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.
Why would an agent be wary of representing both sides?
Liability. An agent can't really represent both sides. They can try to be neutral...but if one side feels they're being slighted, there's a greater chance for problems. When there are two agents--one for the Seller and one for the Buyer--the lines of representation are much more clear.
Collectively, you guys have really hit the nail on the head. The listing broker referred a new agent to me as a Buyers Agent. She's out of the same office. Thank you Diana.
Glad to hear it... you're welcome, good luck! Sounds like the house will be a challenge if you go through with it.
Liability. An agent can't really represent both sides. They can try to be neutral...but if one side feels they're being slighted, there's a greater chance for problems. When there are two agents--one for the Seller and one for the Buyer--the lines of representation are much more clear.
Liability as in lawsuit or liability as in failed transaction? There's a reason a lawyer can only represent one party. Brokers, however, can represent all parties in a transaction. Is it simply because dual agency is more likely to derail the deal?
Liability as in lawsuit or liability as in failed transaction? There's a reason a lawyer can only represent one party. Brokers, however, can represent all parties in a transaction. Is it simply because dual agency is more likely to derail the deal?
An agent has a fiduciary duty to represent the best interests of their client. An agent can't represent the best interests of both opposing parties. A real estate agent is analogous to a lawyer as to representation. An agent may be able to handle a transaction with fairness towards both parties, but they still lack a fiduciary relationship under those circumstances. For those reasons, some states prohibit Dual Agency. Even when legally allowed, I feel that it is best to avoid those situations.
As for the concern about liability, this is America. Some people have a propensity to sue at the drop of the hat. I could give an example, but I don't want to send this into a political discussion.
The listing broker referred a new agent to me as a Buyers Agent. She's out of the same office.
I would be wary of this. In my state, that "new agent out of the same office" would still be a representative of the seller unless a dual agency agreement was signed by both parties...THEN advisory roles for both seller and buyer will be reduced.
You may not be in a better situation than you were with the listing agent. Ask specifically what your state laws are regarding agency relationships.
"Exclusive Buyers Representation Contract" seems cut and dry to me. I'll ask her regarding dual agency. I hold my cards close to my vest as I've been burned in the past by unethical agents.
I have not seen anything regarding dual agency, though, so thanks for the heads up.
Their designated broker will be a dual agent... but the DB's role is usually limited to legal review of the documents.
If these agents stay arms length and don't share confidential information, there may not be any conflict of interest. I have no relationship with any of the other brokers in my office, and I don't share confidential information with them. In our state, we can have transactions where both agents work for the same brokerage without issue. Now if she is on his team and reports to him, then it's an issue. Talk to her about that and see.
So, I just found out from researching the property via the assessor's office that last year's property taxes for this property were sold at a tax sale last November. The total past due taxes are about $3000.
What's the angle for the investor? They currently own the property. Why would they "buy" the past due tax bill? Why don't they pay the back taxes instead of allowing interest to accrue?
The county office simply said that somebody has to pay those taxes. If that isn't done, the owner of the back taxes can foreclose on the property in 2-3 years.
So there is a lien on the title which is something I haven't dealt with before. Any thoughts?
So, I just found out from researching the property via the assessor's office that last year's property taxes for this property were sold at a tax sale last November. The total past due taxes are about $3000.
What's the angle for the investor? They currently own the property. Why would they "buy" the past due tax bill? Why don't they pay the back taxes instead of allowing interest to accrue?
The county office simply said that somebody has to pay those taxes. If that isn't done, the owner of the back taxes can foreclose on the property in 2-3 years.
So there is a lien on the title which is something I haven't dealt with before. Any thoughts?
In my state you buy tax liens by paying them, and "bidding" a lower interest rate than the taxing authority charges. You pay the taxes, and bid 5%, and someone bidding 4% gets the bid. When the taxes get paid, the winning bidder gets a check for the tax amount + 4%. The taxing authority keeps the spread. If the taxes don't get paid, you can send a final demand letter after a couple years, then you can foreclose. It almost never happens that you actually *get* to that point, except for scrub land 40 miles west of where Jesus lost his sandals. The angle for not paying your taxes? I don't understand that, you *will* pay the taxes and the penalty, or someone else will own your dirt.
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.