Buying in Philly - do I need a RE Attorney?

[kimrocktherealtor]

You guys are all wrong actually - there is NO attorney review period in PA, only in NJ. The 3 day rule ONLY applies to NJ. In PA you are legally under contract the day you sign. There are loopholes however to get out of it, ie home inspection contingency (you could say a light switch didnt work and walk away from the house without losing your deposit). But to reitterate, there is NOT an attorney review period. And honestly, in PA no one really has attorneys review the contracts for the main fact that the agreements/contracts we use are all the same, standardized across the board by the PAR (pa assoc of realtors).. In NJ each office writes their own contracts, so because of this attorneys are needed, not in PA. Just an FYI.

[Angus215]

i've bought houses in both NJ and PA so maybe i'm getting the two confused. maybe in PA it's optional (via an addendum). but as the prior poster said, you can always get out of the contract after the home inspection if you want to anyway (without even giving a reason why), so it's not really necessary..

however, i would not agree that you should feel comfortable just because the contract is standard, particularly if you are not comfortable actually reading and understanding legal contracts. the real estate agent will want you to just sign where they tell you but you should absolutely read every word of what you are signing or have an attorney explain it to you.

[PeeAye Native]

Originally Posted by ooodsie

You guys are all wrong actually - there is NO attorney review period in PA, only in NJ. The 3 day rule ONLY applies to NJ. In PA you are legally under contract the day you sign. There are loopholes however to get out of it, ie home inspection contingency (you could say a light switch didnt work and walk away from the house without losing your deposit). But to reitterate, there is NOT an attorney review period. And honestly, in PA no one really has attorneys review the contracts for the main fact that the agreements/contracts we use are all the same, standardized across the board by the PAR (pa assoc of realtors).. In NJ each office writes their own contracts, so because of this attorneys are needed, not in PA. Just an FYI.

I think this is 1) bad advice, and 2) not very accurate.

I'd say savvy people (many, but not a majority) have an attorney review every agreement they are asked to sign for a RE transaction, especially the contracts. (If a contract is all standardized, I'd like to have an attorney review it and tell me so, not take a RE agent's word for it). Otherwise people are putting the fate of the largest financial transaction in their entire lives in statements like you are making above, even worst when statements like that come from someone who has a vested/financial interest in seeing the transaction go through.

And BTW, those boilerplate agreements are not set in stone. Any party can change something with a pen and signature, for example a buyer can change the offer terms to 72 or 48 hours, or the exclusive agency agreement to 30 days, instead of 180. These are the kinds of things a RE agent would never tell you, but things an attorney would definitely tell you. On top of that, an attorney will tell you what clauses, stipulations or paragraphs work for or against you, whereas you are implying just take the boilerplate agreement that is handed to you and go with it.

[Avalon08]

I guess I'm not a "savvy" buyer, because I've bought/sold 8 houses in 25 years (PA, NJ and CA) and only got an attorney involved once. And, that time, only because I was buying a brand-new condo in NJ and I wanted him to review the condo docs. I haven't had any problems that would have been avoided if I'd had an attorney involved. But the key was having a really good real estate agent whom I trusted.

However, if you are buying a home with any type of Homeowners' Association, I'd definitely get an experienced real-estate attorney (preferably one who's very familiar with condo docs and associations) to look over the documents. But in any case, if you can afford an attorney, it would probably be worth it for the peace of mind.

[kimrocktherealtor]

PeeAye - I would never advise a client to NOT use an attorney if they wanted to. I do advise them that the contracts are standardized however. And the good thing about the program that we all HAVE to use as licensed PA agents is that any changes we DO make show up bold, or are clearly changed in pen. So I always tell my clients that any changes that deviate from the PAR standard legal agreement will be in bold or in pen so it will be VERY easy to spot where another agent made a change from the norm. I have had one or two clients have an attorney review, and of course I didnt advise against that - thats completely up to them. The attorneys however in both cases did reitterate what I had already stated, that they are standard, they agree with all of the terms and let everything remain in tact. But would I put my license on the line and tell a client not to if they wanted to, of course not - I advise them that I am NOT an attorney, so that's their call, but do inform them of the standardization as well.

