HOA ???

[Mel]

I read this as complaining about people who read "every punctuation mark 6 times". We should be encouraging people to read contracts. There are many, many more problems caused by people signing on the "word" of the agent rather than reading for themselves.
If you sell me a house, you can count on my reading every "word and punctuation mark". If that upsets you , I'm sorry.
And even though I did go to A&M, I'm NOT a lawyer!

[b322da]

I read this as complaining about people who read "every punctuation mark 6 times". We should be encouraging people to read contracts. There are many, many more problems caused by people signing on the "word" of the agent rather than reading for themselves.
If you sell me a house, you can count on my reading every "word and punctuation mark". If that upsets you , I'm sorry.
And even though I did go to A&M, I'm NOT a lawyer!

If "this" means my post which used the phrase "every punctuation mark 6 times," I would hope you would read the post where I used it again, with both care and an open mind, particularly the second paragraph, with the sentence beginning, "But-- in thinking about it...."

I have learned to avoid subtlety here, and I simply cannot see any in that sentence.

Jim

[Mel]

Sorry; I guess my comment was aimed more toward the agent who said, "this was the last time she would voluntarily recommend a client's sale to a lawyer". as if she didn't wan to mess with customers who wanted to actually "read" the contract.

[JALLEN]

Sorry; I guess my comment was aimed more toward the agent who said, "this was the last time she would voluntarily recommend a client's sale to a lawyer". as if she didn't wan to mess with customers who wanted to actually "read" the contract.

She doesn't. She wants buyers who will accept what she tells them, not cause uncertainties, doubts, worries, endless dreaming up of plausible sounding but technically bogus explanations, IOW, no troublemakers! You can't have mere parties interfering with the commissions like that.

[mojo84]

It is very common for real estate agents to consider attorneys deal killers. This is especially true in commercial real estate. We knew the chances of a deal getting closed with an attorney inolved was much less than without.

Even though, I never discouraged a client from getting an attorney involved. Yes, I had my share of deals fall through because the parties got caught up on some essoteric matter that had about as much chance of happening as having a vehicle accident on the way to closing.

[Dragonfighter]

I live in a condo can the condo HOA forbid me from having guns. I have a CHL

Best defense against a bad HOA is to be an involved home owner or get on the board yourself. The next best option is to move to an uncontrolled property where you can't be told what to do with your own home.

This. I have made a rule to live by, long ago, that says any indication of an HOA during property dealings will terminate all negotiations.

[b322da]

It is very common for real estate agents to consider attorneys deal killers. This is especially true in commercial real estate. We knew the chances of a deal getting closed with an attorney inolved was much less than without.

Even though, I never discouraged a client from getting an attorney involved. Yes, I had my share of deals call through because the parties got caught up on some essoteric matter that had about as much chance of happening as having a vehicle accident on the way to closing.

There are of course at least two sides to this story, as is true in so many things.

First, it must be realized, and understood, that there may be very good reasons why the presence of an attorney representing the buyer might cause the deal to fall through -- the attorney effectively doing his job of representing and protecting the interests of the buyer by whom he is being paid. The attorney's client is the buyer, not the deal. The esoteric matter referred to may in fact have been such as to lead to the buyer's cost and remorse if not dealt with, and by the very definition of the word "esoteric" we see that such a possibly legally complex matter may well have not been understood by the buyer's agent, notwithstanding his honesty and good faith representation of the buyer.

On the other hand, I must with regret admit that an attorney may of course be nitpicking for no good cause other than to inflate his ego and, even worse, to inflate his fee.

In such a case it is the responsibility of the buyer himself to determine which of these two agents he has retained is the more reliable. I do not suggest that this is an easy task for the buyer, but when such circumstances arise nobody can make the call except himself.

Jim

[mojo84]

It is very common for real estate agents to consider attorneys deal killers. This is especially true in commercial real estate. We knew the chances of a deal getting closed with an attorney inolved was much less than without.

Even though, I never discouraged a client from getting an attorney involved. Yes, I had my share of deals call through because the parties got caught up on some essoteric matter that had about as much chance of happening as having a vehicle accident on the way to closing.

There are of course at least two sides to this story, as is true in so many things.

First, it must be realized, and understood, that there may be very good reasons why the presence of an attorney representing the buyer might cause the deal to fall through -- the attorney effectively doing his job of representing and protecting the interests of the buyer by whom he is being paid. The attorney's client is the buyer, not the deal. The esoteric matter referred to may in fact have been such as to lead to the buyer's cost and remorse if not dealt with, and by the very definition of the word "esoteric" we see that such a possibly legally complex matter may well have not been understood by the buyer's agent, notwithstanding his honesty and good faith representation of the buyer.

On the other hand, I must with regret admit that an attorney may of course be nitpicking for no good cause other than to inflate his ego and, even worse, to inflate his fee.

