Wholesaler laws becoming formalized and regulated its starting here in Oregon
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
I understand the sentiment, but the last thing I want is more regulation and more hands in the pot. A prudent seller would choose to be represented by an attorney in a situation such as this, but I dont want the government telling people they have to pay for an attorney for their own good just to sell their own house.
I'd much rather see criminal laws that are aggressive when it comes to fraud and deceit/sleight of hand. If a property seller makes a poor decision voluntarily, then sucks to be them. But if a wholesaler/solicitor uses fraud or deceit/deception to gain consent where they wouldnt have otherwise gotten it from a party that was not deceived, then this could easily fall into the realm of fraud and criminal prosecution would be appropriate. Now, parsing out fraud and deception vs "sales tactics" will be tough, but that's the nature of the beast.
I will caveat this with the fact that I am fiercely libertarian and detest the idea of the government being involved at all in a transaction between two parties, but that's just my $0.02. At the rate we're going, pretty soon we're going to need attorneys and government regulators to certify the purchase of a bagel for breakfast.
|
|
I like it. Seems good to me.
|
|
I like it. Seems good to me.
|
|
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
|
|
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
|
|
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
I understand the sentiment, but the last thing I want is more regulation and more hands in the pot. A prudent seller would choose to be represented by an attorney in a situation such as this, but I dont want the government telling people they have to pay for an attorney for their own good just to sell their own house.
I'd much rather see criminal laws that are aggressive when it comes to fraud and deceit/sleight of hand. If a property seller makes a poor decision voluntarily, then sucks to be them. But if a wholesaler/solicitor uses fraud or deceit/deception to gain consent where they wouldnt have otherwise gotten it from a party that was not deceived, then this could easily fall into the realm of fraud and criminal prosecution would be appropriate. Now, parsing out fraud and deception vs "sales tactics" will be tough, but that's the nature of the beast.
I will caveat this with the fact that I am fiercely libertarian and detest the idea of the government being involved at all in a transaction between two parties, but that's just my $0.02. At the rate we're going, pretty soon we're going to need attorneys and government regulators to certify the purchase of a bagel for breakfast.
|
|
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
I understand the sentiment, but the last thing I want is more regulation and more hands in the pot. A prudent seller would choose to be represented by an attorney in a situation such as this, but I dont want the government telling people they have to pay for an attorney for their own good just to sell their own house.
I'd much rather see criminal laws that are aggressive when it comes to fraud and deceit/sleight of hand. If a property seller makes a poor decision voluntarily, then sucks to be them. But if a wholesaler/solicitor uses fraud or deceit/deception to gain consent where they wouldnt have otherwise gotten it from a party that was not deceived, then this could easily fall into the realm of fraud and criminal prosecution would be appropriate. Now, parsing out fraud and deception vs "sales tactics" will be tough, but that's the nature of the beast.
I will caveat this with the fact that I am fiercely libertarian and detest the idea of the government being involved at all in a transaction between two parties, but that's just my $0.02. At the rate we're going, pretty soon we're going to need attorneys and government regulators to certify the purchase of a bagel for breakfast.
having worked in Charleston personally I get where your coming from because the reality is you do have lawyers on all transactions.. the buyer has a lawyer and the seller has there own lawyer so its already highly regulated and you have lawyers looking at each transaction. This will catch many if not most transactions that could be deemed taking advantage of some seller. And of course SC just made assinging contracts not legal so they are already doing it.
out West we dont use lawyers to transact.. WE use title and escrow companies and or we do a fair amount of business using neither escrow or title or attorneys we can do our own deals. when i use to do foreclosure rescue before that became illegal I did my own.. I did my own title search and prepped by own deeds had seller go to notary sign hand over check to seller and then walk over to courthouse and record the transfer deed.. did this in CA OR AND WA.
this does not happen like this is many states..
To me this is a consumer protection act.. And if everyone is fair does nothing to stop commerce or trading of RE.. WE see that it is specific to SFR transactions and thats were the most abuse by not so nice wholesalers takes place.. 5 units or more bare land commercial is not affected. Edit bare land is affected if its for residental purposes.
This whole bag of craziness can be avoided by just having a regulation that residential property sellers MUST be represented by an attorney.
How is that NOT an excessive, unnecessary, and paternalistic, government regulation, Don?
|
|
Someone had there thinking cap on, I'm a bit surprised, did the government outsource this? lol.
2 big standouts for me is:
The section on a wholesaler not being qualified to give a price opinion. That's big, very big, and it's so subtly tucked in there.
Arguably the top issue/complaint is "so n so said it was worth $____ and now I'm f'd, they lied to me" and it's been a thing of hiding behind the buyer-beware and whatnot. This removes that vail, at least to some degree.
