I literally just finished uploading a short sale offer into Equator (all the documents and everything) when I get a second, better offer over the fax. Now what? I don't see any way to upload the new offer through Equator.  Do I just go forward with the lower offer (which I don't think BA will take in the first place)?   Thoughts?

Views: 318

Replies to This Discussion

I don't believe so, Claudia. Otherwise at the first counter one would be throwing in another offer. And would that really be wise with short sales as they are? It's hard enought to replace offers when buyers bug out.

No, my interpretation is that the first offer must be dead in the water. Then one can go on to the next offer.

But that is my opinion. In dealing with banks and REOs I have found them to do the same.
It might be wise. The seller is wanting to get out from under the debt, and the bank wants as much $$ as it can get, so how could introducing the additional offer/buyer impact that negatively, especially if the backup contract price is higher than the original.

Remember I said that the bank had already rejected the first contract and the initial buyer had already rejected the bank's counter. If the initial buyer knows that there is another buyer in the wings, s/he may take the counter offer more quickly than if s/he thinks further negotiation is possible.

Each situation is probably different. Ultimately the question should turn on who the LA and negotiator represent. It certainly isn't the buyer, whether the initial or backup.
Seems to me there would be a difference between a back up "offer" and a fully executed back up "contract" with a second buyer.

Claudia Pearson said:
It might be wise. The seller is wanting to get out from under the debt, and the bank wants as much $$ as it can get, so how could introducing the additional offer/buyer impact that negatively, especially if the backup contract price is higher than the original.

Remember I said that the bank had already rejected the first contract and the initial buyer had already rejected the bank's counter. If the initial buyer knows that there is another buyer in the wings, s/he may take the counter offer more quickly than if s/he thinks further negotiation is possible.

Each situation is probably different. Ultimately the question should turn on who the LA and negotiator represent. It certainly isn't the buyer, whether the initial or backup.
Ah, the beauty of semantics. For many the two are the same thing.

But with short sales, perhaps not. I think a listing agent would need to be very careful on having a seller accept a second offer without some very serious caveats explaining exactly how and when the second offer could come into play.\

Most training that I have seen strongly recommend that the seller NEVER sign a second offer. So the "back up" is not fully executed. Merely first in line should the first offer not come together or is withdrawn. As a listing agent I would be looking to the bank(s) to see if they had some direction/policies. The problem with short sales is that they are not normally set up for more than one offer on the banking end of things. And add to that the danger of having to start the process all over again with a second offer.

At least REO departments have their act together. Well, most of the time.

Isn't this fun :>) There is a good reason to have a skilled real estate attorney on your team. Multiple offers can be a business and legal minefield for the agents involved. I think too many agents charge right in.

BOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!
Funny thing is that the agent did have to start the process all over again with the newly executed contract between the initial buyers and the sellers. To me if the "backup" was a fully executed contract, it would make more sense legally to move on to the next contract once the first one was rejected.

Steele V. Propp said:
Ah, the beauty of semantics. For many the two are the same thing.

But with short sales, perhaps not. I think a listing agent would need to be very careful on having a seller accept a second offer without some very serious caveats explaining exactly how and when the second offer could come into play.\

Most training that I have seen strongly recommend that the seller NEVER sign a second offer. So the "back up" is not fully executed. Merely first in line should the first offer not come together or is withdrawn. As a listing agent I would be looking to the bank(s) to see if they had some direction/policies. The problem with short sales is that they are not normally set up for more than one offer on the banking end of things. And add to that the danger of having to start the process all over again with a second offer.

At least REO departments have their act together. Well, most of the time.

Isn't this fun :>) There is a good reason to have a skilled real estate attorney on your team. Multiple offers can be a business and legal minefield for the agents involved. I think too many agents charge right in.

BOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!
Perhaps you can give us some clarification (OK, give me clarification) on your scenario. What do you mean by "rejected" offer? Simply a counter? Because as long that seller counter is out there the first buyer could accept. If the buyer counters back, you then feel your back up should be offered as well?

In talking to several bank reps I have been told that most do not want the "waters muddied" with a second contract. Much the same as in REO these managers are saying that once they have started negotiating they will finish out the process one way or the other. If agreement can not be reached then they will look at the back up offer(s).

I think in addition to not being set up for multiple offers the lenders are also nervous as to the legal aspects. This is not direct negotiations with the bank per sec. Remember we still have a seller.

