Counter offer vs. addendum

[Mark K]

There is a reason hiring a lawyer is strongly advised when purchasing real estate.

There is no way to know if the addendum is still in effect without viewing the actual documents in question; to state otherwise is to show one's ignorance. A counter offer may or may not include parts of the original offer (or any addenda.) The best way to answer the questions is to ask them of the parties involved. Anything else is a waste of time.

In that case, this forum is full of ignorant people and should be closed down since most of the posters give appraisal advice on properties that they have never viewed.

Lawyers aren't necessary to sell most residential properties unless the parties preparing the purchase documents have no training or familiarity with the documents.

 

[Couch Potato]

Unnecessary risk.

In that case, this forum should is full of ignorant people and should be closed down since most of the posters give appraisal advice on properties that they have never viewed.

Lawyers aren't necessary to sell most residential properties unless the parties preparing the purchase documents have no training or familiarity with the documents.

When I was younger and less experienced in real estate transactions, I agreed with you. I've seen enough now to no there are no "simple" transactions and a lawyer is always a good idea. One can go it alone and often be okay, but the risk is just not worth it.

Nothing wrong with having a gathering place for showing our ignorance. :new_all_coholic:

 

[Dutchman]

Why don't you just ask one of the parties involved

 

[Mark K]

When I was younger and less experienced in real estate transactions, I agreed with you. I've seen enough now to no there are no "simple" transactions and a lawyer is always a good idea. One can go it alone and often be okay, but the risk is just not worth it.

Nothing wrong with having a gathering place for showing our ignorance. :new_all_coholic:

My brother lives in NC and I believe that he said that lawyers are required at all real estate closings. If so, that my have an effect on your opinion. In Indiana, they are not required and tens of thousands of closings occur every year without lawyers present.

I probably would have agreed with you when I was younger and less experienced but having owned a real estate company with 15 agents and been the principal broker for 6 years before selling the business, I've learned that most residential real estate transactions are simple enough that lawyers are necessary in but a small percentage of the cases. My office averaged 300 sales per year and about the only time a lawyer was involved was in divorce or estate situations.

Most pre-printed real estate purchase documents are designed to be so basic that they can be filled out by bored housewives, used car salesmen, and laid-off or retired factory workers (about 75% of NAR members) that spent 50 hours in a salespersons training class. If you're familiar with them, offering advice on these forms is no more complicated than offering advice about a property that you've never inspected.

 

[Dutchman]

Since we as appraisers seem to be able to offer our opinion of market value when it involves "refinances, reos, divorce, tax, estate etc..." transactions where no "agreement of sale exists, why does it become a necessity that when a purchase is involved, we examine and analyze a contract of sale. Since most of us are not attorneys, are we even qualified to comment on any kind of contract as to its legality or terms. As I have stated in other threads, the USPAP requirement that we examine and anlyze the sales contract just paints a target for us as far as value is concerned.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

My brother lives in NC and I believe that he said that lawyers are required at all real estate closings. If so, that my have an effect on your opinion. In Indiana, they are not required and tens of thousands of closings occur every year without lawyers present.

In Michigan, the selling broker is required to advise the buyer to have an attorney pass on the title and see that the terms and conditions of the PA are met. This law, from many years ago, was written by attorneys who were legislators. It's called a "Make Work Law". In all of my 18+ years of selling real estate, other than divorces or estate sales, I'll bet that we did not have more than a dozen attorneys involve in all of the hundreds of transactions.

And an attorney involved in the closing has no effect on my opinion of value. In fact, I've never has an attorney for a buyer or seller call me regarding my appraisal in 15+ years of appraising.

 

[Couch Potato]

Smart versus Lucky.

My brother lives in NC and I believe that he said that lawyers are required at all real estate closings. If so, that my have an effect on your opinion. In Indiana, they are not required and tens of thousands of closings occur every year without lawyers present.

I probably would have agreed with you when I was younger and less experienced but having owned a real estate company with 15 agents and been the principal broker for 6 years before selling the business, I've learned that most residential real estate transactions are simple enough that lawyers are necessary in but a small percentage of the cases. My office averaged 300 sales per year and about the only time a lawyer was involved was in divorce or estate situations.

Most pre-printed real estate purchase documents are designed to be so basic that they can be filled out by bored housewives, used car salesmen, and laid-off or retired factory workers (about 75% of NAR members) that spent 50 hours in a salespersons training class. If you're familiar with them, offering advice on these forms is no more complicated than offering advice about a property that you've never inspected.

Very true, and there in lies the problem. Most disputes arise when one of these "professionals" carelessly adds wording or fails to realize the simple form is inadequate for the given situation. My first real estate transactions were in CA and NV. Back then I thought a lawyer was a waste of money. Its not that a lawyer is a necessity, just a good idea. Little things like the plasma TV's the buyer is sure are fixtures, but the seller is sure are personal property are much more easily resolved by a lawyer than a bored housewife that just passed her real estate exam.

If you supervised an office with 15 agents, surely you know a good number of them were morons. :new_all_coholic:

 

[Mark K]

If you supervised an office with 15 agents, surely you know a good number of them were morons. :new_all_coholic:

LOL

We had some incompetence but not close to the extent of the larger national franchises. This was a small, local office and the office policy was to NOT hire rookies, not that the experienced agents didn't bring their own different set of problems.

 

[bfriendly]

When I was younger and less experienced in real estate transactions, I agreed with you. I've seen enough now to no there are no "simple" transactions and a lawyer is always a good idea. One can go it alone and often be okay, but the risk is just not worth it.

I probably would have agreed with you when I was younger and less experienced but having owned a real estate company with 15 agents and been the principal broker for 6 years before selling the business, I've learned that most residential real estate transactions are simple enough that lawyers are necessary in but a small percentage of the cases. My office averaged 300 sales per year and about the only time a lawyer was involved was in divorce or estate situations.

My bolds- Oh come on.....we all know that when we were all younger, we would have NOT agreed with ANYTHING ANYONE would have said!

Sorry but that just struck me as being funny!