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.
If I read the article correctly, there was no signed contract between the Agent and the Buyers, so it doesn't sound as though he was a BA. Depending on the local laws, the Agent may not have been legally able to give advice on price.
What I also find odd, though, is that the Seller was also an Agent. I wonder if the two Agents know each other?
Articles like this don't usually include all the facts. And I don't think that, as the defendent, calling the plaintiff a "nut job" is going to help your case much!
"Mr. Little also worked as a mortgage broker. The Ummels say he encouraged them to get their loan through him. Mr. Little ordered an appraisal of the house but did not respond to the couple’s requests to see it, the suit charges. A few days after the couple moved in, in August 2005, they got a flier on their door from another realty agent. It showed a house up the street had just sold for $105,000 less than theirs, even though it was the same size. Then they finally got their appraisal, which told them the house up the street was not only cheaper but had a pool. Another flier in early October mentioned a house down the street that was the same size and closed the same day as the Ummels’ but went for $175,000 less."
My understanding is that the realtor was also the lender and would not show them the appraisal. They did not see the appraisal until after they had closed.
Interesting, but not enough information for me to decide anything. I do think that Realtors and Lenders should be separate and this is a good example. I've never met a lender/realtor who was particularly good at both and I think it's a conflict of interest.
So with that being said, I'll wait for details to come out. Did the agent/ lender hide sales? Did he withhold the appraisal? Maybe he's one of the sleazes we don't want in the business or maybe we have a buyer that is unrealistic and litigous seeking revenge for something unpredictable.
Some things I noted assuming accuracy of media:
-Agent pushed buyer to use him for loan.
-Property wasn't listed and was agent owned.
-Buyer was difficult. (went through 2 agents, 1 deal fell through, and picketed in front of RE office every weekend.)
-Buyer felt they overpayed by 25,000 but has already spent over $75,000 in legal fees? (Ummm...cut your losses and move on?)
-Buyer was savvy (according to media) so wouldn't think they'd get suckered in.
-No signed buyer agency (not sure CA laws)
-Buyer may be trying to pass the buck for not doing their due diligence.
-Agent may have withheld information.
If the the suit goes through, and the homeowner wins, this is going to open up a huge can of worms. With one case setting the precedent, other judges are more likely to rule with the homeowner when a flood a similar cases are filed.
"Mr. Little also worked as a mortgage broker. The Ummels say he encouraged them to get their loan through him. Mr. Little ordered an appraisal of the house but did not respond to the couple’s requests to see it, the suit charges. A few days after the couple moved in, in August 2005, they got a flier on their door from another realty agent. It showed a house up the street had just sold for $105,000 less than theirs, even though it was the same size. Then they finally got their appraisal, which told them the house up the street was not only cheaper but had a pool. Another flier in early October mentioned a house down the street that was the same size and closed the same day as the Ummels’ but went for $175,000 less."
My understanding is that the realtor was also the lender and would not show them the appraisal. They did not see the appraisal until after they had closed.
If the the suit goes through, and the homeowner wins, this is going to open up a huge can of worms. With one case setting the precedent, other judges are more likely to rule with the homeowner when a flood a similar cases are filed.
Even the newspaper story hints around to the fact that the buyer is seeking payment from the insurance company that covers the broker. Others have already paid her to disappear.
I think everyone is missing one of the bigger issues. The appraiser and mortgage broker already settled. Something smells fishy.
The appraiser seemed to have done a fair job, having appraised the property for nearly $200K less then she paid. Thats not something I missed. I have a judgment against one company for nearly $500K, pushing that company to close down. When I went after the next person in line, they didnt blink an eye about cutting me a check. The legal fees alone would have been more then what I received, and had I won, they most likely would have gone out of business like the previous company.
Sometimes you pay to get rid of people, especially when its cheaper then fighting.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The owner didnt look at other homes to realise that the price was, in her statement, over inflated? Perhapse this home had an extra bedroom, or bathroom which caused the price to be higher. There had to be some reasonable reason why an appraisal would validate a bank loaning more money on this property vs the other ones in the same neighborhood.
That is all well if it has an extra room or a finished basement and the agent can use such as a defense. It is not the job of the buyer or the seller to look at other homes to see what they sold for. The agent and the appraisor have that information readily available and if they lied about it they should get the hell sued outta them. It is time that the courts start making liars, cheats and such accountable for their actions. Not only with brokers but car salesmen and snake lenders!
This is not an instance of a skewed appraisal. The story states that the buyers appraisal showed a value of $1.05M, but they paid $1.2M for their home. They chose to pay more money for the home then the appraisal showed it was worth.
In this instance, the appraisal was not misleading, she chose to ignore it. Do not blame the appraiser for her stupidity.
Actually, from what I read in the article, the agent who sold her the house also acted as the mortgge broker, and refused to send the appraisal to her until AFTER closing.
I'm all for personal responsibility and being accountable for your own decisions. And this couple surely should have looked a little harder at some things, insisted on getting some data.
HOWEVER, the agent/mortgage lender in this case, if what the home buyer alleges is true, withheld critical information and pressured them to buy this house at this price. I understand that this is just what the plaintiff is saying now, and that she may not be telling the truth. IF she is, this agent needs to be held accountable.
There are standards. No, a real estate agent sholdn't be expected to be able to predict what will happen to the market, or whether a property will rise or fall in value over the short term. But they are obligated, and should ebe expected, to be honest & forthcoming with what info they do have.
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.