Now, maybe we will start to see some changes in the near future as the lenders address this issue. But for now most are set up for one offer at a time.
"Perhaps you can give us some clarification (OK, give me clarification) on your scenario. What do you mean by "rejected" offer? Simply a counter? Because as long that seller counter is out there the first buyer could accept. If the buyer counters back, you then feel your back up should be offered as well?"

Based on the info I have received,

(1) The initial contract was rejected by the lender as "insufficient" and the file was closed, although the lender apparently made a counter-offer.
(2) The buyer and seller revised the original contract to increase the price, but did not meet the lender's counter offer.
(3) The seller was then required to register on Equator and open a new file in order to submit the buyer's counter-counter offer.

Yes, I feel that before the seller submits the new contract reflecting the initial buyer's counter-counter offer, not only should my contract be presented to the lender, but I should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept the lender's counter-offer.

If I did not have a fully executed contract from the seller, I might not feel this way, but I do have a fully executed contract.
A basic problem is that the counter proposal from the lender is buyer specific. It was not made to your buyers.

And Equator is not set up for multiple offers anyway.

Understand your frustration, but I don't believe you have a "right" to have your offer be presented. Although you give good arguments on why it might be the "right" thing to do.

You may just have to wait until this is worked with the other buyer or the offer "dies".
It is the seller who is registered and attempting to obtain a release of the encumbrance, so I would disagree. The "counter offer" made by the lender is to the seller, so it would not be buyer specific.

It is also the sellers who are in a contractual relationship with the "back-up" buyers. If the first contract has been rejected and the first buyers will not agree to meet the lender's demand, why not see if the back up buyers will, especially since the seller has already signed a contract with the back-up buyers?

This would not require that more than one contract be presented to the lender at a time. It is merely a matter of seeing whether either buyer will agree to the terms that the lender has indicated it will accept. If either will, that is the contract which should be submitted to the lender, not a counter-counter offer which the seller has negotiated with the first buyer which does not meet the lender's demand.
And I would respectfully disagree with you in your assertion that it is not buyer specific. (This is from a discussion standpoint, not an argument.)

In my experience the "counter" is based on the first buyers offer. That is what the bank has. Yes, the two parties(buyer and seller) involved would do the actual signing, but the interested third party (the bank) is basing a proposal on the first buyer. That is the only buyer they know about directly. When a counter offer is made by a lender in REO it is not phrased,"here is the counter and it is open to anyone who can match it..." Banks tend to deal with one buyer at a time. Although REOs and short sales are different they do have much in common. That is where I am drawing my thoughts from.

But debating semantics here does no good for your situation. You are debating the wrong people. I have the feeling you are trying the same arguments on the selling listing agent and he/she is not listening. And frankly, I don't know if there is anything you can do about that. And I am not even saying you are wrong in your arguments. I am simply presenting another side. I don't even know if there is a right or wrong answer on this situation.

This is largely unexplored territory. Really no hard and fast rules to look to. Have you checked with your Board of Realtors for guidance?
Good discussions. OK first semantics are everything in this discussion. An offer is not binding a contract is. Only contracts are submitted to the lender And only ONE contract is submitted to the lender. Just as in a regular transaction the seller seller can very well have a back up contract or even several back up contracts. These contracts would of course need to have contingency language in them so the buyers know what position they are in. If the contract in first position does not come to completion then the contract in the 2nd position would step up.

There is no such thing as a back up offer. It's just an offer. There can be 50 offers and still none of them are binding and the seller can negotiate them however they feel like it if there are no other contracts on the property.

However, only ONE accepted and fully signed contract gets submitted to the lender.

BofA usually issues approvals or counters based on a specific buyer. They may or may not allow you to substitute another buyer. They are under no obligation to do so but it has been done.

The SS addendum language that some of our boards use is nothing more than legal mumbo jumbo to cover our asses. It is not placed in the addendum to protect the buyer and/or seller in any way at all. I use an addendum that was written by an attorney because our boards addendum sucks.
OK I got caught up on Claudia's concern. In short...Claudia is wrong. Her buyer has ZERO rights until the first contract is dead and buried. The seller has every right to continue to negotiate with their lender and the buyer that is under contract. The response from BofA is nothing more than a counter offer for the lien removal not the contract and can certainly be countered by the seller using the contract with the original buyer.

The key here is that the lender is not a party to the contract. All the seller is doing is negotiating the terms with which their lender will remove to he lien so the deal can close.

But of course I am not an attorney and just make this stuff up as I go along :)

RSS

Members

© 2024   Created by Brett Goldsmith.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

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