Appraisal gap issue, buyers won’t negotiate

Appraisal gap issue, buyers won’t negotiate

Member since 2020 · 4 posts · 0 votes

We are selling our primary home in a very hot San Diego market. We received multiple offers, pushing the price 40k+ over asking. Accepted offer came from a buyer  utilizing an appraisal gap clause to offer an addition 10k over appraisal. We got hit with a rather low appraisal that even with the 10k, leaves an 8k shortfall. We have tried all lines of negotiation with the buyer (request second appraisal, split the difference, accept lower price with allowance of 1 month free rent back), the agents have even offered to throw some commission back, but the buyers refuse. They believe (and are being advised), that we as the sellers are contractually obligated to sell them the property at this now lower price of appraisal + 10. We are now being threatened with a lawsuit after close if we do not oblige them. Our broker’s attorney thinks it’s crazy, but the buyers are now being represented by a well seasoned California real estate attorney. What are we missing here? We’ve done so many investment real estate transactions, but of course the first sale of a “family home” and it all goes awry. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

0Reply
156 views

Most Popular Reply

Real Estate Professional · West Palm Beach, FL · Member since 2012 · 23k+ posts · 13k+ votes
5y

@Nicholas Grell Okay, so this is not any type of “standardized” appraisal addendum. But BTW, #3 Does supersede #1, as written.  It is Very poorly written and neither agent should have let it go as written.

My first thought was........It does Not say what happens if the appraisal is more than $10k below the contract price....ie. either buyer can walk Or seller sells for appraisal plus $10k.

But, after reading it again, my thought is.....the clause says the buyer will pay the Difference Between Appraisal and the Sales  Price (up to $10k).  No Where, does it say seller will sell for “appraisal plus $10k”.  To me, they are dead in the water.

Typically, when such an ambiguity is the crux of a court action, the court rules against whoever drafted the ambiguous clause.  Since they are “threatening” to sue “After the closing”, as opposed to now, I’d consider it less likely, and more of just a bluff.

See this reply in the discussion

29 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    @Bob E. If I were the seller I think its a mistake to read that clause as hostile ("heads I win...), as for the buyers attorney's bluster, it wouldn't be the first time a buyers attorney hurt their client by behaving like its a contest, although it sounds like the original poster might have made threats about keeping EMD as I think they misunderstood the clause. All you have to do if you want to walk is give them their EMD back.

    A clause like that can make an offer stronger in a multiple offer/bidding up situation by mitigating the risk to the seller of a low appraisal. If the other offers just had that it had to appraise at the purchase price then these guys essentially offered you price insurance. Of course, if others waived the appraisal contingency thats better--but I think thats still not that usual, yes?

  • Oceanside, CA · Member since 2021 · 4 posts · 0 votes
    5y

    So how did this situation pan out? I may be in a similar situation... also in San Diego.

  • Lender · Grand Rapids, MI · Member since 2019 · 175 posts · 82 votes
    5y

    Interesting how so many people are so generous with someone else’s money. Seems pretty clear that this gave them a opportunity to exit not force your

     However I would certainly not trust RE Broker or their attorney and consult with your own, If buyer correct you will certainly be having that attorney contact agent and broker if it was explained to you differently.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.