Agent here, and someone who this has happened to. I offered full list price on a condo years ago with no contingencies. The seller rejected it because they wanted more money from me to "prove" I wanted the house. I said no and walked.

The next day they came back and said they would take my offer.

I do not personally nor do I ever advise clients to bid against no one/themselves. And you are not in a bidding war, you would be bidding against yourself. Stupid. Your instinct is right here. Walk.

The post script to my story is that shortly after I settled, the market took a dive (2006!) and that extra $10K they suggested is where my market value hovered for the next 8 years until just last year when I can possibly break even now.

Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't entertain greedy sellers and don't listen to the dribble about "if you want the house what's an extra $30,000?" It's $30,000 MORE you will have to achieve in market value gains when you want to sell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's funny, I feel the same way about your perspective. To wit: OP and her husband don't love the house and already offered the price that the house was worth to them. Seller then jacked the price. OP, not sufficiently interested in the house for the new price, is planning to walk. I agree with her decision. She sounds entirely reasonable and clear-headed about it. The house was worth it at Price A, but not at Price B. YOU are the one who's encouraging her to pay more since you're assuming she "loves" the house and desires it more than she has repeatedly stated she actually does. So YOU are the one trying to say she should act on (nonexistent) emotion and pay more. Nice try being all condescending, though.

11:10 responding. You are confused. I'm not encouraging her to pay more. From my very first post (7:33 on page 1 of this thread), I've told OP to counter at her original price. She should exceed her original price only if it gets her some benefit that she values more than the extra money. What I'm opposing is any suggestion OP should lower her offer out of spite -- that's just emotional foolishness IMHO.

I'm not confused at all. But your persistence in making the same straw-man argument about how OP is acting out of emotion and spite is unfounded and condescending. On the contrary, OP wrote: "We will probably walk away. It is not the house of our dreams." You are the one (I'm guessing male) who keeps assigning "emotional foolishness" (which in your world is, I'm guessing, code for "female thinking") to what is simply a matter of value, as determined by OP.

Once again, you are confused. I'm not saying OP is acting out of spite and emotion; I'm saying that those posting here who counsel OP to lower her offer are acting on spite and emotion. If OP thinks the house is worth what she originally offered (and apparently she does), she should stick to her position.

And once again, you are responding with emotional personal attacks on what you assume to be my personal motivations and beliefs. Cheap, cheap tactics on your part. Please stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's funny, I feel the same way about your perspective. To wit: OP and her husband don't love the house and already offered the price that the house was worth to them. Seller then jacked the price. OP, not sufficiently interested in the house for the new price, is planning to walk. I agree with her decision. She sounds entirely reasonable and clear-headed about it. The house was worth it at Price A, but not at Price B. YOU are the one who's encouraging her to pay more since you're assuming she "loves" the house and desires it more than she has repeatedly stated she actually does. So YOU are the one trying to say she should act on (nonexistent) emotion and pay more. Nice try being all condescending, though.

11:10 responding. You are confused. I'm not encouraging her to pay more. From my very first post (7:33 on page 1 of this thread), I've told OP to counter at her original price. She should exceed her original price only if it gets her some benefit that she values more than the extra money. What I'm opposing is any suggestion OP should lower her offer out of spite -- that's just emotional foolishness IMHO.

I'm not confused at all. But your persistence in making the same straw-man argument about how OP is acting out of emotion and spite is unfounded and condescending. On the contrary, OP wrote: "We will probably walk away. It is not the house of our dreams." You are the one (I'm guessing male) who keeps assigning "emotional foolishness" (which in your world is, I'm guessing, code for "female thinking") to what is simply a matter of value, as determined by OP.

Anonymous wrote:I would walk. No way I'd negotiate with people like that. Their agent must be nuts.

Far, far more likely that the sellers are nuts and the agent is just representing his or her clients.

When we bought our house 10 years ago, in another time when bidding wars were common, the sellers expected a bidding war, we were prepared to escalate but since we were the only ones that came in with an offer we made a clean offer at the asking price. We did waive the inspection because we had done a pre inspection. They came back asking for some additional $$ and we said no but we offerred a quick closing and a 2 1/2 month lease back which was essentially free to them.

10 years later I am still very happy we bought our house, it is not perfect with the exception of location. There were I think 3 or 4 other houses on the market that weekend in the same general area and price range. Ours was not the most updated or the least, ours and the least updated had the best locations, the least updated had a better yard but would have required a gut renovation before moving in. All three others had a bidding war, ours had three pre inspections and the inspection showed no problems. I am not sure why no one else put in a bid and I think they would likely have sold within 10 days if we had walked. On a different weekend, our house would have easily gone $30k over asking and we knew that. To this day I think we got pretty lucky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many people here are getting hung up on the morality of the situation and want you to "teach a lesson" to the seller by walking away. IMHO, that's short-sighted because it's negotiating from a position of spite. It's also a very easy viewpoint for them to take when it's not them trying to buy a house. Focus on what you want to accomplish and what gets you there.

