On Aug 10, 10:12*pm, rile wrote:
We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint". *The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.
An inspector came out, rejected it for that reason. *My son and I
scraped, power washed, scraped again, and painted. *They guy has come
back two more times and still rejected it. All he does is walk around,
take pictures and make a recommendation. *He doesn't touch the paint,
scrape it or anything. *All of the paint is tight. *The worst is, the
buyers don't want us to do the painting...they want to repaint it a
different color.
Any ideas....we are at the ends of our wits.

Your problem varies, depending on the state you are in. Some license
lead inspectors and others don't. Until recently, one required
licensed inspectors but didn't have an inspection licensing process in
place and couldn't issue licenses but did accept licenses from other
states (go figure).

In general, licensing has a couple of levels: one being a sampling
technician and the other being a risk assessor. There are also
clearance techs but that's an unlikely cred for someone doing an
inspection.

So here are your issues: First, the house was scraped and painted in
the 1980s. Fine. But it's unlikely that you used interim controls
and there is probably lead in the soil. If he identified that on his
first visit and doesn't see any changes when he returns, he'll fail
you before he gets out of the car. That's issue #1. BTW, visible
paint chips on the ground is an immediate failure.

Any chipping paint on "mouthable surfaces" is an immediate failure,
but "chipping" has a wide definition. It can also be any wear on
friction surfaces such as hallways or stairs. Alligatoring is also a
no-no. Therefore, windows are your biggest problem.

Your best bet might be to get your own risk assessment. That'll run
you $500 to $1000, depending on where you live. Then you have a
baseline. It also means that if there is lead poisoning later, you
have some baseline documentation of the risk.

As for comments about all paint must be removed, etc. That is wrong.
In almost all situation, interim controls are fine and abatement would
be very rare. Groups I work with rehab 300 to 400 homes a year using
Federal money and there hasn't been a single abatement job that I know
of.

As for what he's looking at, I believe (but am not entirely sure) that
you have a legal right to a risk assessment and/or lead paint report
done on your premise.

BTW, once you have knowledge of LBP (whether is it there or not), you
are legally required to report that information to all tenants and all
buyers. So if you know you removed lead in the 1980s, you're required
to tell them that.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:


========Turn off your HTML=======

Jim isn't posting in HTML, Oscar -- if he were, I'd see the tags, because
my
newsreader doesn't render HTML. If you're seeing what you think is HTML
in
Jim's posts, it's because of a configuration problem on *your* computer,
not
his.

You're right, I owe an apology.

"Big Jim" wrote in message
...
If there was a number the OP did not mention. It sounds as if he is
being jerked around by an inspector. I agree there should be no
complaint if he signed that form and there is a dollar amount in that
blank. I'm sorry you got ripped off . You just cant understand that
other than C.O . and temites a seller really has no legal obligation
to fix anything. The buyer and lender are free to walk. FHA, DOT,
BBC, NYC, TNT, DDT whoever cannot force anyone to fix anything unless
it is agreed to in a contract.


================ reply below==========

I owe you an apology, accusing you for posting in HTML. Thanks to Doug for
pointing it out.

Sorry Jim! I got carried away. But, I'm still LOL, guess the LOL is on me.
Have at it!

Back to about the obligation. If someone wants to sell FHA, and can't meet
FHA minimum standards, then they're not going to sell FHA. They wasted
everyone's time. Just say upfront, no FHA/VA. There's no reason to play
games.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:08:02 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:22:49 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:
Actually, all he has to do is... NOTHING.

The house has failed the buyer's inspection. The seller has NO
obligation to make it pass. If the contract stipulated that the house
must pass the inspection fopr the deal to be completed, then guess
what? Game, set, match.


FHA is nothing like a selling conventional or even _as is_. When you
_agree_ to sell FHA, you must meet their regulations, not yours. In fact,
you can't sell FHA _as is_. That is part of the selling procedure.



Are you drunk? If you agree to sell to someone who is financing
through FHA, you are NOT agreeing to do a damned thing except complete
the sale IF the house passes inspection and you comply with FHA
guidelines. You are under NO obligation to fix anything. If your house
fails to meet their stipulations, you can just shrug your shoulders
and walk away from the deal.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"dpb" wrote in message
...
Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...

Afaict there is no contract w/ the seller at this point...he apparently
has an offer but that's no contract...


You missed the OP original statement. "We are selling a house to a
buyer using an FHA mortgage."
FHA just doesn't go around inspecting houses, because someone is
thinking about buying this one or that one. There must be an offer &
acceptance.

