Legal recourse over below market home sale?

[Anonymous]

Your friend is a moron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there an agent involved here? If an agent priced home 140K under market I'd think you could sue them for negligence (their duty of care would be to price at a market rate and to do the research that requires). But if they opted not to use an agent, it's on them.

The ‘market rate’ is whatever price to which the buyer and seller agree.

"Market rate" is what a lot of buyers and a lot of sellers agree on.
Not only one seller and one seller.

No, the market rate for the house you're selling is the price you and the buyer agree on. There's not some externally determined market price that trumps the actual sale price.

Wrong. If a seller sells a $900K house to his granddaughter for $25K, do you think the market rate/value is now $25K?

“Sale price between seller and willing and otherwise able buyer in an ‘arms-length’ transaction.

[Anonymous]

Does your friend have texts to prove what they're saying is true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there an agent involved here? If an agent priced home 140K under market I'd think you could sue them for negligence (their duty of care would be to price at a market rate and to do the research that requires). But if they opted not to use an agent, it's on them.

The ‘market rate’ is whatever price to which the buyer and seller agree.

"Market rate" is what a lot of buyers and a lot of sellers agree on.
Not only one seller and one seller.

No, the market rate for the house you're selling is the price you and the buyer agree on. There's not some externally determined market price that trumps the actual sale price.

Wrong. If a seller sells a $900K house to his granddaughter for $25K, do you think the market rate/value is now $25K?

“Sale price between seller and willing and otherwise able buyer in an ‘arms-length’ transaction.

By definition any “Market” involves a lot of buyers and sellers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happened to a family member of mine.

Multiple offers on a home and they picked the family who seemed to love the house as is. They said they weren't interested in any major renovations to the house and didn't have the money for it even if they wanted to (the purchase was a stretch for them, supposedly). My family member grew up in the home and was thrilled. Even covered some of their closing costs and left some furniture to help the buyers make their finances work.

Less than a year later, major construction project that turned the house into a McMansion. It's completely unrecognizable now.

My family member was had. I assume these adults told the story they needed to tell to get the house.

It's amazing how entitled your family member feels to dictate what happens to a house after they no longer own it. If they didn't want it to be McMansioned, then they shouldn't have sold it. Simple.

Or placed a restriction in writing. Like a restrictive covenant.

A restriction like that would A) devalue the property and 2) could be overturned.

The pp is correct. People who try to control how the property is used after they sell it are entitled. Very stupid to sell for under market value for their misguided belief that this entitles them to control how the future owners use the property. It's hard to feel sorry for sellers like this.