Ok do you all do verbage such as " Bank accepts buyers amount as payment in full without pursuit of any deficiency judgment to seller." etc., in attempt to protect the seller? And what is the latest with banks going after the seller after the short sale and how do you all try to protect them from that...if possible?
I always require 'waiver of deficiency' and the 'balance settled' verbiage and I suggest you do too. Anyone can get a short sale approved with the sellers owing the difference, that's easy!
You can put any verbiage you want in the contract, but the long and short of it is the bank will do what the investor requires, and if you aren't meeting a minimum net, or the investor REQUIRES post closing deficiency verbiage, there are little choices, but to possibly offer more money to get the language removed. Even then, they may not allow it. I would say $$ is king, so if you throw enough at a lien holder you can get the negative language removed, BUT in not every sale will your seller, buyer or agents have enough $$ on hand.
Basically if you can't get the language removed the only other option is to foreclose. So most sellers elect to still move forward by either signing a prom note or having the lender chase them after closing.
Of course I speak for recourse states though...because I work in a recourse state. I can't speak regarding non-recourse states.