Obviously there's an offer; apparently OP is satisfied w/ the pricing as
he made some attempts to satisfy the conditions of an (pretty obviously
contingent) inspection but that still doesn't lead to there actually
being any contract yet in place. There's an existing document that could
conceivably turn _INTO_ a contract, but it ain't one at this point.

Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling FHA. I
do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in, in order to
cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now, the
seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter than
that.





Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.

Exactly. Of course a desperate seller miight do more. A casual
seller or one during a boom may choose not to fix anything. The buyer
and/or lender may walk away but the seller is never under obligation
to fix anything unless he/she agrees to or there is a C.O. involved or
other local regulation such as well testing etc. Oscar doesnt seem to
realize that in most states used houses are sold as-is . It is up to
the buyer to inspect and request repairs. Oscar got
ripped off and can't believe that there are people who are wiser than
him.

On Aug 12, 6:39*am, wrote:

Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

aemeijers wrote:

Can't address the FHA part, but here in MI, I asked a lawyer buddy about
hiring a real estate lawyer when I bought this place. He said not to
bother- in MI they use boilerplate contracts when you buy through a
realtor and title company, and They Will Not Change Them. Legal term is
'take it or leave it'. Private-party sales, of course, would be different.

Yep. Use of a lawyer in residential real estate transactions is definitely a
regional thing. Common in New England and a few other places.

Oscar wrote:
....
Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling FHA. I
do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in, in order to
cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now, the
seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter than
that.
....

It begins life as an addendum to a contract _OFFER_; it doesn't comprise
an enforceable _contract_ until executed by both parties.

Not only does it have the provision for limitation of cost of repair to
seller, look at the bottom--there's even a provision for counteroffer
from seller.

Again the reason for having counsel before jumpin' in--they know the
groundrules under which the game is played so to protect yourself from
inadvertently committing oneself to a sizable problem. And, of course,
they solve the COI problem of not having an agent actually representing
your own interests.

--

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to item 6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

"dpb" wrote in message
...
Oscar wrote:
...
Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling
FHA. I do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in, in
order to cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now,
the seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter than
that.
...

It begins life as an addendum to a contract _OFFER_; it doesn't comprise
an enforceable _contract_ until executed by both parties.

Not only does it have the provision for limitation of cost of repair to
seller, look at the bottom--there's even a provision for counteroffer
from seller.

Again the reason for having counsel before jumpin' in--they know the
groundrules under which the game is played so to protect yourself from
inadvertently committing oneself to a sizable problem. And, of course,
they solve the COI problem of not having an agent actually representing
your own interests.

You do not know what an addendum is. Good grief, its in addition to a
contract offer.

I understand offers/counter offers, apparently you don't. The OP started
doing the work, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because at some
point there was an offer & acceptance. For some reason, you overlook of why
they are doing the work.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:08:02 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:

Are you drunk? If you agree to sell to someone who is financing
through FHA, you are NOT agreeing to do a damned thing except complete
the sale IF the house passes inspection and you comply with FHA
guidelines. You are under NO obligation to fix anything. If your house
fails to meet their stipulations, you can just shrug your shoulders
and walk away from the deal.

The OP isn't fixing stuff out of the kindness of their heart. It's obvious
their was an offer & acceptance at some point. They have obligations to
fulfill, which they are attempting.

Walk away? I'm sure they can, and be prepared to go to court for breaching
a contract.

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
news
aemeijers wrote:

Can't address the FHA part, but here in MI, I asked a lawyer buddy about
hiring a real estate lawyer when I bought this place. He said not to
bother- in MI they use boilerplate contracts when you buy through a
realtor and title company, and They Will Not Change Them. Legal term is
'take it or leave it'. Private-party sales, of course, would be different.

Yep. Use of a lawyer in residential real estate transactions is definitely
a
regional thing. Common in New England and a few other places.

Maybe it is. When I was buying and selling a couple of houses about 5 years
ago in NC I was told I had to have a lawyer to complete the deal. I even
had 'cash' money and still could not buy a house without the lawyer.

Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...
Oscar wrote:
...
Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling
FHA. I do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in, in
order to cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now,
the seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter than
that.
...

It begins life as an addendum to a contract _OFFER_; it doesn't comprise
an enforceable _contract_ until executed by both parties.

Not only does it have the provision for limitation of cost of repair to
seller, look at the bottom--there's even a provision for counteroffer
from seller.

Again the reason for having counsel before jumpin' in--they know the
groundrules under which the game is played so to protect yourself from
inadvertently committing oneself to a sizable problem. And, of course,
they solve the COI problem of not having an agent actually representing
your own interests.

