Posted by redave on May 05, 2007 at 17:22:05:
Thanks for your response.
Of course a lender shouldn?t be liable for something they don?t know about, and it?s fine they are offering the property as-is. It?s the part about not allowing a buyer to cancel if the inspection reveals problems, and the part about no specific performance, and the part about no jury trial, and the balance of the 16 pages that?s a problem. Not that it really makes a difference to me, it?s the principal that matters. If I did make an offer it would be low enough that these things don?t make a difference.
There?s nothing wrong with trying to read, discuss and understand a contract you are considering signing, most people would even recommend you do so, even if you don?t pay an attorney.
The CA Purchase/Sale agreement and transfer disclosure allows the seller to disclose that they have not lived in the property and therefore have no knowledge about problems, that?s fine. The standard agreement also provides the seller an opportunity to back out if the inspection reveals problems, which this addendum is overriding, not good.
Lenders are taking a look, but not a hard look, imho. They are trying to appease the public and congress, nothing more. They may even refinance a few folks into lower interest loans like the say, but it won?t be widespread, not even close; just like they say, it?s not a panacea.
Stop all foreclosures, that?s a good one. All mortgage money would dry up if lenders couldn?t effectively use their collateral to limit losses. Doing anything like stopping foreclosure would severely limit lenders ability to collect on delinquent loans, thus causing a sever shortage of mortgage money thus housing shortages?ain?t going to happen imho. This is all happy talk. I don?t know who these congressional people are but I?ll bet they?re liberals.