There's No Love for the Subprime Borrower

It’s all over the news, we’re hearing about major subprime lenders having to restate their losses and every day, lenders are coming into my office to inform us of changes to their guidelines.   This is all good, right?    It will be tougher to provide loans for home buyers who maybe should be spending more time to learn about budgeting and using their credit cards.    What about the people who are all ready in these programs?

First, allow me to explain the basic dynamics of these loans.  Many of these mortgages are zero down, 80/20s (80% of the loan to value for the first mortgage/20% of the value for the second mortgage).   The first mortgage is typically offers a fixed rate for 2-3 years with a prepayment penalty (the standard is six months interest) that matches the fixed rate period.   In addition, the mortgages may be interest only or amortized at 30, 40 or 50 years.    The rates on these mortgages are completely dependent on credit score. 

When I meet with Mr. and Mrs. Subprime, I advise them of their options of buying now using this type of subprime mortgage or that they can work on their credit, job history, etc. and buy later with a better mortgage program.   Because there are no guarantee of what rates will be (or maybe because they know there’s not guaranteed they’ll clean up their act) and because they want to buy a house now, they often opt for the subprime mortgage.   Once this happens, I heavily stress (or Jillayne would say, I lecture 🙂 —which I’m sure I do) to Mr. and Mrs. Subprime that they have 2-3 years to change their spending habits because once their fixed period rate is over, their mortgage is going to adjust and do so big time.    I let them know that I want them to be in the best position for a refinance into permanent financing (or to have a better mortgage should they decide to sell the home assuming they have any equity) and that the subprime mortgage they are using to obtain their home is temporary financing.  

Many of my clients in these mortgages have done very well and I’m proud of them.   They have taken the responsibility of owning a home and having a mortgage to heart.  I’m able to restructure the original mortgage and improve their situation greatly.   The concern is for Mr. and Mrs. Subprime who just didn’t get the hang of it.   They continued to charge up their credit cards, they bought or leased a new car to go in their new driveway and maybe a new TV, too.   They’ve been sliding ever since the holidays and are now having a tough time paying their mortgages on time.   Maybe they just have one mortgage late.   Their credit is rough at best.   Their fixed period (and prepayment penalty) is over and now they really need to refinance fast because their mortgage has adjusted for the first time—their rate is now 2% higher.  Their situation has gone from bad to worse.    With all the tightening in the subprime market, even if their credit scores and scenarios are the same as when they bought, there may not be a program for them to refinance out of now.   They will be forced to sell (hopefully they have enough equity to pay commissions and other closing costs) or to somehow manage to choke down their increased payments.

I guess this post is a plea of sorts.  If you currently have a subprime loan (especially the type I described) please contact your Mortgage Planner to have your credit reviewed to make sure you’re on the right track to be able to refinance (or have a better loan for when you sell) when the time is due.   Do not assume there will be a program for you if you have not made significant changes to your spending and use of credit cards.   If you’re a real estate agent or loan originator, check in on your subprime clients to let them know of the changes in the industry…see if they need guidance to stay or get on track so they don’t wind up stuck with a higher mortgage payment, being forced to sell or foreclosure.

46 thoughts on “There's No Love for the Subprime Borrower

  1. Craig- This certainly has the makings of a turf war. You’ve effectively made your point that the law is on your side with the lawyers (where it belongs). Agents bear the risk for the sake of getting their job done (use pre-printed forms whenever possible!). My hang ups are the same old same old. There is the law and then there is life. I drive with the flow of traffic but rarely the posted limit. Buyers and sellers want an agents interpretation of situations. Situations that come up with nearly every transaction. It is one area where agents add value. Everyone agrees that attorney review plays a critical role in certain situations. Certain but infrequent situations. Right now we have a system that is incredibly efficient, with well cared for buyers and sellers. Agents who want to stay in the business understand that the next referral comes from the client properly cared for. Legal snafu’s are rare and usually self inflicted. Some newly elected WA State house rep will no doubt read this blog and issue legislation requiring an attorney review process with every written offer. I can hear the real estate productivity train grinding to a halt in the distance.

  2. Haven’t read Craig’s article yet, but saw Doug’s coment in the sidebar.

    I can tell you Doug that 3 day attorney review went by the wayside when introduced. Most people used it as a 3 day right to change their mind. Never got an attorney review. And only used a lawyer to get a letter cancelling the contract at the end of the 72 hours.