You do not know what an addendum is. Good grief, its in addition to a
contract offer.

I most certainly _do_ know what an addendum is...and, in fact, that's
what I explicitly said. Again, there was an offer; there's not a
contract of which this addendum is a part _until_ there are valid
signatories.

I understand offers/counter offers, apparently you don't. The OP started
doing the work, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because at some
point there was an offer & acceptance. For some reason, you overlook of why
they are doing the work.

We (at least I) don't know that for certain--it was never stated
explicitly or if it was I didn't see any statement to that fact.

_IF_ (the proverbial big if) OP did sign an essentially open-ended
contract then he can only reap what he has sown and his best option is
again to get guidance from somebody on his own nickel to help in
demonstrating that the supposed defect has been adequately taken care of.

--

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to item 6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

On Aug 11, 12:49*pm, "Oscar" wrote:
"Big Jim" wrote in message

...

Their lawyer would have seen that during attorney review and killed the
deal ASAP. *If I
were the homeowner, my lawyer would be earning his pay and I certainly
wouldnt get jerked around by what seems to be a fishy sounding
inspection process.

You really don't have a clue. When you enter into a contract to sell
FHA/VA, your laywer can't make exceptions. You either sell FHA/VA, or you
don't, it's that simple.

I suggest you don't reply to threads, to which you have no knowledge. The
more you reply, the bigger idiot you become.

Even a sales contract with FHA financing almost certainly has a limit
to the dollar amount of repairs that a seller is obligated to make.
And certainly every contract SHOULD have such a clause. The seller
should check his contract, read it and see what it says. If he gets
an expensive quote to remedy the paint situation that's over the
limit, he has an out.

It's simply not the case that if you have an FHA buyer the seller is
on the hook to fix anything and everything just because some FHA
inspector requires.

Also, from a practical standpoint, if he offers to return the sellers
deposit in full and call it quits, there is a good chance the seller
will walk. Their alternative, to suit for specific performance,
while their deposit money is sitting in escrow, is not a particularly
good option.

On Aug 11, 9:15*pm, dpb wrote:
Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...

Afaict there is no contract w/ the seller at this point...he apparently
has an offer but that's no contract...

You missed the OP original statement. *"We are selling a house to a buyer
using an FHA mortgage."
FHA just doesn't go around inspecting houses, because someone is thinking
about buying this one or that one. There must be an offer & acceptance.

Obviously there's an offer; apparently OP is satisfied w/ the pricing as
he made some attempts to satisfy the conditions of an (pretty obviously
contingent) inspection but that still doesn't lead to there actually
being any contract yet in place. *There's an existing document that
could conceivably turn _INTO_ a contract, but it ain't one at this point.

Of course there is a contract in place. I've yet to see a bank/
mortgage company involved with inspections on a property without
having a purchase contract. That is the most basic requirement as
part of the whole mortgage process. They want a contract that shows
what the property is, what the purchase price is, how much is being
financed, how much is being put down, etc. together with the
application fee. Only then do they send out any appraisers/
inspectors.


And also, any buyer would be an idiot to pay a mortgage application
fee, home inspection fees, attorneys fees, etc without having a
contract. He could spend that money and then have the seller say:
"Never mind, I found another buyer at a higher price."




For example, seller (OP) could instead of continuing the aforementioned
charade simply make a counter offer of something like $X for buyer to
accept w/ the existing report. *Ball is then in buyer's court and
negotiations can continue from there or one party says "no mas" and
retires from the battle. *In OP's shoes unless I were _truly_desperate_
for the sale I'd probably simply say "as is w/ report noted" but with
attached statement regarding whatever is own interpretation of the
particular situation (in this case the Pb paint issue) if didn't think
the inspection report accurate or as in this case overblowing the
seriousness of a finding ending in, in essence, "take it or leave it"
and let them decide how badly they want the house. *Most folks by the
time they actually make an offer are emotionally committed and they'll
concede the small stuff.

Thing is, FHA goes in after the acceptance, at least they did in my case.
The way the OP sounds, they're doing it the same way to them.

As the previous quote from the FHA says, they don't do inspections at
all; it's your job (or the lender's to see you do yours). *Thus it's
really whatever _the_lender_ requires rather than FHA--FHA doesn't
really care, specifically. *That was what was when last dealt w/ one;
the verbiage atwww.fha.govdoesn't read any different in quick look-see
on that point than did 30 years ago. *The problem is that to meet the
other requirements for qualifying for the insurance they have to show in
essence extreme diligence so their (the lender's, that is) requirements
are more stringent than for a conventional mortgage.

