All Forum Posts by: Tom Gimer

The terms I am using are totally irrelevant to the law? 

Thanks for the laugh. The terms I am using are the terms actually included in the law. And the terms you are using:

more than two times a year you post on any public place that you are looking in anyway to be compensated even theoretically for a dollar for anything having to do with a real estate transaction and don’t either have clear title to that property or are properly licensed

Where did those terms come from?

Again… who said anything about an assignment?

Legislative history is part of every law’s record. This bill expands the definition of real estate broker to include someone who regularly assigns contracts. It does not in any way relate to the double close scenario. Will they eventually pass legislation to include it, who knows. 

Some states include marketing a property or advertising on a listing service in the definition. Virginia does not appear to be one of those states. 

I don't see marketing in the VA definition. But regardless I don't see how marketing a property you have under contract to another investor would be brokering unless they continue to move the goalposts. When you do it as a principal it’s neither for the seller nor for compensation. 

Just double close. Yes, it costs a little more... adjust your offers accordingly.

The law is a mirage. Very few brokers will want licensed wholesalers under their umbrella.

They will likely terminate before the inspection period expires. If they don’t, my guess is they already have a buyer on the line. 

The solution going forward is don’t agree to terms with wholesalers that have study periods unless the DD period is reasonable and/or you can still market until the $ goes hard. 

@Jay Lam To answer that question [(d)(i)(D)] you will need to identify the named Insured, the members of the LLC, and the consideration stated in the deed.

And even if the conditions for the LLC being covered by the definition of the "Insured" are not met, the policy would not be voided. I would get a second opinion from somebody other than the title insurance company rep providing you bad information.

What @Peter Walther is saying in the "word salad" is that, when a fraudster forges and records a deed, that doesn't actually have the effect of transferring title... only the true owner can do that. A forged deed is generally void ab initio. 

But a forged deed does create an issue that needs to be resolved... either by having the instrument stricken from the land records via court order or whatever the local custom is.

Yes -- if I can help in any way or just want to meet up let me know.

Can't some fool jump in here with a quick "Pace Morby is the best thing that ever happened to me" comment to lighten things up?