DEAR BOB: Why don’t you warn home sellers not to attempt selling alone without a professional real estate agent? My husband said we could save the real estate sales commission by selling without any agent. He bought a book on selling without a broker and thought we could do it alone.

After spending almost $1,000 on a sign, advertising and legal fees, plus wasting four months, he finally agreed to advertise “broker co-op” in our weekend open house newspaper ad. That changed everything. Real estate agents started to bring their prospective buyers to visit our Sunday open houses.

The second week, a sharp Realtor brought a buyer who loved our house. The Realtor prepared a purchase offer, handled all the required disclosures, and got our sale closed in less than a month. She charged us 50 percent of the typical sales commission. It was money well-spent.

Looking back, I think we probably would have received a higher sales price and saved lots of carrying costs and sales expenses if we had followed your advice to interview three agents and list with the best. — Margaret H.

DEAR MARGARET: Thank you for sharing your experience. I would love to tell home sellers they can save the sales commission and sell without a professional realty agent, but that’s not true, as you discovered.

Although I am a licensed real estate broker and have earned many sales commissions selling properties for other owners, I always list with another realty agent when I want to sell my own properties (with the exception of selling to a friend or on a lease-option to a tenant).

The primary reason is, I know, as the seller, I cannot be objective about selling my own property. As you discovered, selling your home without professional help is very difficult. Not only are most sellers incapable of handling today’s complicated disclosure paperwork, but prospective buyers usually don’t trust do-it-yourself sellers.

DEAR BOB: The boundary fence on my property is leaning toward my neighbor’s lot. I want to replace it. When I asked my neighbor to pay half the cost, he refused. Is there anything I can do to force him to pay his share? — Milt M.

DEAR MILT: The situation you describe, where a “good neighbor” fence is located on the boundary between two properties, is called a division fence. In most states, there are no laws requiring a neighbor to pay half the rebuilding cost when the fence falls down or threatens to do so.

If one neighbor doesn’t want a fence, in the absence of homeowner association rules, there is nothing you can do to force him to pay half the reconstruction cost.

However, here’s a little secret I learned from my insurance agent. If a boundary fence falls down in a windstorm, your homeowner’s insurance policy will probably pay to rebuild it. Equally important, if both neighbors have the same insurance company, the insurer will usually either waive the deductible or cut it in half.

DEAR BOB: We built our new house and closed its purchase in January 2000. Recently, when we called our lender bank about refinancing, we were told there is a 2 percent prepayment penalty. We were never told about this at the closing and never would have agreed to it.

Our copy of the disclosure statement says we will not have to pay a refinance fee, with the words “refinance fee” typed in. When I called our loan officer, he said his originals signed by us have the word “not” crossed out and the word “may” typed over it. However, we never initialed such a change.

Since our copy of the paperwork says we do not have any refinance fee, are we obligated to pay it? Our loan officer will not back down. Do we have any recourse in small claims court if they charge us a fee when we refinance? — Darla S.

DEAR DARLA: Shame on your lender bank. Find out which government agency regulates your lender and file a complaint with that regulator now. There is no valid excuse for a lender changing the printed words in your loan agreement without your approval.

When mortgage interest rates drop enough to make refinancing worthwhile, if the lender still refuses to waive that 2 percent refinance fee (which can be substantial, depending on your mortgage balance), I would pay it under protest and then sue the bank for a refund.

DEAR BOB: My domestic partner and I bought a condo three years ago. We hold title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Now we are separating. We want to handle the finances as fairly as possible. I will be staying in the condo.

We’re considering two alternatives: (1) We transfer title to my name only, I refinance to get a mortgage in my name alone, and I use the refinance money to buy out my partner’s half (using the appraisal valuation) or (2) he continues paying half the mortgage, property taxes, insurance and repairs, but when I sell, I then pay him half the profits.

As I may not sell for many years, this seems more troublesome. Do you have any words of wisdom for us? — Evie M.

DEAR EVIE: Your first alternative, refinancing to buy out your partner’s equity now, is by far the best solution. If you don’t do that, eventually he will get tired of paying half the expenses, on an equity-share plan, without a definite buyout deadline, such as 10 years.

Why postpone the inevitable buyout of your partner? If you can qualify on your own for a mortgage refinance now, today is a great time to do so since mortgage interest rates are very affordable.

DEAR BOB: We are first-time home buyers working with a”buyers’ agent.Ó She already got us preapproved for a mortgage. Last week she gave us a sample copy of the home-purchase contract used in our vicinity. It contains a paragraph requiring us to mediate any disputes that might arise after the sale with the seller. I know you recommend not signing an arbitration clause, but what about a mediation clause. What’s the difference? — Jeff R.

DEAR JEFF: Mediation is non-binding settlement of a dispute. Expert mediators often get the parties involved to work out a fair settlement, usually taking one day at the most. The mediation cost is much cheaper than a lawsuit or binding arbitration.

However, if the parties aren’t willing to compromise in mediation, then the dispute can either go to a court lawsuit or arbitration.

You are correct. I do not recommend home buyers and sellers agree, at the time of the home sale, to arbitrate future disputes. By agreeing to arbitration, you forfeit your rights to a jury trial, court rules of evidence and discovery, and right to appeal. If a dispute arises later, the parties can always agree to binding arbitration at that time.

DEAR BOB: As a mortgage broker, I feel I must correct you. Often, you recommend that homeowners who are refinancing get a so-called”no costÓ mortgage rather than pay a customary one- or two-point refinance fee, plus other costs such as appraisal, credit check and title fees.

My experience has been that so-called”no costÓ mortgages usually have a one-eighth to one-fourth percent higher interest rate than loans where the borrower pays typical costs. I often advise my refinancing homeowners to pay the loan costs in return for a lower interest rate for the life of the mortgage. — Sylvia P.

DEAR SYLVIA: The primary reason I recommend so-called”no costÓ mortgages, which carry a slightly higher interest rate than when the borrower pays the fees, is because on a refinance the loan fee can only be deducted over the life of the mortgage.

To illustrate, if a $1,000 loan fee is paid to obtain a 30-year refinanced mortgage, the borrower can only deduct $33.33 for each of the next 30 years. I would rather pay a slightly higher tax-deductible interest rate than pay all those loan costs up-front. Another advantage of a”no costÓ mortgage is the lenders usually don’t try to add last-minute “garbage” or “junk” fees.

Lodinews Home | News | Sports | Business | Features
Opinion | Obituaries | Classifieds | Archives

SUBSCRIBE TO THE LODI NEWS-SENTINEL

Please report any errors, omissions or changes to the Webmaster.