[huntervonmanley]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

What about the escrow company? In a typical real estate sales contract, the earnest money is held by a third party in an escrow account that does not belong to either the buyer or the seller. The earnest money is rarely ever forfeited because the purpose of it is to demonstrate that the buyer is serious about buying the house, not to be used as a threat or penalty against the buyer to force a sale. But, the broker has told the buyer that they will automatically forfeit the money if they don't complete the sale. Totally not true. What is wrong with the buyer asking an attorney to review the contract, explain their rights, and ask the escrow company to refund the earnest money? The escrow company is the decider here, not the broker. It sounds like this broker has not treated the buyer ethically or in a fair and fiduciary manner, as required by law.

The escrow company ABSOLUTLEY is Not the decider as to who gets the escrow money if the deal does not close. If the deal does not close and both parties lay claim to the escrow, it will be the Florida Real Estate Commission who decides will get the escrow. Please do not give misleading information to this lady, who is clearly distraught (rightfully so).

Ma'am if you read this, I am praying that your husband's surgery goes well and he makes a full and speedy recovery.

[Velvet]

I’m not quite sure why these real estate purchase agreements are written in a way that the common person cannot understand them. They usually need translation into ordinary language. I am used to various types of jargon, but it makes me upset that these agreements don’t come with a translation into English for the average buyer (and the seller). When I don’t understand something, as the lady says she can’t figure out the inspection clause, I do check it out but NOT with the real estate agent. Then I write into the document what I understand the clause to mean and what agreement I am actually signing. Mortgage companies hate it when I do this, but then they have to give me plain English document. I know courts can still challenge things but at least they can see what my understanding was.

Personally, I refuse to take leaps into the great unknown with my finances especially when it’s so significant.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by huntervonmanley

The escrow company ABSOLUTLEY is Not the decider as to who gets the escrow money if the deal does not close. If the deal does not close and both parties lay claim to the escrow, it will be the Florida Real Estate Commission who decides will get the escrow. Please do not give misleading information to this lady, who is clearly distraught (rightfully so).

Ma'am if you read this, I am praying that your husband's surgery goes well and he makes a full and speedy recovery.

I don't think my information was misleading. I agree that the escrow company may not make the "final" decision about the earnest money, but neither does the broker. The sales broker has told the buyer that she will lose the money if she doesn't complete the sale. That is not true. But, if the buyer makes a claim to the money in a letter to the escrow company, preferably through an attorney, the escrow company can "decide" to withhold the money from the broker and the seller. To me, that is the best course of action for the buyer. And, if the sale is not completed, the buyer will most likely have the earnest money refunded. Do you have a better idea?

[Velvet]

And next time, if you go ahead again, OP, just cross out the sections you don’t understand on the document the real estate person hands you, for example, the number of days you have for an inspection, because this document is your offer as to what you will give and on what your conditions are, to the buyer. You are in charge. The buyer may or may not accept your offer, and counter something to you. Then you decide again. I am assuming this is a pre owned home.

[rsmurano]

1 more thing, the concrete blocks are hollow and porous. How do you know you didn’t start filling up some of these blocks, or maybe you filled up these blocks before it started running over to the inside wall.
Your real estate agent is ignorant in saying everything is ok, no it’s not ok until you get the wall, insulation, drywall, carpet/pad dried out, inspected, and paid for by the seller. Then I would still walk.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

1 more thing, the concrete blocks are hollow and porous. How do you know you didn’t start filling up some of these blocks, or maybe you filled up these blocks before it started running over to the inside wall.
Your real estate agent is ignorant in saying everything is ok, no it’s not ok until you get the wall, insulation, drywall, carpet/pad dried out, inspected, and paid for by the seller. Then I would still walk.

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by frayedends

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.

The seller may “fix” the issue and it is fixed when the person the buyer independently hires and says it’s fixed. Otherwise, it could just be a scam. Never trust someone who has a vested interest in YOUR money.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by Velvet

The seller may “fix” the issue and it is fixed when the person the buyer independently hires and says it’s fixed. Otherwise, it could just be a scam. Never trust someone who has a vested interest in YOUR money.

Oh I don’t disagree. Trust but verify. But there are people telling the buyer to back out even though the seller may have met all the contract obligations.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.

How is the seller being screwed? It appears that the sales contract is only a few weeks old. Unless the seller can prove a significant financial loss, they can just put the house back on the market without losing anything except a few weeks. If the contract had an unusual deposit or inspection clause, the licensed broker had a fiduciary duty to explain it to the unsophisticated buyer. But, if it is a standard sales contract, the broker has no right to tell the buyer that they cannot get money back that is being held in escrow by a third party. And, this situation does not appear to be a buyer with cold feet. The escrow money is not a penalty to be used by the broker to force a sale.