In such a case it is the responsibility of the buyer himself to determine which of these two agents he has retained is the more reliable. I do not suggest that this is an easy task for the buyer, but when such circumstances arise nobody can make the call except himself.

Jim

Jim, you seem to be under the impression I'm talking about one specific instance. I am actually making a general statement based upon my experience in the commercial real estate business in Houston.

I understand what you mean that it is ultimately up to the party of the contract, it's not just the buyer's attorney that can ruin a deal, to make the final decision. However, you ignore the practical realistic part that the attorneys can gin up emotions and egos over an issue to the point of making it a deal killer when in practicality it shouldn't be. Then the attorney claims they saved the client from making a bad deal.

I'm not bashing attorneys in general. I'm stating what many real estate agents think of attorneys. I also believe there are plenty of poor real estate agents that are only chasing a commission.

[JALLEN]

It is very common for real estate agents to consider attorneys deal killers. This is especially true in commercial real estate. We knew the chances of a deal getting closed with an attorney inolved was much less than without.

Even though, I never discouraged a client from getting an attorney involved. Yes, I had my share of deals fall through because the parties got caught up on some essoteric matter that had about as much chance of happening as having a vehicle accident on the way to closing.

Commercial real estate deals most often involve much more experienced and sophisticated parties who are in a much better position to handle the intricacies of documents, perceive, evaluate and make decisions about the level of risk presented by various provisions, discover variances between expectations and realities, involve an attorney, either from the start or later if they encounter a situation they need help with, and resolve appropriately the inherent conflicts of interest between their needs and the agents. Those parties are typically much less dependent on an agent to evaluate and understand the effect of various issues.

[mojo84]

It is very common for real estate agents to consider attorneys deal killers. This is especially true in commercial real estate. We knew the chances of a deal getting closed with an attorney inolved was much less than without.

Even though, I never discouraged a client from getting an attorney involved. Yes, I had my share of deals fall through because the parties got caught up on some essoteric matter that had about as much chance of happening as having a vehicle accident on the way to closing.

Commercial real estate deals most often involve much more experienced and sophisticated parties who are in a much better position to handle the intricacies of documents, perceive, evaluate and make decisions about the level of risk presented by various provisions, discover variances between expectations and realities, involve an attorney, either from the start or later if they encounter a situation they need help with, and resolve appropriately the inherent conflicts of interest between their needs and the agents. Those parties are typically much less dependent on an agent to evaluate and understand the effect of various issues.

I agree with this.

Just as on here, emotions get involved at times regardless the sophistication of those involved. Once that happens, it's hard to get past what should be a speedbump. Over my time, I've seen ant hills turned into mountains many times and it started with the attorneys pointing out what should be a minor issue but it grows into a deal killer because of egos and emotions.

Nonetheless, we have strayed considerably from HOA's and there ability to restrict guns.

[JALLEN]

Nonetheless, we have strayed considerably from HOA's and there ability to restrict guns.

That question was answered several pages back. You have to read the governing documents to ascertain what "rights" one has surrendered.

[b322da]

...Jim, you seem to be under the impression I'm talking about one specific instance. I am actually making a general statement based upon my experience in the commercial real estate business in Houston....

I am sorry that I gave you that impression, mojo. That was certainly not my intent. I would hope that if you take another look at the penultimate paragraph of my post you will understand that I really tried to be "fair and balanced." A lawyer like me could get in trouble in some places for making such a statement as I did in that paragraph.

I suspect that we are in full agreement here. There are good real estate agents, and there are bad ones. Likewise, there are good lawyers, and there are bad ones.

Jim

[b322da]

...Jim, you seem to be under the impression I'm talking about one specific instance. I am actually making a general statement based upon my experience in the commercial real estate business in Houston....

I am sorry that I gave you that impression, mojo. That was certainly not my intent. I would hope that if you take another look at the penultimate paragraph of my post you will understand that I really tried to be "fair and balanced." A lawyer like me could get in trouble with the bar in some places for making such a statement as I did in that paragraph.

I suspect that we are in full agreement here. There are good real estate agents, and there are bad ones. Likewise, there are good lawyers, and there are bad ones.

Jim

[mojo84]

Nonetheless, we have strayed considerably from HOA's and there ability to restrict guns.

That question was answered several pages back. You have to read the governing documents to ascertain what "rights" one has surrendered.

Not arguing that point either. However, that doesn't negate my point that we have strayed from the original topic to lawyers killing deals.

[mojo84]

...Jim, you seem to be under the impression I'm talking about one specific instance. I am actually making a general statement based upon my experience in the commercial real estate business in Houston....

I am sorry that I gave you that impression, mojo. That was certainly not my intent. I would hope that if you take another look at the penultimate paragraph of my post you will understand that I really tried to be "fair and balanced." A lawyer like me could get in trouble in some places for making such a statement as I did in that paragraph.

I suspect that we are in full agreement here. There are good real estate agents, and there are bad ones. Likewise, there are good lawyers, and there are bad ones.

Jim

Yes sir, I agree.