resources when mistreated by broker/seller

doubt you can do anything about the seller, but I'm sure you can write a letter to REBNY about the broker.

writing a letter will really get you no where. They wanted to make a sale, they accomodated you by letting you bring in an inspector before actually signing a contract. In the meantime someone came in and either offered more money or were more easygoing.

They had no obligation to you. I would probably be thanking them for having someone else buy, because it sounds like a headache.

Just because someone has no legal obligation to do something doesn't mean they have no ethical obligation.

I agree that it may be fine that this fell through, but it's pretty obnoxious to accept an offer and then turn around and sell to someone else while an inspection that you've agreed to is taking place.

I am not arguing that. I think it is awful that they were led on. However, if i was the seller i honestly would probably have done the same thing. You do not want a deal to fall through, so why would you disclose that you were actually in talks with another buyer?

And if I really wanted the place as the buyer i would just ask that an inspection clause out be put in the contract. This way i could sign and still if certain things happen, get out and not lose my deposit.

I just feel we got an overly condensed synopsis from evster. What was the real timeline between what they are talking about and the original accepted offer and the almost signed contract?

It just sounds like there was a motivated seller who wanted out, and a buyer who was being cautious, which is fine, but in the meantime another buyer came along who was more enthusiastic about getting the deal done right away.

Ooh ooh!! Tell us the apartment!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong--I'm actually really wondering not trying to be argumentative--but isn't it fairly standard to have an inspection prior to going into contract?

My coworker bought a townhouse in NJ and the inspection clause was in the contract and it was done after contract signed.

These days though a lot of people go back multiple times to look before signing a contract and one of those visits may be with an engineer or inspector.

The broker was not at fault As to the seller, statements made by you or your engineer at your inspection might have led the seller to conclude you would be a difficuly buyer.

The real fault, if any, lay with your seller. A competent attorney could have put together a contract
which locked your deal and protected you from asssessment risk, e.g., a rider obligating the seller to
pay all assessments for a period of x months.

Inspectors are rarely called in to inspect anything in Manhattan unless there is some looming reason as to why they should. Typical cases would be checking a skylight, or a checking the extent of a preexisting leak/issue.

While they may not have told you about the assessment, your attorney should have discovered this during the due diligence process. The broker on the other hand could have hinted that there was other interest, but then again, sometimes you just get someone that comes in out of the blue.

As far as complaining goes, even if this whole thing left a bad taste in your mouth, hold off on that. I would tell the broker that you want to be a backup offer for the sellers. They may find the same problem and end up delaying as well in which case they may come back to you.

It certainly sounds like you weren't handled in the most professional manner, but at the end of the day, the other buyers could be better qualified in which case they would go with them regardless.

(Matthew Russell - Brown Harris Stevens)

as soon as you rec'd word of the assessment you shld have moved on. way way too much inventory to get into this bait:switch. prediction - you will be contacted in <90 days prop back on market.

Sorry, I don't see anything indecent or unethical about the process. Sounds like they had buyers who were negotiating around the same time as the inspection. If they didn't have an agreement by the time of the inspection, they had no news to report. It's likely that your inspection may have been the prompt that caused the other buyers to commit. Those are the breaks.

It is customary in other states (I've bought in three others) to have inspections clauses written into contract, but then again, all other states in which I've bought property have basically a standard set of pre-printed forms with minimal if any lawyer involvement. (I never used a lawyer before buying in NY, including a time I sold FSBO. Outside of NY, the process is not that hard. Really.)

As with everything else, real estate in New York is overly complicated and the lack of a formal contract for often several weeks is one of the consequences of that. It's one of the reasons we decided to buy with the seller's agent and using an attorney recommended by the seller's agent. If the realtor is double-dipping on commission, there's less incentive to show the place during the contract period or shop our offer around. And if our attorney takes a long time (and he took a freaking eternity), well you recommended him!

We ended up having an inspection, not only post-contract but post board approval(!), due to a leak issue that the seller twice claimed was resolved and the co-op twice claimed was not. In the end, the seller admitted at the inspection that the leak was not fixed before the inspector ever set foot into the apartment, so it all ended up being a game of chicken. Since we were so far along in the process, we negotiated a credit we felt was sufficiently punitive to cover the repair plus the $400 we spent on a worthless inspection and moved on.

evster, I'm sorry about your very negative experience. Having looked and bid on several apartments for more than one year now, I've concluded that the RE market in NYC is like the Wild West. There is very little civility. Basically until everyone signs a contract, anything goes. You really don't know what is going on with a seller. The seller's broker has an obligation to the seller, not the buyer and unfortunately you as the buyer don't always get all the details from the seller or his/her broker until a deal is signed. It came as a bit of a shock to me as well. Good luck in your search.

There's alot of discussion on SE about how buyers don't need their own broker because of all the transparency in pricing on sites like this, Acris and PropertyShark. But the OP's depiction just demonstrates that buying an apartment in NYC isn't always a simple financial transaction. The OP found out about a leak and wanted to have it inspected. I don't find that unreasonable. Not everyone wants to wait until after they've made their offer to do that kind of an inspection. And the seller let the OP do the inspection, although in a rushed manner. If someone is spending a million dollars of their own money, I see nothing wrong with wanting to know if the apartment is really a POS.

