Every Real Estate Pro who guides Sellers and Buyers knows
all about DISCLOSURE rules.  Right  ???

Every Real Estate Pro who enters into a Listing to Sell a Property
provides their Seller an  accurate description of Seller Disclosure Responsibilities, Right?

Every Real Estate Pro who presented anything other than that
on the home page of this website  is GUILTY of some serious poo, too? 
Right. 

Never forget how to gather evidence when involved in a "Broken Brokerage Transaction". It will come in handy when it needs to...

Portions of our Coldwell Banker's Broken Brokerage Response in our Transaction...

For those wondering about “Transfer of Title” at time of Contract Acceptance... ,

Clause 13B,  as written, is correct. It's worth a conversation to understand how the Title Transfer process works as it is not overly intuitive. Once explained it makes sense. A Real Estate sale is not like any other standard commercial transaction I’m familiar with. The title transfers before all due diligence is done. It’s required given the complexities related to obtaining Financing, preparing Deeds. Clearing liens as well as time for the Buyer to confirm Seller Disclosure statements. 

The California Contract, as it is written,
details the importance of Disclosure Statements
and even references CA 1102 by number,
yet the process outlined suggests a FULL NULLIFICATION
of  the entire theory and process of Disclosure?

Who started this HOAX?  

Why are 440,000 Professionals and the Attorneys that Support them participating in this,
while grossly violating the rights of their neighbors and friends?

Who still thinks participating in this was a good idea? 

The suggestion that a Seller is not required to even acknowledge a notice
about a non-disclosed defect during escrow
is bat sh-t level crazy thinking, right?

No "legitimate" Real Estate Contract would EVER contain a crazy idea like that, would it??
So why does that exist in the California Contract?

I have heard the term Hoax used many times. I always thought it was being used out of context until I looked it up for this situation.  I didn't realize it has an inherently large scope included, nor did I realize it was related to "preposterous".  

I always just thought it was a "dirty joke".  When I read the definition,  I understood a lot more in context.

" a plan to deceive a large group of people by tricking them into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous".

This is an example of a "Commercial Hoax" with the Following Benefactors:

1. Insincere Sellers - Our population is filled with people who do not want to be honest about damages.  What some may view as a small percent of our population is likely larger than most imagine.
   
   

2. Insincere Brokers - This provides insincere Brokers and opportunity to cater to insincere Seller's.  Sincere Brokers who want a clean marketplace will not get as many listings when insincere Brokers exist to serve those with lesser desires.
   
   

3. All Real Estate Attorneys and Mediation Companies - All Real Estate Attorneys and Mediation Companies benefit when instructions for responsibility are blurred or removed.  It allows people to believe they can do things they shouldn't and it allows others to question things that are illogical, both of which lead to legal fees. 

At this point in time, it's extremely difficult to determine if it was the Brokers or Real Estate Attorneys who may have driven this Hoax into existence.  

What is clear at this time is that it could have only stayed in play for 38 years with the cover provided by "confidentiality" requirements for Mediation, and/or false beliefs conveyed about "confidentiality requirements" for negotiations outside of mediation, as was attempted with us by a CA Attorney. 

OR 

We're wrong about all of this.  Nothing we've said is correct, even though all the clauses we've quoted are in fact truthful.   We are the ones trying to play a HOAX on everyone else, although I can't for the life of me imagine how the opposing side would claim any other interpretation would be representative of "Good Faith Negotiations in Article and Act," as is required by CA 1102. 

At this time it's believed that well over 1 TRILLION in transactions have transpired since 1985 resulting in over 55 BILLION in commissions to Real Estate Brokers overseeing Transactions with Contracts that provided a Seller Bias.  

It's impossible to calculate the revenues and benefits to the Legal Lobby, which are losses to all consumers.

 It's also impossible to know the value of the defects Seller's inappropriately passed off due to a process biased for the seller in an illegal manner.  Is it in 100 MILLIONS or BILLIONS ? 

Of course, this all assumes you agree with me.   '

If you don't, please put your opinion in writing. 

• Let's have a written debate.  

• All Attorneys should love a good debate.  

• Broker's with confidence about their position and practice should too. 

• Please tell me where I'm wrong, in writing, so it can be shared with others. 

Email opinions to me at support@brics-practice-management.com         attn: Bryan. 

BUT, don't send me anything until you finish reading all the other pages in the website. 

I wouldn't want to get half baked thoughts that you weren't able to finish for a while,
for one reason or another.