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.
The court ordered the sale of my house and appointed a Realtor that I did not choose.
The Realtor raised the price of the house above the market without my consent and found a buyer. He was withholding information from me that they were approved by the bank, I found it myself by calling the bank, there were other things that he wouldn't tell me on time, but the main surprise is that now he demands that I sign an addendum which allows the buyers to get out of the deal if the price of the house will turn out higher than of the market. I offered to lower the price to the market level, but all I get is emails that if I don't sign an addendum, the deal is off. This sounds very strange as the Realtor raised the price himself, doesn't want to lower it but wants me to let the buyers out because of the high price.
Can anybody explain if such practice is acceptable and if there any grounds for complaint ? Because of this "sale" I had to hire 2 attorneys for closing. Can I hold Realtor responsible for these incurred expenses if the deal will not go through?
I really need advice on how to proceed.
Since the court ordered the sale of the house and hired the real estate agent, it sounds to me that the agent is working for the court rather than for you. In that case, the agent would be free to set the price within the terms of the court.
The document that the agent wants you to sign is basically something that allows the buyers to pull out if the house does not appraise at market. That's a standard condition of most every house sale and is reasonable.
It is very standard for buyers to pull out of contracts if the house doesn't appraise. Also, if you have two attorneys, whom I assume know your legal situation, you should be asking them for advice.
If this is court ordered, I assume you are in bankruptcy. Your bankruptcy attorney can guide you about the courts role in the sale of your home.
The document that the agent wants you to sign is basically something that allows the buyers to pull out if the house does not appraise at market. That's a standard condition of most every house sale and is reasonable.
Then why not lower the price?
The whole deal seems like a bogus.
It is not bankruptcy, it is divorce matter and the house must be sold to divide assets with my ex.
It seems that all of the people involved thought that I will hold on to the house and overbid. But I don't have money and want the house sold at reasonable price.
Then why not lower the price?
The whole deal seems like a bogus.
It is not bankruptcy, it is divorce matter and the house must be sold to divide assets with my ex.
It seems that all of the people involved thought that I will hold on to the house and overbid. But I don't have money and want the house sold at reasonable price.
Why don't you suggest to your agent that the appraisal contingency be worded so that if the home doesn't appraise, the buyer's only option is to buy it at the lower appraisal value. But you then have the right to terminate, if the appraisal comes in at some ridiculously low value. In other words, the contract should say that if you are willing to lower the price to the appraised value, the buyer can't terminate.
The appraisal contingency should not be used to determine whether the buyer likes the house. It really should only be part of the financing contingency. If you are willing to lower the price to the appraised value, the buyer should not be able to get out of the deal.
Why don't you suggest to your agent that the appraisal contingency be worded so that if the home doesn't appraise, the buyer's only option is to buy it at the lower appraisal value. But you then have the right to terminate, if the appraisal comes in at some ridiculously low value. In other words, the contract should say that if you are willing to lower the price to the appraised value, the buyer can't terminate.
The appraisal contingency should not be used to determine whether the buyer likes the house. It really should only be part of the financing contingency. If you are willing to lower the price to the appraised value, the buyer should not be able to get out of the deal.
Thank you . It seems like a most reasonable and logical advice.
To raise the price above market and then demand addendum to let buyers out because the price is too high seems very very suspicious. But the agent does not agree to that.
If the buyers agreed to buy at higher price, logically they should be happy to buy at lower price if they intentions were genuine but they want out, They are relatives of my ex and obviously got into it believing that all they have to do is agree to high price, and then I will overbid.... but it didn't happen...
I'm a little confused. It sounds like you have already signed a contract. Is that true? If so, is there a financing contingency? In other words, if they can't get a loan, do they have the right to terminate? If so, then effectively they already have the protection they are asking for.
But if they don't have a financing contingency or the contingency period has already expired, and if they don't have any other rights to terminate (for example, an option period), you are in a strong position, and you are well within your rights to refuse to make any changes.
But I agree with you completely -- if their offer is genuine, and if you are willing to lower the price to whatever the appraisal says, they have no rational reason to argue for a termination right based on a low appraisal.
I'm a little confused. It sounds like you have already signed a contract. Is that true? If so, is there a financing contingency? In other words, if they can't get a loan, do they have the right to terminate? If so, then effectively they already have the protection they are asking for.
But if they don't have a financing contingency or the contingency period has already expired, and if they don't have any other rights to terminate (for example, an option period), you are in a strong position, and you are well within your rights to refuse to make any changes.
But I agree with you completely -- if their offer is genuine, and if you are willing to lower the price to whatever the appraisal says, they have no rational reason to argue for a termination right based on a low appraisal.
They are relatives of my ex and obviously got into it believing that all they have to do is agree to high price, and then I will overbid.... but it didn't happen...
AAAAhhhhh, so the missing piece of the puzzle.....
is there a signed purchase offer? if so, then you absolutely do not have to sign any amendment or the deal is off. A signed contract is a signed contract, and they cannot take it away. (of course they can find a problem with inspection, but if you agree to fix everything, well....)
If there isn't a signed purchase offer and a ratafied contract, then they are throwing a new negotiation in. You need to discuss with your attorney.
I wouldn't sign a thing unless the court made me, right now. The purchase offer already should have a clause stating something about the appraisal (which is not necessarily market) value. and an additional amendment would not be necessary.
shelly
Last edited by shellytc; 11-07-2008 at 04:25 PM..
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.
