![]() |
Real Estate News and Advice |
October 7, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Back at Closing Q&A
by Ralph Roberts
Leading up to the current mortgage meltdown, one of the most common forms of real estate and mortgage fraud being perpetrated was cash back at closing. Unfortunately, even after we have witnessed the fallout from bad loans, cash back at closing continues to be a problem. Many people, even real estate professionals, consider it to be at its very worst a victimless crime. They see nothing wrong with it. In order to address the problem, we must first realize what we are dealing with. In this Cash Back at Closing Q&A, I answer the two most basic questions about cash back at closing: What is it? and Why is it wrong? I then go on to answer several of the most common questions I hear from consumers and real estate professionals. In these answers I explore some of the subtleties and gray areas where consumers and professionals often become confused. Question: What is cash back at closing? Answer: Cash back at closing occurs when a buyer agrees to pay more for a property than its true market value, so he or she can borrow more money than the home is worth and receive the excess proceeds in the form of cash, credit, or something else of value when the transaction is completed (closed). A common myth is that as long as the lender's appraiser approved the sale amount, it's okay. The truth, however, is that the value of a house is whatever a buyer is willing to pay for it and the seller is willing to accept for it or the appraised value (whichever is lower). For example, if the seller is willing to sell their property for $250,000 to a buyer who agrees to pay that amount, the buyer and seller cannot agree to put the deal together at $325,000, even if an appraiser sets the home's value at that amount. Question: Why is cash back at closing wrong? Answer: Cash back at closing is wrong for many reasons, including the following:
Note: Cash back at closing constitutes lying to the lender, something that is strictly prohibited on the Uniform Residential Loan Application or 1003 (ten-o-three) that every homebuyer/borrower must sign when applying for a mortgage loan. The 1003, which is authorized by Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001, is very clear in this regard. To paraphrase, you cannot lie on a loan application or any other document related to a transaction. When a buyer, appraiser, real estate agent, loan officer, or another party provides a false statement of a property's value on a 1003 or any other document related to the mortgage loan, they have lied, which means they have also broken the law. Question: Is it ever legal for the buyer/borrower to receive cash back at closing? Answer: When I write about cash back at closing, I am primarily talking about cases in which the lender is being duped into approving a mortgage loan for more money than the property is worth so the buyer/borrower can receive a cash profit when the deal closes. I am not writing about instances in which a seller, for example, hands the buyer a couple hundred dollars to cover the cost of repairing a few minor defects that were discovered between the signing of the purchase agreement and closing. There are several cases in which it may be okay for the buyer/borrower to receive cash back at closing, such as the following:
A better way to handle situations like this may be for the agent to reduce the amount of his or her commission during the negotiation of the sale, so that no money needs to be transferred at closing. According to most CPAs I have talked to, this "credit" actually needs to be recorded as a reduction of their basis in the sales price. For example, if the buyer purchased the property for $300,000 but paid only $290,000 with the reduced commission, then the official sales price is $290,000. In any event, full disclosure is a must, and all parties involved in the transaction must agree to the terms.
Note: In none of these instances is the buyer/borrower being paid proceeds from the mortgage loan that he or she secured to purchase the property, so these instances fall outside the scope of how I define "cash back at closing." Question: Can the seller pay the buyer cash back at closing to cover repairs to the property? Answer: If a minor defect is discovered between the time when the purchase agreement is signed and the closing or final walkthrough, then it's perfectly okay for the seller to reimburse the buyer for the cost of repairs. I'm talking a few hundred dollars at the most, not thousands of dollars. For major repairs, such as a new central air conditioning unit, furnace, or roof, you have a couple options that are superior to handing the buyer cash:
The reason the seller shouldn't just hand the money for the repairs over to the buyer is because then there is no guarantee that the repairs will be completed. If the repairs are not done, you end up in a situation in which the collateral that's backing up the loan is defective. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the collateral is not worth as much as the lender assumed it was worth when it approved the loan. Question: What if the seller includes furniture or other extras? Answer: Quite a few people seem to think it's okay for the buyer to agree to pay more for a home because the home is furnished or the seller agrees to throw in some extras, such as a car. When a buyer is borrowing money to purchase the home, however, this practice is unacceptable. I have seen cases in which the buyer has agreed to pay $30,000 more for a home because the seller agreed to leave furniture that was worth only a few thousand dollars at most. I don't know who was on the receiving end of the extra money, but something certainly smelled fishy about that deal. Of course, I have sold many homes in which one or two pieces of furniture or a couple appliances were written into the contract. These are items that the buyer requests and the seller agrees to include in order to close the deal. This is perfectly acceptable, but for the buyer to agree to pay significantly more for the home because the seller is including a few extras crosses the line. Why are arrangements like this wrong? A couple reasons:
Question: What if the home appraises for more than the seller is willing to accept for it? Answer: I received the following question from a reader:
The key here is the phrase "Seller will accept $280,000." Regardless of how much the home appraises for, because the seller agrees to take $280,000 for the property, that is the property's sales price and it should be listed as such on the closing documents. If the appraiser had been notified that this was the net sale, the appraiser would have appraised the property for no more than $280,000. (Sometimes appraisers get dragged into the fraud arena because they are left in the dark.) Question: Is cash back at closing okay if the details of the transaction are fully disclosed to the lender prior to closing? Answer: This is a trick question. Most of the people who ask this question are actually not fully disclosing the details of the transaction to the lender. If they were, the lender would never approve the loan. What happens in many cases is that the con artists create two HUD-1 statements: one that discloses everything at closing and another, sent to the lender, that withholds important details. By including the details on one of the HUD-1 statements, the con artist convinces everyone that the details have been fully disclosed when they have not been. In other cases, the HUD-1 may contain all of the details but someone pushes the loan through the approval process. Prior to the current mortgage meltdown, many lenders were so eager to have loans approved that they lowered their standards. Even though all the details of the transaction were disclosed at closing, the outcome was still the same: Lenders approved loans that should have been rejected outright. Some say that this is the lender's problem, but we all pay the price. Question: What if the seller agrees to accept less for the property at the very last minute? Answer: Buyers will often sign a purchase agreement conditional upon the home passing inspection and then negotiate for a seller credit just prior to closing. They may ask for additional repairs, claim that their finances have changed, or provide some other explanation for why they need a credit in order to close. The sellers may be so tired of the process at this point that they agree just so the deal will close. When situations such as this arise and the buyer and seller agree on a lower sales price, then the paperwork needs to be amended, the lender needs to be informed, and the loan documents and approval must be reworked. If the concession is not disclosed to the lender, then there is an issue. Buyers and sellers can negotiate whatever they want, but everyone involved in the transaction must be informed. An agreement on an addendum is not sufficient to complete the transaction. Published: February 22, 2008 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.
|
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Spotlight
Today's Headlines
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
|
||||||||||||||||||