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.
wink wink nudge nudge - it has nothing to do with any mortgage, nor is it fraud - mortgages are loans - this has nothing to do with a loan, a lender, or a borrower.
fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. There is no intent to get anyone to part with anything of value nor is there any surrendering of any legal rights by anyone.
I am rather surprised at all the agents who seem terrified that someone might actually do something to help sell their own house.
The house is mine. The money is mine. I am not attempting to defraud anyone; I am simply being creative about selling my own home. Why does that bother anyone?
Last edited by GuyFriendly; 11-22-2009 at 02:29 PM..
wink wink nudge nudge - it has nothing to do with any mortgage, nor is it fraud - mortgages are loans - this has nothing to do with a loan, a lender, or a borrower.
fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. There is no intent to get anyone to part with anything of value nor is there any surrendering of any legal rights by anyone.
I am rather surprised at all the agents who seem terrified that someone might actually do something to help sell their own house just because they aren't a member of your little club.
The house is mine. The money is mine. I am not attempting to defraud anyone; I am simply being creative about selling my own home. Why does that bother anyone?
So, you will put all commissions paid on the HUD1? That is mildly "creative."
Most people engaging in "creative" mortgage fraud do not disclose commissions or finder's fees.
Go for it.
"Creative" often bumps into inconvenient laws. This may be one instance.
When a property appraisal does not recognize an undisclosed payment that inflates the sales price in the transaction, you had best be doing a cash deal, or at least a private investor loan that does not pass through a federally chartered financial institution that funds mortgages with support from Fannie and Freddie under RESPA rules.
Really, I truly don't give a damn if you use an agent, don't use an agent, have a decoder ring or secret handshake, jailhouse tattoo or brand, etc.
Just don't tell me you aren't breaking any laws, and expect acceptance of that as accurate.
Rather than bait people who have gratuitously tried to shine a little light on "creativity," you might consult with your brother. I would be interested in his response to your proposal. Will he go on the record?
So, you will put all commissions paid on the HUD1? That is mildly "creative."
Most people engaging in "creative" mortgage fraud do not disclose commissions or finder's fees.
Go for it.
"Creative" often bumps into inconvenient laws. This may be one instance.
When a property appraisal does not recognize an undisclosed payment that inflates the sales price in the transaction, you had best be doing a cash deal, or at least a private investor loan that does not pass through a federally chartered financial institution that funds mortgages with support from Fannie and Freddie under RESPA rules.
Really, I truly don't give a damn if you use an agent, don't use an agent, have a decoder ring or secret handshake, jailhouse tattoo or brand, etc.
Just don't tell me you aren't breaking any laws, and expect acceptance of that as accurate.
Rather than bait people who have gratuitously tried to shine a little light on "creativity," you might consult with your brother. I would be interested in his response to your proposal. Will he go on the record?
Are you a lawyer? I didn't think so.
No payments are inflating any price. No payments have anything to do whatsoever with the sale price of the house, the commissions paid, or any other financial transaction related to the sale of the house. The "payment" is a reward to an individual for bringing a buyer to my attention who would not otherwise have been found. It is my money, out of my pocket, and has nothing to do with any part of the transaction process.
Is it illegal to pay for an ad in the paper? Nope. Is it illegal to pay for a web site to advertise your property? Nope. In both cases, you are paying someone to bring you a buyer.
If a friend sends a potential buyer my way and if that buyer goes through the process and makes an offer we can accept, I have every right to give whatever I want to give to the friend who brought the buyer.
I have my own web site - apart from my agent - advertising my home. I have filled out the Zillow info. I am on swap-home sites. All are perfectly legal. Real estate agents are not the only method allowed for bringing potential buyers to my house.
I will quote my brother when he replies.
Oh, by the way: I repeat my question. Why does anyone care? Who loses anything in the process? The buyer? nope. The buyer's agent? nope. My agent? nope. Me? nope - except for the grand I am willing to part with. Does it hurt the RE parent company? No, it benefits them with another sale. Does it hurt the state? nope. Then WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED? Answer: no one.
Last edited by GuyFriendly; 11-22-2009 at 02:57 PM..
