Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by John
Posted by John on August 22, 2002 at 24:34:38:
I would recommend you reread what you posted and then reread what my response was all over again. If you wish, I will retype Agency relationships slower, so you may understand.
You are correct however, when you say and I quote “My buyer will be buying from ME AFTER I OWN IT!” which won’t happen until AFTER you exercise the option.
Re: WHo has heard of Chief Denney? - Posted by Terry Vaughan
Posted by Terry Vaughan on March 02, 2004 at 14:43:52:
I remember Chief Denny!
He was a Phone Salesman, back at the office when I was on the road, Speaking/Teaching for Robert Allen, back in the 1980’s.
He’s now a Real Estate Guru?
Everybody wants to be a guru!
Re: Brokeing Charges - Posted by Bennie Brown
Posted by Bennie Brown on August 20, 2002 at 23:49:06:
Comments regarding my court case have been interesting. I want to, particurlarly, thank Bill Bronchick. He & his staff have really worked on the “Brokering” charge threat for all of us.
We could not find a lawyer who would take the case and time ran out. We prepared defense answers to the Ms Statutes and to the terms of the L/O contract. When we tried to present our defense - their attorney threatened us thereby intimidating us & impairing our defense. We feel our Civil Rights were violated by judge not having charge of his court & telling attorney we had the right to defend ourselves. Not sure an appeal is in our future. We probably can’t afford it.
Re: - Posted by William Bronchick
Posted by William Bronchick on August 20, 2002 at 22:29:52:
I agree - it’s convincing the real estate commission, then a judge, then an appellate court, then hopefully someone with an IQ over 40.
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 24:59:13:
I reread it again and you are wrong. So type as slow as you want.
You quoted from my post:
““Agency” means a relationship in which a real estate broker or licensee, whether directly or through an affiliated licensee, represents a consumer by the consumer’s consent, whether express or implied, in a real property transaction.”
READ it carefully!
“Agency” means a relationship in which a REAL ESTATE BROKER OR LICENSEE, whether directly or through an affiliated licensee, represents a consumer by the consumer’s consent, whether express or implied, in a real property transaction.
This ONLY applies if you are a licensed broker or licensee. I am NOT a broker or licensee, so this statute does not apply to ME!
The you said:
“This brings us back to the question of ownership (as a consumer or principal) of the property and when that ownership transfers. If my name as an investor is on the deed I am the owner/principal/consumer and selling for myself, period. If another persons name (my seller) is still on the deed then they are the owner/principal/consumer. If I have not exercised my option to purchase the property in a L/O purchase, then the property remains in the sellers name until I do so, and they remain on the deed as the owner/principal/consumer until that option is exercised.”
This is correct.
Then you said:
“With all that said, because I am not the owner until the option is exercised and I try to sell this property, I am representing that seller and have formed an Agency relationship and subject to the statutes you mentioned in your post. Until the name on the deed changes, you are only representing a owner/principal/consumer (not yourself) in a real property transaction and if not licensed to do so? Brokering w/o a License.”
WRONG!!!
I am NOT representing the seller because I am NOT selling FOR THE SELLER. I am selling for MYSELF because once I secure a buyer I will exercise my option, where the deed will be in MY name at which point I will then sell to MY buyer. So there is no agency relationship between any of the parties. I am not involved with doing anything FOR ANOTHER. Go read the statutes that define the definition of broker. Then read the statute on exemptions.
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 24:40:47:
I wouldn’t be selling it until AFTER I exercise the option! Advertising to sell it before I exercise the option has nothing to do with creating any kind of agency relationship with the seller or my buyer.
You quoted one of the statutes I posted and that statute only pertains to licensed brokers and agents, NOT those that are not licensed.
Re: - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 20, 2002 at 22:37:22:
The real estate commission is made up of those that were flunkies that couldn’t make it as attorneys. Judges are made up of flunky attorneys. So anyone with an IQ over 40 falls in the hands of the jurors! LOL
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by John
Posted by John on August 22, 2002 at 01:12:27:
From your last post:
“Agency” means a relationship in which a REAL ESTATE BROKER OR LICENSEE, whether directly or through an affiliated licensee, represents a consumer by the consumer’s consent, whether express or implied, in a real property transaction.
This ONLY applies if you are a licensed broker or licensee. I am NOT a broker or licensee, so this statute does not apply to ME!"
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY IT IS BROKERING W/O A LICENSE, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING AS A BROKER BUT YOU ARE NOT LICENSED. This is during the time UP TO THE EXERCISING OF THE OPTION and then the property becomes yours.
The property is either yours or someone elses. If yours OK, if someone elses then everything you do with that property is for the benefit of that person and that creates the Agency relationship.
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by John
Posted by John on August 22, 2002 at 24:53:48:
As long as you are selling or advertising for sale AFTER the option is exercised, then all is well and you are correct you will be the owner and can do what ever for yourself, NO Agency relationship.
The whole issue of this Lease Option debate has been about the time after the L/O contract is signed and BEFORE the option is exercised, when you, the investor are not the owner.
If you sell the property or advertise it for sale BEFORE you exercise the option this creates an Agency relationship between you (the investor) and the seller. Since you (the investor) are NOT licensed as a Broker and cannot legally enter into an Agency relationship with the seller, you are Brokering w/o a License.
Re: title search - Posted by IB (NJ)
Posted by IB (NJ) on May 25, 2006 at 15:02:10:
Elizabeth is right. Go down to the courthouse and learn to do them yourself. Here a title company may charge almost $200 just for the search. Going down to the courthouse and asking one of the searchers directly may be cheaper but it adds up after a while. Particularly if you’re going to be coming across several properties that you might be interested in buying.
