12-28-06

WAS IT DISCLOSED TO THE SELLERS THAT THE LISTING AGENT WAS A PARTNER IN THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY THAT ULTIMATELY BOUGHT THE HOUSE.?   DID THE SELLERS AGREE TO THIS AND SIGN A DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGING THIS.    IF THEY DID,   THEN WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.   YES, USUALLY WHEN YOU FLIP A HOUSE, YOU DO SO WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING MONEY.

IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IF THE SELLERS WERE COMPLETELY INFORMED ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY.

CAROL

newbie writes:<<WAS IT DISCLOSED TO THE SELLERS THAT THE LISTING AGENT WAS A PARTNER IN THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY THAT ULTIMATELY BOUGHT THE HOUSE.?   DID THE SELLERS AGREE TO THIS AND SIGN A DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGING THIS.    IF THEY DID,   THEN WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.>> 

marc writes:<<Just my thoughts, but if someone gave me a fair price for what I have and  even if I was not told it was going to be flipped and it was for more $ I would not care. They could take that $ and I could get on with my life.>>

Your points of view are not much more than convenient, efficient, free market rationalization for potentially self-serving real-estate representative(s) who supposedly act in a fiduciary capacity for the clients they serve.  What is the likelihood that when there is additional gain to be had (The profit motive; one party benefiting at the expense of the other, etc.) the real-estate professional is truly acting in the client's interest rather than his own?  If this scenario is not a conflict of interest in fact, it certainly is in appearance, regardless of the nature and extent of the disclosures made.  Is there no inherent trust in this relationship?  Is this an arm's length transaction?  Is this the mantra of the code of conduct (if there is such a thing):  "As long as I convolutedly disclose to you that I am working in my own interests rather than yours, I can pretty much do as I please, subverting your interests for my own?"  You both agree this behavior is perfectly accepable.  However, this is a side of the real-estate profession which does not receive much public disclosure.  Why do you suppose this is so?  Just as the ethical nature of the industry is widely touted so too, shouldn't the self-serving possibilites be widely disclosed to the public, also?   

marc wrote: "Is it self-serving to want to get on with your life instead of dealing with a nightmare everday of it.. I don't think so."

Wanting to get on with your life is not bad.  Passing on a problem to an unsuspecting buyer is what I believe Rumple objects to, and so would I.

A real estate agent has a fiduciary duty to a client.  When an agent represents a client they have a duty to disclose that they are a bidder on the property.  This is a conflict of interest problem.  Given that the agent was an investor and that investors routinely do not pay top prices, there is plenty of chance here for the agent to do unethical things to ensure they get that house, and at a low price.  That's potentially harmful to the house's owner/seller, though hard to prove because values are subjective. If the seller does not care, then fine.  At least the agent disclosed this, but who knows what hand they played in the outcome, or if it could've been better for their client. That was the duty they possibly breached. 

Real estate agents can be sued for such things, but some take the chance, knowing it'll be hard to prove.  Investors, agents, builders, etc, all know the law quite well because their industrys employ professionals to know exactly how far they can go and still be legal.  And sometimes they do things that are even illegal and nothing happens.

When you sell a defective house the best thing you can do for yourself and future residents is to disclose and do it on paper.  Getting rid of bad houses without disclosure, even to investors, can still be risky because if that investor is sued, the investor could bring you into the lawsuit as a defendant, too. they can claim you didn't tell them, and since you lived in the house and the investor didn't, guess who a court will probably believe knew about defects?

So, it's not just morals that makes some people do the right thing. Sometimes it's just being practical and covering your arse.

AGAIN,  I SEE MOST OF YOU ARE EITHER NOT READING THE ORIGINAL  MESSAGE OR ARE READING MORE INTO IT TO SUIT YOUR BIAS'S  OR JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL SCENARIO.

THE SCENARIO SAID:  COUPLE WAS GETTING A DIVORCE.   SAID NOTHING ABOUT A DEFECTIVE HOUSE.  PLEASE. ENOUGH OF THE DEFECTIVE HOUSE STUFF.

GETTING A DIVORCE!   GET IT!.   MY COMMENT WAS - WAS THE COUPLE ADVISED THE REALTOR WAS A  PARTNER OR WHATEVER IN THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST.     CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS.

IF THEY WERE ADVISED - I DON'T THINK ANYONE WAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.  MAYBE THEY JUST WANTED TO GET ON WITH THEIR DIVORCED LIFE, TAKE THEIR PROFITS AND MOVE ON.

WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE SO CONVULTED IN SOME OF THESE ARTICLES.

IT SEEMS THAT IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT  SELLING A PAIR OF SHOES, SOMEONE WOULD PROBABLY SAY - OH - THEY WERE DEFECTIVE, AND THERE WAS SOME BIG FAT CONSPIRACY TO GO ALONG WITH IT.

GUESS WHAT EVERYONE - EVERYTHING ISN'T A CONSPIRACY.

CAROL :

Carol,
If you would take the time to go through this website thoroughly you may very well agree with Jane Doe.Do not look at one ot two items and make your mind up. There is a reason this website is up. Articles are in the news daily in reference to corruption, mortgage fraud etc.
In my city, a man was just released from a half-way house after many years for bribery, had an influential position in the city. He will be working for a construction com. and wants to build homes. 'nough said.