In short, afaict from a quick perusal of the FHA site, whatever is this
hangup has more to do w/ the lender's procedures w/ FHA mortgages than
it does w/ FHA per se. *That may seem like a minor difference but it's
significant.

--

On Aug 12, 1:57*pm, dpb wrote:
Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...
Oscar wrote:
...
Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling
FHA. I do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in, in
order to cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now,
the seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter than
that.
...

It begins life as an addendum to a contract _OFFER_; it doesn't comprise
an enforceable _contract_ until executed by both parties.

Not only does it have the provision for limitation of cost of repair to
seller, look at the bottom--there's even a provision for counteroffer
from seller.

Again the reason for having counsel before jumpin' in--they know the
groundrules under which the game is played so to protect yourself from
inadvertently committing oneself to a sizable problem. *And, of course,
they solve the COI problem of not having an agent actually representing
your own interests.

You do not know what an addendum is. Good grief, its in addition to a
contract offer.

I most certainly _do_ know what an addendum is...and, in fact, that's
what I explicitly said. *Again, there was an offer; there's not a
contract of which this addendum is a part _until_ there are valid
signatories.

I understand offers/counter offers, apparently you don't. The OP started
doing the work, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because at some
point there was an offer & acceptance. For some reason, you overlook of why
they are doing the work.

We (at least I) don't know that for certain--it was never stated
explicitly or if it was I didn't see any statement to that fact.

From experience in how the sales process works, it is very reasonable
to conclude that there is a 99% chance that a contract does in fact
exist. A mortgage company/bank does not send out appraisers,
inspectors or anyone else without a completed mortgage application and
any required fees. A most basic part of that mortgage application is
a COPY OF THE EXECUTED PURCHASE CONTRACT. The fact that the FHA
inspector is there almost surely guarantees that the contract is in
place.


To do otherwise, they would be wasting time and money ghosts half the
time. And the buyer would have to be an idiot to start wasting time
filling out mortgage applications, usually incurring fees to do so,
hiring inspectors, etc without a contract.







_IF_ (the proverbial big if) OP did sign an essentially open-ended
contract then he can only reap what he has sown and his best option is
again to get guidance from somebody on his own nickel to help in
demonstrating that the supposed defect has been adequately taken care of.

--

On Aug 11, 6:53*pm, "Oscar" wrote:
"Big Jim" wrote in message

...
Here in NJ you are considered a fool to buy/sell real estate without
an attorney. *I don't know where you are at but here's how it works in
NJ. *1.Seller places home for sale at a price. *2. Buyer likes house ,
makes offer. 3. If offer is reasonable, contracts are drawn up with
estimated closing date, guarantee of C.O. if necessary , buyer agrees
to secure funding, buyer can inspect home and reject *for defects and
so forth. *4.Attorneys review contract make changes if necessary. *5.
Buyer pays for inspections . 6. List of deficiencies is presented to
seller. *7. Seller agrees to fix some or allof them. *8. Buyer agrees
or walks away. 9. On closing day money changes hands and papers are
signed.. *Of course the lender can reject a home with major defects
and therefore buyer cant buy and deal is dead. *Just because you got
played doesnt mean everyone is like you. *I've sold and bought several
houses. I've rejected buyers for wanting too much and walked away as a
buyer when seller wouldn't fix things. . My current home is 1935
vintage. *Sure there may be some lead paint under layers of latex.
When I sell it I of course will repaint as necessary for appearance
but any buyer who thinks I will pay for total stripping etc can go
elsewhere.. *I dont care who his mortgage lender is.

================ Can you turn off the HTML?======== Reply below===========

Jim,

You're talking a conventional loan, it has nothing to do with a FHA/VA
loan. You have no knowledge of a FHA loan, the more you try to explain
away, the more you show, you know nothing about FHA.

Here's a link to an example of an FHA purchase contract from the web:

http://www.kr-ba.com/FHA.pdf


Look at line 81 where section 8 begins. There is a check box for (a)
which requires the seller to deliver certain parts of the home in
normal working condition. Then look at line 116, where there is a
check box for the alternative (b), As Is - Property shall be conveyed
"As Is", with no warranty whatsoever as to property condition

So, clearly this example of an FHA contract has provisions for
selecting (b) and selling as is. If as is were not an option, why
is it right there in the boilerplate?

wrote in :

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar"
wrote: Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix
anything unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants
out, all he has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so
much as a dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to
complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't
be a teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the
entire addendum, not what you just want to read. Maybe pay
particular attention to item 6, now you have to know what REPC is,
well I do, and you apparently do not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their
painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want
to, but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from
the sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of
difference between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

Well, they could make him watch Oprah until he does.


