You need to talk to a lawyer ASAP. If you don’t get some sort of lien on the property before it sells, you might lose your $5,000. Again, I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn’t know how to do that.

Did you read my blog on Short Sales? Not sure why you posted here, but that will have more information. You really have to be careful and get legal advice. THe good news is that there is a very good chance that it will not sell in the Short Sale process, but there is a good chance it will go to foreclosure. Could be 30 days, could be 90-120.

Also you can ask the sheriff about your deposit and your rights and how long it would take to kick you out.

If it sells as a Short Sale, I do believe you have rights, if you get in line (for reimbursement) EARLY. If they sell this place without you knowing and they close on it, it will be too late and VERY hard to get your money. But if you interrupt the sale and when they go to closing, there is some sort of paperwork stating that you get reimbursed, you might get money back.

Also don’t make any further payments until you talk to a lawyer. Also look in the paper for any notices for when the foreclosure might be.

Sorry to hear about your situation, but yes you need to at least START looking ASAP.

Frank

She wrote a great former insider post.

I have no issue with a broker recommending a lender. I do hesitate, but ultimately have little problems with the broker making money on the lending side (still open to debate on this).

The problems lies with how far does one take it.

Where is the line between “asking” and “telling?”

Is “nudging” ok, are “bonuses” or “awards” ok?

How about the subtle office cold shoulder if you don’t use their partners?

While many say that they do give options and don’t get bullied into using partners, some aren’t as strong and they are voicing that they have been victim to these pressures.

Do we agree that pressuring, no matter how little, is inappropriate?

If that letter is pressure or not, that is for everyone to debate (will somebody post it here?). But can we agree at least that pressure, bonuses, awards, and DIRECT benefits might not be following RESPAs intent.

If we agree on that, then we can debate whether INDIRECT benefits such as “more advertising” (and I assume that means to ALL agents without regard to who uses partners) is acceptable.

Frank

Having said all that, my commission is the same, I get the same ads in the newspapers, and all other things that L&F provides whether I use in house or not. I joined L & F because they let me conduct my business as I want to (ie: Independent Contractor) as long as it is done legally and ethically. I did not take Wes”s memo as a threat, I took it as he is trying to keep the company strong. I have seen in house mortgage at Weichert, CB, Pru, KW and even Re/max. Almost all of them have in house titile, and in house insurance, too . I imagine that there is money in in for all the brokers, whether it is a partnership or rent paid for an office. However, I only care who treats my clients the best.

For me, this situation represents the ultimate betrayal to both the client and the agents who work at Long and Foster. The broker/salesperson licensing scheme is in place to empower brokers to supervise their agents. That hierarchy is in place to ensure that agents don’t run amok and cause injury to consumers. To use that hierarchy to engage in a self dealing practice that at the very least presents an insurmountable conflict of interest is atrocious.

In agency law, even the appearance of impropriety is unacceptable. In addition, brokers should never “sell” anything to their clients, they can only provide untainted advice. In fact, fiduciaries are supposed to go so far as to even avoid conflicts of interests. That means not setting up an in-house mortgage or title company in the first place! And for all those out there who claim that One Stop Shopping is a benefit to your consumers, remember, the fact that you even are part of such a scheme makes everything you say in that regard appear to be self serving. My point is, you could never present an affidavit and be taken seriously because your statements are all tainted in that you or your firm profit from the scheme. A court of law would probably throw it out as self serving (the judge in the Burnet case on Friday claimed to not even read the affidavits of agents for that very reason).

How are the agents supposed to know this if their own brokers are selling them down the river when it comes to proper representation of their clients? I’ve heard that many large companies even have a list of objections and how to overcome them if their client doesn’t want to use the inhouse services? Apparently at many large companies the managers get huge bonuses based upon how well they persuade their agents (whom they are supervising) to use in-house services. Many of the perks (at the firm, not necessarily at the agent level) that are supposed to be disclosed to the client are kept hidden from the agents. So the agents are in a position where they couldn’t disclose all its broker’s conflicts even if they wanted to. This culture of betrayal is not only wrong, but its illegal both under civil and CRIMINAL law.

I bet Washington has a set of real estate licensing laws that impose fiduciary duties on their brokers and agents. I think a well written complaint from a Long and Foster real estate agent needs to be sent to the regulatory authority there asking for some enforcement action.

The key to this argument is intent. What was the intent of RESPA? Is it always in the buyers best interest to use an in-house lender? Who is the lender accountable to? I think a little separation is a good thing.

I think we should focus on the RESPA issue again and I like what David has asked above. I actually don’t have a problem with the existence of an in-house lender, particularly if they do a good job for the client. What I wonder is if it’s possible to ensure transparency between a real estate brokerage and an in-house lender or is that an untenable goal.