As that paragon of business negotiation Dr. Phil says: "Would you rather be right, or rather be happy?"

In this case, walking away would be both "right" and satisfying, don't you think? It's not like this is the only house available for purchase. If you saw a price on a gallon of milk and were told at the register that it was actually $1 more, which price would you expect to be honored?

Perhaps satisfying in the sense that it's satisfying to give the gouging seller a big FU. But "satisfying" is not the question Dr. Phil asked. He's asking what will really make OP happiest? OP apparently wanted the house at the asking price, so much so that she was willing to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for it. If she gets the house at the asking price, will that make her happiest in the long run? Only OP can answer that question. I guess it depends on how much she likes the house. My only advice it for her to keep focused on the house value, and not on some short-sighted "principle" viewpoint.

In answer to your milk hypothetical, what I'd do depends simply on what would make me happiest. If I really needed the milk right then, then paying $1 extra would be less burdensome than traveling to a different store, I'd pay the $1 surcharge. If I did not really need the milk, or perhaps could easily go to another shop right next door to pay $1 less, I'd probably do that instead. The focus is on what benefits me most, not what hurts the seller most.

Setting aside the obvious fact that Dr. Phil is a bluthering idiot and I cannot believe you're trying to seriously invoke his perspective into an otherwise serious conversation, I would say what makes people happiest is getting what they want on their own terms.

Sounds to me like OP was willing to pay X and not a penny more, certainly not X-plus $30,000. So, yeah, walking away would be both right and satisfying. You make it sound like they would be unhappy to not buy the house. I don't get that at all. There are plenty of houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What % is $30k more? Are we talking a 4% increase on a $750k house? Or are we talking a 1.5% increase on a $2m house? I think that makes a difference.

House is listed for less than 750.

Ah, could it be http://www.mcenearney.com/property/28792404/1108-CROSS-DR-ALEXANDRIA-VA-22302

Good try!But this house you show is under contract.

Anonymous wrote:That's funny, I feel the same way about your perspective. To wit: OP and her husband don't love the house and already offered the price that the house was worth to them. Seller then jacked the price. OP, not sufficiently interested in the house for the new price, is planning to walk. I agree with her decision. She sounds entirely reasonable and clear-headed about it. The house was worth it at Price A, but not at Price B. YOU are the one who's encouraging her to pay more since you're assuming she "loves" the house and desires it more than she has repeatedly stated she actually does. So YOU are the one trying to say she should act on (nonexistent) emotion and pay more. Nice try being all condescending, though.

11:10 responding. You are confused. I'm not encouraging her to pay more. From my very first post (7:33 on page 1 of this thread), I've told OP to counter at her original price. She should exceed her original price only if it gets her some benefit that she values more than the extra money. What I'm opposing is any suggestion OP should lower her offer out of spite -- that's just emotional foolishness IMHO.

Anonymous wrote:Listing price isn't necessarily the value of the house. It goes both ways, lower or higher.

Absolutely. But in the absence of a bidding war, and instead in the presence of a single offer, it would seem the sellers went about things a bit backwards. I think OP is right - they were hoping for a bidding war and didn't get one. As a PP said, I'd love to know what the seller's agent was thinking when she had to call the buyers' agent with that counteroffer...

I would walk. No way I'd negotiate with people like that. Their agent must be nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP just counter back with your original offer with a time limit to accept like another PP said. What do you have to lose since it's not your dream house? What does your agent think?

Agree with this. Pay what the house is worth to you and no more. The seller may or may not get more from another buyer, but that isn't your concern. Frankly, I don't know how they think they can get above list with only one interested party.

+1

+2 There will ALWAYS be another house. Always.

Listing price isn't necessarily the value of the house. It goes both ways, lower or higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP just counter back with your original offer with a time limit to accept like another PP said. What do you have to lose since it's not your dream house? What does your agent think?

Agree with this. Pay what the house is worth to you and no more. The seller may or may not get more from another buyer, but that isn't your concern. Frankly, I don't know how they think they can get above list with only one interested party.

+1

Anonymous wrote:OP just counter back with your original offer with a time limit to accept like another PP said. What do you have to lose since it's not your dream house? What does your agent think?

Agree with this. Pay what the house is worth to you and no more. The seller may or may not get more from another buyer, but that isn't your concern. Frankly, I don't know how they think they can get above list with only one interested party.

^^above post is for 11:10