The OP's problem can't be fixed because the inspector refuses to tell
him what needs fixing until an envelope with cash is left where
instructed.

The seller can simply refuse to go along with requests made by the
buyer.

So far, the initial inspection said the paint had to be sealed. That
was done and now the inspector still won't pass it. I'd say that means
the seller made a good faith effort, and that can easily be the end of
the deal without any repercussions.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

It's called breach of contract. If you read the OP, you will see they are
not fixing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Everything you want
to know has been addressed in other responses.

Reading is knowledge.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire
addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to item
6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do
not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

The OP's problem can't be fixed because the inspector refuses to tell
him what needs fixing until an envelope with cash is left where
instructed.

The seller can simply refuse to go along with requests made by the
buyer.

So far, the initial inspection said the paint had to be sealed. That
was done and now the inspector still won't pass it. I'd say that means
the seller made a good faith effort, and that can easily be the end of
the deal without any repercussions.

You are not aware of breach of contract? Nobody said the seller is going to
jail. LOL. Good grief, what the heck are you smoking?

wrote in message
...
On Aug 12, 1:57 pm, dpb wrote:
Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...
Oscar wrote:
...
Every state has this addendum. The seller _must_ sign it b/4 selling
FHA. I do notice, they have where the seller can put a $$ amount in,
in
order to cap off meeting FHA minimum standards.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

Oh, but you are wrong, it is a contract. Stating there's not one now,
the seller would have to be a lunatic to go through what they are
going
through, just because someone is interested? Surely you're smarter
than
that.
...

It begins life as an addendum to a contract _OFFER_; it doesn't
comprise
an enforceable _contract_ until executed by both parties.

Not only does it have the provision for limitation of cost of repair
to
seller, look at the bottom--there's even a provision for counteroffer
from seller.

Again the reason for having counsel before jumpin' in--they know the
groundrules under which the game is played so to protect yourself from
inadvertently committing oneself to a sizable problem. And, of course,
they solve the COI problem of not having an agent actually
representing
your own interests.

You do not know what an addendum is. Good grief, its in addition to a
contract offer.

I most certainly _do_ know what an addendum is...and, in fact, that's
what I explicitly said. Again, there was an offer; there's not a
contract of which this addendum is a part _until_ there are valid
signatories.

I understand offers/counter offers, apparently you don't. The OP
started
doing the work, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because at
some
point there was an offer & acceptance. For some reason, you overlook of
why
they are doing the work.

We (at least I) don't know that for certain--it was never stated
explicitly or if it was I didn't see any statement to that fact.

From experience in how the sales process works, it is very reasonable
to conclude that there is a 99% chance that a contract does in fact
exist. A mortgage company/bank does not send out appraisers,
inspectors or anyone else without a completed mortgage application and
any required fees. A most basic part of that mortgage application is
a COPY OF THE EXECUTED PURCHASE CONTRACT. The fact that the FHA
inspector is there almost surely guarantees that the contract is in
place.


To do otherwise, they would be wasting time and money ghosts half the
time. And the buyer would have to be an idiot to start wasting time
filling out mortgage applications, usually incurring fees to do so,
hiring inspectors, etc without a contract.


=======reply below=====

Someone with common sense. I don't why I wasted so much time, attempting to
explain common sense to some individuals, it won't happen.









_IF_ (the proverbial big if) OP did sign an essentially open-ended
contract then he can only reap what he has sown and his best option is
again to get guidance from somebody on his own nickel to help in
demonstrating that the supposed defect has been adequately taken care of.

--

"dpb" wrote in message
...
I most certainly _do_ know what an addendum is...and, in fact, that's
what I explicitly said. Again, there was an offer; there's not a
contract of which this addendum is a part _until_ there are valid
signatories.

Then you would know, the OP wouldn't be bitchin about what they _must_ do.
Use a little common sense here.



We (at least I) don't know that for certain--it was never stated
explicitly or if it was I didn't see any statement to that fact.

_IF_ (the proverbial big if) OP did sign an essentially open-ended
contract then he can only reap what he has sown and his best option is
again to get guidance from somebody on his own nickel to help in
demonstrating that the supposed defect has been adequately taken care of.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA, nobody can say, oh BTW, we're going FHA.
Hence, an agreement (contract) is in place.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:11:35 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:08:02 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:

Are you drunk? If you agree to sell to someone who is financing
through FHA, you are NOT agreeing to do a damned thing except complete
the sale IF the house passes inspection and you comply with FHA
guidelines. You are under NO obligation to fix anything. If your house
fails to meet their stipulations, you can just shrug your shoulders
and walk away from the deal.