    It was used like “a neighborhood” review. A chance to tie up the property but have the right to cancel within 72 hours. Pretty soon sellers would not accept offers with a 72 hr attorney review clause. Can you blame them? They said if you want to have an attorney review, do it before you bring me an offer, same way we do with “neighborhood review” clause.

  3. Doug, I think your fears are misplaced. After all, the rule in Cultum was created BECAUSE of the need for an efficient marketplace. Moreover, I would hope the legislature respects the principle that adults should have the right to make their own decisions in regards to such matters, including the decision to forego the services of an attorney.

    I also concur with your distinction between the law and how the world really operates. Ultimately, though, agents practice law — including any explanation of the terms of a form contract — at their own risk, just like speeding (or any other law we may break now and then — but never at dusk).

  4. Craig,

    Where is the law that says an agent can’t write a 34 addendum? There is a case saying they are held to a lawyer’s standard of care when doing so. But where is the law that says they can’t write one?

  5. Ardell:

    I encourage you to read the whole Cultum decision if you have not done so already. As discussed there, an agent may engage in the limited practice of law by completing preprinted forms. That case, and other case law, defines the practice of law as the selection, creation, interpretation, and explanation of documents affecting the legal rights of a person (I’m paraphrasing here).

    So, an agent may engage in the limited practice of law by completing preprinted PSA forms. When an agent does so, and as indicated by the Cultum case, she will be held to the standard of care of a practicing attorney. However, an agent may not — at least legally, per RCW 2.48.170 — practice law beyond that limited extent. When agent does so, she is guilty of a gross misdemeanor per RCW 2.48.180. Thus, an agent violates the law by “reviewing” a form PSA for a non-client. Moreover, the agent will be held to the standard of care of an attorney, so if the agent misses something and the client suffers injury as a result, the agent will be liable. The agent may also be liable under the Consumer Protection Act based on the unauthorized practice of law.

  6. Craig my tongue was mostly in cheek when citing fears of legislative interference. Your study of the case law makes it clear that the issue of agents practicing law is not currently being debated anywhere but here. My education is at the street level and would not hold up to the scrutiny that yours would, should it need to be defended. I theorize that because you likely see more what agents do wrong (brought in front of you for counsel) rather than what they do right (quietly unnoticed), you have a predisposed bias to be skeptical of an agents abilities when dancing in and out of lawyerish issues. But I appreiciate your skeptism. It reminds me that I need to protect my own skin too, not just my clients.

  7. Craig,

    Clearly agents can write on blank Form 34 addendums or there wouldn’t be blank Form 34 addendums.

    Are you saying that an agent can’t have a schedule of fees that split out the functions an agent provides now? That they can do all of those things as a full service agent, but can’t do them separately on a “fee for service” basis”?

    I don’t read cases, I get legal advice. Lawyer’s answer: Held to same standard of care when writing a Form 34. I guess you get 10 lawyers in a room and they may disagree with one another. But given agents write blank 34 addendums every day, and they are there ready to be written on, I question the fact that they are there NOT to be written on by agents.

    Maybe we can agree here. You said agents can “fill in blanks”. Maybe the form 34 is a “big blank” to be filled in. 🙂

  8. Ardell, do you even bother to read the posts anymore? In my post, I state: “I thought that a Form 34 was a standing invitation for an agent to cross the line [and engage in the unauthorized practice of law]. However, that very probably IS NOT CORRECT.” (emphasis added). The POINT of my post is that an agent CAN complete a Form 34, at least with simple issues such as when a seller wants to take a chandelier (using your example from the earlier posts). I suggest you take the rest of the day off from blogging.

  9. Craig,

    I read your article. Now I’m answering your comments too. As in this statement you made to Doug: “Ultimately, though, agents practice law — including any explanation of the terms of a form contract — at their own risk, just like speeding (or any other law we may break now and then — but never at dusk).”

    You are suggesting that an agent filling out a Form 34 is like a person who exceeds the speed limit or runs a stop sign. Not so. One is breaking the law. One is doing things that are clearly not against the law, in their normal course of business, like explaining a contract to a buyer and or seller.

    Sorry, but there is just no way that an agent explaining a Purchase and Sale Contract to a buyer or seller, or writing in 22D 10. or on a Form 34 is “against the law” and equal to exceeding the speed limit or running a stop sign, which is against the law.

    Just say it’s not against the law that an agent conduct their business and explain contracts to their clients and write in 22D and Form 34, Craig. You know I’m right.

