BiggerPockets

I expect to be making offers in the near future on multiple properties but can only afford one property. I'm thinking I need to put a contingency in the contracts stating that the offer may be rescinded upon acceptance of one of the other offers and that any ernest monies will be returned. Is this legally permissible and how might I phrase it?

Thanks for your feedback in advance..

Partner approval is also one that I use and I think it is one of the best. You can always put in an inspection clause.

There is one clause that my closing attorney gave me that I use at times that will get you out of any contract. It says, "Property must meet buyers intended purpose".

At times I will put a house under contract that I know I won't be buying (such as a house in a bad area). I know I will be wholesaling it and I tell the seller upfront I will be finding him a buyer. I always use this clause in this case and have not had any problems with anyone when I put it in. I don't know if you are doing REO's if they would accept it however.

Hi Nick, I don't think you have a problem here nor do you need to say anything in any of your offers. You said you can only afford to buy one, if that means you only have money to buy one, then the standard financing contingency will protect you sufficiently. If you can't afford to buy, you won't be getting a loan. You can have the loan rejected by any lender. You will need to make a good faith effort to obtain financing, but many people buy a car before they buy a house and simply don't qualify! You can also say that the buyer is in negotiating the acquisition of multiple properties and reserves the right to select only the best offer. But as mentioned above, that may get your offer to file 13!

I thought it might, in some way, make the seller think this is the only offer they would get from me and not try and counter.

What's the worst possible response to your first offer? IMHO, its "we accept." Fortunately, I've never heard that response. There is either a counter, or (more commonly with REOs) no response at all.

I use just the inspection and financing contingencies. Those make my offer's weaker, but give me some protection. Personally I dislike contingencies like "contingent on partner approval" which to me sounds like "I'll back out whenever I want". I'm quite sure that's what's meant, and I'm sure the seller recognizes that, too.

If I received an offer with a "if I get another acceptance this one's withdrawn", and I was interested in pursuing that offer, I'd cross that out on my counter.

Another thing to do is to put in a fairly short acceptance period. When I make offers on the weekend, I put the upcoming Friday as the acceptance deadline. That way next weekend's searching starts with nothing on the table. If the seller is interested, they can counter, and I'll certainly listen. But they can't accept my offer after the deadline and obligate me to buy.

I also use the "earnest money to be provided within 48 (or 72) hours of contract acceptance" clause rather than providing earnest money up front.

There's always some chance a deal will fall apart after you do have a mutually executed contract. So, even if I had to acceptances at about the same time (its happened once), I would pursue both until my last opportunity to bail out.

In the same vein, what about MLS short sales? As everyone knows these can drag on for months before closing. Is there a problem with making several of these offers and then backing out on some?

Either way, just get those offers out there as it's the old numbers game...and if you somehow get every one accepted, you're either offering too high or have the magic touch.

No contingencies that the OP was looking for; just make them the same based on the type (REO, short sale, etc.). No need to mention you have others out there.

If one comes back you like & can work with, then any other acceptances you can simply say to the agent, "I'm sorry but I have to now pass." If you need to explain further, you had another offer accepted. End of story.