The OP isn't fixing stuff out of the kindness of their heart. It's
obvious
their was an offer & acceptance at some point. They have obligations to
fulfill, which they are attempting.

Walk away? I'm sure they can, and be prepared to go to court for
breaching
a contract.



Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 6:53 pm, "Oscar" wrote:
"Big Jim" wrote in message

...
Here in NJ you are considered a fool to buy/sell real estate without
an attorney. I don't know where you are at but here's how it works in
NJ. 1.Seller places home for sale at a price. 2. Buyer likes house ,
makes offer. 3. If offer is reasonable, contracts are drawn up with
estimated closing date, guarantee of C.O. if necessary , buyer agrees
to secure funding, buyer can inspect home and reject for defects and
so forth. 4.Attorneys review contract make changes if necessary. 5.
Buyer pays for inspections . 6. List of deficiencies is presented to
seller. 7. Seller agrees to fix some or allof them. 8. Buyer agrees
or walks away. 9. On closing day money changes hands and papers are
signed.. Of course the lender can reject a home with major defects
and therefore buyer cant buy and deal is dead. Just because you got
played doesnt mean everyone is like you. I've sold and bought several
houses. I've rejected buyers for wanting too much and walked away as a
buyer when seller wouldn't fix things. . My current home is 1935
vintage. Sure there may be some lead paint under layers of latex.
When I sell it I of course will repaint as necessary for appearance
but any buyer who thinks I will pay for total stripping etc can go
elsewhere.. I dont care who his mortgage lender is.

================ Can you turn off the HTML?======== Reply
below===========

Jim,

You're talking a conventional loan, it has nothing to do with a FHA/VA
loan. You have no knowledge of a FHA loan, the more you try to explain
away, the more you show, you know nothing about FHA.

Here's a link to an example of an FHA purchase contract from the web:

http://www.kr-ba.com/FHA.pdf


Look at line 81 where section 8 begins. There is a check box for (a)
which requires the seller to deliver certain parts of the home in
normal working condition. Then look at line 116, where there is a
check box for the alternative (b), As Is - Property shall be conveyed
"As Is", with no warranty whatsoever as to property condition

So, clearly this example of an FHA contract has provisions for
selecting (b) and selling as is. If as is were not an option, why
is it right there in the boilerplate?


==============reply below=========

Nice catch. It used to be, FHA would not sell as is. This is good
information, to keep in the memory banks.

On Aug 11, 4:39*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , rile wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint". *The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

Very unlikely that the property "has no lead paint." It may have no *exposed*
lead paint, but if it was built before 1978, it's very unlikely that it has
none at all.

An inspector came out, rejected it for that reason. *My son and I
scraped, power washed, scraped again, and painted. *They guy has come
back two more times and still rejected it. All he does is walk around,
take pictures and make a recommendation. *He doesn't touch the paint,
scrape it or anything. *All of the paint is tight. *The worst is, the
buyers don't want us to do the painting...they want to repaint it a
different color.
Any ideas....we are at the ends of our wits.

Sounds to me as though the buyer may have changed his mind about buying the
house, and is using the inspection as an excuse to back out of the
transaction. Check the purchase agreement, preferably with the help of an
attorney experienced in real estate law. Such contracts typically (in my
state, at least) allow the buyer to unilaterally cancel the agreement if the
inspection discloses a "major defect". In my opinion, lead paint that is not
peeling, checking, or flaking is not a "major defect" -- but I am not a
lawyer, which is why I suggested you should consult one. If you've hired a
real estate agent to sell the home, the agency almost certainly has a lawyer
on retainer, if not on staff, who would I'm sure be happy to explain to the
buyer (or the buyer's lawyer) the difference between "major" and "minor"
defects.

the buyers have NOT changed their minds. In fact, they are as
infuriated as we are. They are now trying to get a conventional
mortgage even though it will cost more.

In article , "Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause allows the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major defects that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix *anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care, I'll buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm outta here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer is under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's expense; the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's expense, in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he refuses to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the contract
by refusing to do so?

In article , rile wrote:

the buyers have NOT changed their minds. In fact, they are as
infuriated as we are.

Then what is the problem? You want to proceed with the sale, the buyers want
to proceed with the sale -- why can't the sale proceed? Do the buyers not know
they can waive an inspection contingency?

They are now trying to get a conventional
mortgage even though it will cost more.

