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.
Yes, the sellers goofed up by not putting it in there. "Normally" there is a clause which says that the contingent buyer has 72 hours to match a non-contingent offer. In your case, there is no such clause, the seller is SOL.
Thats what I thought. Thanks.
What I am curious about is with no such clause, and no end date for you to sell your house in order the complete the purchase of the subject house, how/when does it end? Theoretically, with no clause and no 'contingent sale by "X" date, this could go on forever.
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]I should have said, the contract has a closing deadline of September 30. We are in underwriting right now, and should be stetting the due diligence, and inspection deadlines soon.
[/color]
I am sure I missed something. I also take note that the offer is contingent on the sale of your home, but now you are trying to get a second mortgage, presumably to buy the subject house. It's a technicality, but......this isn't 'exactly' what the contract says.
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Sorry, I did not make it totally clear. We had our offer written up as contingent on the sale of our home, or to close by September 30. We decided that we just want to move, so we are going to move forward with trying to secure financing for a second mortgage. [/color]
Anyway, I guess we just live with the uncomfortable situation until the dust settles.
What I am curious about is with no such clause, and no end date for you to sell your house in order the complete the purchase of the subject house, how/when does it end? Theoretically, with no clause and no 'contingent sale by "X" date, this could go on forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cully
I'm wondering the same thing about dates. There's got to be something buried in the mouse print. If not, that could be a case for it not being a sound contract and someone being able to call it off at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZJoeD
Without reading the contract it is hard to tell what has been agreed to, but I do agree that the Sellers agent was remiss in not including the "72 hour clause" (or something similar).
With regard to "going on forever", this is unlikely as I assume you had a closing date. In my opinion, that would mean the contingency would only live until closing date. If you fail to close by closing date you will be in breach. Again, it is all about the contract.
As Joe mentioned, none of us are privy to the language in the contract. However, based on what has been described in this thread and as I mentioned in my previous post, I would say the contingency would live until the closing date which is the end date for the contract. On the closing date, the buyer would either have to exercise the contingency and back out or go ahead an close. This is why I said earlier that accepting such a contract is idiotic. The seller can have no confidence that the sale will close until the buyer actually signs the closing paperwork. You can never be 100% confident that a sale will close until the ink is dry but in this case you can't even be 50% sure.
I'm curious about the actual meaning of the "72 hours" in a bump clause. Do the buyers have to provide proof to the sellers that they have the funds from another source when they remove the contingency? Just telling me you have retirement funds you can use doesn't give me any proof, such as a loan committment letter from a bank. Can I demand PROOF from my buyer? And do they have to provide me the proof within the 72 hours?
However sellers and sellers agent are not happy because my agent will not bend the rules so they can accept another offer since its not in the contract.
Just made me think, is it common for the buyers agent to include the 72 hour clause in the contingency when sending the sellers an offer? Is this something the sellers agent should have added?
No, it's not at all common around here. Sellers agent screwed up badly, if that something that was important to the sellers. Sounds like someone came in with another offer, and they hoped that they could bully you into a 72-hour clause. They can use the second offer as a back-up offer, but you have a contract, so proceed with the terms. (My guess is that the sellers aren't mad at you -- they are mad at their agent, and the agent is just "passing it along.")
Just make sure you meet the terms of the current contract to a "T" -- because if you miss even a single deadline, they are going to boil you in oil. Don't expect them to work with you if you need an extra day or two on financing or appraisal contingencies, and don't expect much give on any repairs during due diligence.
I'm curious about the actual meaning of the "72 hours" in a bump clause. Do the buyers have to provide proof to the sellers that they have the funds from another source when they remove the contingency? Just telling me you have retirement funds you can use doesn't give me any proof, such as a loan committment letter from a bank. Can I demand PROOF from my buyer? And do they have to provide me the proof within the 72 hours?
This is an old thread but, to answer your question, a well written clause should have everything you want written into it with specifics and clear time frames. If you are using an agent and the addendum or clause the agent has available doesn't fulfill your concerns, contact a real estate attorney and ask the lawyer to write the clause for you. You are right to want to see proof of liquid funds, IMO, and I'd want the proof before signing the contract, not at the time that the clause comes into effect. It might even be a good idea to include language that requires them to keep the money liquid until closing. That's why an attorney is a good idea.
Well, we've got a couple of different threads and responses going here now. Yknowgirl, maybe start your own post. This thread is from 2013. There could be some good stuff to discuss regarding your question such as what do you think a 72 hour bump clause is, what is your buyer using this clause for, etc.
I'm curious about the actual meaning of the "72 hours" in a bump clause. Do the buyers have to provide proof to the sellers that they have the funds from another source when they remove the contingency? Just telling me you have retirement funds you can use doesn't give me any proof, such as a loan committment letter from a bank. Can I demand PROOF from my buyer? And do they have to provide me the proof within the 72 hours?
Why would a buyer remove the contingency if they don't have the funds? The contingency calls for them to retain their earnest money if the contingency doesn't come thru. If they remove it, they are putting their thousands of earnest money at risk. In Texas, they even have to put up additional earnest money in order to remove the contingency. I know you want proof, but honestly, what good does it do if they're willing to lose the money by waiving the contingency. It means they want to perform no matter what. And if it's not in the actual contract, you can't enforce it.
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.