The OP's original question was "can the $10,000 deposit money be refunded"? The answer to that question is most likely yes.

[Normal]

If the seller isn’t confident that they are selling a quality home at a good price for the buyer, why should the buyer be confident to go through with the purchase? Anyone with half a noggin would say, “Hey, this house isn’t what it appeared to be, I’m not buying damaged goods.” This contract was broken when the water leak wasn’t disclosed.

Get a lawyer, you would win. The owner needs to sink in the bucks and correct any mold, truss soffit damage, carpet exchange etc. before even thinking of putting the home back on the market.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

How is the seller being screwed? It appears that the sales contract is only a few weeks old. Unless the seller can prove a significant financial loss, they can just put the house back on the market without losing anything except a few weeks. If the contract had an unusual deposit or inspection clause, the licensed broker had a fiduciary duty to explain it to the unsophisticated buyer. But, if it is a standard sales contract, the broker has no right to tell the buyer that they cannot get money back that is being held in escrow by a third party. And, this situation does not appear to be a buyer with cold feet. The escrow money is not a penalty to be used by the broker to force a sale.

The OP's original question was "can the $10,000 deposit money be refunded"? The answer to that question is most likely yes.

What do you know about the seller's situation? What do you know about the contract. From all we can gather based on the OP's post, the contract allows the seller 10 days to fix inspection issues. This does not sound like complicated language. We have asked the OP for details multiple times and that is all we got. So that isn't a standard contract, but not surprising given the buyer did not have an agent representing them. Up here in MA it's a seller's market big time. Inspections are being waved and sometimes the contract says the buyer won't ask for any repairs unless over a certain amount (like $25K). Inspection concessions are common in real estate deals.

How is the seller being screwed? IDK, but hypothetically... Maybe they are buying a new build and based the closing date on what this buyer had for closing on their home. Now the Villages is going to fine them daily for closing late if they need the proceeds from this sale to close.

Maybe the seller has a home under contract somewhere else and a mortgage rate lock that expires if this sale doesn't happen when contracted.

Maybe the seller had a home sale contingency on their new purchase and once under contract on their sale they are now locked in to their new purchase, but this delay will cost them their deposit.

Maybe the seller is moving to another state to take care of their dying mother and needs the proceeds for medical costs and had everything planned based on the closing date of this contract.

Maybe maybe maybe. We all heard the buyer's side. What we heard so far is that they found an inspection issue and were told that the seller claims the issue has been fixed per the purchase agreement. But oh, the buyer has a sick husband so everyone feels bad for them and takes their side. We know half the story and to be honest, the half we heard shows the seller did what they were supposed to and the buyer should be following the contract.

The deposit is to hold the buyer to the contract. I'm sorry but the buyer should lose their deposit if the seller abided by the contract and had the issue fixed. Of course, I'm not dismissing that the repair needs to be confirmed. But you sign a contract you follow it. If you don't understand the contract you get someone, an agent or a lawyer, to explain it to you.

Now, could I be completely wrong? Of course. Maybe the contract does have a clause for the buyer to terminate based on the inspection. Maybe the realtor is crooked as hell and in cahoots with the inspector and the seller. Maybe they all knew about the water issue and totally planned on screwing this buyer over. It's not like their business is almost completely dependent on word of mouth and a good reputation. Oh, wait, what. Yeah, I could be wrong. But I'm leaning more toward I'm correct.

[Velvet]

Heartnsoul, if you feel threatened or pushed into doing something, either by the real estate people or any one else, please post it here. I believe we will give you strength and support at this forum.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

What do you know about the seller's situation? What do you know about the contract. From all we can gather based on the OP's post, the contract allows the seller 10 days to fix inspection issues. This does not sound like complicated language. We have asked the OP for details multiple times and that is all we got. So that isn't a standard contract, but not surprising given the buyer did not have an agent representing them. Up here in MA it's a seller's market big time. Inspections are being waved and sometimes the contract says the buyer won't ask for any repairs unless over a certain amount (like $25K). Inspection concessions are common in real estate deals.

How is the seller being screwed? IDK, but hypothetically... Maybe they are buying a new build and based the closing date on what this buyer had for closing on their home. Now the Villages is going to fine them daily for closing late if they need the proceeds from this sale to close.

Maybe the seller has a home under contract somewhere else and a mortgage rate lock that expires if this sale doesn't happen when contracted.

Maybe the seller had a home sale contingency on their new purchase and once under contract on their sale they are now locked in to their new purchase, but this delay will cost them their deposit.

Maybe the seller is moving to another state to take care of their dying mother and needs the proceeds for medical costs and had everything planned based on the closing date of this contract.