Where is the transparency with renovations or damage to the apartment? Why can't a buyer see documentation as to how the apartment was repaired or renovated? If that makes someone a difficult buyer, then maybe the seller has something to hide.

Lobster what does that have to do with needing a broker or not? First we have no idea whether evster had a broker and on the other side there was a broker.

If anything it is possible that the seller's broker got in the way of honesty and is the cause of all of this. I would think an FSBO would want everything out there as they do not want any issues since they are working the deal by themselves. A broker would most likely tell them only answer what is asked and don't worry if the buyer finds out about the assessment after as long as it is not somethign that they had asked about and you said there was none. Same goes with having multiple bids. If i had an accepted offer and the person who made the offer seemed to be wavering and asking to do inspections, etc, i would continue to show and if a better offer came along while i was wsiting for the accepted bid to become formal with a contract, i would take the better offer.

Lobster a buyer can ask for anything that they would like. However a seller does not have to give everythign if they do not feel like it, there choice, will the buyer disapper, potentially, but that is the risk of the seller if he wants to take it.

Not sure the broker on either side makes the situation better or worse. i still feel that two individuals speaking to each other while negotiating is better then two brokers in between. I always have the feelign that certain brokers are out for themselves and will negotiate a price and back the parties into it so they get their commission.

Would you go and buy a car and get two people to negotiate on your behalf?

evster, consider yourself lucky. Sounds like a real headache. Unless the price was a true bargain, something tells me you're better off. It sounds like the seller found a 'laid back' buyer. Also known as a sucker who would accept the shortcomings, sign the contract, and pass the board interview. It is exactly this type of buyer, with more money than brains, that keeps the Manhattan market afloat. Ridiculous, but true.

lobster, part of the problem is that a buyer's broker is also legally beholden to the SELLER. All brokers are working for the seller, never for the buyer. A buyer's broker will look at things from your angle, and a good one will help you, but their fiduciary responsibility is to the seller - that's the party that pays them. (albeit with your money)

SfF62, you say that a buyer's broker has a "fiduciary responsibility to the seller - that's the party that pays them." You might want to look up the definition of fiduciary, because what you just said is the exact opposite of a fiduciary responsibility.

A fiduciary acts on behalf of another party and looks out for his/her best interest, and a broker is a fiduciary to his or her own client. Buyer's broker to buyer, seller's broker to seller. It has nothing to do with who pays the person.

Agency is so confusing that they just changed the law.

Coming next year: "agency disclosure forms" that buyer and seller clients (and I think even rental clients) are going to have to sign.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I saw that today. So if i understand everyone is now going to have to sign paperwork to unravel who is working for who and what conflicts there may be?

Mikev, it's possible that the seller's broker complicatd the situation, but we don't know. I actually find brokers helpful, but there are exceptions.

What I was trying to say is that I, as a buyer, would like to easily be able to see documentation (i.e. a repair bill) from a seller concerning major repairs to their apartment that is an issue. I really don't know if that is the norm.

correction: if that is an issue

Sucks. But, was there a chance that the inspection would have put you in a position to walk or to renegotiate the price. If course the answer is yes, then how can you blame the seller? If the seller continued with you and you then walked, and perhaps the final buyer here actually moved on to something else, where does this leave the seller. There is a reason contracts are in writing and reflect formal agreements.
Guaranteed you will do something different next time, and that different will be more in lube with what you should have done this time. You didn't know better, that sucks, but doesn't mean that the other side is to blame.

Thanks all for the helpful comments, both pro and con.

What I forgot to tell you was that this whole process took about 3 weeks from beginning to end and for the most part of which while we were overseas (we had planned a vacation a while back and then there was a death in the family). We had told the sellers broker about the situation and he told us that the seller was "sympathetic" and understands (????). The broker made us sign a "dual agency form". Frankly I don't know how someone can treat both sides fairly when they are getting a commission from one side. We found an attorney while still out of the country and arranged for the contract to be signed as soon as we came back, pending the inspection (which we also arranged from afar to occur the day after we got back). It was made clear to the broker that barring a major structural problem with the building (since the assessment was not clear as to the exact nature of the repairs and the time frame), we would sign the contract.

I would have thought that since the broker knew about what was going on, he could have informed us if there was another "all cash" offer brewing. Then we would have not arranged for the inspection and put out a thousand bucks.

I also agree that anything goes till a contract is signed, but the broker making stories about (and blaming) our attorney for not communicating things to the sellers attorney, our attorney being friends with the sellers attorney etc., being the reasons the sellers got anxious and jumped at an offer that appeared out of nowhere, makes me suspect about the ethics of the broker. Our attorney forwarded me all the emails and it was clear that the broker made everything up. Also as of 3 days ago, our attorney communicated that the sellers attorney was not aware of any other offer. Now go figure what is going on in this game of who-dun-it!

One thing is for sure. As lobster said very truly, the RE market in NYC is like the Wild West!

These days as a seller, you are probably going to take the sure thing, asap. You left the door open for someone to steal the apt from you.