Ok so how about some feedback on this one. I listed a short sale that was originally a WaMu loan and the seller is getting 20,000. Beside the point of course, but here is what happened. I submitted an offer by way of Equator and after the appropriate time for it to ferment, they finally made a decision and accepted the short sale with payment of a customary 6% commission. This was a written approval letter folks from Chase. Well the offer than fell apart and buyer walked. I than submitted another offer within a few days on the property for 4,500 dollars more than the previous offer, ok also beside the point I suppose, but here is what the new negotiator did. Sent me an email and said they could only pay the 5% commission on this traditional short sale. It is bank owned. No it is not a HAFA and no it is not a Fannie or Freddie investor…….but what it is, is a short sale offer that follows a prior offer less than 30 days ago where Chase accepted and approved in writing to pay 6% commission. At this point I have said no. Now I just got an email from the file owner in Equator that said if I am refusing to comply than she has to close the file….thoughtful comments and personal experience from anyone here?
So sale goes thru sellers get $20,000, or the home gets foreclosed on because you say no to a commission reduction of 1%. Have you really thought this through?
Thank you for your response.
Yes I have thought it through. That is why I posted the situation for feedback. I am not going to refuse to comply to the demand from this one person at Chase for a 1% reduction, even if she will not provide clarification as to why Chase issued an approval letter on a short sale on this property last month with the 6% commission on a prior offer. Now less than 30 days later she as the new negotiator demands without explanation a reduction. However I am willing to push back and defend my paycheck . They are not Gods…..
I would write back that you have increased the bank's net income by the 4500 less some costs and commission diferences in the current contract submitted. I would state that you have a contact for 6% which by the bank's actions after submission of contract are being interfered with and that such action might be considered interference in trade. There would also seem to be a lack of good faith in this type of demand, however:
Continue somehting like this..
I am willing to fix my commission at $XXXX dollars (the same dollar amount as th 6% on original contract) as a show of good faith and wanting this contract to move forward for the benefit of all parties. I believe that this is a reasonable solution and you will absorb the full benefit of the higher sale price."
That is as reasonable as anyone can get!!! Remember that they have already proven that they are supposed to work with you under your agreements in good faith with them, just as before. it will be hard for them to explain in aproverbial "court of law" that they stopped a higher offer in a foreclosure matter because they demanded you to negotiate a real estate contract with them instead of the seller of record. If they truly are the seller of record they have the right to negotiate wage, but ONLY if the offer is less than the full correct asking price based on distressed property value (which by definition has to be the last accepted value as they set the value then!!!)