Maybe maybe maybe. We all heard the buyer's side. What we heard so far is that they found an inspection issue and were told that the seller claims the issue has been fixed per the purchase agreement. But oh, the buyer has a sick husband so everyone feels bad for them and takes their side. We know half the story and to be honest, the half we heard shows the seller did what they were supposed to and the buyer should be following the contract.

The deposit is to hold the buyer to the contract. I'm sorry but the buyer should lose their deposit if the seller abided by the contract and had the issue fixed. Of course, I'm not dismissing that the repair needs to be confirmed. But you sign a contract you follow it. If you don't understand the contract you get someone, an agent or a lawyer, to explain it to you.

Now, could I be completely wrong? Of course. Maybe the contract does have a clause for the buyer to terminate based on the inspection. Maybe the realtor is crooked as hell and in cahoots with the inspector and the seller. Maybe they all knew about the water issue and totally planned on screwing this buyer over. It's not like their business is almost completely dependent on word of mouth and a good reputation. Oh, wait, what. Yeah, I could be wrong. But I'm leaning more toward I'm correct.

I agree that there are a lot of maybe's and no one knows the seller's situation. But, we do know the following:

1. There was water damage that was visible, but not disclosed to the buyer.
2. Immediately after the inspection, the broker asked the buyer to modify the contract by extending the inspection period, but the buyer wanted to cancel the deal instead.
3. The broker repeatedly told the buyer, incorrectly, that the deposit could not be refunded. To me, this sounds like coercion.

These facts alone should indicate that this sales contract was not a true "meeting of the minds", which is required for every legally enforceable contract. In my opinion, there is plenty of reason to void the contract.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree that there are a lot of maybe's and no one knows the seller's situation. But, we do know the following:

1. There was water damage that was visible, but not disclosed to the buyer.
2. Immediately after the inspection, the broker asked the buyer to modify the contract by extending the inspection period, but the buyer wanted to cancel the deal instead.
3. The broker repeatedly told the buyer, incorrectly, that the deposit could not be refunded. To me, this sounds like coercion.

These facts alone should indicate that this sales contract was not a true "meeting of the minds", which is required for every legally enforceable contract. In my opinion, there is plenty of reason to void the contract.

Yeah, definitely some weird stuff there. I assumed (maybe I missed some posts) that the water issue happened between the offer and the inspection. I did not know the the seller knew of the water issue and didn't disclose it.

Not sure of the timing of the repair and why they needed an extension. It seems they did get it fixed within the 10 days. Perhaps the agent thought it would take longer. The whole 10 day thing is very weird anyhow. If I were a seller I wouldn't assume I could get any repair done in 10 days. Just getting a contractor available in that time is difficult.

So yeah, if it went over the 10 days the buyer could back out and that was her out as far as I can tell. But apparently the repair was easy. If I were the buyer I'd be checking the carpet or whatever was repaired in the house to make sure it's been rectified. I'd not be happy with flooring that was wet and not replaced. Fixing the leak is only the first part.

We don't know what language the realtor used. What people post isn't always accurate. The OP sounds afraid and could have embellished the realtor's response. She could have said, "The seller would like to fix this issue. They aren't sure it can be done in 10 days. Would you extend that? If they do get it fixed within 10 days your deposit would be at risk by backing out."

But that being said we shouldn't assume this was all nefarious. There are definitely details missing and some of the details we have seem strange so I'm not sure how accurate they are. I'd love to see the contract, at least the inspection part of it.

[Carla B]

Frayed Ends re Post #71: Well, I'm leaning more toward your being incorrect, grossly incorrect.

From other two threads by the OP: Villa not new, does not involve The Villages new homes, does not involve seller being fined for late closing, does not even involve a VLS listing. OP mentioned a Realty Exec agent, though not in what capacity. Villa offered at $40,000 under comparable listings. That sounds to me like a Florida "As Is" contract form. I'm not an agent but we have bought homes with this contract and walked away from one at no cost to ourselves. Because we were within the Inspection Period.

Woman who lived there passed at age 97. OP opines that she probably didn't suspect the wet carpet issue. We don't know who is the seller. Maybe the seller is a corporate entity or an estate? Anyway, it is not someone who has a dying mother out of state...rather the deceased sounds like she was the "dying mother." She doesn't need the money to close on another property, as you hypothesize.

The buyer's inspector said the villa needs new windows. Maybe irrelevant but costly, nonetheless. He also found the wet carpet in the closet, but didn't photograph it or offer an opinion on what caused it. The seller states the carpet issue has been fixed on time by correcting a sprinkler spray. The buyer is fearful of trusting that a simple repair could have fixed problems that might have occurred in the meantime, such as mold.

These are some reasons why your thesis doesn't "hold water," vs. that of RG123, who has followed this from the beginning.