Read this and see what you think:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22840771/?GT1=10755
I love the part where the owner says, “We hired our agent because he was a real estate professional…He was expected to do his due diligence. And they have a code of ethics where they have to put the buyers first. I think he just wanted to go ahead and make his commission.”
Ummm, IMO the buyer is supposed to do the due dilligence!
Keith
Absolute morons, they are crying over a value difference of $105,000 on a $1.2 million dollar house! The article states they’ve already spent $75,000 on the lawsuit to boot.
All I can say is get ready.
Surely there is going to be some brain dead judge presiding over the case, and he will “feel the pain of the victims.”
If a judge rules in their favor, get ready to see cases like this all over the place.
Well, it is California, home to a huge volume of Liberal courts/judges…so who knows ho hte wind will blow.
This is just another example of people refusing to take accountability for their own actions!
Keith
I didn’t read it, so just a general comment: real estate agents have fiducuary responsibility and thus they are held to a higher standard. Legally, they are not supposed to use their specialized knowledge to trick people out of their money.
I can see lawsuits coming for the short-sale investor who doesn’t disclose fully and in writing.
The world is full of people who think they aren’t responsible for their own mistakes, and, surprisingly enough, they are the majority of those being foreclosed on.
So if they lose a bunch of money, and nothing is their fault, who are they going to blame when they discover the bank is going to still come after them for that 30 grand that didn’t get paid off in the short sale?
All they have to do is convince a judge that you are a professional, and therefore you have specialized knowledge, and you used your specialized knowledge to take advantage of them.
Disclose, disclose, disclose. Then do it again. CYA.
I think we should ship all these idiot lawyers to Siberia for a little re-education.
Mike
(1) What’s brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
(2) What’s the difference between a lawyer and a carp?
LOL
Keith
How do you save a lawyer from drowning?
Don’t know?
Good.
Oh i can’t help myself
What’s the difference between a dead deer on the side of the road and a lawyer.
There are skid marks in front of the deer…
Well, let me take a stab at the answers:
(1) What’s brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
Six feet of dirt
(2) What’s the difference between a lawyer and a carp?
Carp are more human
How do you save a lawyer from drowning?
Why would you try?
What’s the difference between a dead deer on the side of the road and a lawyer.
Skid marks for the deer.
How did I do?
Mike
(1) Correct answer: a Rottweiler (“a Doberman” is also acceptable)
(2) Correct answer: one is a bottom-dwelling sh-- eating scum sucker and the other is a fish
Keith
The Realtor might be in hot waters if he recommended the lender and/or appraisal since agents should not do so. Other than that, she has no case. Paying more for a house is fine, that is what appreciation and supply/demand is all about.
Reading the article, her beef with the agent is the disclosure and that he should have told her there are/were houses that sold for cheaper price. That is not something to make a case on specially if he helped her shop around for houses and she picked this house.
The article does say she is paying for her lawyer and paid $75k so far. That means the lawyers either did not see the value in the amount suing for, or they did not believe the case would win so she had to pay for it.