All Forum Posts by: John Thomson

There is no clear answer here. As Mark points out, it mostly depends on if there was an actual transfer of the deed to the son before his death. Was the deed recorded? If the deed was tranferred then it was part of the son's estate. If the son died with a will, the will stipulates how his property is passed on. If he died without a will, the laws of the state where the property is will determine how the property is passed on. But, the fact that the daughter has been paying the real estate taxes for 5 years could also have an effect on the legal status. It may be that nobody can claim a marketable title at this point. She needs a lawyer.

When I lived in North Carolina, we had a hurricane that blew several trees on our property onto our neighbors house. Lots of other folks had the same situation. Since the trees were alive and healthy, it was considered an "act of God" and our neighbor was responsible for getting the trees off his house and repairing he damage. I have heard of other cases where dead or diseased trees came down. In those cases, the tree owner was responsible for damages and tree removal. Based on that, I would say unless the tree is diseased or dead, you are just being a nice guy, if you take the tree out. 

Thanks for the welcome Bill G. I'm not a lawyer or Real Estate Agent. The two states I have bought and sold property in do not hold agents to a fiduciary standard. Others clearly do and Realtors hold themselves to this standard. Clients need to know what type of relationship they have with their agent. I do not think a judge would hold and agent to a fiduciary standard if the law or the brokerage agreement does not set that standard. If that were the case, why would their be a distinction in the law? There is nothing wrong with a caveat emptor relationship as long as the client is aware of that fact.

The NAR ethics code applies only to members. It is not enforceable through the court system. In the eyes of the law, a Real Estate Agent or Broker is not a fiduciary.

I know this is not exactly the topic but Real Estate Agents/Brokers are NOT fiduciaries. Fiduciary has a very specific meaning in the law. Real Estate Agents and Brokers do not have a fiduciary relationship with their customers or clients. Lawyers, Trustees and certain types of financial advisors are examples of fiduciaries. A Real Estate Agent or Broker is under an obligation to reveal certain known facts, but is NOT required to act only in the best interest of his client. The standard of practice is "reasonable care." You should always be aware that a Brokerage Agreement is a "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) relationship. For example, the price your Agent suggests you offer your property for, backed by comps, is not necessarily the best price you could get. The Agent also considers how long and at what effort on his part it will take to sell a property at a given price. It is in the Agent's interest, but not necessarily the owner's to close the deal in as short a time period as possible. The fact that you can refuse his suggested selling price does not change the fact that the Agent has suggested an action which is not in your best interest. A fiduciary could not legally do this.

I have never been involved in Wholesaling. As I understand it, Wholesaling involves the purchase of an option or "right" to buy a given property at a given price with an expiration date on this right. An Agent is not restricted from buying or selling options on Real Estate. If the only way to get a good option on a property is due to the ignorance of market conditions on the part of the seller, it may be more difficult for an Agent to get a good deal on an option from a client. If there is no agency relationship, an Agent is essentially like any other buyer, except that he must disclose that fact he is licensed. On the selling side, there are certain other requirements such as how funds are handled.