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.
Also, in the listing agreement, seller has to pay $1500 advertising costs (which seems to consist of a trifold and a one-page) if she she decides not to accept this offer.
The whole things sounds nuts to me. Keller Williams is the broker agency, so maybe I'm not understanding things correctly. I've always thought they were a reputable outfit.
Also, in the listing agreement, seller has to pay $1500 advertising costs (which seems to consist of a trifold and a one-page) if she she decides not to accept this offer.
This reads as though there is a clause in the seller's representation agreement (listing agreement) stating the seller must pay $1500 if the seller decides not to accept an offer.
That's ridiculous. what if the first offer that came in was for $10?
no way this is real. I would suggest you not believe anything related to the transaction without reading the documents yourself
Perhaps there was something in the offer "contract" that specified she couldn't continue showing it. But I can find nothing online that says state law prohibits showing a home once an offer has been accepted.
Her agent also "staged" her home by adding a small rug and a chair. in the living room Make the living room looked crowded to me. The whole point of staging is to make your home look like a more expensive home, not crowded and mismatched.
Also, in the listing agreement, seller has to pay $1500 advertising costs (which seems to consist of a trifold and a one-page) if she she decides not to accept this offer.
The whole things sounds nuts to me. Keller Williams is the broker agency, so maybe I'm not understanding things correctly. I've always thought they were a reputable outfit.
I have seen lots of listing agreements which require a seller to pay the listing agent a set fee if they decide not to sell to a full price offer....The agent has to bring a ready, willing, and able buyer who has offered full price in order for this clause to be active.
A full price offer with lots of contingencies which reduce the net, is NOT a full price offer. The agent is bullying your friend. Your friend needs to either learn the law, or learn his/her rights, b/c what is occurring is not proper and your friend is getting walked over by a pushy agent.
I have seen lots of listing agreements which require a seller to pay the listing agent a set fee if they decide not to sell to a full price offer....The agent has to bring a ready, willing, and able buyer who has offered full price in order for this clause to be active.
A full price offer with lots of contingencies which reduce the net, is NOT a full price offer. The agent is bullying your friend. Your friend needs to either learn the law, or learn his/her rights, b/c what is occurring is not proper and your friend is getting walked over by a pushy agent.
I think this is what is happening. A full price offer where they want $30K of work is not a full price offer in my book either.
My friend has not bought or sold a home in 30 years, so all of this is new. She's on the ball but is getting snowed by an agent who keeps insisting that this is the law or this is how it is alway done. I had her ask the inspector if sellers or buyers usually pay his fee and he said it is nearly always the buyers unless a case where people are wanting him to help get their house ready for the market. So that part of what the agent was telling her was just bogus.
And the agent insisting that the home needs to be "up to code" to sell sounds bogus as well. Nobody would be able to sell an older home. Imagine replacing the plumbing in a hundred year old home.
Turns out the potential buyer could not swing the down payment, so it appears the deal is off.
I think this is what is happening. A full price offer where they want $30K of work is not a full price offer in my book either.
My friend has not bought or sold a home in 30 years, so all of this is new. She's on the ball but is getting snowed by an agent who keeps insisting that this is the law or this is how it is alway done. I had her ask the inspector if sellers or buyers usually pay his fee and he said it is nearly always the buyers unless a case where people are wanting him to help get their house ready for the market. So that part of what the agent was telling her was just bogus.
And the agent insisting that the home needs to be "up to code" to sell sounds bogus as well. Nobody would be able to sell an older home. Imagine replacing the plumbing in a hundred year old home.
Turns out the potential buyer could not swing the down payment, so it appears the deal is off.
What a can of worms.
Time for a new listing agent too. This agent is not looking out for the best interest of the client. Virtually everything the agent has done is a breach of the agents fiduciary duty to their client.
The agent was just trying to close a deal and get paid, or was somehow in cahoots with the buyer.
Once in California we had a party make a contingent offer, and included in it that we stop showing the home. We said no. Sure enough, their home never sold, and they weren't able to buy our house.Good thing we kept showing it.
Sounds like she needs a real estate attorney. Her realtor is trying to play an attorney which she isn't.
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.