  10. Wow — you got me. Yep, you’re right. Dead on. Of course, I’m right too, as I said the same thing in the initial post. Or I thought I did.

    Wait, I just re-read the post — even my butchered, incomprehensible writing is pretty clear in this instance. I even advocate that AGENTS BE TRAINED IN HOW TO COMPLETE FORM 34s! See for yourself, reread the second to last paragraph.

    So I guess we’re BOTH right. 🙂 Now take the rest of the day off. I’ll be tending to actual work.

  11. Craig,

    I think the biggest issue is training. I’ll be the first to admit that there are a lot of loose cannon and poorly trained agents writing contracts. I see them come in to me all the time. Heck I once had a multiple offer listing where an agent liked my listing so much that he wrote it twice…..for 2 different clients….for the same price! So I could only imagine what kind of blank addendums that he created! I don’t want to use the name of the company he had his license with, but I can tell you that it was one of the companies that is considered a “meat house” and gives a full commission for a couple of hunded bucks.

    The other glaring problem are new agents. If they work with a good broker and a mentor, they should be able to stay away from trouble.

    The issue is complicated because market conditions, which at times, can blow all Buyer contingencies out of the water, let alone allow any kind of time for a review

    I work in an office of over 70 experienced, high producing agents where the average time in service exceeds 15 years. Our broker reviews every contract written, and if there’s something missing or funny, it comes to our attention. In additon, at weekly meetings, we regularly talk about blank addendums, the implications and how the earnest money loop needs to be closed. Also, our company has in hard copy and an area on the web that contains language, drawn by our attorneys, to use in dozens of contingencies and special situations. We simply need to look up the issue to cut and paste. At least twice/year we bring attorneys into the office for a meeting to cover hot issues and the pitfalls of the form 34.

    I have been practicing over 12 years, and yet I regularly discuss out of the ordinary issues with my broker before writing a contract.

    I think good training can (and does) occur inside many brokerages. I also think that there is a time and situations for attorney reviews, extended title reviews, surveys, geo tech studies, engineer inspecitons etc., particulary in complicated land issues, waterfront, acreage and out of the ordinary situations. It’s my oberservation (I’m just speaking for myself — I may be all wet here), that with the agents I see with time spent in court, the majority involve land and new consctruction in some way. Let’s face it, anyone can sue for any thing. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong at the time. Every time we write a contract with a client there is some risk involved. If I understand your point correctly, we’re talking about risk management. Our broker certainly tries to manage her risk through training and follow-up and instilling good risk management practices in the agents.

  12. Ardell,

    “Just say it’s not against the law that an agent conduct their business and explain contracts to their clients and write in 22D and Form 34, Craig. You know I’m right.”

    Please re-read Craig’s post. Slowly and carefully. You should then analyze what you did for Martin and then let us know whether you were “speeding”.


  13. Russ,

    How about the new business model that sells your home for free, if you buy from them. In that model, there is an agent doing all of the “stuff” for the seller for free, including going over the contract. New business models means we all have to discuss these things from a practical vs. historical standpoint. New business models, and less than full service, has to come with changes in “what we are used to”. The Cheese is Moving.

    Seriously, what’s the answer to this question? If sellers want us to break down the services we perform into a fee for service menu, can all facets of what we do be broken down as fee for service? Maybe not. I know it is not against the law to do all of those things in the context of full service. But what parts can’t be separated out in the contest of “menu of services” from a legal standpoint? I think that remains to be seen as costs get stripped down. I don’t think either of us knows the answer, because full service has been the norm.

    Here’s what I see in Craig’s post: ” However, the Court decided that, in the interests of an efficient real estate market, an agent should be allowed to engage in the limited practice of law.” Which is what we do when we complete a form 34 or write in to 22D 10.

    Only question is, where’s the line and does the line change if you split out the services separately. I think maybe Courts would in fact allow the services to be split out separately, as that would mean lower fees, and the Country sure wants that.

    So clearly I am not “speeding” doing all of those things together, and clearly whether or not I am paid at all is not the barometer. I did feel free was clearer, in the CMA vs. Appraisal for free analogy sense.

    New concepts, lower fees, seems when it affects the agents you and Craig are fine with it. But when it doesn’t throw the game into the lawyer arena, all of a sudden the change is bad.

  14. Ardell,

    You are so selective about what you want to quote and what you want to ignore. It is NOT all or nothing.

    You quoted: “However, the Court decided that, in the interests of an efficient real estate market, an agent should be allowed to engage in the limited practice of law.

