Archive for April, 2009
April 29th, 2009 Categories: Uncategorized
Questions Salt Lake Buyers Should Ask When Interviewing An Agent
Especially First Time Home Buyers
You want an agent that has the heart of a teacher.
Qualifications are important. However, finding a solid, professional agent means getting beyond the resume, and into what makes an agent effective. Use the following questions as your starting point in hiring your licensed, professional real estate agent:
- Why did you become a real estate agent?
- How long have you been an agent?
- Are you a full time?
- Why should I work with you?
- What do you do better than other real estate agents?
- What process will you use to help me find the right home for my particular wants and needs?
- What are the most common things that go wrong in a transaction and how would you handle them?
- What are some mistakes that you think people make when buying their first home?
- What other professionals do you suggest we work with and what are their credentials?
- Can you provide me with references or testimonials from past clients?
- Are you familiar with the current market cycle?
- Have you handled foreclosures before?
- Have you handled short sales before?
Discussion: No Comments »|
April 26th, 2009 Categories: Real Estate News
The New Utah Short Sale Addendum
First let’s get something clear, Shot Sale has nothing to do with time.
The Utah Association of Realtors has created the “New Short Sale Addendum” I think it is a little clearer and pretty much mirrors the practices of experienced short sale agents.
It makes it clear that the contract is specifically contingent on the approval of a third party and that the terms may be modified but that the buyer and the seller are not bound to any modification unless they both agree in writing.
It allows the seller to accept an offer and submit it to the bank while taking back up offers without submitting the back up(s) to the bank. There had been debate over whether we had an obligation the banks to submit the back up(s). The argument is we do not represent the bank(s) in the transaction. They are a lien holder and are treated just like any lien holder. The contract(s) are between the buyer and seller with the lien holder as a contingency.
It also has the ability for a buyer to walk anytime prior to the written approval of the third party by providing a written notice and the earnest money is returned to them without further authorization form the seller.
It also allows the earnest money to not be due till the third party has accepted. Along with the due diligence deadlines being blank days after third party approval also.
I also placed a copy of the document for you to look at on the right hand (blue) side bar under, you guessed it Forms.
Discussion: 12 Comments »|
April 23rd, 2009 Categories: Real Estate News
The Utah Court of Appeals overturned a case where the wrong Utah REPC Real Estate Purchase Contract was used.
Here it goes.
A man name Flores enters into a lease option to buy a condo from a man named Earnshaw. Flores paid $10,000 for the option to purchase a yet to be built condo $144,950.
They used a REPC that was for property with existing improvements. Then later Earnshaw said they made a mistake and the price should be $184,950. Earnshaw then told Flores that he would give him a $5,000 discount and only charge him $179,950 minus the $10,000. Flores said no way.
So Flores takes Earnshaw to court for specific performance and wins.
Earnshaw takes it to the court of appeals arguing that the contract states.
1.1 Included Items. Unless excluded herein, this sale includes the following items if presently owned and attached to the Property: plumbing, heating, air conditioning fixtures and equipment; ceiling fans; water heater; built-in appliances; light fixtures and bulbs; bathroom fixtures; curtains, draperies and rods; window and door screens; storm
doors and windows; window blinds; awnings; installed television antenna; satellite dishes and system; permanently affixed carpets; automatic garage door opener and accompanying transmitter(s); fencing; and trees and shrubs.
When the contract was executed none of the above items were there and Earnshaw says because of 1.1 he was only responsible to give Flores a shell and the Court of Appeals sided with Earnshaw. He won on a technicality; it doesn’t say if there were any real estate agents involved.
I think if there were no real estate agents involved I might have to side with Flores, a professional developer vs is consumer.
I hope there were so that Flores can sue them for the damages.
Discussion: 5 Comments »|
April 19th, 2009 Categories: Uncategorized
Discussion: 2 Comments »|