Learn the ins and outs of the recorder’s office yourself and you’ll be steps ahead of your competetion as well as save lots of money in the long run.
Re: title search - Posted by Elizabeth NJ
Posted by Elizabeth NJ on May 25, 2006 at 01:13:55:
Andrea,
Very simple really.
Find out where your local county recorder of deeds office is and go there for a visit. The deed office will have records of any liens or judgments including mortgages, etc. that have been recorded against the property. You can use their computers to do the search and then make copies of the actual records from the books the documents are stored in. This is where the title companies’ searchers go to pull the same documents.
If you want to check on back taxes owed, you’ll have to call your local town’s tax collector’s office and give them the address or block & lot & they’ll give you the amounts owed. There may be a charge.
This will give you the basics of what’s been recorded against the property. Bear in mind that there may be other debts – UCC’s are recorded at state level & that’s something a full title report will reveal.
Happy hunting.
Re: - Posted by Rob FL
Posted by Rob FL on August 22, 2002 at 08:03:10:
In Florida most of the members of the real estate commission are licensed brokers and salespeople. This is required by Florida Statute. No attorneys at all. Scary – maybe.
But when you have - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on August 22, 2002 at 24:13:35:
flunky judges, attorneys and people with IQ under 40 having the final say it’s not what you think. It’s what “they” think.
Option is speculative derivative. - Posted by Brian Mac
Posted by Brian Mac on August 22, 2002 at 11:20:18:
John
You stated: The property is either yours or someone elses. If yours OK, if someone elses then everything you do with that property is for the benefit of that person and that creates the Agency relationship.
In what equities market is an option purchased for the benefit of the seller? An option is purchased to lock-in a market position. By definition, an option is an attempt by the purchaser to hedge his bet. ie. purchasers intent is for his own benefit
An option is a derivative used to capture a position in the market based on speculation of market direction or manipulation. There isn’t an option purchased or sold in any market that isn’t based on speculation or desperation.
How is an agency relationship established in the scenario’s in question?
Now…Is it prudent to market that which you don’t own yet without disclosure? Maybe not, but there’s obviously plenty of precedent.
Is it brokering without a license?
Unless an agency relationship is established; and by definition of purchasing an option it can’t be established; my opinion is: NO.
Brian Mac
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 01:27:26:
Like I said, go READ the statute that describes the definition of broker and the statute pertaining to exemptions as being a broker.
It is not brokering without a license. There is no agency relationship. I do not REPRESENT the seller. I represent MYSELF as the seller, which my having an option to buy gives me!
If what you are saying was even remotely accurate, we would have THOUSANDS of cases in court with investors being charged with practicing without a license! There are tens of thousands of deals being done like this per year and they have been done this way for many years. So wouldn’t there be thousands of investors being charged??? I know of NONE! How many do you know of? Other than the ONE that was mentioned which started this whole debate and that person didn’t have an attorney and we don’t know the facts pertaining to that case. So lets see, ONE incident out of TENS OF THOUSANDS of deals per year, for God knows over how many years now, and we have ONE incident that we don’t even know all the facts about, and where they represented themself in court, and that makes everyone else, including the statutes written, all wrong! Yeah, you must be right! NOT!
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 01:10:39:
There is no agency relationship because I am not selling for the seller. I would have to sell to a buyer I found for the seller, where my buyer is buying from my seller directly. That is not the case.
You do not have to be on the deed just to advertise a property to sell that you WILL be the owner of at the time of closing the sale.
You can’t actually sell it before you own it. But you can advertise to sell it before you become the owner and then actually sell it after you become the owner. The mere fact you advertise it for sale prior to owning it does not create any kind of agency relationship. The fact I have a legal interest in the property that gives me the right to advertise it for sale. If what you are saying was true then all sandwich lease options would be illegal. A sandwich lease option involves advertising to sell before you own it.
Also, the statutes for IL state all you need is a LEASE which considers you as having an interest as a principle. A lease option involves having a lease.
Also, that law you quoted me does not pertain to anyone but brokers and licensees. So even if I were to do something that was acting as a broker without a license, that particular law would still not apply to me. The other statute would, but not the one you quoted. It only applies to REAL ESTATE BROKERS OR LICENSEES. It clearly states this.
Re: But when you have - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 24:42:50:
That is why you use attorneys with an IQ over 40 to clearly spell it out to those that don’t have an IQ over 40!
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by John
Posted by John on August 22, 2002 at 08:14:12:
I could swear I also remember hearing the name Bud (NM) having a similar problem. So this may not be as issolated as you may think.
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by John
Posted by John on August 22, 2002 at 01:22:32:
I think this is where we have the problem. It is the definition of ownership. If my name is not on the deed, I am NOT the owner. I may have a purchase contract or an option to buy or any other instrument to purchase and close on a certain date. But until that date comes and seller and I transfer deed to my name, that property remains in sellers name and is his property not mine.
Re: Thank you for the confirmation - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 22, 2002 at 20:43:01:
I didn’t see the post. But do you know all the facts involving the case? Also, some states have statues that pertain to dealing in options. Perhaps that is an issue in some states, perhaps not. I haven’t read the statues in those states. I haven’t seen any facts pertaining to either case. But now you are ready to jump ship over hearing ONLY TWO cases that you have no facts about as to what was involved as to why or how whatever the problem was developed??? TWO cases out of hundreds of thousands to millions of transactions handled over YEARS of investing! Whatever!