English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

22 answers

People do it. It's smarter to avoid the stress and complications of dealing with both at once, but there's nothing wrong with a contingency sale, so long as you agreed to it in the contract.

It does add a lot of complexity and not an inconsiderable amount of cost to the process, however. You can't lock your loan until you know when you can fund it. Then there's the issue of whether your seller will qualify for the loan on the new residence. Not to mention the anxiety of whether you will qualify for your loan in time for the transaction to close so they can get their home, and I can go on.

There are better alternatives for this situation, and if your buyer's agent didn't give you a couple of ideas during the negotiating process, well, let's just say there are better realtors out there.

2006-08-25 04:18:29 · answer #1 · answered by Searchlight Crusade 5 · 2 0

Yes, it can be - when you buy a house you can word the contract so that one or more things can happen. For instance, if this seller cannot find a house to buy for herself, the contingency allows her to to get out of the contract she made with you. You could ammend a contract in many ways - you could have even made your contract contingent upon you getting the proper financing or something like that. There is lots that can be done with a contract so make sure that you have all your questions answered before you sign one!

2006-08-24 22:58:41 · answer #2 · answered by wyldflwr623 2 · 0 0

NOOOOO. Anyone who says this is normal is misinformed. It is normal for a BUYER to say that its contiingent on the buyer selling her home, but never do a contingency on the seller BUYING a home, becuase what if she's picky and it takes months? Never do one on the seller buying. You could be nice and do a closing of 60 days to give her extra time, but thats it.

This would have been in the original offer or counter offer....she cant add this after you sign the contract...so if she's trying, refuse.

2006-08-25 05:14:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

in some unspecified time interior the destiny the lender is going to might desire to artwork by using somebody to end the paperwork. it somewhat is advantageous for a broker to be a FSBO (on the industry by using proprietor), in spite of the shown fact that, the quantity of mind it takes to supervise an appraisal, inspection, survey and shutting archives will ultimately impact your 'friendship'. is this a funds transaction? If no longer a lender will require an appraisal. What language is on your 'sales settlement' that addresses the financial distinction if the appraised fee is under the acquisition value? What approximately an inspection? Have the sellers agreed to end any and ALL necessary inspections? Is it on a properly/septic equipment or public water? If septic, has it been flushed those days? if so, whilst? Will there be a termite inspection? what's going to you do if the residing house starts falling aside half-hour after ultimate? the broker is saving funds, in spite of the shown fact which you're dropping sturdy tips. and that's a shame.

2016-09-29 23:27:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

TODO's answer is correct, the only thing I would add is to MAKE SURE your contract DOES specify a given number of days for the seller to vacate after the signing, AND the right to reinspect the property before they leave with a clause that THEY would be responsible for ANY damage done in the interim AND they would have to maintain renters insurance from the time of signing to the time of actual departure. This helps protect YOU if they were to have a WILD party that resulted in damage or personal injury while they still occupy the house.
Been there, done that, and had good fortune all three times I have done it.
~Mark

2006-08-25 14:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by mark3w 1 · 0 0

In real estate, everything is negotiable. This is the first thing that you will hear, or read, when you take a course in real estate or buy a book on how to make money in the real estate market. Yes, a provision in a purchase and sale contract that allows the seller to cancel the sale if she doesn't find some kind of other real estate agreement acceptable to her, is enforceable. Make sure of the TIME LIMIT that it specifies. Time limit for what? For giving you back your deposit money! Such a provision "until she buys new house," is not very commonplace. It sounds like you have a commitment that doesn't mean much unless the seller is motivated enough to sell her house to you that she follows through and goes to closing. Read your contract carefully and find out under what conditions you can get your earnest money deposit returned to you if this seller begins to behave like the finicky tabby cat "Morris" on those old commercials. It's great (if she has no conscience) to get an interest-free, unsecured loan from a stranger that ends up being an outright gift, but before YOU, the would-be buyer, allow time to elapse like that, find out how to sue for "specific performance" and how to attach a lien on her property for the amount of your earnest money plus your expenses, filing fees, and interest. And KEEP YOUR COPY OF THAT CONTRACT, make several copies in fact, as well as of the check you used for the earnest money you committed to the deal. It may be years and years until you finally get that money back, plus all that interest, from her, or from her heirs. But liens on real estate don't go away. They stop real estate sales from occurring until they are satisfied.
You might try reading a book entitled, Rich Dad's Guide To Real Estate Investing.

2006-08-25 13:47:34 · answer #6 · answered by JackN 3 · 0 0

That's absolutely normal...doesn't happen all the time but it's a standard clause. It protects them from being out on the street without a place to live. Without it, once they sign the contract and the purchase is finalized, they have "x" number of days to vacate. She just wants to make sure she's got someplace to go.

A similar clause that would be introduced by you (if you're currently a homeowner) would be a contingency upon the sale of your current home, which would protect you from having 2 mortgage payments.

Like most clauses of this type, it may test your patience a little bit, because you're ready to buy it. But have patience, you may very well have to do the same thing some day.

2006-08-24 22:52:00 · answer #7 · answered by You'll Never Outfox the Fox 5 · 4 1

while it's normal of this type of contingent for a buyer to have agreed on sale price contingent on the buyer selling their old house not so normal for seller to have this contingent

In today's market with the buyers in control not sellers, I the buyer would not have agreed to the terms let them rent a house until they find one they like, the sellers are lucky they found a buyer of the place

2006-08-25 01:12:06 · answer #8 · answered by goz1111 7 · 0 0

as a buyer I'd make sure that I was the one getting my way and not the seller. But, was all of this discussed BEFORE you went to sign the contract?? If not, that doesn't make sense to me. What if it takes years for her to buy a house? what do YOU do?? live on the street? there HAS to be a date there somewhere!

2006-08-24 22:57:34 · answer #9 · answered by ss98 6 · 0 0

that actually just happend to me to this month but in my case there the time limit was 2 weeks after the 2 weeks was over and they still didnt find a house the contract was voided as that was what was agreed upon by both parties , was there a time frame specified on the contract ?

2006-08-25 06:51:16 · answer #10 · answered by medusar 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers