Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, I just wanted to get the board's impression for whether this was ethical & legal or not. Just to let you know how the story ends up front, I didn't fall for what I think was a scam, and sold my house to someone else for a price both I and they are happy with.
Not too long ago, I was selling a house for sale by owner, and a buyer's agent calls me up and asks to show the property to an investor she works with periodically who's thinking about a new build. I tell her I'm not working with realtors but finally agree, sure I'll pay her 1.5%, but I'd have to get a really good offer to make it worthwhile.
The investor comes by to look at the property, and the first thing she tells me is that I have low quality soil that makes it more expensive to build. I'm generally very polite and play my cards close, so I just say "oh, I didn't know that". She then tells me the investor is also an engineer. Note that a huge house was built literally one lot over and they would presumably have similar soil.
The next day, she says she has an offer and wants to come by. When she arrives, she begins telling me how she met the investor when she was working with another client who had priced their house too high and had it on the market for months and finally sold it when they priced it right, and that this investor was known for giving the highest offers of anyone she works with.
She then gives me the offer and says "now, this might be lower than you expect...". It's $30k under my listing price, or $40k once you add in the commission. The offer is all cash with no contingencies. She again mentions the soil issues and says that this is probably the best any buyer will do given the lot and state of the property. I tell her that while I appreciate her hard work and her ability to move quickly, but I don't think I'll accept at this time. She asks me if I would like to counter offer and I so, no, I don't think so.
What I'd like to know is whether any of that "soil" stuff was unethical or illegal. I think its simply impossible that she or the investor were able to evaluate my soil quality without me knowing about it, and the presence of a 4000+ sq ft new home build 100 ft away suggests that my soil perfectly capable of being built upon. And if the soil really could potentially be a problem, his offer would have had some contingencies related to engineering studies I would think. After more thought I think he/she are just property flippers and they would have listed it again in a couple of weeks.
And there's a happy ending anyway - I did sell my place less than 48 hrs later for $25k more than she / her client was offering and pretty much exactly what I expected to get for it.
Nothing unethical or illegal about mentioning the soil. My county and state has soil types available on the GIS maps for each lot and area. It's pretty detailed information. Perhaps your area has the same information available online, and they looked at it previously.
BTW-the agent's job was to try to get the house for her buyer for the best possible price. She did that.
I don't see "unethical," if the engineer told her that the soil maps showed your lot as having something other than the adjacent lot's soil. It can happen.
If she was fibbing to gain an edge? That would be another story.
From your description, I also don't see much evidence of real estate brilliance, either....
So you're saying that they did evaluate the soil using some available county resource prior to showing up? If the buyer really is an engineer and they really did review the maps then of course I have no objections. My assumption was that in order to do any real evaluation they would need an engineer to come on site and spend some time on the property, which I know didn't happen and wouldn't have happened prior to sale (because there was no contingency for that). Could a realtor tell you that a buyer found termites if they really didn't? Do you see what I'm saying?
Unless you have brought in a lot of topsoil to the property, you can typically put some soil between your fingers and get a feel for if it tends to have more clay, loam or sand. It isn't an official test, but sometimes it is readily apparent what kind of soil you are dealing with. Some soils require more support or more drainage depending on the type of soil making them more expensive to build on. Doesn't mean that they can't be built on, but that it costs more. My state also has general soil maps online.
The investor/engineer clearly saw the value lower than the other buyer did, and that's okay. It is the buyer's job to do due diligence on a lot for building. I don't see anything unethical in your scenario. The buyer agent tried to get her client the best deal possible, which is her job. Your job was to get the best deal for you, which is what you did.
So you're saying that they did evaluate the soil using some available county resource prior to showing up? If the buyer really is an engineer and they really did review the maps then of course I have no objections. My assumption was that in order to do any real evaluation they would need an engineer to come on site and spend some time on the property, which I know didn't happen and wouldn't have happened prior to sale (because there was no contingency for that). Could a realtor tell you that a buyer found termites if they really didn't? Do you see what I'm saying?
I DO see what you are saying.
You do not see what I am saying. I am saying, IF she lied or spoke without the word of an expert, it would be completely unethical.
And the "engineer" may be a software engineer with no clue what is going on.
As comforting as it sometimes is to seek the simple answer to vilify someone, there may be more to consider.
Yup. She may be a poopyhead. She may just be a tool. And, she may be right.
I dunno which, or even if more than one fits.
So you're saying that they did evaluate the soil using some available county resource prior to showing up? If the buyer really is an engineer and they really did review the maps then of course I have no objections. My assumption was that in order to do any real evaluation they would need an engineer to come on site and spend some time on the property, which I know didn't happen and wouldn't have happened prior to sale (because there was no contingency for that). Could a realtor tell you that a buyer found termites if they really didn't? Do you see what I'm saying?
There is a HUGE difference between lying about termites and lying about soil types. The only way one would know about termites is a physical inspection. Without a physical inspection, it would be unethical to lie about termites.
Soil type information can be found online for many places. You don't know what they looked at prior to the offer.
I fail to see why you're so worked up by this. An offer was made. You rejected it and moved on to another offer. No harm was done except perhaps wasting your time.
It's common for investors to submit low offers. It's not an indication of something unethical.
Soil maps are readily available for most counties in the U.S. You don't need to be a soils engineer to understand the limitations or desirability of certain soil types. Personally, I like hydric soils.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
