Post the statute that specifically states you must own a property before you can advertise to sell it when you will own it at the time of sale??? Post the statute that says you must be licensed to do this? My state has none! If your state does, post it!
In addition to above, Bennie Brown did not sell that property only advertised it for sale and was cited for and found guilty of Brokering w/o a License
Advertising a property for sale is not the same as selling a property.
If you had NO contract to purchase OR no option to buy, then you couldn’t advertise to sell the property because you have NO legal interest in the property. But having a purchase agreement OR an option to buy contract, then you do have a legal interest in the property and you CAN legally advertise the property for sale prior to exercising your option or closing the sale of a purchase agreement. The option gives you a legal interest in the property. If I have an option to buy for $100k and the property is worth $120k, then I have an equitable interest of $20k in that property. I do not have to complete the sale of the property prior to being able to advertise to find a buyer that “I” will be selling it to as the legal owner at the time of closing the sale! No option, No purchase agreement, or No contract of any kind, then NO! But having an option, then YES!
But rather than posting your theory on all this, post the state statue in your state that supports your argument. That statue on 5 or more transactions in a 12 month period does not support your argument. The first 4 you CAN advertise to sell a property you only have an option on. So post a statue that pertains to the first 4 properties you can buy, that says you need a license to advertise the property for sale that you only have an option to buy on??? Otherwise, all your arguments is just smoke!
Besides simple logic telling me I cant’t do something with something I don’t own, I ask you this: What if you decide Not to exercise that option for whatever reason, but had already advertised it prior to that time?
I do believe Mr. Bronchick is also researching for all the states.
There also MILLIONS of speeders getting caught. And speeding is against the law.
Advertising a property for sale that you have a legal right to buy by having an option is not against the law. And out of the MILLIONS of options since options were ever used, there is only TWO cases that we don’t even have all the facts on that have ever been raised. TWO! Hardly something I would compare speeders to for making a point!
Posted by Houserookie on August 22, 2002 at 21:37:47:
You said,
“The option gives you a legal interest in the property. If I have an option to buy for $100k and the property is worth $120k, then I have an equitable interest of $20k in that property. I do not have to complete the sale of the property prior to being able to advertise to find a buyer that “I” will be selling it to as the legal owner at the time of closing the sale! No option, No purchase agreement, or No contract of any kind, then NO! But having an option, then YES!”
Banks, lenders, and creditors also have an interest in the home. Isn’t that what a mortgage or deed of trust is? But the law doesn’t allow banks and lenders to advertise ( market ) a house for sale without judicial process. Come on let’s stay on coure here.
“But rather than posting your theory on all this, post the state statue in your state that supports your argument. That statue on 5 or more transactions in a 12 month period does not support your argument. The first 4 you CAN advertise to sell a property you only have an option on. So post a statue that pertains to the first 4 properties you can buy, that says you need a license to advertise the property for sale that you only have an option to buy on??? Otherwise, all your arguments is just smoke!”
I think you’re the one smoking here, Johnboy.
Just in case you missed the point…please allow me to refresh.
WE ARE NOT DISAGREEING ON THEORIES OR CONCEPTS THAT YOU SEEM TO SUGGEST. WE ARE DISAGREEING ON THE EXACT SAME STATUTES THAT YOU CLAIM GIVE RIGHTS TO OPTIONORS AS OWNERS OF REAL ESTATE.
Perhaps a better way to explain this is that what you reserve as automatic rights actually are limited to the owners.
Your actions ( as an investor ) and what you say is LEGAL for OPTIONORS belong to the owners or licensed agents/brokers.
No one ever said you could sell the property if you are not the owner. You do have have to be the owner to actually sell it. You just don’t have to be the owner to advertise to sell it when you are not the owner, AS LONG AS, you WILL be the owner at the time of actually selling it! By having a legal contract such as an option to buy the property, where you WILL own the property at the time of actually selling it, then you CAN legally advertise the property for sale even though you do not YET own it, but WILL own it at the TIME OF SALE!
If I decide not to exercise the option then the option eventually expires and my rights to buy the property go away.
If I advertised the property and did not exercise the option where it expired, then obviously I never had a buyer. If I had then I would have exercised the option, OWNED the property, and then sold it to my buyer.
