New home purchase

Archived From: Finance
  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I am trying to get a plan together before I place a bid on our first home purchase.
We started looking a year ago, we are renting and our current lease is month to month.
So no rush to purchase, but we are outgrowing our current appt. There are two houses we like and both in the same development.

House A
4 bedroom/2.5 baths 2 story, covered rear porch overlooking private lot, upgrades/crown moldings throughout/ lots of windows/ granite counters.
Year built 2007
Total Lot size 21,000 square feet
Listed 2/28/2012 for 380,000 but now relisted $398,00 (wtf?)
Currently occupied

House B
4 bed/4.5 bath, 2 story, no major upgrades, does have a finished basement
Year built 2009
Total lot size 20,200 square feet
Listed 5/2012 for 389,000, 8/2012 375,000, dropped 1/2013 365,000
Last sold 8/2010 360,000
Almost 1 year on the market
Seller moved out 8/2012

Houses are in the same plan, the listing agent is the selling agent for both. Agent says the seller of B emails her weekly about any bids, none since dec. in Youngstown metro area.
I plan on:
asking 305,00 for house B
if they say no counter with 320,000 but 3% kickback house b
Then offer 320,000 with 3% kickback house a
If nothing we sit and wait, look into a new hood

Anyone have advice to leverage one house against the other?
What's a reasonable first offer, 20% below asking price?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
You are over your head. Abort now.

saladdin (Mar. 26, 2013 @ 1:16p) |

Direct violation of Article 4 of the NAR rules of ethics, don't know what the rules were when you had this happen:
http:/... (more)

chibimike (Mar. 26, 2013 @ 3:00p) |

Not to be stupid here, but all this talk of house B.... House A seems nicer, upgrades, upgraded moulding, nice view, bac... (more)

Chrisk327 (Mar. 26, 2013 @ 3:14p) |

  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Your post makes no sense. Reread it and edit accordingly

Chet08 said:   I am trying to get a plan together before I place a bid on our first home purchase.
We started looking a year ago, we are renting and our current lease is month to month.
So no rush to purchase, but we are outgrowing our current appt. There are two houses we like and both in the same development.

House A
4 bedroom/2.5 baths 2 story, covered rear porch overlooking private lot, upgrades/crown moldings throughout/ lots of windows/ granite counters.
Year built 2007
Total Lot size 21,000 square feet
Listed 2/28/2012 for 380,000 but now relisted $398,00 (wtf?)
Currently occupied

House B
4 bed/4.5 bath, 2 story, no major upgrades, does have a finished basement
Year built 2009
Total lot size 20,200 square feet
Listed 8/2012 375,000, dropped 1/2013 265,000
Last sold 8/2010 360,000
Seller moved out 8/2012

Houses are in the same plan, the listing agent is the selling agent for both. Agent says the seller of B emails her weekly about any bids, none since dec. in Youngstown metro area.
I plan on:
asking 305,00 for house B
if they say no counter with 320,000 but 3% kickback house b
Then offer 320,000 with 3% kickback house a
If nothing we sit and wait, look into a new hood

Anyone have advice to leverage one house against the other?


If they relisted House B at 265, why would you offer 305? Furthermore, why would you think they'd reject that?

Sorry house b is now listed at 365,000. Made the edit

Is there one your wife is more partial to?

If so, go with that one.

The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

Wife likes house b, which i re looked at zillow and it was listed 5/2012 for 389,000 so its approaching a year on the market.

Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. Excuse me?

Almost $400k for a house in Youngstown??? I thought the average home price there was $3,000

$3000 for a house?

I'm gonna give the realtor a chance, she has all the listings over 250,000 in our area. She gets double commission so I am hoping she will play fair, if she is not acting in our best interest we will find someone else.

Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.

okashiraaa said:   ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.


This was my logic as well, no one earns a dime unless a sale is made.

Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.

A conflict of interest? Impossible.

According to the OP Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair

We were told he rejected an offer of 315k

Chet08 said:   We were told he rejected an offer of 315kTold by someone who's best interest is to sell @the highest amount ... takes a bit of trust.
taxmantoo said:   Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.
Lose/lose situation for the realtor trying to explain that away.

What is trustworthy about this person?

I had a similar situation when I bought my home (my buyer was their seller) and the realtor cut their commission (by 25%) to make the deal happen (and the market was much better then).

imxman said:   Chet08 said:   We were told he rejected an offer of 315kTold by someone who's best interest is to sell @the highest amount ... takes a bit of trust.
taxmantoo said:   Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.
Lose/lose situation for the realtor trying to explain that away.

What is trustworthy about this person?