  15. Greg:

    Yes, from the agent/broker perspective, it’s risk management when agents draft contractual language, as generally permitted under Cultum. The risk management has two components: 1) Agents are held to the standard of care of a practicing attorney, so the language needs to be consistent with what an attorney would draft or the agent may be liable for any harm caused; and 2) If the language concerns a “complicated legal issue,” then it IS NOT appropriate for an agent to draft the language, and in doing so the agent is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, thus increasing the potential liability under the Consumer Protection Act (not to mention RCW 2.48.180, as noted above).

  16. Russ — nice comment. You provide a nice, easy-to-use barometer to gauge the line between authorized and unauthorized practice of law. And you’re right, Ardell has not indicated whether she violated the law when she reviewed a contract for a non-client.

    Ardell — I agree (if I understand you), and would add that how the law will address a “fee for service” model is not clear, where one of the services that incurs a fee is the creating of a PSA. While that might lead to lower fees overall, I’m sure the Court (or the legislature, for that matter) would be concerned about allowing agents to practice law in this fashion INDEPENDENT of all other aspects of agent representation. An agent could advertise “Offers written! $200!” and do nothing but write offers. I’d wager the Court (and the Bar Assocation) would find that unacceptable.

  17. But isn’t that basically what some of these discount brokers are offering to do? Buyer finds the house themselves, without assistance or guidance and discount broker writes up the offer for $X.xx.

  18. Russ and Craig,

    Definitively, I absolutely did not break any law. Is that what you were waiting to hear? Sorry, I had to leave for a few hours.

    Russ says: “While that might lead to lower fees overall, I’m sure the Court (or the legislature, for that matter) would be concerned about allowing agents to practice law in this fashion INDEPENDENT of all other aspects of agent representation. An agent could advertise “Offers written! $200!

  19. Craig,

    You raise another point where I write a contract as the only function for a consumer. When a buyer buys one of my listings and has no agent. He’s representing himself. I represent the seller. I fill in the blanks for him and the seller accepts it. Buyer and Seller save the Buyer Agent Fee.

    Maybe the consumers can’t have these options. Maybe the system is just too tight with regard to the “lawyer/agent-centric” model. But alternative businesses, including me, will try to find something with a whole lot more options for consumers that works.

    Russ, you are always saying you support alternative models, well these are alternative methods and alternative options. Stripped out services. Something less than full service. Only what the consumer needs.

    Pointing to an old case may be the best you can do, because that’s what “alternative business model” means. Someone willing to do something more efficiently, for less cost and with an open mind toward the future.

    Should everyone be afraid to try something new? Should everyone cower at the prospect of trying something new? Can the only answer be the whole agent/lawyer-centric 6% model?

    Some of us say no. Time will tell.

  20. Russ says: “I’d wager the Court (and the Bar Assocation) would find that unacceptable.”

    You make the Bar out to be the NAR of Lawyers. When the NARs and Bars of the world make it impossible for the consumer to have lower cost options in the real estate marketplace, maybe things need to change to the consumer’s advantage.

    I find it hard to believe that there is some Almighty reason why consumers cannot have more and cheaper options mixed in with full priced options. If the Powers That Be have in fact, and continue to, prevent that; maybe it is time for the Powers That Be to rethink things.

  21. Things sure do get interesting when you take time off for the work that pays instead of blogging.

    Craig and Russ, I want to commend you both on some very cogent, comprehensive, and logical posts here. They are clear, interesting, and bring out some much needed background in this area. Much like Greg, I too consider all language I have to write on behalf of clients as a risk management exercise and my broker (managing over 200 quality agents) covers these types of situations routinely in our monthly company meetings and in a once a year discussion with our attorneys.

    My brokers know that when I am concerned about a situation for a client, I frequently will call on my own attorney, their attorney, Chris Benis for our multi-family property clients, and I will also consult with Jeff Koop of the NWMLS when it is appropriate in certain cases that involve another agent. We do our best to have our bases, and our client’s bases, covered. Yes, we must carry E&O Insurance for just such situations where a problem arises – but thankfully I’ve never had to use it.

    Even if an agent crosses every “t” and dots every “i” there is still a chance of a lawsuit, even a frivolous one. Agents can easily be the target of consumers and many times not because they did anything wrong. But if an agent does a poor job of crafting an addendum that does do harm to a client they will be held responsible. The agency law pamphlet discusses this within sections 9 (vicarious liability) and 10 (imputed knowledge and notice).