[rdtruitt]

Let's face it, the PA standard purchase and sale form is no doubt designed to push transactions through so that brokers will get their commisssions. As such, although I have never seen one of these forms, they probably lack some buyer (and seller) protections as your lawyer might insert during contract review based on her knowledge of your specific wants, needs, and personal situation. Of course any lawyer changes have to be negotiated over, but the review process works in ways to give buyers and sellers more complete knowledge of all possible transaction outcomes. Bottom line--brokers are working to see a commission and the reviewing attorney is working strictly for the best interest of the client. (Ex-agent and current attorney.)

[Wisertime]

Originally Posted by rdtruitt

Let's face it, the PA standard purchase and sale form is no doubt designed to push transactions through so that brokers will get their commisssions. As such, although I have never seen one of these forms, they probably lack some buyer (and seller) protections as your lawyer might insert during contract review based on her knowledge of your specific wants, needs, and personal situation. Of course any lawyer changes have to be negotiated over, but the review process works in ways to give buyers and sellers more complete knowledge of all possible transaction outcomes. Bottom line--brokers are working to see a commission and the reviewing attorney is working strictly for the best interest of the client. (Ex-agent and current attorney.)

First post...are you a lawyer? Yes

Lawyers work for fees just like realtors. Any realtor who doesn't look after their client won't be in business for very long.

[kimrocktherealtor]

Originally Posted by Wisertime

First post...are you a lawyer? Yes

Lawyers work for fees just like realtors. Any realtor who doesn't look after their client won't be in business for very long.

Thank you! .. Or, any realtor who doesnt look after their client will be in COURT with mr. lawyer soon!

[PeeAye Native]

Originally Posted by Wisertime

First post...are you a lawyer? Yes

Lawyers work for fees just like realtors. Any realtor who doesn't look after their client won't be in business for very long.

And the huge masses of middle-aged housewives and others who took up part-time RE agency during the boom times and are 'out of the business' proves your point.

Originally Posted by ooodsie

PeeAye - I would never advise a client to NOT use an attorney if they wanted to. I do advise them that the contracts are standardized however. And the good thing about the program that we all HAVE to use as licensed PA agents is that any changes we DO make show up bold, or are clearly changed in pen. So I always tell my clients that any changes that deviate from the PAR standard legal agreement will be in bold or in pen so it will be VERY easy to spot where another agent made a change from the norm. I have had one or two clients have an attorney review, and of course I didnt advise against that - thats completely up to them. The attorneys however in both cases did reitterate what I had already stated, that they are standard, they agree with all of the terms and let everything remain in tact. But would I put my license on the line and tell a client not to if they wanted to, of course not - I advise them that I am NOT an attorney, so that's their call, but do inform them of the standardization as well.

ooodsie, I think you're missing the point. It's not only the sales agreement where an attorney's services are valuable for the price paid, it's in the review of every document a buyer (or seller) signs. Starting with the RE agency agreement between the buyer and the buyer's agent. And including inspection agreements, and mortgage agreements (this is where some shine, did the average Joe know which mortgage providers were shaky back 18 and 24 months ago?).

Case in point, an agent presents a 'standard' re agency agreement to a buyer, a buyer has an attorney review it before signing, the attorney recommends the terms be changed to limit them to 30 days, and to only cover a specific set of towns or municipalities (those the agent says he/she is experienced in), not the entire state, region or even a whole county. Reason this is good for buyer: If better deal comes up somewhere else, or heaven forbid, agent slacks off and doesn't research and present all possible properties in his/her area of geographic expertise in that 30 days, then buyer keeps options open to move on to a different agent, in 30 days, as opposed to boilerplate 180 days. 30 day terms are good for buyer and keep his/her options open, buyer can always renew for another 30, 60 days or whatever with agent if agent seems to be working out

Would you really advise your potential clients to so something like this? If you're in the the majority of agents, clearly no.

And as someone else pointed out, the standard agreement is clearly not written with the best interests of any one party in mind, least of all the buyer, and especially so in the current re market. But a new buyer wouldn't be aware of this listening to some RE agents ... not necessarily you, but some. You do imply it's ok in your opinion to use as is, that right there is something worth contemplating.

[kimrocktherealtor]

I do agree that shady agents can use the buyer agency agreement to trap clients - which is why I recommend people do not sign this until they are heavily involved with an agent and know they are comfortable with them. I don't even have my own clients sign until they put an offer in on a property. But thats besides the point, yes I do get your point - clients who are not familiar with these documents CAN get screwed, so yes a lawyer would be helpful - as with most things people sign in everyday life.