BiggerPockets

IMO, you have a contract. You said it was signed and then sent to her attorney. Unless your contrcat has a contingency for acceptance by her attorney, the seller should not have signed it until after the attorney reviewed. The seller wants a Mulligan, IMO. Any do over is up to you, and hope you held on to the original and gave her a copy or a duplicate original!

Otherwise, they will likely attack the validity of the agreement. If that was my deal and I made it properly, I'd tell the attorney the deal has been struck and that the contract was FYI. And, you could always negoiate the deal again in the presence of the attorney. Really, they should not care, IMO. Good luck.

As Bill said, if both parties (you and the Seller) signed the agreement -- and assuming the contract was valid -- you have a binding agreement and the attorney can't force you to change anything.

The only way the Seller can back out or change the contract is if there is a provision in the contract that allows this.

Btw, I would suggest using "OR assigns" in future contracts instead of "AND assigns"...

If you want to keep the contract in-force as-is, I would suggest just completely ignoring the attorney and continuing to work directly with the seller. If the seller tells you to work with his/her attorney instead, then just proceed with the deal without any consideration from the seller or his attorney (there is no reason to argue over a contract that is already binding).

If you don't want to proceed with this contract (if you want to cancel it or revise it), expect that the seller will require you use the revised version provided by his attorney. If you're not okay with that, I would suggest just letting the seller know that you don't want to proceed with a new contract and come to a written agreement to terminate.

Lily, how long was this property "on the market?" How many other offers came in?

The longer it has been on the market and the fewer offers, the more bargaining strength that you have. If yours was the only offer (in many weeks, and the seller's attorney tries to throw some weight around, tell the seller that the attorney's requirements are unacceptable and if the seller and lawyer persist, you walk away. That leaves the seller with an unsold piece of property and her attorney to blame.

Do you sense that the attorney is protecting the seller (client) by trying to get the maximum sales price and preventing you from reselling? If so, then the attorney is protecting the seller right out of a sale.

Good Luck

The house was on the market for over 6 months and had two rejected offers before I came along. After I made an all cash offer to close in 45 days and got the seller to sign the contract I aggressively marketed the property, and there had been some interest but no offer that meets my price. I was looking to assign the contract and make a quick buck, but if I have to close on it I will need to sell at a price close to where the seller left off when the listing expired. It does not make any sense for me to close on a property only to lose money after paying the closing/attorney costs twice, plus transactional funding fees and the taxes at the higher sale price to the end buyer, plus realtor commission if the buyer came from the MLS. I may have to walk away if seller would not agree to extend the closing and especially the assignment part. The seller and the attorney are fully aware that I plan to flip and resell for a profit, only the attorney is insisting that I close first, then resell to whoever I want.

This is an estate sale. The attorney likely is more general practice than real estate specialist. He even told the seller "if the buyer's paying cash why can't we close in two weeks, instead of 45 days?" Jerk.