Northtxopinionator-

"My opinion is that you took advantage of an elderly woman who had lost her husband, stole the equity in her home, and that is absolutely disgusting to me."

Oh, you thought i asked for your opinion? I thought this was a r.e. subject. You keep making assumptions that are incorrect and treat them as fact. As far as the 'old lady' she was in her 30's at the time. Your too funny.

You did indeed ask.

Also, the widow in her 30's with two small kids who just lost her husband......I'm sure she needed that money and could certainly use it for her kids someday. How do you sleep at night? If you were REALLY in it to help her out of an 'impossible' situation then, you could have loaned her the money and given her time to pay it back, or loaned her the money, sold her home, and let her pay you from the equity.
You did not do any of those things....instead, you got her to sign a contract at a time when she is clearly under duress from the loss of her husband, her financial situation, and the loss of her home. And then you made a HUGE commission while she essentially got peanuts if anything. A licensed Realtor is prohibited from signing a contract with someone who is clearly under duress. If WE (who are LICENSED) were to do such a thing WE could and would be sued. Which is why WE have to adhere to a strict code of ethics. For some reason YOU and your little buddy seem to think you can reap the same benefits as we who are licensed without having to adhere to any guidelines or laws, or do any of the work. THESE situations are why you MUST be licensed to sell real estate. Because without having standards and guidelines for assisting people in the sale of their biggest asset the public could be taken advantage of. Just like the two f you are doing. Whether it's a legal loophole, whether it's slimy investors, the fact is.... you are taking advantage of people already under duress. So don't come on these forums and try and convince us you are exchanging Christmas cards with someone you clearly took advantage of.

Ellen- I get what your saying however in a Double Escrow I create two contracts one with seller one with buyer. As soon as they sign that contract escrow opens up with both my buyer and My self. Now at the closing table I will close with my buyers fund and my first transaction is closed then, and I own house. Right after I sign it over to him and his Escrow closes, and he becomes owner. The Escro Agency or Title in some states its combined, they will cut the check out to me. Thats not brokering a deal and is legal in all states.

Eclipse, you realize that is NOT how you started this thread. You are taking that concept from what I have presented in this thread.

And it's still slimy. LOL! Don't forget the challenges I've mentioned associated with this. Among others that haven't been mentioned.

Good luck!

Are you a lawyer? Because I wouldn't be so quick to make blanket statements like thats not brokering a deal and is legal in all 50 states. Have you checked the laws out in all 50 states? lol

well said MadHatter.

Last post -

You are all right. Next time I will know better and do the right thing and let the widow lose her home and get nothing.

Your insights on transactions you had nothing to do with are amazing and Im sure serve you well in all aspects of life.

Peace.

I promise you don't have to "explain" this process to me, I am more familiar with it than I really want to be.

Let me try again. Your "Double Escrow" ruse doesn't change anything. If you found the buyer before you took title, it can be and has been construed as brokering. Because if you look for or solicit someone to buy a property you do not own, even if you subsequently own it yourself for the five minutes prior to signing it over to the next guy, that is brokering. It is the act of soliciting the buyer for a property you do not own that is the problem. All the paper shuffling in the world doesn't erase that.

I will repeat. There are safe and legal ways to accomplish the same thing you are doing. You need to find someone who can help you do them and forget about playing with fire. Yes, someone who knows what they are doing will probably charge you. Consider it the cost of your education. In the long run it will be much cheaper than the legal trouble you will get into if you keep doing what you are doing.

Actually, you don't have to be licensed to be sued in such circumstances. Any contract that involves duress is potentially voidable and the person who signed under duress could sue to not only void the contract but possibly for damages. In a situation like that, it could result in TWO lawsuits to the "wholesaler", one by the seller and one by the buyer if the contract is voided and he has to give the property back to the original seller.

Everybody wants to maximize their profits whether they are buying or selling real estate. But there are lines you shouldn't cross if you don't like spending your life dodging process servers. And cases where duress exist or the investor is making what would look like an "unconscionable" profit in the deal are among them. A good rule of thumb is if you don't feel 100% cheerful at the thought of explaining your actions in court, don't do it.

I'm not a lawyer but I have certainly seen enough horror movie scenarios involving real estate lawsuits to know I want to stay VERY far away from even the appearance of fraud or duress.

Ooops, I forgot,

Madhatter,

"If you were REALLY in it to help her out of an 'impossible' situation then, you could have loaned her the money and given her time to pay it back, or loaned her the money, sold her home, and let her pay you from the equity."

Now this IS breaking the law. It's called predatory lending. Loaning money to a homeowner that has no means to repay other than to sell their their place of residence is illegal. Come on,
you don't give advise like this to your clients do you?

Ok, now I promise Im out of here.

She has the means to repay it. From the equity you took. And it isn't predatory lending when it's done between "friends".

Or did you mean ADVICE?

I'd been reading these posts, I just wanted to put this out there- I'd recently been working with a real estate coaching company, with the intent to assign properties, due to the fact that I have no license, and was told this is legal...had no real estate experience or knowledge beforehand. A few weeks ago when I mentioned to my older brother (who's a lawyer) what I was up to, he pointed out that he and his team tried to defend a man who was assigning contracts (without a broker's license), and he wound up being fined $750,000! (that's coming from an attorney with a good record by the way)....

The way the statute stands in some states, at least in the state of New Jersey, is, although the money being made by such assignments are referral fees, and not commission off of the sale of the property, the statute prohibits commissions, or fees, or any valuable consumption...though assigning assists the buyer and not the seller, such as a birdogger under contract, and the fee being made is not commission off of the sale of the property, an investor without a broker's license is not permitted to make such deals with the intent (though stated in a clause) to simply turn over a property not owned by them. Though they have made it clear with the seller that they "may or may not do this if they choose not to take the property themselves", because they have not completely disclosed their intentions, this action can be construed as fraud, regardless of what the clauses are. Esentially has to do with the fact that a contract can be completely void if it wasn't legal to make in the first place. Nor is an unlicensed investor allowed to bring people together, such as a new buyer, to assign the property to someone else, even if the first contract with the seller is honored down to the last detail. Though the assigner of the contract has his/her name stricken from the new contract, the transaction is illegal. I personally do not have any personal opinions as to whether or not this should be legal without a license, and I know these assignments are constantly happening. I just figured I'd throw this information out there as these are the words of an attorney involved in a case dealing with these issues, and I wouldn't want anyone to have the wrong idea (like I did) about it...