Hi!  Just received and email this morning from BofA that states as of Oct 1, 2013 an agent (nor broker) can represent BOTH seller and buyer in a single transaction? The verbiage is: "Different dual agency/brokerage requirement: to meet the new short sale purchase contract addendum requirements, brokers and their agents may represent either the buyer or  the seller, but not both parties"

WHAT?!?!  I attempted to call HUD to no avail.  Anybody out there aware of this?

Please respond as I am about to have a cardiac arrest! :/

Views: 718

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, THANK YOU, Kevin!  I have been holding my breath all day since I opened this email from BofA.  You are wonderful.  Thank you, thank you, thank you!  :O)

 

I'm quite surprised that BOA is already reviewing Homeowner's under the new PFS Program. Most Servicer's are not starting until the drop dead date of Oct. 1st.

One little problem folks... We're trying to get a clarification and will report back as soon as we have one.

HUD ML 2013-34, published last Friday at around 1pm DC time delays Implementation of ML 2013-23 “PFS Participation Requirement” Section however 13-34 also stipulates that ALL other provisions remain in full force and effect. That would also include, then, a requirement to deploy the “Pre-Foreclosure Sale Addendum” which is Attachment B to ML 2013-23.  This is a requirement under the “Addendum for all PFS Transactions” clause of 13-23.  The “Pre-Foreclosure Sale Addendum” is problematic in its current format because of item ‘L’ “…The signatories to this agreement can only serve in one capacity in order to meet the conflicts of interest and arms-length policies of HUD.…” .

So our question to NAR and HUD is, how can the real estate community sign this addendum if the broker/brokerage/agent is on both the seller and buyer side of the transaction?  The provision in the “Pre-Foreclosure Sale Addendum” simply doesn’t wash.

 

By the way, ML 2013-34 also states that the PFS participation requirements denoted in ML 2008-43, ML 2002-13 and 2000-05 remain in effect and yet none of those MLs require the deployment of the “Pre-Foreclosure Sale Addendum”.

 

This statement seems to be in conflict with itself because the “Pre-Foreclosure Sale Addendum” is not a requirement of ML 2008-43, ML 2002-13 and 2000-05 or for that matter even ML 1994-45, the very first PFS ML.

Stay tuned... this fight and confusion is far from over... 

G-II

Have you heard of any Servicer's requesting this new Addendum as of yet?

Sorry Kevin... been tracking the shutdown... but no, not yet. I have a meeting with a high level Wells Fargo operative on Thursday.  I'll let you know what I learn after that meeting.

Stay tuned and stand by

LOL G-II

Bank of America jumped the gun with this release. They are normally great at keeping tabs on social media. If they had, they would  have known this new HUD PFS policy was being seriously questioned.

HUD Reverses decision prohibiting dual agents / agency.

This was to be effective Oct 1, 2013.

It's always nice when an organization steps up and points out to government officials why their decision needs to be reversed. At least for now things go on as normal! Go Realtors!


http://www.realtor.org/articles/hud-removes-dual-agency-restriction...

Ok... so it appears that Mr. Miller is trying to 'Retry' a case that was settled in the Supreme Court over two decades ago. (SEE Bokusky v. Edina Realty, 1993 WL 515827 (D. Minn. 1993).  I wonder if he would also like to 'Retry' Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973).  REALTORS® fully understand the challenges that come with ‘Disclosure of Limited Dual Representation’. And for the record, there is only ONE state that bans 'disclosure limited dual representation', that being Colorado.  

 

Consumers were more damaged, for decades, because of non-disclosure of agency prior to the Supreme Court Ruling in “Bokusky v. Edina Realty”.  Prior to that court ruling, buyers had NO representation rights AT ALL.  The terms ‘Buyer Be Ware’ was a staple of the real estate transaction.

 

I know that ‘disclosure of limited dual representation’ is a touchy and very controversial subject.  And I know that I may be walking into a hornet’s nest with the following commentary… but here goes…

 

The BLOG article below was solicited from us by the Law firm of Michael A. Fleishman, Butler & Associates, P.L.C. and used in the the Lorman Education Systems continuing legal education seminar - "Real Estate Litigation in Arizona" - 9/14/07 - We were very honored!

 

http://tinyurl.com/DualAgencyAndML2013-23

Just in… Dual Agency Reversal has been published by HUD in ML 2013-34 http://portal.hud.gov/huddoc/13-34ml.pdf

 

Implementation of the “PFS Participation Requirement” section stipulated in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2013-23 has been delayed until further notice. PFS participation requirements denoted in ML 2008-43, 2002-13, and 2000-05 remain in effect.

All other provisions included in ML 2013-23 remain in effect.

 

 Delayed Implementation of “PFS Participation Requirement” Section included in Mortgagee Letter 2013-23, Updated Pre-Foreclosure Sale (PFS) and Deed in Lieu (DIL) of Foreclosure Requirements

 

Get this out to all of the servicers you’re working with RE FHA PFS transactions

 

We did it… This battle is done but the fight is far from over… LOL

Yes I got the letter as well and right after got an email from NAR:

HUD reported to NAR that they will reissue the July Mortgagee Letter and remove all dual agency language (Part Three of the PFS Participation Requirements). The result is that the dual agency policy will not be implemented on Oct. 1, 2013 allowing NAR to continue the dialogue with agency officials on a formal solution.

 

RSS

Members

© 2018   Created by Brett Goldsmith.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

********************************** like buttons ************************