Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @Tom Gimer:
Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @Tom Gimer:
Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @Tom Gimer:
Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @Tom Gimer:
Just double close. Yes, it costs a little more... adjust your offers accordingly.
The law is a mirage. Very few brokers will want licensed wholesalers under their umbrella.
Wouldn’t marketing the property ahead of closing be brokering without a license?
I don't see marketing in the VA definition. But regardless I don't see how marketing a property you have under contract to another investor would be brokering unless they continue to move the goalposts. When you do it as a principal it’s neither for the seller nor for compensation.
But then the law wouldn’t make sense, the whole point is to not allow you to wholesale, even if you are a contract holder you can’t assign it without a license. The fact that you double close at the end to me would have no bearing on the fact that you attempted to market the property for sale without a license which again is the entire intent of the law. I believe you could purchase an off market deal, than as soon as title cleared begin to market the property as you would now own it, but if you can just double close it would defeat the entire intent of law which btw is something courts will often look at during cases about interpretation of laws, what was the intent? It’s pretty clear the intent of the legislature was stop assignment of contracts without a license.
Again… who said anything about an assignment?
Agian, the terms you use are totally irrelevant to the law, if more than two times a year you post on any public place that you are looking in anyway to be compensated even theoretically for a dollar for anything having to do with a real estate transaction and don’t either have clear title to that property or are properly licensed would in my reading of that law be in violation. You could offer to trade the property for a packet of m&m’s and unless you meet one of the above criteria be in violation of the statue. And again this is where you have to go back to the intent of the legislation, it wasn’t to have more double closing’s, it was to stop shady individuals from stealing equity from old people, and agian just because you can maybe find a loophole in the law doesn’t mean a judge or jury is gonna interpret that way.
The terms I am using are totally irrelevant to the law?
Thanks for the laugh. The terms I am using are the terms actually included in the law. And the terms you are using:
more than two times a year you post on any public place that you are looking in anyway to be compensated even theoretically for a dollar for anything having to do with a real estate transaction and don’t either have clear title to that property or are properly licensed
Where did those terms come from?
I’m Gonna restate this for about the 5th time, here is the Virginia definition of brokering, “Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation; definition of a real estate broker. Adds to the definition of "real estate broker" any individual or business entity who sells or offers to sell, buys or offers to buy, negotiates, or otherwise deals in real estate contracts, including assignable contracts, on two or more occasions in any 12-month period for compensation or valuable consideration. The bill contains technical amendments and is identical to SB 358.” What happens at your closing, if it’s assigned, double closed or traded for a pack of gum, is utterly irrelevant, because the law would already have been broken if that person double closing had at any point prior to the closing “offered to sell” or “ deals in real estate contracts” again what happens at the closing table is irrelevant because by that time the law would have already been violated, by the time someone is at your closing table and double closing a deal, presumably by “offering to sell” the law was already violated prior to them even coming to your closing table
You might be right... if VA law actually read the way you claim. It does not.
Here is the complete, relevant statute (as amended):
"Real estate broker" means any individual or business entity, including a partnership, association, corporation, or limited liability company, who, for compensation or valuable consideration, (i) sells or offers for sale, buys or offers to buy, or negotiates the purchase or sale or exchange of real estate, including units or interest in condominiums, cooperative interest as defined in § 55.1-2100, or time-shares in a time-share program even though they may be deemed to be securities or (ii) leases or offers to lease, or rents or offers for rent, any real estate or the improvements thereon for others, or (iii) sells or offers to sell, buys or offers to buy, or negotiates or otherwise deals in real estate contracts, including assignable contracts, on two or more occasions in any 12-month period.
The newest language (in italics) refers to individuals or entities who DEAL IN REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS. Notice how the new language differs from (i) where the subject is the purchase or sale of the real property itself, or (ii) where the subject is leasing.
The new legislation specifically targets investors who flip contracts.
When you buy and sell on your own account you are not doing so for compensation or valuable consideration from third parties like real estate brokers do. Acting as a principal is actually the FIRST exemption from VA's brokerage laws (54.1-2103).
But go ahead and tell me I'm utterly wrong again. Perhaps some transactional funders have some input here. The entire industry grew out of legislation such as this.