Why?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:34:33 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , rile wrote:

the buyers have NOT changed their minds. In fact, they are as
infuriated as we are.

Then what is the problem? You want to proceed with the sale, the buyers want
to proceed with the sale -- why can't the sale proceed? Do the buyers not know
they can waive an inspection contingency?

This isn't the standard buyer's inspection -- the FHA mortgage can't
close without the approved inspection (similar to a conventional
mortgage not being able to close if the appraisal isn't high enough).
The buyers can't waive that (well, they can, but they then need to
find a non-FHA mortgage, which is what it sounds like they're doing)


They are now trying to get a conventional
mortgage even though it will cost more.

Why?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:53:37 -0500, Red Green
wrote:

wrote in :

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar"
wrote: Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix
anything unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants
out, all he has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so
much as a dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to
complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't
be a teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the
entire addendum, not what you just want to read. Maybe pay
particular attention to item 6, now you have to know what REPC is,
well I do, and you apparently do not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their
painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want
to, but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from
the sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of
difference between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

Well, they could make him watch Oprah until he does.


OMG! I never even considered that!

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:55:30 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire
addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to item
6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do
not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

The OP's problem can't be fixed because the inspector refuses to tell
him what needs fixing until an envelope with cash is left where
instructed.

The seller can simply refuse to go along with requests made by the
buyer.

So far, the initial inspection said the paint had to be sealed. That
was done and now the inspector still won't pass it. I'd say that means
the seller made a good faith effort, and that can easily be the end of
the deal without any repercussions.

You are not aware of breach of contract? Nobody said the seller is going to
jail. LOL. Good grief, what the heck are you smoking?



Sorry if I parted your hair in the middle. As I said, he can stop
trying to fix the bogus issues right now, and it will not be breach of
contract.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:55:30 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar"
wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all
he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be
a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire
addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to
item
6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do
not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

The OP's problem can't be fixed because the inspector refuses to tell
him what needs fixing until an envelope with cash is left where
instructed.

The seller can simply refuse to go along with requests made by the
buyer.

So far, the initial inspection said the paint had to be sealed. That
was done and now the inspector still won't pass it. I'd say that means
the seller made a good faith effort, and that can easily be the end of
the deal without any repercussions.

You are not aware of breach of contract? Nobody said the seller is going
to
jail. LOL. Good grief, what the heck are you smoking?



Sorry if I parted your hair in the middle. As I said, he can stop
trying to fix the bogus issues right now, and it will not be breach of
contract.

You didn't part my hair. In fact, as soon as you started saying walk away,
I had you pegged. Your attitude of shrug your shoulders and walk away, is a
big part of what's wrong with this country today. You're the kind, which
don't want any part of responsibility, and the attitude is sue me, clog the
courts.

Glad your colors came out early.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate
contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause allows
the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major defects
that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix *anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses
major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care, I'll
buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm outta
here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer is
under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's expense;
the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's expense,
in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he refuses
to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the
defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the
contract
by refusing to do so?

Doug,

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA, unless
they agreed to sell FHA.

You and this FHA, FHA. You're wrong and you;re angry not everyone gets
taken like you did. You yourself provided evidence the seller can
limit his repair costs . So FHA FHA means nothing if a seller refuses
to fix things or sets a limit that doesnt fix everything. It's in the
contract as you say. The OP's buyers need to either get different
financing or report the inspector's strange behavior and lack of
specific remedies for supposed problems. If the seller has made an
effort he has fulfilled his obligation. We dont know exactly what he
agreed to do. It seems that FHA has similar appraisal/inspection
procedures that many lenders do. Anytime a buyer and seller cant
agree on price, repairs , closing date etc a deal dies.


On Aug 12, 6:05*pm, "Oscar" wrote:

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA, unless
they agreed to sell FHA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:59:40 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:55:30 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:08:44 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:28:12 -0400, "Oscar"
wrote:
Nothing in that addendum legally compels the seller to fix anything
unless he wants to complete the sale. If the seller wants out, all
he
has to do is... NOTHING. He cannot be forced to fix so much as a
dripping faucet if he decides he doesn't want to complete the sale.


Good grief, now I have to explain what an addendum is. No, I won't be
a
teacher here. Read the top, let it soak in. Then read the entire
addendum,
not what you just want to read. Maybe pay particular attention to
item
6,
now you have to know what REPC is, well I do, and you apparently do
not.

The didn't start fixing stuff on their own, obviously after going
through
offers/counter offers, then acceptance, they started their painting.

I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the
paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

What if the alleged problem can't reasonably be fixed? Does the seller
go to jail? I don't think so!

