? You put an offer in because you want the place, right? You want the deal to go through - within certain terms, right? Price, time frame, certain repairs/credits, etc. If you're competing against less savvy buyers, the strategy isn't to act as if you're an idiot. Your best strategy is to make market-rate offers and act in good faith. If you're lowballing, you should expect to make several offers before one goes through. But it's all dictated by the market. I hate to be all efficient-market in this thread. But it is a real good approximation. Edit: OK I lied. I love to be efficient-market hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
House-buying thread - 9d chess
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:39
|
|