All Forum Posts by: Kel S

IMO no lie is justifiable. That would be an oxymoron.

Yes, I have a scanner but ironically the other day the 3 in 1 printer/scanner/copier decided it isn't going to work. So I've been messing with it trying to install new drivers, etc., Argg! So not for lack of technology...just technology isn't being nice to me right now.

Also in cases where the RE is lying and saying there are multiple offers it wastes people's time and resources including the buyers agent in some cases. My fax machine is broke so my agent has to drive 20 minutes to bring me the multiple offer sheet this morning. That is her time, gas, etc., Just one more reason why RE should have consequences imposed if they get caught creating fake mulitple offer situations. Just my opinion.

J Scott,

I think there is a difference between asking for highest/best up front vs. lying.

For example;

Party A puts in an offer. RE Agent says there is suddenly another offer by Party B (who doesn't exist at all) and the agent comes back to Party A and says give us your highest and best. In my opinion this is manipulation on the RE part. Creating a fictitious offer from a party that doesn't exist in order to try and get the original party to go higher on their offer is just plain wrong.

It reminds me of how some auction houses will put in a fake bidder (s) in the audience to bid against real bidders in order to jack up the price. It's just a slimy business practice IMO.

If I could prove that an agent was doing this, I'd report them to the powers that be. I think if more people did and there were reprocussions for the agents that got caught, we would possibly see less of this happening.

Wow, I'm not sure if I should feel relieved about that knowledge or not LOL! On the one hand if it's a common practice it's very possible there is no other offer! On the other hand it's disturbing to know there could be that much dishonesty going on.

We put in an offer on a house this morning. The house had little activity on the RE sign in sheet on the counter and no offers as of this morning and has been on the market 11 days (not long, I know). But I find it ironic that we put in our offer this morning and the listing agent contacts our agent saying that at 4pm they received another offer so he's sending over a multiple offer sheet to sign.

This has happened to us a number of times and there is a part of me that wonders if RE agents do this to try and get a higher price? Now, I'm not trying to offend any RE agents on this board so please don't take it that way but in the world in general there are dishonest people and I'm sure that includes people in various professions, including RE.

Has anyone else suspected that an agent might be trying to up the offer by doing this kind of thing?

By the way, we aren't budging on our offer, that is our final and best offer as it's just not worth more than that. If there is a real, viable offer from someone else and they are an investor since the bank requires cash only, they might have an advantage over us of either a higher price and/or not asking for an inspection. I guess we'll see what happens...

I called the building permit folks today to ask about this. They said it depends on what the records show. Of course I did NOT give them the address as I don't want to open a can of worms. But they did say that it depends on how long ago it was added, if there was a stop work order issued, etc., I asked if it's unknown how long ago it was added and no stop work issue ordered and no record of a permit, then what?? They said they would probably have one of their inspectors come out and take a look (Yikes) and said sometimes they just ignore it and nothing is done.

So I'm still on the fence with this in not knowing if we should take our chances and put in an offer on this house or not. It has a roof issue that needs repairs, but I'm actually more concerned about the illegal 4th bedroom issue as I know the roof can be fixed. But the room would be a nightmare if we were ever ordered to tear it out, etc.,

I agree that it's not just FNMA and FMAC. Just about every foreclosure listing in our area has gone to OO for the first 15 days. Seems now a days it's getting very rare to find a foreclosure where this isn't their policy. Back when we bought our first couple foreclosures we didn't see the time restrictions for investors.

I wonder what the legality of it is. Do the banks have a loop hole to avoid discrimination? Or is it different with selling a house compared to renting one. As with renting you can't discriminate who you rent to but maybe with selling you can?

What are the realistic ramifications of buying a house that has an illegal extra bedroom that the previous owners build (converted part of the garage)? We are looking at one and it's been well done but from what info I can find there was never a permit for adding the extra bedroom. Could we get into a lot of trouble with this even as a rental?

I actually posted a question on this topic (before I saw yours) because we have lost a number of potential deals due to the owner-occupant only restrictions for the first 15 days of a listing. It's so frustrating and I've often wondered what would happen if we put an offer in not disclosing we were investors (Granted, I would NOT do that), just was curious if there were huge penalties or fines if one got caught.

I wish the banks would just open them up to anyone, including investors. My husband wondered if it's even legal for them to do that? ie; discrimination?? They (the banks) probably have some loop hole to get around that. Almost makes me want to find a loop hole myself LOL!