  22. This has nothing to do with this thread in particular…but RCG in general.

    I see moral and ethical dilemmas in my opinon.

    I see it in many thread posts in RCG.

    There seems to be debate.

    I see people are starting to wonder where the potential breaches of ethics and morals may lie and that this line is conveniently moved back and forth in a CYA fashion and when one reads between the lines….I see alot of the “who…me???” attitudes.

    Please..continue to freely post. You never know who is reading. There is lots of useful information to be found here in this Blog.

    I think I will just watch from the sidelines for a while if you all don’t mind.

  23. Ardell,
    You still may have more liability than you want if you’re “filling the blanks” for a Buyer with no agency, while representing a Seller. Even though you think it’s clear that the Buyer is representing himself, is it really clear to the Buyer? And what happens if you make a mistake? What happens if you do everything correctly and the Buyer feels wronged or is a jackass? So many things to potentially go wrong….and for no fee? In case of a suit, where will a judge go? I’m thinking to the person who wrote the contract. Sure, you have your E&O insurance. Do yourself a favor and at least cover your deductable.

  24. Greg, that’s an argument that I’ve heard a lot, but never understood. If agents had to pay the E&O deductible every time they sold, that would be one thing, but they don’t. The amount you’re spending on E&O per transaction is significantly less than the amount of the deductible.

    If the E&O deductible were $5,000, an agent could easily make money charging $5,000 flat fee commissions, right? They wouldn’t be paying the deductible every time no matter how bad they were.

  25. Ardell, you should make sure that if you fill in the blanks for someone you don’t represent that your E&O actually covers it. Ditto goes for agents that represent themselves when they sell their own property. Many agents mistakenly believe that they are covered in those instances as well. Not so. It is possible (you must always check) that the firm your broker uses doesn’t allow it. My broker’s firm doesn’t and that is why many of us co-list with another agent and let them handle the sale or we just hire another agent outright. I did the co-listing thing when I sold an investment condo a couple of years ago and I had another woman from my office handle the sale and she just paid me a referral fee. This helped limit my liability and allowed for E&O coverage on the transaction.

  26. Ardell,

    You said “So you think maybe the court would find it unacceptable. In fact you’d bet on it. But you are not saying it is illegal. So we agree. At present it is not illegal and there is no law that makes it so, at present.”

    Did you read comment 16 above? If you read it, how in the world could you come to this conclusion?


  27. Generally speaking, not to anyone in particular, I don’t like CYA real estate practices that have grown and grown to the point where the agent is made to feel like everything they do is potentially dangerous to them.

    I remember when the lawyers came to the offices and said, “Don’t go to Home Inspections, if you do, just sit on the front step and don’t say a word”.

    I know that risk reduction is the order of the day, and has growingly been so. But 16 years with no E&O claims or lawsuits has to count for something. Do you change everything you do for people just for CYA purposes?

    Doesn’t anyone think this whole issue of peeking at a contract for a FSBO is just blown a little out of proportion. Heck, you do someone a favor and the world goes mad. Really. At the point where someone refuses to use an attorney, what do you do? Hold a gun to his head?

    I would still like to know why the lawyers aren’t complaining that the buyer paid a lawyer to write a contract, and the lawyer used a NWMLS form. If someone did something wrong, I think it was the lawyer. Not sure why my glancing at the Northwest MLS form is such a big deal, but the lawyer who charged to “write one” is A-OK. Last I looked, you had to be a member of NWMLS to use their forms.

  28. Russ and Craig,

    Would either or both of you be interested in teaching a 4 clock hour class for real estate agents on this topic in the greater Seattle area? It would include a review of Cultum v. Heritage House Realtors and other case law. We would give the students all the “and onlys” checklist along with blank addendums and real-life scenarios. They would practice writing addendums with easy and then harder and harder scenarios UNTIL they would reach a point where they’re crossing the line….and need to refer the clients out.

    It could be fun!

    I see a need for this class to be taught, by an attorney, for real estate agents.

  29. Galen,

    I look at it this way.16.7 years with NEVER having to pay a deductible. Should I ever have to pay one, isn’t that averaged over the 16.7 year and growing timeframe? So I’m down to $299 a year divided by the number of transactions. Where are the statisticians when you need em 🙂


    Saying a listing agent can never assist a buyer with “no agency” and no representation is the same as telling a buyer that they HAVE to have an agent and can’t buy direct. I think that ship has sailed.

