realtor horror stories - Posted by terryr

Posted by JT - IN on August 19, 2001 at 09:20:45:


Did your contract contain this phrase, exactly as written, in quotation marks ? If not, then even at 5:01 pm, though Buyer 1 had not provided payment in the form of additional deposit, their interest is not completely void. They could have provided theri deposit several days, or maybe up to a week later, (based on intention and circumstances), and most likely prevailed legally, if they had challenged your decision to void the contract, and choose Buyer 2.

If you are planning on holding someone to an “absolute” timeframe, these words must be present, otherwise you as the seller, are at the mercy of getting any Buyer to relinquish their rights, vs. having the absolute authority to force your will upon them. Many a legal case has rested on the interpretation of intent, and a very liberal license granted to the buyer, in meeting timelines.

A minute, five minutes and even five days, is considered “on-time”, when dealing with RE contracts, providing the Buyer intended (made a prudent effort) to meet the deadline. You may want to discuss this with your atty, and consider using the little phrase in the future, if you haven’t been doing so already.

Jus the way that I view things…


realtor horror stories - Posted by terryr

Posted by terryr on August 18, 2001 at 22:55:13:

i thought this was a good idea for a thread - i have always had such disgust for this group of “professionals” - having worked with them for a few years - my wife could never understand why i felt this way UNTIL i couldn’t go with her to make an offer so i typed up a set of addendums to be added to purchase offer - well she went in and made the offer and signed the papers and brought them home so i could see them when i got home from a business trip - to my amazement the realtor HAD CHANGED EVERY SINGLE addendum to favor the buyer - this realtor friend is a neighbor of ours - some friend - NOW MY WIFE SAYS I WILL NEVER DEAL WITH A REALTOR AGAIN -


Re: realtor horror stories - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on August 19, 2001 at 16:01:15:

If the REALTOR had made any changes to the contracts then that realtor is guilty of acting as an attorney. From my understanding that is a big no, no, and they could be fined and/or lose their license for that. It’s not up to the agent to make changes in contracts, only to present the offers and advise their clients to have their attorney look the contract over before signing. NOT take matters into their own hands and act as the attorney representing the client.

I’m a bit Confused - Posted by Frank Chin

Posted by Frank Chin on August 19, 2001 at 07:43:29:

Hi Terryr:

The story is a little confusing.

Sounds like you’re the buyer in this case as you’re submitting a “purchase offer”. Unless the neighbor/ realtor is a “buyer broker”, representing you, he or she is a representative of the “seller”.

Also sounds like your paperwork is slanted in favor of YOU, the buyer. If she in fact is a representative of the SELLER, and ALLOWED the paperwork to favor YOU, the buyer, because she’s your neighbor, then there’ll be a conflict of interest issue here.

Or did i get the story backwards ???

Frank Chin

They hate to split that commish… - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on August 19, 2001 at 06:50:00:

I listed a property with an agent who also happened to find the buyer, (insuring her the full 6%). When we were very early on in the contract, I got a call from
another agent directly (bypassing my agent!)saying she had had another buyer with an offer above asking price ($20,000 higher than buyer 1) but my agent had told her to “get lost!”. I guess my agent had figured that 6% of a lower offer was better than 3% of a higher offer (better for HER!). To make a long story short, I tore my agent a new one, found a loophole to get out of the contract and accepted the higher offer. My (former) agent is very lucky I didn’t report her, but cutting her commish by about $7000 was still pretty good revenge.

Re: realtor horror stories - Posted by eric-fl

Posted by eric-fl on August 19, 2001 at 03:41:58:

I have to say, I disagree that this is a good idea for a thread. Although I am a Realtor, few people are more outspoken against the entire trade monopoly that the Realtors hold. I have always maintained that they make Microsoft look like Ben & Jerry’s, by comparison, (in terms of antitrust violations.) However, the solution is not to sit around and bash Realtors, there’s been a lot of sentiment like that around here lately. I think it’s mostly because there’s been an increased level of activity in general. I think a more productive thread might be on hints and tips for both a) educating Realtors as to a better understanding of what we do, and b) finding those who are more progressive in terms of understanding creative real estate investing. (Here’s a hint - for starters, I wouldn’t use the words “creative” or “investor” around most agents these days.)

The fact of the matter is, ANY profession has it’s good ones, and it’s bad ones. I cannot think of ANY trade, or business type I have had to frequent, where I cannot think of an example of good ones, and bad ones. For instance, I have pretty strong opinions on which electricians to use in my town, and which ones not to, and those are based on personal experiences.

