Comment

Comment by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on April 18, 2011 at 2:53am

Wendy, I haven't told BofA I would not sign - I have requested they have someone in the legal department review the two docs again for accuracy, spelling and "intent" and to provide a response abotu commissions.

Smitty, you are correct, "not making friends" - Since Carrington and others now own RE Brokerages, and with REDC negotiating HAFA Short Sales for BofA (Along with Auctioning REOs and owning Red Crown Realty, I believe these are all new versions of how to pick the REALTORS pockets...

 

We'll see what happens.

Comment by Michael Schneider on April 18, 2011 at 2:32am

I've always assumed that was "legally" the case, Thom.  Legally the Investor can demand full repayment of the debt, so how can they be legally required to pay the various closing costs from net proceeds?

From a business perspective, this would not make much sense, which is why we can generally negotiate the settlement to get a good outcome.

Comment by Smitty on April 18, 2011 at 2:32am

I haven't seen that yet Thom.  I wouldn't sign it either.  WOW...lenders aren't making friends in the real estate community at all

Comment by Wendy Rulnick on April 18, 2011 at 2:22am

Thom - Has BOFA responded to your not signing? I wonder if BOFA is saying this to prove they are "not" interfering with a contract?  There has got to be a reason behind it...  I

Comment by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on April 18, 2011 at 2:20am

Wendy - thanks for the comments - it's always "fun" isn't it !  My attorney (who's a pretty easy going guy and looks for the most positive aspet of everything), is VERY concerned about the commission statement.  It's his belief that BofA does not have to pay the commission, nor allow for it to be paid from the proceeds, the way it is currently written and advised me not to sign it as written.

Comment by Wendy Rulnick on April 18, 2011 at 2:04am

Thom - LOL on the spelling errors. The part of the addendum that concerns me is the statement that the agent has no business relationship with the buyer.  Well, of course you do - if you wrote the offer.  To me, the commission part is just giving blessing for seller to pay anything above what BOFA will pay.  But, I agree, the form seems a bit "inserting themselves"...

 

Comment by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on April 17, 2011 at 4:47am

So I'm working on another file with BofA with FannieMae as investor.  Yesterday, I found out that BofA has contacted my sellers about a loan mod (which is great for my sellers) - the odd part is they've been denied for a Loan Mod twice in the past year and were going for a short sale as a last resort...

I also got a counter in Equator - I'm already assigned a negotiator (in Florida) and was sent the new BofA SS Addendum (recently posted by someone here) to be signed by all parties.  I thought BofA might get the spelling errors corrected before they actually implemented it - but alas did not.  Just for "grins", I sent it to my attorney for review as it certainly seems like BofA is insertiing themselves into the contract between Buyer and Seller on this Short Sale.  My attorney was not so concerned about that issue as he was about the 2nd document item 1:

"Bank of America is in no way responsible for Listing or Buyer Realtor / Broker sales commissions, since that is the sole responsibility of the property seller under the terms of the listing agreement."

 

So, if we sign it, how do we get paid ?

Comment by Cynthia Deacon Daniels on April 15, 2011 at 3:31am

Help!! Does anyone have the number for a person above the Closing Phase Manager/Closing Team Leader. Short is approved until today and Closer is not sending back the signed final HUD1. I have left messages for the closer, her supervisor is out of town until Monday 4/18. I have left multiple messages for the closing phase manager. Need approved final HUD1 by 9:30am PST. HELP! Thanks Cynthia

Comment by Michael Schneider on April 14, 2011 at 5:38am

I believe that the changes to TREASURY HAFA announced on December 28, applied only to the Treasury MHA/HAFA program, not to Fannie/HAFA nor to Freddie/HAFA.

As far as I know, the GSEs did not modify their guidelines to follow MHA.

I think we expected them to, or maybe I mised it, but the three version of HAFA are somewhat different from each other.

On income, I think Fannie/HAFA used the HAMP income eligibility requirement, which I thought was 31%.

Just designed to make HAFA an ineffective as possible....

Comment by Pamela Walsh on April 14, 2011 at 5:05am

Hi Terry,  Here is a link to get some Fanniemae information on HAFA.  I've heard it is a reasl tough short sale to get improved.  My understanding is FM is going gy the old HAFA guidelines.  Good Luck

 https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/servicing/hafa/

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 165
• 166
• 167
• 168
• 169
• …
• 353
• Next ›
• Page