On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 03-06-2012 2:27 PM by Taxagent. 11 replies.
  • 03-06-2012 12:34 AM

    On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    After my 4th attempt to buy a home, I got an "acceptance" on my offer (Calif. residential purchase agreement) today.   I was getting excited,... until...

    No where is there any typed, printed, or hand written name to the acceptance (seller)  There is only a signature (and date), and it's the worse hen scratching possible... no one would be able to figure out who the seller is.   It looks likes a large slanted circle and a line.

    I pulled out my real estate books and they say, under the subject matter of the contract, that "all parties must be identified unambiguously."

    Do I have the right to expect that the seller identify him/herself/themselves , by recognizable name, on the acceptance to the purchase agreement?   The way it is, would it hold up in court?

    No form was given indicating that any party was representing an anonomous seller.

    Please advise.  Thank you in advance.

     

     

  • 03-06-2012 8:35 AM In reply to

    • Drew
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2000
    • PA
    • Posts 48,922

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    I suspect a scrawl is sufficient to bind that seller--but you do raise an interesting point--is the ownwer/seller identified in the deal --it better be --if not, pound on the agent to get verfication in writing that the seller and owner and signature all matuch up.

    The real problem in my RE experience is that to use forms prepared by the realtor produces agreements designed to protect the realtor and the seller in that order and the buyer is a very distant 3d place with almost no leverage to compel specific timely performance.

    You will need to be on top of everything at all times...especially if this is some sort of problem sale and somebody else has yet to sign the deal....like a lender or an EX.



  • 03-06-2012 11:50 AM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    Oh my god,

    I know an assessor in the county where this property is.  He just answered my email.

    He tells me it is xxxx Portfolio Management LLC  (owners).

    I don't think I can have any assurance that a scrawl indicates it is a valid representative of anything that is a corporation, even a LLC.

    What do you advise?


  • 03-06-2012 12:06 PM In reply to

    • Drew
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2000
    • PA
    • Posts 48,922

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    I'm not a lawyer  nor do I do RE deals in CA --but you need to get real nervous or real careful or go get some  independent competent handholding..

    1. I agree the signature is in question--but that may be least of your worries. Is that the only signature required--are you

        sure?

    2. Is this some sort of a foreclosure situation--do you know whatyou are doing?

    3. I repeat my warning that all the fine print is there to serve others and the agent's loyality is to the commission check



  • 03-06-2012 12:32 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    Of course I'm nervous.

    A California Residential Purchase Agreement is 8 pages long and used by all Realtors.  It spells out agency relationships, Finance terms (initial deposits, loans, balance of deposit), allocation of costs (who pays for inspections and other), statutory disclosures, buyers investigations rights, title and vesting, time periods, joint escrow instructions, arbitration, and more.

    It probably was previously a foreclosure... but I believe that if it was a foreclusre, the LLC has now ended up with the property, did some remodeling, and is trying to sell with a profit.  Nothing wrong with doing that.

    My problem is with the stupid scrawl.  And that they haven't yet identified themselves as representing a LLC.

     

     

  • 03-06-2012 12:45 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    MelissaT:
    It probably was previously a foreclosure... but I believe that if it was a foreclusre, the LLC has now ended up with the property, did some remodeling, and is trying to sell with a profit.  Nothing wrong with doing that.

     

    I think you may be missing the point:

    MelissaT:
    My problem is with the stupid scrawl.  And that they haven't yet identified themselves as representing a LLC

     

    That's why you should be suspicious about nay issues with the house.  There may very well be "something wrong with doing that."  Don't be so eager to buy the house that you overlook warning signs.  It's a huge commitment.  Good luck.

  • 03-06-2012 12:50 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    I am pressing my Realtor  (a realtor from hxxx) to get the proper contract.  He just told me he does not know the owner  (yet I do, ha ha).  He says it should all come out in disclosures.   Disclosures are not the contract, which is why I think the identify should be part of the contract.   Disclosures are just subsequent documents, I'm not sure if they become "bound" or part of the original agreement.

    Which is why I came here asking.

  • 03-06-2012 12:52 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    I wouldn't sign it.  You have control now as they want to sell in a bad market. NEVER sign anything that makes you suspicious...and this is odd.

  • 03-06-2012 1:29 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    It's not my turn to sign.  I already signed the offer.    I'm talking about their acceptance.

    I've talked to another really knowledgable person who's done real estate, and they said it's not uncommon to not know who the seller, or buyer is in a transaction... until the disclosures are done and the disclosures are signed/released.   So I feel better.

    And thanks again to all who have responded!

     

  • 03-06-2012 1:31 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    Good.  Just hope we don't see you back here with any issues.  Enjoy your new home.

  • 03-06-2012 1:39 PM In reply to

    • Drew
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2000
    • PA
    • Posts 48,922

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    I would be very nervous about some LLC that bought a dog and dressed it up for resale in a down market and I'm a pretty good engineer who can assess many a building condition --with a feel for what I don't know as well.

    That said, if I had any doubts at all and the signature didn't smell right the very first thing I'd do is present a written retraction of my offer and be positive it was delivered immediately.  Then I'd duck.

    My view of the standard sellers disclosure around me anyway is that it has slightly  more strength than wet toilet paper

     



  • 03-06-2012 2:27 PM In reply to

    Re: On acceptance, should the agreement show a name?

    MelissaT:
    Do I have the right to expect that the seller identify him/herself/themselves , by recognizable name, on the acceptance to the purchase agreement?   The way it is, would it hold up in court?

    As a lawyer, I can tell you that without looking at the agreement you have and knowing all the circumstances, I cannot say if the contract is enforceable. But it certainly could be. It is not absolutely necessary that the seller's name be written on the contract. If that's what you wanted, though, you should have insisted on that as part of your offer if it was important to you to know that ahead of time. It is important that the seller or his agent signed the agreement, however.

Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community