All Forum Posts by: Jake Kucheck

... at least in Riverside County, CA.

I've seen some anecdotal posts lately along these same lines, but always good to see it backed up by thorough analysis and facts.

Anyone else have an opinion concurring with or dissenting from this statement?

If you make lots of bids and don't follow through on the ones that get accepted, or do not have proof of funds to close on all of the offers you make, then I could see that as a potential negative.

If you have the cash to cover everything you are writing, there shouldn't be any problem.

It sounds to me like the agent is being lazy and only wants to write offers that have a higher probability of getting accepted.

Did you kill the Vegas idea Josh?

J Scott and everyone else who asked about recourse, the recourse is that the buyer never gets his deposit back and it goes to the state of CA after 7 years (as previously mentioned). I'm cool with that, but I'd rather get it myself. In no circumstance do I see myself giving them back the EMD.

Anyway, the only distinction I was really looking to make was whether or not the first buyer would have a legitimate claim to the house if they didn't go the LP route. It sounds like nobody knows the answer to that question, which isn't overly surprising. The broker and legal assistance provided by CAR can make suggestions, but they can't stop irrational people from filing (maybe) frivolous lawsuits.

In any event, probably done with this thread unless somebody wants to actually answer my initial question.

Michael Spencer if you're putting bandit signs up in Aliso they aren't going to last very long. They would even take my open house signs that didn't conform (size and color scheme).

I'd rather not refund on the EMD on principal, but was trying to determine whether or not doing so would incur any unnecessary liability.

Yes, clearly if I refund the EMD the first buyer will go away. Until I was able to close with a new buyer, I have no incentive to do that. Now that I am, I'm still not sure I have an incentive to do that. That's what I am trying to figure out, but it seems like everyone that lives in another state has trouble understanding this concept.

Of course there was a financing contingency. It was removed, along with all other contingencies. . Thus, the buyer has no right to their EMD. However, unless the buyer also sees it that way, escrow cannot simply release their EMD to the seller (in CA). I don't know how much clearer I can be about the process than that.

K. Marie Poe- Yes the new buyer still wants to buy. The old one wants their EMD released in full, which is ridiculous. Not going to do that. They have received such a letter. Just being difficult, to no rational end. Not sure how filing an LP helps me here... as the seller. The goal is to sell the property to the new buyer... an LP would make that harder, not easier. And I'd be filing it... against myself?

Buying at auction (at least here in CA) you typically don't see the inside of every house you buy. You also buy it with cash, the same day that you find out how much you can buy it for. So, you either have to be comfortable with that or not participate.

How do you get "comfortable" with that, you ask?

Well... there's lots of contextual clues.

How old is the house? How big? What does the outside look like? What does the lawn look like? Are there cars on it? Couches? What do the cars in the surrounding neighborhood look like? What do the people in the surrounding neighborhood look like? Was it previously listed on the MLS? If so... how long has it been and how dilapidated does the outside seem from when the photos are taken?

After a while... you'll get to the point where taking in all of these things is second nature, and you won't really need to see the inside to get within 10% of the right number for rehab.

Then again, you'll also be very, very, wrong 10% of the time. So if you can't afford to be, figure out a way in.

To explain that further... the purchase contract needs to be fully executed and thus bilateral to be a valid contract. However, the way CA views canceling a contract, is that while technically either side can cancel unilaterally, the cancellation carries no weight and cannot be executed by escrow unless it is bilateral.

The scenario you end up with is that when one of the parties refuses to sign the cancellation, the EMD stays in escrow for seven years, and if a resolution is still not reached through arbitration, mediation, litigation, or castration, the EMD is given to the state of CA.

Texas is starting to sound pretty good, now that I think about it.

Of course they're in breach. No one is debating that.

I guess I should have prefaced it by saying the property is in CA, the land of bilateral cancellations (and no closing attorneys). The escrow company is a neutral party, so they're not really allowed to have an opinion.