I had a similar situation when I bought my home (my buyer was their seller) and the realtor cut their commission (by 25%) to make the deal happen (and the market was much better then).


I'm taking the statement of the rejected offer in december with a grain of salt. That was almost four months ago. Do they actually document previos bids, is that public knowledge? I'm skeptical of anyone selling me something.

Do you guys normally make an offer face to face, over the phone, or send an email.

BradisBrad said:   Is there one your wife is more partial to?

If so, go with that one.


Smart man.

imxman said:   Chet08 said:   We were told he rejected an offer of 315kTold by someone who's best interest is to sell @the highest amount ... takes a bit of trust.
taxmantoo said:   Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.
Lose/lose situation for the realtor trying to explain that away.

What is trustworthy about this person?

I had a similar situation when I bought my home (my buyer was their seller) and the realtor cut their commission (by 25%) to make the deal happen (and the market was much better then).


Ehhh everything I have heard suggests that rather than getting the top price the realtor is motivated to get the house sold the fastest. They would rather make $10k now than maybe make $11k in 6 months along with the risk the seller decides not to sell etc.

If that is indeed accurate than the realtor probably doesn't think the seller will sell for that price... Or they would say to try that if it got you to make an offer. That said the agent would like to bid you up just so the seller is more likely to accept at all, but if they already thought the price was at the level the seller would accept they would certainly accept focus on just getting you to make the offer rather than trying to talk you up.

That said the grey area where the agent doesn't know for sure if the seller will accept and will still try to get you to go higher and the bottom of what the seller will actually accept may very well be $50k which is alot of money.

LordB said:   imxman said:   Chet08 said:   We were told he rejected an offer of 315kTold by someone who's best interest is to sell @the highest amount ... takes a bit of trust.
taxmantoo said:   Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.
Lose/lose situation for the realtor trying to explain that away.

What is trustworthy about this person?

I had a similar situation when I bought my home (my buyer was their seller) and the realtor cut their commission (by 25%) to make the deal happen (and the market was much better then).


Ehhh everything I have heard suggests that rather than getting the top price the realtor is motivated to get the house sold the fastest. They would rather make $10k now than maybe make $11k in 6 months along with the risk the seller decides not to sell etc.

If that is indeed accurate than the realtor probably doesn't think the seller will sell for that price... Or they would say to try that if it got you to make an offer. That said the agent would like to bid you up just so the seller is more likely to accept at all, but if they already thought the price was at the level the seller would accept they would certainly accept focus on just getting you to make the offer rather than trying to talk you up.

That said the grey area where the agent doesn't know for sure if the seller will accept and will still try to get you to go higher and the bottom of what the seller will actually accept may very well be $50k which is alot of money.


Ding Ding Ding

Sellers Realtor is not interested in selling house at top price. Just as fast and easy as possible.
Much better for the realtor to sell at 315K in 15 days vs 350K in 60 days.
Realtors are also interested in more reliable buyers then top dollar bidders. Much less work/time wasted on a bidder who has good credit / is more likely to go with the deal.


This is why, if I ever sell a house, I will use a modified commission structure.

I am toying with an idea like this:

Comps say house should go for $140K
Then I would structure commission as follows:
Sale Price 0-70K 0% commission
70K+ 6% commission

This way they would get the normal 3% commission on a 140K sale, but "double" bonus for anything over that. Anything less and they take a minor hit from 3%.

You could make it more lopsided, e.g., 0-110K 0%; 110K+ 14%; but that *could* be risky and an otherwise good Realtor might not agree.

Chet08 said:   okashiraaa said:   ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.


This was my logic as well, no one earns a dime unless a sale is made.


Is the listing agent acting as a transaction broker? Otherwise they are legally obligated to work in the seller's best interest. Dual agency is illegal in many states because it's for total suckers. Why wouldn't you bring your own agent? You think that she will convince the seller to sell for less because she's getting more money? Seller could sue her if they suspect that.

Seriously, no offense, but this is an extremely stupid decision.

Chet08 said:   imxman said:   Chet08 said:   We were told he rejected an offer of 315kTold by someone who's best interest is to sell @the highest amount ... takes a bit of trust.
taxmantoo said:   Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So, reading behind the lines, the seller's agent told a buyer that the seller's bottom dollar price was 315k?

Seems to be a breach of their fiduciary duty to seller.
Lose/lose situation for the realtor trying to explain that away.

What is trustworthy about this person?

I had a similar situation when I bought my home (my buyer was their seller) and the realtor cut their commission (by 25%) to make the deal happen (and the market was much better then).


I'm taking the statement of the rejected offer in december with a grain of salt. That was almost four months ago. Do they actually document previos bids, is that public knowledge? I'm skeptical of anyone selling me something.