Second is the teeth in it, yikes, it has the barrel loaded from get-go. Buyer/seller can automatically get legal fee's..... you know attorneys are gonna key in on this and offer "have you been burned by a wholesaler? We'll nail-em to the wall, give us a call, don't worry we'll even make em pay our fee's" and wouldn't ya know they charge $600 per hr, lol.
Be curious to see how it plays out, if and how quick other states adopt it over.
I like it.
Only viable work around is for the players who can close and hold property for what is a very reasonable short time, so they protected flippers in it.
I like it.
|
|
Someone had there thinking cap on, I'm a bit surprised, did the government outsource this? lol.
2 big standouts for me is:
The section on a wholesaler not being qualified to give a price opinion. That's big, very big, and it's so subtly tucked in there.
Arguably the top issue/complaint is "so n so said it was worth $____ and now I'm f'd, they lied to me" and it's been a thing of hiding behind the buyer-beware and whatnot. This removes that vail, at least to some degree.
Second is the teeth in it, yikes, it has the barrel loaded from get-go. Buyer/seller can automatically get legal fee's..... you know attorneys are gonna key in on this and offer "have you been burned by a wholesaler? We'll nail-em to the wall, give us a call, don't worry we'll even make em pay our fee's" and wouldn't ya know they charge $600 per hr, lol.
Be curious to see how it plays out, if and how quick other states adopt it over.
I like it.
Only viable work around is for the players who can close and hold property for what is a very reasonable short time, so they protected flippers in it.
I like it.
There are essentially no assignment deals going on in Charleston any longer. At least not with residential properties. You can still assign commercial properties and vacant land, but not with anything residential. The attorneys have essentially been deputized by the REC. Any agent or attorney that assists with a "wholesale" deal could also be liable if they assist with the deal. The bill expressly prohibits agent from acting in or assisting with wholesaling.
My partner and I just started taking title a few years ago. It's not really been that big of an adjustment. Having to put some skin in the game tends to keep the bad actors out of the process. I'm not upset about the "ban" that we've seen. I just wish the bill was more clear. A lot of people have been trying to find loopholes and some less scrupulous attorneys are still closing these if they're arranged in a certain way.
There are essentially no assignment deals going on in Charleston any longer. At least not with residential properties. You can still assign commercial properties and vacant land, but not with anything residential. The attorneys have essentially been deputized by the REC. Any agent or attorney that assists with a "wholesale" deal could also be liable if they assist with the deal. The bill expressly prohibits agent from acting in or assisting with wholesaling.
My partner and I just started taking title a few years ago. It's not really been that big of an adjustment. Having to put some skin in the game tends to keep the bad actors out of the process. I'm not upset about the "ban" that we've seen. I just wish the bill was more clear. A lot of people have been trying to find loopholes and some less scrupulous attorneys are still closing these if they're arranged in a certain way.
I suspect the SC wholesaling law will be revised and materially changed before this is over with. Parts of it are vague, and I personally feel that some of it overreaches the state's authority to regulate. I guess we'll see, though. I know of a few people still doing it illegally.
That being said, I also dont think taking title is that big of deal, either. It's mostly the wholesalers who have no cash and no ability to get financing that are complaining.
You're probably right @Patrick Roberts. And they've been the problem in the eyes of the REC. The term that was being used frequently was "equity stripping". Enough sellers complained that they were deceived and weren't aware the wholesaler wasn't their ultimate buyer and/or that they didn't approve of the assignment fee. They felt they were taken advantage of. Especially the lower-income folks.
It could be an overreaction now and calibrate later, but we'll see. I've personally not seen much of an effect to the market due to it. The wholesalers have been affected, but I don't think it's been too big of a detriment on flippers.
You're probably right @Patrick Roberts. And they've been the problem in the eyes of the REC. The term that was being used frequently was "equity stripping". Enough sellers complained that they were deceived and weren't aware the wholesaler wasn't their ultimate buyer and/or that they didn't approve of the assignment fee. They felt they were taken advantage of. Especially the lower-income folks.
It could be an overreaction now and calibrate later, but we'll see. I've personally not seen much of an effect to the market due to it. The wholesalers have been affected, but I don't think it's been too big of a detriment on flippers.
Yeah, I've heard the equity stripping argument as well. I dont doubt that there were some predatory and unethical things happening, but my personal opinion is that more govt red tape/intervention isnt the answer. My guess is that a lot of the bad actors could be sorted out with tort suits by skilled attorneys. I suppose time will tell wehther the wholesale law withstands scrutiny.
I think the market slowdown would likely have put a major dent in wholesaler fees even without the new law.