The OP's problem can't be fixed because the inspector refuses to tell
him what needs fixing until an envelope with cash is left where
instructed.

The seller can simply refuse to go along with requests made by the
buyer.

So far, the initial inspection said the paint had to be sealed. That
was done and now the inspector still won't pass it. I'd say that means
the seller made a good faith effort, and that can easily be the end of
the deal without any repercussions.

You are not aware of breach of contract? Nobody said the seller is going
to
jail. LOL. Good grief, what the heck are you smoking?



Sorry if I parted your hair in the middle. As I said, he can stop
trying to fix the bogus issues right now, and it will not be breach of
contract.

You didn't part my hair. In fact, as soon as you started saying walk away,
I had you pegged. Your attitude of shrug your shoulders and walk away, is a
big part of what's wrong with this country today. You're the kind, which
don't want any part of responsibility, and the attitude is sue me, clog the
courts.

Glad your colors came out early.





You become a bigger idiot (if that is possible) with every post.
Perhaps you should put down the shovel.

"Big Jim" wrote in message
...
You and this FHA, FHA. You're wrong and you;re angry not everyone gets
taken like you did. You yourself provided evidence the seller can
limit his repair costs . So FHA FHA means nothing if a seller refuses
to fix things or sets a limit that doesnt fix everything. It's in the
contract as you say. The OP's buyers need to either get different
financing or report the inspector's strange behavior and lack of
specific remedies for supposed problems. If the seller has made an
effort he has fulfilled his obligation. We dont know exactly what he
agreed to do. It seems that FHA has similar appraisal/inspection
procedures that many lenders do. Anytime a buyer and seller cant
agree on price, repairs , closing date etc a deal dies.

========= reply below========

Jim,

Exactly, I provided proof the seller is contractually bound to fulfill
their obligations.

If they fail to fulfill their obligations, they can't just walk away. I
don't care if they put $100 as a limit, and never spent it, they don't have
a right to walk away. They can, but then that's where lawyers come in for
breach of contract. The seller must exhaust their obligations.

You & saltydog are a big part of what's wrong with this country. You both
think you can just walk away from responsibilites.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:36:47 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Big Jim" wrote in message
...
You and this FHA, FHA. You're wrong and you;re angry not everyone gets
taken like you did. You yourself provided evidence the seller can
limit his repair costs . So FHA FHA means nothing if a seller refuses
to fix things or sets a limit that doesnt fix everything. It's in the
contract as you say. The OP's buyers need to either get different
financing or report the inspector's strange behavior and lack of
specific remedies for supposed problems. If the seller has made an
effort he has fulfilled his obligation. We dont know exactly what he
agreed to do. It seems that FHA has similar appraisal/inspection
procedures that many lenders do. Anytime a buyer and seller cant
agree on price, repairs , closing date etc a deal dies.

========= reply below========

Jim,

Exactly, I provided proof the seller is contractually bound to fulfill
their obligations.

If they fail to fulfill their obligations, they can't just walk away. I
don't care if they put $100 as a limit, and never spent it, they don't have
a right to walk away. They can, but then that's where lawyers come in for
breach of contract. The seller must exhaust their obligations.

You & saltydog are a big part of what's wrong with this country. You both
think you can just walk away from responsibilites.



You don't know a damned thing about either one of us, chump.

On Aug 12, 4:34*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , rile wrote:



the buyers have NOT changed their minds. *In fact, they are as
infuriated as we are.

Then what is the problem? You want to proceed with the sale, the buyers want
to proceed with the sale -- why can't the sale proceed? Do the buyers not know
they can waive an inspection contingency?

They are now trying to get a conventional
mortgage even though it will cost more.

Why?

The buyers cannot waive the inspection contingency. It is a
requirement for the mortgage they are seeking.

Responsibilities? I've bought and sold enough homes to know when a
buyer or seller is jerking my chain. It's better to bail on a deal
than get suckered. What happened to you and how were you taken?


On Aug 12, 6:36*pm, "Oscar" wrote:

Jim,

Exactly, I provided proof the seller is contractually bound to fulfill
their obligations.

If they fail to fulfill their obligations, they can't just walk away. I
don't care if they put $100 as a limit, and never spent it, they don't have
a right to walk away. They can, but then that's where lawyers come in for
breach of contract. The seller must exhaust their obligations.

You & saltydog are a big part of what's wrong with this country. You both
think you can just walk away from responsibilites.

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

==============reply below=========

Reply below? Is your newsreader broken, or did you learn quoting
technique from Stormy, or what?