Do you guys normally make an offer face to face, over the phone, or send an email.


Ugh, man, you reek of newbie. Why do you bend over without representation like this? If the seller's willing to pay a ruthless shark of a Realtor 3% to work for you, TAKE IT.

okashiraaa said:   
This is why, if I ever sell a house, I will use a modified commission structure.

I am toying with an idea like this:

Comps say house should go for $140K
Then I would structure commission as follows:
Sale Price 0-70K 0% commission
70K+ 6% commission

This way they would get the normal 3% commission on a 140K sale, but "double" bonus for anything over that. Anything less and they take a minor hit from 3%.

You could make it more lopsided, e.g., 0-110K 0%; 110K+ 14%; but that *could* be risky and an otherwise good Realtor might not agree.


What!!! Rhetorical, as I really dont want to know any more of your thought process.

nullterm said:   Chet08 said:   okashiraaa said:   ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.


This was my logic as well, no one earns a dime unless a sale is made.


Is the listing agent acting as a transaction broker? Otherwise they are legally obligated to work in the seller's best interest. Dual agency is illegal in many states because it's for total suckers. Why wouldn't you bring your own agent? You think that she will convince the seller to sell for less because she's getting more money? Seller could sue her if they suspect that.

Seriously, no offense, but this is an extremely stupid decision.



Heres my dual agency story, lol.

So years ago, I decided I wanted to be a landlord, found a 2 unit property in an area I liked for sale @ 70k, I called the number on the sign and offered 60k, a bit of back and forth with the listing agent and we settled @ 64k. I had my handyman go over and inspect the place. The listing agent wanted to go with him which I thought was a good idea because she was my agent also right. So anyway he uncovers that the back unit has a plumbing drain issue. The listing agent snaps into action and does some research, finds out that the place has had the main drain line repaired and the problem is solved. So taking her word for this after her diligent research we close on the property. My annual vacation just happens to be the week after I close so I get on a plane and head out of the country, I turn off my cell because $$$. 4 days into the vacation I decide I better check my VM just to see what’s going on at home and find out that my back tenants are freaking out because they have shit in their bathtubs and they are pissed because this is the 4th time.

Wonderful, Turns out, that plumbers from 3 different companies had come out multiple times over the last 6 months. The final verdict from the last 2 plumbers was that the main drain line had collapsed years ago and needed to be dug up all the way to the street. After calling 2 of the plumbers directly it was apparent that the prior owner had been notified of this by both plumbers and had decided instead to continue for the 6th time that year to snake out the line with a root cutter instead.

Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already. I own a construction company so I had my guys dig up the line after working at another job site with rented excavation equipment. In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.

Long story short, never ever use dual agency, it should be illegal everywhere

Yes, you wouldn't just use the opposing party's attorney either, I hope?!

ShaftSlinger said:   Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already.... In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.


I wouldn't have let that go. You didn't necessarily have to take them to court and sue, but at least report them to your state's Real Estate board and Realtor association. I know in some (all?) states, an agent/broker is required to disclose when they have an ownership interest (or even relative does) in a property they are selling/renting. And believe it or not, Realtors do actually have a code of ethics to follow. While they are probably lax on certain things, I would expect/hope that the story you described would be considered at least an ethics violation by the Realtor association.

Chet08 said:   I'm taking the statement of the rejected offer in december with a grain of salt.

The issue you have with house B is the last sold date was 8/2010. Let's make a few assumptions:

1. 10% down
2. 4.40% interest rate on loan (11/2010 rates)
3. $360,000 purchase price
4. Loan of $324,000
5. 6% commission to realtor
6. Current balance on loan: around $309,700 (assuming normal payments)
7. In order to walk away with nothing, they need to sell the house at: x - .06x = $309,700; .94x = $309,700; x = $309,700 / .94; x = $329468.

Under these assumptions, if they sell at $315,000, they'll need to bring money to the table. They might sell at $335,000 however, depending on their motivation. For all we know, they may be 100% willing to accept an offer they rejected nearly 4 months ago... Since the house has been listed for more than a year, the seller is most likely not motivated.

civ2k1 said:   ShaftSlinger said:   Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already.... In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.


I wouldn't have let that go. You didn't necessarily have to take them to court and sue, but at least report them to your state's Real Estate board and Realtor association. I know in some (all?) states, an agent/broker is required to disclose when they have an ownership interest (or even relative does) in a property they are selling/renting. And believe it or not, Realtors do actually have a code of ethics to follow. While they are probably lax on certain things, I would expect/hope that the story you described would be considered at least an ethics violation by the Realtor association.


