Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Tax, SDIRAs & Cost Segregation
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated almost 7 years ago, 02/27/2018

Account Closed
  • Investor
  • Costa Mesa, CA
7
Votes |
39
Posts

Legal Question Regarding EMD (Specifically in MI)

Account Closed
  • Investor
  • Costa Mesa, CA
Posted

All,

I believe I know the answer to this but am going to ask anyway. I was in contract for a property with an escrow that ended up being around 3 months (yes, obnoxious I'm aware). I initially offered and had acceptance as a cash offer. I later decided I wanted to finance the deal instead of use cash which was signed off by the sellers.

This property had a foundation issue that I was not aware of the severity of as I didn't see the property in person until I was well into escrow. I'll save the details but bottom line, after getting an engineering report and providing it to my lender, they said they would not be able to fund the deal unless the suggested repairs in the report were made. This seller was not interested in doing the repairs and I was not willing to proceed paying cash and having to deal with a problem that would ultimately cost me 15-20K to fix at some point down the road if I ever wanted to sell.

Now, the seller is refusing to release my EMD. I didn't have any specific contingencies initially but when the seller signed off on the deal becoming financing, according to this purchase agreement (standard Realtor form), if I were to have selected financing initially, the deal would have been contingent on being able to obtain financing. I'm assuming that since the seller signed off on that, the deal in its entirety is now contingent on me being able to obtain financing.

Since the lender won't lend without the repairs done (we went through 2 different lenders), I can't imaging the sellers have any ground to stand on here, do they?

The agreement says that any disagreements will be dealt with in court and the non-prevailing party will be responsible for all legal fees associated here. This would be a major mistake for the seller assuming that my contingency is accurate. The EMD is only $500 and it would be a complete waste of time and money on their end and I know they don't have much of either.

Bottom line, am I accurate in assuming they don't have a leg to stand on here since nobody will lend on the property and they signed off on it being a financing deal?

Loading replies...