Now you are confusing LIENS with RIGHTS TO BUY! There is a big difference between having a LIEN as a security interest VS. having a contract that gives you an equitable interest and the right to buy! A mortgage does not give a lender the automatic right to buy your property. It only gives them a SECUIRTY INTEREST that gives them the right to foreclosure and take the property if you default on the note or mortgage. An option gives you the AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO BUY THE PROPERTY.
So no, YOU are the one smoking!
Having an option gives me an ownership interest in the property. I own an interest in the real estate while my option is valid. So my rights are not limited to owners. In fact, because I have an option, the owner can NOT sell the property to anyone else as long as I have the option. The owner gives up rights to sell to anyone but ME!
What you say is rediculous and the laws are very clear. So far you have not provided any statute that says anything to support your theory. On the otherhand, I have provided statutes that support mine, and Bronchick has provided several States that also support my arguments.
When you have a lien against a property - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on August 22, 2002 at 22:54:42:
isn’t that having an interest too?
But having a lien against a property doesn’t grant you automatic rights to sell or market the house.
If you really think about it a lien is nothing more than an interest in property. The same reason why you record an affidivate/memorandum/contract for deed/judgements.
Posted by Houserookie on August 22, 2002 at 22:37:14:
Johnboy, you’re taking this thing too personal. It’s clouding up your judgement.
I gave the lender and bank examples to illustrate that, in those examples, the secured party have as much right to sell and market someone else’s property as the optionor.
I believe I was the one the started off with statutes to prove my point. You have failed to understand that it’s not the statutes that we are disagreeing on, it’s the interpretation.
There is no guarantee required! I only need to become the owner in order to sell it, not advertise to sell it, as long as I do have a legal RIGHT to buy it!
If you OWN a property, advertise to sell it, there is no GUARANTEE that you will be able to close! Same thing! But you MAY, SHOULD, INTEND, PLAN TO, close, but sh*t happens sometimes and you MIGHT not be able to close! WHEN that happens, because it DOES happen at times, does that mean you falsely advertised the property for sale??? NOT!
So what statute have you read that says, “YOU MUST GUARANTEE THAT YOU CAN CLOSE IF YOU ADVERTISE A PROPERTY FOR SALE”???
A lien such as a mortgage is a SECURITY INTEREST. It does not give the lender any rights to automatically BUY the property. It gives the lender the right to foreclose to TAKE the property if the borrower defaults, by going through the judical process.
An OPTION give you the right to BUY the property, unlike a lien such as a mortgage. They are not the same thing.
Re: When you have a lien against a property - Posted by Brian Mac
Posted by Brian Mac on August 23, 2002 at 24:06:43:
Austin
While I think your interpretation is valid, I think your reasoning seems out of sequence.
Property ownership rights were established first. Then the regulatory agencies and laws governing the real estate profession. Not the other way around even though that’s what the profession would like us to believe.
Licensing is granted by the regulatory agency that regulates the “professional agent”, not the professional property owner(equity holder). Regulating the profession and granting license had to be done for a reason…or so they would have us believe.
What is the title heading of the entire statute and the title heading of the sub section(s) you are getting your information from? I believe Mr. Bronchick will tell us these statutes in most states primarily pertain to the licensed professional agent.
After all, don’t all real estated agents believe that no one should do a real estate transaction without the help of a real estate agent? In some states, the attorney’s have such an overwhelming lobby, no real estate closing can be done without an attorney even though in most other states it’s proven to be done without an attorney’s presence.
re. liens etc.
Yes a lien is an interest in the property, but it requires some form of judicial proceedings for the lien holder to gain controlling ownership rights. Not so with an option. As you know, just a written notice and exercise.
I’m not taking anything personal. My judgement is not at all clouded. YOURS IS!
The examples of the lender and bank were poor examples because they do NOT have any rights to BUY the property, unlike an OPTION TO BUY does!
You started off with statues to prove your point, only it didn’t prove your point. The statues are clear. YOU are the one interpretating them wrong! Its clear and plain english as to what the statues say and you don’t need to interpretate them in any way! I read exactly what they said which none of it interpretates what you seem to think they say!