True. It also has to be on the yard sign in many states. Something like "Owner/Agent" must be displayed prominently. They should lose their license. A state's real-estate commission would act swiftly with something like this.

Chet08 said:   ... I'm taking the statement of the rejected offer in december with a grain of salt. That was almost four months ago. Do they actually document previos bids, is that public knowledge? I'm skeptical of anyone selling me something...Why would this person help you out w/ insider information? Information that the seller would not want shared w/ potential buyers.

If it were false (a lie), why? Uhmmm, to keep you paying a higher amt so that their $$ are higher.

If it is true, this person is still not trustworthy -- just in your favor.

There is no way that your realtor person can successfully argue that they are trustworthy.

I used the dual agent to my advantage in my counter-offer for the home, in order for everyone to agree the agent cut their seller-commission (so the sellers could get the $$ they needed -- 1 of the 2 sellers still declared bankrupcy).

That said, make up your own mind what you want to pay & offer that. Try to get a good home inspector, there are a handful out there who are well-worth their cost. Additionally, try to avoid a PMI.

ShaftSlinger said:   nullterm said:   Chet08 said:   okashiraaa said:   ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.


This was my logic as well, no one earns a dime unless a sale is made.


Is the listing agent acting as a transaction broker? Otherwise they are legally obligated to work in the seller's best interest. Dual agency is illegal in many states because it's for total suckers. Why wouldn't you bring your own agent? You think that she will convince the seller to sell for less because she's getting more money? Seller could sue her if they suspect that.

Seriously, no offense, but this is an extremely stupid decision.



Heres my dual agency story, lol.

So years ago, I decided I wanted to be a landlord, found a 2 unit property in an area I liked for sale @ 70k, I called the number on the sign and offered 60k, a bit of back and forth with the listing agent and we settled @ 64k. I had my handyman go over and inspect the place. The listing agent wanted to go with him which I thought was a good idea because she was my agent also right. So anyway he uncovers that the back unit has a plumbing drain issue. The listing agent snaps into action and does some research, finds out that the place has had the main drain line repaired and the problem is solved. So taking her word for this after her diligent research we close on the property. My annual vacation just happens to be the week after I close so I get on a plane and head out of the country, I turn off my cell because $$$. 4 days into the vacation I decide I better check my VM just to see what’s going on at home and find out that my back tenants are freaking out because they have shit in their bathtubs and they are pissed because this is the 4th time.

Wonderful, Turns out, that plumbers from 3 different companies had come out multiple times over the last 6 months. The final verdict from the last 2 plumbers was that the main drain line had collapsed years ago and needed to be dug up all the way to the street. After calling 2 of the plumbers directly it was apparent that the prior owner had been notified of this by both plumbers and had decided instead to continue for the 6th time that year to snake out the line with a root cutter instead.

Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already. I own a construction company so I had my guys dig up the line after working at another job site with rented excavation equipment. In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.

Long story short, never ever use dual agency, it should be illegal everywhere


I would have sued the Realtor, and filed a complaint with the board of Realtors. As part owner of the property, she was aware of the plumbing issue and the recommended repairs the previous plumbers advised. She lied to you by saying the problem was solved. If you sued her, you would have won.

RealEstateMatt said:   ShaftSlinger said:   nullterm said:   Chet08 said:   okashiraaa said:   ellory said:   Chet08 said:   She gets double commission so I am hoping she well play fair hahahahaha

Its a good situation for him, actually. The agent will be motivated to get the price you want so the house is sold to you. 6% FTW.
Use that against the seller. Tell the agent you can keep the 6%, just get me in the house for the price I want.

Real estate sales (buyer/seller RE agents) is a broken system. Don't hate the game, play it.


This was my logic as well, no one earns a dime unless a sale is made.


Is the listing agent acting as a transaction broker? Otherwise they are legally obligated to work in the seller's best interest. Dual agency is illegal in many states because it's for total suckers. Why wouldn't you bring your own agent? You think that she will convince the seller to sell for less because she's getting more money? Seller could sue her if they suspect that.

Seriously, no offense, but this is an extremely stupid decision.



Heres my dual agency story, lol.

So years ago, I decided I wanted to be a landlord, found a 2 unit property in an area I liked for sale @ 70k, I called the number on the sign and offered 60k, a bit of back and forth with the listing agent and we settled @ 64k. I had my handyman go over and inspect the place. The listing agent wanted to go with him which I thought was a good idea because she was my agent also right. So anyway he uncovers that the back unit has a plumbing drain issue. The listing agent snaps into action and does some research, finds out that the place has had the main drain line repaired and the problem is solved. So taking her word for this after her diligent research we close on the property. My annual vacation just happens to be the week after I close so I get on a plane and head out of the country, I turn off my cell because $$$. 4 days into the vacation I decide I better check my VM just to see what’s going on at home and find out that my back tenants are freaking out because they have shit in their bathtubs and they are pissed because this is the 4th time.

