One thing to be sure of is that if your friend doesn't buy your house is that you get it in your contract with your agent that if your friend decides to buy, you will not be required to pay any commission for that sale.
I don't get why the seller should have to pay for the buyer's agent in a FSBO. That just doesn't seem right to me. You didn't hire that agent, didn't ask for that agent and the agent isn't representing you. I know that in California if a buyer hires an agent to represent them, the buyer pays that agent. A buyer's agent represents ONLY the buyer, which is not usually the case -- usually an agent represents both parties. In a FSBO, the reality is an agent represents the buyer even when doing the paperwork -- they're negotiating for the buyer, not the seller. So, why should the seller pay for that agent on top of paying an attorney and you would be foolish to not have a real estate attorney to do the paperwork for you?
__________________
Army/embassy brat - traveled too much to mention
Moved here from SF Bay Area (East Bay)
"There are only two ways to live your life: One is as though nothing is a miracle; the other is as though everything is a miracle." Albert Einstein
|