Ultimately, if someone has a bad experience with a Realtor, and there are many who do outside of just the investment arena, they should be looking for solutions to the problem, not complaining about it. If you have a complaint with a Realtor, there are plenty of avenues for that - starting with the local board. Of course, those are for real complaints, such as ethics violations, or culpable negligence. If you don’t like the way they do business, I imagine your local board would have the same advice most people would have - “find another one.” We should also not forget that agents get paid on commission only, to represent an interest. If that interest is not yours, don’t be mad if they don’t help out. I remember in particular a poster who submitted a few weeks back about a “stupid realtor” who wouldn’t take their client’s house off the market for 30 days while he tried to flip it for a mere $1.00 earnest money deposit. I hate to seem “uncreative”, but it sounds like that agent did her job, to me.

Finally, and ultimately, let’s not forget - AGENTS ARE NOT ATTORNEYS. They are also not title agents, or insurance agents, or accountants, or tax planners. You should never, ever, take this sort of advice from an agent. Agents take around 70 hours of classroom instruction, and then pass a test. It literally takes longer, much longer, to become a barber than it does to be an agent. Never rely on an agent for legal or financial advice. After all, they are not qualified to give it, so why ask for it? Have YOUR attorney review contracts, not agents. (I know that one from personal experience as well.)

Re: realtor horror stories - Posted by Dave Holls

Posted by Dave Holls on August 18, 2001 at 23:09:51:

I am curious why your wife signed everything after it had been changed from what you wanted? Also who was this Realtor working for, you (as a Buyer’s Agent) or for the Seller (as a Seller’s Agent).

I know this doesn’t excuse what happened, but I am curious, because it does matter. Sorry for your bad experiences.

Re: realtor horror stories - Posted by Ronald * Starr

Posted by Ronald * Starr on August 19, 2001 at 21:44:56:


How can you be so right so much of the time?

I didn’t even think of that angle.

My hat is off to you.

Good Going Guy!

Good Investing and Good Posting*Ron Starr

Re: They hate to split that commish… - Posted by Ralph Taylor

Posted by Ralph Taylor on August 19, 2001 at 17:32:04:

If you had a valid contract to sell before the second offer was presented, then you have breached the contract. You are legally obligated to perform even though the second offer is so much higher. If I were buyer number one, you’d have to throw me a bigger bone than $1000

Can you share the Loophole ?? - Posted by Frank Chin

Posted by Frank Chin on August 19, 2001 at 07:48:46:

Hi Ben:

I like it when people make a long story short. But a little frustrating when you leave out the good part, like the Loophole.

Nice if you can tell us. Thanks.

Frank Chin

Re: They hate to split that commish… - Posted by Ben (NJ) Esq.

Posted by Ben (NJ) Esq. on August 19, 2001 at 18:33:24:

No, read the posrt again. Buyer number 1’s breach relieved me of my obligation to perform under the contract.

Re: Can you share the Loophole ?? - Posted by Sandy

Posted by Sandy on August 20, 2001 at 13:51:09:

As I understand it, the broker has an obligation to bring ALL offers to the seller whether or not s/he likes them or ultimately has to split the commission. The loophole would appear to be the fact that the seller made a decision based on limited knowledge. So, buyer #1 should be mad at the broker NOT the seller since the broker’s dishonesty ruined the deal.


Sheer lawyerly technicality. and some luck… - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on August 19, 2001 at 08:47:23:

Buyer 1 had put up an earnest money deposit, I accepted the offer. 3-day attorney review period expires. At that point we are clearly in contract. Now I am made aware of the other offer. Let’s say I learned of Buyer 2’s offer on a Friday. I look over the contract and see that buyer 1’s next deposit is due at my attorneys office by 5pm the next Tuesday.
Guess what, at 5pm sharp I call my attorney who said she never got it. At 5:01 buyer 1 is in breach and we kill the contract and accept the other offer. My attorney is vanilla pure and squawked up a storm about
causing rifts with realtors, pitting them against each other, how I’m going to run into the same ones again and again, blah, blah, blah blah. I gave her the classic Sonny Corleone Godfather line, “Heather, do me a favor, stop trying to patch things up and help me WIN!” (Anyway, just to keep buyer 1 from getting too upset, I paid all his expenses and costs to that point(about $1000)).

Re: They hate to split that commish… - Posted by Ralph Taylor

Posted by Ralph Taylor on August 22, 2001 at 16:14:26:

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the breach. If a document exists with both buyer’s and seller’s signature, then you have a contract. The buyer’s failure to pay earnest money on the dot does not constitute a breach. There is an instructive article on the difference between earnest money and consideration in the articles section.

This is the kind of thing that makes attorneys rich. I feel about attorneys the way you feel about brokers. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil.