I have a question and have googled for weeks trying to get an official opinion on this from someone who might really know. It just doesnt seem to be addressed anywhere. Here it is:
"Affiant further says that there are no agreements or understandings, written or implied, that will permit Seller to remain in the above mentioned property as a renter or to regain ownership of said property at anytime after the execution of this short sale transaction"
This is the wording in my arms length affadavit for my short sale. I know the offer that has been submitted to my lender is someone who is going to rent the property out. When the arms length affadavit was signed and also by the COE there will not be any discussion and there hasn't been and won't be any written agreement, any implication of me renting the property back.
What if I ask the question about the buyer renting back to me after the COE and they would like to do that? I see no way by reading the exact legalese of that affadavit that any violation of that ffadavit has occurred. If the lender was to pursue anything, they would be having to prove something that never happened. Is my thinking correct?
I also think it is written in a way to scare people off from doing that but to those who read it closely who have a bit of a legal mind can see that they know they have no legal recourse in the event a rental agreement truly occurs in the fashion I described. Am I corrrect or somewhat correct or not correct?
Tags:
Tracy,
I just don't think anyone understands this except lawyers. When I signed the affadavit there was no written or implied agreement. I never spoke to the buyers. At close of escrow there will have been no written or implied agreement. I will have never spoken to the buyers. I am looking for a lawyer to either back up what I am saying or tell me some case law that says I am wrong. You clearly are not a lawyer because you dont even understand what I am saying.
If I speak to the buyers AFTER the close of escrow and LONG AFTER I signed an agreement that said there was no written or implied agreement that I would rent out this property from them (there wasn't a written or implied agreement), there is nothing that says I can't NOW have a written agreement to rent the property from them. I think the affadavit serves 2 purposes. It doesnt want a buyer's decisions on the sale to be effected by the fact that they may have an immediate renter and it is to be punitive agaisnt the seller. The language is ambiguous to scare a seller into thinking they cant talk to a buyer AFTER the COE. Bottom line, a bank can not infringe on someone's civil rights to rent to whomever they want AFTER they own a property. If the banks could do that the arm's length affadavit would include something to the effect that "additionally no agreement can be reached AFTER the close of escrow that would permit the seller to remain in the home." The banks know they can't infringe on civil rights, but they had attorneys draft a document that is meant to scare people into thinking there is NO possible way they can rent the property. I contend that as long as there is no written or implied agreement between buyer and seller at the time the affadavit is signed or at closing, whichever comes last, the bank CAN NOT control who the buyer rents to.
Only lawyers or agents or anyone who understands a bit about law and legalities please respond.
Tracy, lawyers and banks would screw you over in 2 seconds about exact words in a contract. Why not use it back on them?
Why would they not write the affadavit in such a way that states "nor will there be any agreement in the future that would allow the seller to remain in the property." They know its an infringement of civil rights, particularly when the new owner owns the home outright. They leave that phrase out for a reason Tracy.
Perjury is a statement in court under oath that is not true Tracy. Any court case involving this would be whether or not I violated that affadavit. The question in court would be whether or not I violated something I signed. This is not about finding a lawyer who agrees with me. Either my thinking is correct or it is wrong. There is no ambiguity. If my thinking is correct a judge could not rule against me.
© 2024 Created by Brett Goldsmith. Powered by
Short Sale Superstars, LLC and www.ShortSaleSuperstars.com does not endorse the real estate agents, loan officers, attorneys, real estate brokers and other participants listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs, blog entries and forums are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a short sale. Short Sale Superstars, LLC takes no responsibility for the content on these pages that are written by the members of this community.