I want to buy a house without a realtor (agreements, property, legal)

[homebeyer2013]

Originally Posted by AZJoeD

Sure, apparently you think that the contract writing part is so simple anyone can do it. I will ask if you ever bothered to read the contract presented by Hubzu? It leaves the buyer little or no leverage should problems arise. Hubzu is great for experienced investors who can take a risk in exchange for a below market price.

I have never encountered a title company that will write a contract. They are not licensed or indemnified. Writing a contract without knowing what you are doing can be costly and is serious business. If you do not wish to work with an agent, get an attorney.

Two of my FSBOs were done with verbal agreements, we then met at a) Great American Title Company and B) State Title and I let the buyer tell the EO what our agreement was. I then added any important information that might have been left out, like who would pay for courier fees. There were no discrepancies either time, and the EO wrote the contract, and the buyer presented EMD. One was a cash deal, the other involved me financing....two of the smoothest transactions that I have made.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by mikejaquish

and, yes, the liability for incompetence is mammoth. No non-lawyer real estate broker licensee with cognitive functions sufficient to be deemed competent in society would write an offer and take a client to contract without visiting the property and touring it and any improvements. That level of lack of diligence is reserved for attorneys.

[perfectlyGoodInk]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

The buyer is paying for a HOUSE. What the seller does with the money once he gets it from the seller does not have anything to do with the seller. If the seller has agreed to pay $1 or 100% of that money to his bank, to his painter or to his agent is not relevant to the price of the house.

These are costs of selling the house, which the seller can easily predict and factor into the price. Just like an auto-manufacturer factoring in the cost of the tires into the price of the car. Cost of inputs is not the only determinant of price, but it is an important one.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

The definition of representation changes though. There is limited representation for buyers and sellers. An agent that writes an offer for a buyer without having seen the property themselves is providing limited representation. That is totally fine as long as the consumer understands that is what they are getting.

It is a huge liability for a brokerage to do business that way which is why it doesn't happen often.

Who said the agent didn't see the property?
The way it works you contact "cash back" agent with specific house in mind. That agent let you see the house and put in offer for you.
May I ask you what the difference does it make for the agent to see the property vs not to see it in person in order to give representation?

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by perfectlyGoodInk

??

The amount of money the seller brings to closing is never nearly as much as the money paid by the buyer for the house. So this is like a coupon or discount. The buyer is still paying in those cases, just a little less.

exactly!
so, the buyer is the one who pays for both agents

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

TexasHorseLady

Amen, Amen, Amen. And for anyone that does not know what Amen means, it means I agree with what was just said.

I spent decades in the commercial real estate brokerage, not really into homes. But I counseled for a fee, many a home buyer that sneaked around Realtors to save some money, and helped them solve problems that should never have existed. I saw a lot of buyers that had tried to take short cuts so an agent would not get a fee, that were sorry afterwards. Especially when they found they overpaid, bought a property with problems that a Realtor would have pointed out and would have advised to use inspectors that would have spotted the problem so the buyer could insist the seller solve it in advance of closing.

Examples: Homes with septic tanks, that did not have an inspection and had serious problems. Most times when this happened, the buyer did not even know they had a septic tank, and spent a lot of money to solve the problem. Homes in an area where basements are prone to have water problems, and the buyer having to install a French Drain System to solve the problem the seller never told them about. Lots of bucks. That was usually the reason the owners were selling. And this list can go on and on. The Realtors know the problems in their area, etc., and know how to protect their buyer. The buyers do not have this knowledge, and seeking to not use a Realtor to save a few dollars, often end up spending a lot more. Sometimes a home is on the market by the owners, because no reputable Realtor will list it as they know it has problems and the owner refuses to fix the problems. So the owner markets it themselves.

I used to charge $75 to $100 an hour to counsel people with property problems telling them who to get to solve their problems after listening to all their problems with the property they had bought without a Realtor. A couple of hundred dollars listening to their problems, and then advising them who to get in touch with to solve the problem was just found money as far as I was concerned. $200 here and $200 there soon ads up to help the bottom line every year.

LOL
Whatever you wrote is just silly and doesn't make any sense!
Sounds like you worked in the area full of people who didn't care what they were buying....
Buyers can still get their inspectors even if they are not using an agent to represent them. And I would recommend always have your independent inspector instead of the one your agent will recommend you (it's in agent's interest to make sure the report is "clear" so the buyer will close -> agent will get paid).

Realtor doesn't know problems neither how to fix these problems. He/she can make an educated/ uneducated guess. Most agent will not be able to know about certain problems whatsoever. And they would not even guess because it's not their job. They do not have to disclose something they have no expert opinion about and they prefer to keep it quite to let the deal close so they will get paid.

If you never heard about people who end up buying houses with realtors and sill had major problems with their homes - well.... looks like you live in very unique area

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

A typo, and too late to change it now, unfortunately. I meant to say:


The buyer is paying for a HOUSE. What the seller does with the money once he gets it from the buyer does not have anything to do with the buyer. If the seller has agreed to pay $1 or 100% of that money to his bank, to his painter or to his agent is not relevant to the price of the house.

Now take the realtors fee from the equation and let see how much less the buyers will have to pay for the house? Since this difference is coming from the buyer's pocket, he/she is paying for this party

[1insider]

In my experience, any reduction in fees that a seller gets, he usually wants to pocket, not give to the buyer. Sellers go FSBO because they want to net more, not because they want the buyer to pay less. Unrepresented buyers are usually easier to sell to at a higher price because their rabid fixation on excluding realtors often clouds their judgement. The ultimate price is less important than bragging rights on having done it without an agent. Numerous posts on this thread tend to support that.

[MikeJaquish]

Uh, 1,

Originally Posted by misterno

So I will find a realtor and I will tell him that I found the house negotiated the price.

All he has to do is to fill out the paperwork.

I know that he is entitled for 3% of the price so I will tell him to keep $500 and give me the rest before I pay for the house.

Is there an online company that already does this? It is not hard to find a realtor but I it is better to work with a company

And, uh 2,

Originally Posted by RE Skeptic

...not bad for the agent considering no "legwork".

And, uh 3...

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Who said the agent didn't see the property?
...

That would be the OP, as quoted above, and supported in the rejoinder from RE Skeptic, also.
"Legwork" is a colloquialism that commonly implies chasing details, i.e, doing the field work, as well as other Due Diligence which a licensee may be expected to perform in a responsibly prudent manner.

Originally Posted by EngGirl

May I ask you what the difference does it make for the agent to see the property vs not to see it in person in order to give representation?

As noted below.

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Here, "limited representation" is only an MLS term alerting a cooperating agent that the seller will be handling some duties typically expected of a listing agent.

Licensing law requires an agent to provide a reasonable level of support and prudence. From the NC Real Estate Commission, discussion of G.S. 93A-6(a)(1):
"The prohibition against negligent omission creates a
'duty to discover and disclose' material facts which a reasonably
prudent licensee would typically have discovered in the course of the transaction."

And, yes, the liability for incompetence is mammoth. No non-lawyer real estate broker licensee with cognitive functions sufficient to be deemed competent in society would write an offer and take a client to contract without visiting the property and touring it and any improvements. That level of lack of diligence is reserved for attorneys.

[dontaskwhy]

Originally Posted by homebeyer2013

One was a cash deal, the other involved me financing....two of the smoothest transactions that I have made.

Glad to hear that those transactions were smooth for you. The reality is when there is a hiccup with the transaction, it helps to have a realtor or attorney in your corner.