Reason: added "oh by the way"
No payments are inflating any price. No payments have anything to do whatsoever with the sale price of the house, the commissions paid, or any other financial transaction related to the sale of the house. The "payment" is a reward to an individual for bringing a buyer to my attention who would not otherwise have been found. It is my money, out of my pocket, and has nothing to do with any part of the transaction process.
Is it illegal to pay for an ad in the paper? Nope. Is it illegal to pay for a web site to advertise your property? Nope. In both cases, you are paying someone to bring you a buyer.
If a friend sends a potential buyer my way and if that buyer goes through the process and makes an offer we can accept, I have every right to give whatever I want to give to the friend who brought the buyer.
I will quote my brother when he replies.
" The settlement agent shall complete the HUD-1 to itemize all charges
imposed upon the Borrower and the Seller by the loan originator and all
sales commissions, whether to be paid at settlement or outside of
settlement, and any other charges which either the Borrower or the
Seller will pay at settlement." Section
Oh, and the adversely affected? Foreclosure on inflated sales prices is rife in Arizona, Nevada, California, and Florida.
It is even in the news in some areas, and you don't need a decoder ring to be up on the news...
" The settlement agent shall complete the HUD-1 to itemize all charges imposed upon the Borrower (nothing imposed on the borrower) and the Seller by the loan originator (nothing imposed on me by the loan originator) and all
sales commissions (it is not a sales commission), whether to be paid at settlement or outside of
settlement, and any other charges which either the Borrower or the
Seller will pay at settlement." (not a charge, not paid at settlement).
Oh, and the adversely affected? Foreclosure on inflated sales prices is rife in Arizona, Nevada, California, and Florida.
It is even in the news in some areas, and you don't need a decoder ring to be up on the news...
There is no inflated sales price by my action, thus you are wrong again.
You obviously don't get it.
Definition of "sales commission": The percentage of the selling price that is paid to a real estate broker for his or her services in obtaining a purchaser. My generosity is neither a percentage nor paid to an agent.
Last edited by GuyFriendly; 11-22-2009 at 03:18 PM..
Reason: defn
But I am not "performing the acts of a Real Estate Agent." In fact, it is specifically ILLEGAL for an AGENT to pay a finder's fee but it is NOT specifically illegal for me to seek buyers for my home by offering a finder's fee separate from and in no way binding to the contract(s) with the RE firms/agents.
I can sell my own home - is that "performing the acts of a Real Estate Agent?" Of course not.
I can even sell my own home while listed with my agent! I read the contract. The exclusivity clause means that I cannot list with multiple agents. I can sell on my own at any time - but who would do the paperwork? In my case, my agent and I would compensate her at the percentage to which we have agreed. If I sell on my own and a buyer's agent is involved, I negotiate the fee with him/her for his/her services. If the buyer has no agent, my agent will do the paperwork for a reduced percentage.
We have all this down on paper.
Apparently other agents in other parts of the country are not so open.
I believe your interpretation of the law is highly subjective and, IMO, incorrect. I'll ask my brother, a lawyer.
There is no inflated sales price by my action, thus you are wrong again.
You obviously don't get it.
Regarding an illegal $1,000 commission: Would a seller sell for $1,000 less if there was no illegal commission to be paid?
If the answer is, "Yes," or "Maybe," seller is inflating the sales price with the illegal $1,000 commission.
Higher expense often translates into higher price.
Some folks even shop legitimate real estate agent rates for the purpose of being able to lower price due to less expense.
That is fundamental to real estate sales, appraisal, and lending, and not very confusing, so of course I get it. Refusing to agree with illegal activity is NOT evidence one does not "get it."
The painfully obvious point is how people squirm when confronted with inconvenient laws.
Regarding an illegal $1,000 commission: Would a seller sell for $1,000 less if there was no illegal commission to be paid?
If the answer is, "Yes," or "Maybe," seller is inflating the sales price with the illegal $1,000 commission.
Higher expense often translates into higher price.
Some folks even shop legitimate real estate agent rates for the purpose of being able to lower price due to less expense.
That is fundamental to real estate sales, appraisal, and lending, and not very confusing, so of course I get it. Refusing to agree with illegal activity is NOT evidence one does not "get it."
The painfully obvious point is how people squirm when confronted with inconvenient laws.
The "answer" is no. You are making wrong assumptions.
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.
. Hopefully he's up on AZ RE law.