  30. NO!

    Ardell, no one is betting here on what a judge will say. We are stating what a panel of WA Supreme Court Justices actually said. Based on Heritage House, an agent cannot receive a separate fee for preparation of even a “simple” PSA. Doing so is outside the limited authority to practice law and therefore IS illegal. Now, if the Justices now on the WA Supreme Court come along and overrule Heritage House and says that agents can get paid for the specific task of preparing a PSA, then the law will have changed. Until the law changes (and pigs fly), it IS illegal.


  31. “[An agent] is permitted to complete simple printed standardized real estate forms, which forms must be approved by a lawyer, it being understood that these forms shall not be used for other than simple real estate transactions which arise in the usual course of the [agent’s] business and that such forms will be used only in connection with real estate transactions actually handled by such [agent] as [an agent] and then without charge for the simple service of completing the form.

  32. Considering every agent in the Country writes addendums and goes over contracts with buyers and sellers every single day, I really think you guys are making way too much of this topic.

  33. Jillayne — I’d be very interested in teaching such a class. Full disclosure, though. Of the Russ/Craig lawyer combo, Russ is the more “agent friendly.” He’s worked with agents and listing services. I, on the other hand, am more of the “plaintiff’s lawyer.” I’m always looking for meritorious cases against agents. Of course, that might make me the best teacher of all. Please give a call if you’d like to discuss further.

    Speaking of meritorious cases: Reba, I’m always leery of the phrase “frivolous lawsuits.” After all, who decides what is “frivolous”? As it stands now, that remains the province of the jury (not a collection of supposedly “vulnerable” professionals, whether it be the NAR or the AMA). To get to the jury, you have to file suit. So there are no frivolous lawsuits — only cases that ended in defense verdicts (or were dismissed due to some legal failure, or were settled due to the associated risk — or resulted in a judgment against the defendant).

    And finally, Ardell: I can appreciate your point. But in the final analysis, society sets the law based on what it believes is best. We may not agree with it, and we may think its crazy, but we are ultimately bound by it. Working for change is always an option. In the meantime, recognize the risks. And maybe don’t brag about breaking it.

    Oh, and NWMLS forms are for sale.

  34. Craig,

    Thanks for that last sentence. Good to know. There’s a rule about not using a NWMLS listing contract for property not going to go into the mls, so was wondering why the same rule didn’t exist for the Purchase and Sale agreement.

    I’ll settle out somewhere. But sometimes when we are on the brink of change, we have to experiment with different options. I hate the tug of war “New Business Models” vs. “Traditional”. I’m just trying to find some middle ground. Testing different middle grounds. I’ll settle out somewhere…maybe. Or maybe I’ll just leave all options open 🙂

    I like sparring with you guys…keeps me nimble.

    I clearly would have preferred that Martin take my advice and call you. I told him it would cost him about $500, I thought that was a small price to pay, given he was saving 6% or so with no agents. Wonder why he wouldn’t? Is that about the price, Craig?

  35. Can you hand the buyer the form and a pen? Still trying to figure out why a buyer can’t walk up to a listing and buy it without an agent. Seems I can write that, and I do, since I am the listing agent. We always have, so I think I will just keep doing it.

  36. Am I reading that right? Was that case was in 1985? I don’t think there was as much pressure to cut real estate fees back then 🙂 Maybe we’ll bring Redfin, Zillow and Trulia to speak on the need for more consumer options, before the Judge rules on the case of an agent who peeked at a FSBO contract on a rambler in Shoreline LOL. Would it help if he was my cousin? Brother? Dad?

  37. Members of the NWMLS are the only people, besides attorneys who purchase them, that may use their forms – please be more succinct when noting this information. This has been addressed in previous posts. That is why a buyer cannot show up with a pen and fill it out themselves, they are not allowed the right to practice even the “limited” practice of law that agents are afforded by their licensing.

    Also, with regard to my comment about “frivolous lawsuits” there was a reason, Craig, for me not giving all the details of a specific suit to which I am familiar because I don’t want other people in the public sector to attempt the same thing. Feel free to contact me privately if you’d like the details. Basically it came down to an attorney (of all things) hearing that if she sued her agent it would delay a financially damaging situation from happening to her. Again, more details available if you contact me but I won’t go into details on this site.

  38. Pingback: Your ARM May Not Be Broken | The Mortgage Porter

  39. Pingback: Your ARM May Not Be Broken

Leave a Reply