Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Howard
Wimmenz is dumx0r

:thumbsup:

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Howard
Wimmenz is dumz0r

 

[QED]

5% is great and all, but there are discount brokers that offer that rate all of the time-- so your aunt could go with one of those and still not have to worry about the agent not representing her (your aunt's) best interests.

If you were getting sued by someone, and the person suing had a nephew who would represent you at discount, would you take him up on the offer?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: MathMan
5% is great and all, but there are discount brokers that offer that rate all of the time-- so your aunt could go with one of those and still not have to worry about the agent not representing her (your aunt's) best interests.

She could but she didn't. She went with an agent at 7% commission.

If you were getting sued by someone, and the person suing had a nephew who would represent you at discount, would you take him up on the offer?

Comparing apples to oranges here. The sale of the house results in a mutual beneficial outcome for both the aunt and the uncle. A lawsuit generally does not.

 

[BooGiMaN]

maybe its better that your wife not be involved......she might be saving you guys a good deal of drama in the future...

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Queasy

If you were getting sued by someone, and the person suing had a nephew who would represent you at discount, would you take him up on the offer?

Comparing apples to oranges here. The sale of the house results in a mutual beneficial outcome for both the aunt and the uncle. A lawsuit generally does not.

Not apples and oranges.

A divorce is just another form of a lawsuit-- you have two parties fighting in court over what they believe belongs to them.

Just like lawyers, a real estate agent is your representative in one of the largest financial transactions of your life. Just as you would like to know that your lawyer is 100% vested in YOUR best interest, you would also like to know that your real estate agent is as well. Any conflict of interest, or even appearance of conflict of interest, is very, very bad.

Let me rephrase my situation: Suppose you were going through a bitter divorce. You were injured by a hit and run driver a few years ago, and your lawsuit against the insurance company has now reached trial. Note in this scenario that you winning your lawsuit is beneficial to both you and your estranged spouse. Your estranged spouse's nephew is a trial attorney and offers to represnt you at a discount.

Would you take him up on his offer?

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Queasy
My wife recently reactivated her real estate commission to make some money on the side while she stays at home with the kids. Even more recently, my wife's uncle and aunt have decided to get a divorce (big mess...both at fault...kid loses of course). The uncle asked my wife to help him sell the house and my wife agreed to at a reduced commission (5% with her getting only 2% as the seller's agent). My wife has been nothing but straightforward in telling the uncle everything he needs to do to sell the house and how much he'd likely get for it.

The aunt though, is a piece of work. The uncle can't sell the house or sign an agreement with an agent without the wife's permission...despite the fact that she's never worked a day of the marriage (flat-out refused is more like it). So the aunt says she refuses to sell the house through my wife. She wants to go to another agent....where they have to pay a 7% commission. The uncle told his wife that he's not paying the difference in commission. She would have to. The aunt agrees to this.

Why would you eat $3000 like that? I just don't get it. Even if there is animosity between the aunt and uncle....why?

Cliffs:
1) Wife's uncle wants to sell house with her as agent at 5% commission
2) Uncle's wife wants to use a "neutral" agent where they would hav to pay 7% commission.
3) Uncle's wife willing to eat ~$3000 to make up the difference.

Perhaps she feels an indepentdent 3rd party would be more likely to also consider her best interests, not just your uncle's.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Queasy
My wife recently reactivated her real estate commission to make some money on the side while she stays at home with the kids. Even more recently, my wife's uncle and aunt have decided to get a divorce (big mess...both at fault...kid loses of course). The uncle asked my wife to help him sell the house and my wife agreed to at a reduced commission (5% with her getting only 2% as the seller's agent). My wife has been nothing but straightforward in telling the uncle everything he needs to do to sell the house and how much he'd likely get for it.

The aunt though, is a piece of work. The uncle can't sell the house or sign an agreement with an agent without the wife's permission...despite the fact that she's never worked a day of the marriage (flat-out refused is more like it). So the aunt says she refuses to sell the house through my wife. She wants to go to another agent....where they have to pay a 7% commission. The uncle told his wife that he's not paying the difference in commission. She would have to. The aunt agrees to this.

Why would you eat $3000 like that? I just don't get it. Even if there is animosity between the aunt and uncle....why?

Cliffs:
1) Wife's uncle wants to sell house with her as agent at 5% commission
2) Uncle's wife wants to use a "neutral" agent where they would hav to pay 7% commission.
3) Uncle's wife willing to eat ~$3000 to make up the difference.

Perhaps she feels an indepentdent 3rd party would be more likely to also consider her best interests, not just your uncle's.

Right, because Real Estate agents push for the lowest price possible.... The person who the opposing parties in a marital case try to influence is the Appriaser, not the agent.

This is a case of spite, nothing more. I hope the wife ends up broke and in a homeless shelter.

 

[erikistired]

this is why there will never be a woman president.