Wonderful, Turns out, that plumbers from 3 different companies had come out multiple times over the last 6 months. The final verdict from the last 2 plumbers was that the main drain line had collapsed years ago and needed to be dug up all the way to the street. After calling 2 of the plumbers directly it was apparent that the prior owner had been notified of this by both plumbers and had decided instead to continue for the 6th time that year to snake out the line with a root cutter instead.

Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already. I own a construction company so I had my guys dig up the line after working at another job site with rented excavation equipment. In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.

Long story short, never ever use dual agency, it should be illegal everywhere


I would have sued the Realtor, and filed a complaint with the board of Realtors. As part owner of the property, she was aware of the plumbing issue and the recommended repairs the previous plumbers advised. She lied to you by saying the problem was solved. If you sued her, you would have won.



I know i would have won, I opted instead to just get on with it. I saber rattled to the brokerage once i uncovered everything. I figured that would get them to eat it but they eventually just stonewalled me and took the sue me attitude. My real loss ended up being in the 800$ range and i decided ultimately i was willing to eat the loss and move on. In hindsight i still beleive i made the right call as i dont want to trade even a week of my time and brainpower to recover 800$ and i belevie i would have had more than that invested in the recovery.

In short, the lesson is, dont use dual agents ever.

Immediately after i said dont use dual agents i thought of a scenario where i would use a dual agent that i have done since.

if you are searching for rental properties and you know what you are doing as you have already completed several transactions, one way to get a property at a lower price is to put in your offer through the listing agent. I have done this 2 times since and offers that should have been rejected or countered were accepted. the amazing thing is the speed with which the offers are accepted. In one case, the housee was reducded from 50k to 25k and i offered 25100 the day the reduction occurred, within 1 hour i had a signed contract, Ive never seen it happen that fast before. Also usually when there is a drop that big the realtors ask for highest and best to solicit a 2nd offer from you.

Another time i submitted a lowball offer on a bank owned property that had been listed for 35 days and it was accepted.

Its a grimy industry and realtors will dick over thier client for 10s of thousands in order to make an extra 500-1000 for themselves.

ShaftSlinger said:   Also usually when there is a drop that big the realtors ask for highest and best to solicit a 2nd offer from you.Forget dual agency, highest and best should be illegal everywhere. One day, just to have fun, I'm going to offer 10% over value and make them drop the price when the appraisal comes in.

Chet08 said:   The selling agent is acting as our buying agent. We were told not to offer anything under 315,000 for house b (basement house) by this agent as seller would not accept this, back in december 2012.

So the person set to make all the commission doesn't want you to offer less money? Weird.
You didn't pick up on that?

Chet08 said:   I'm gonna give the realtor a chance, she has all the listings over 250,000 in our area. She gets double commission so I am hoping she will play fair, if she is not acting in our best interest we will find someone else.

You are over your head. Abort now.

civ2k1 said:   ShaftSlinger said:   Heres where it gets really awesome!
So it turns out the prior owner was 1/3 owner and had 2 other partners, one of which was my realtor. None of this was disclosed to me ever. If I had my own representation I'm going to guess at some point they would have uncovered this or perhaps not accepted the bogus answer that the main line had been replaced already.... In short I lucked out and my 4500$ repair ended up costing me just under 1000 so I let it go.


I wouldn't have let that go. You didn't necessarily have to take them to court and sue, but at least report them to your state's Real Estate board and Realtor association. I know in some (all?) states, an agent/broker is required to disclose when they have an ownership interest (or even relative does) in a property they are selling/renting. And believe it or not, Realtors do actually have a code of ethics to follow. While they are probably lax on certain things, I would expect/hope that the story you described would be considered at least an ethics violation by the Realtor association.


Direct violation of Article 4 of the NAR rules of ethics, don't know what the rules were when you had this happen:
http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/code#Duties%20to%20Cl...

I would have gone back at the realtor and gotten your $1k back, plus another $1k as a tip to your people who had to dig it up.

Not to be stupid here, but all this talk of house B.... House A seems nicer, upgrades, upgraded moulding, nice view, back porch.........you might be able to get B for a deal..... or maybe not.. If you end up at 335K on B, I'd still rather have A for 350, maybe more depending on how nice the upgrades are, what this covered patio/porch looks like, etc.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014