REO bought by listing agent below outside offer!

[myerat]

I have just gone through a situation where I bid on a bank owned property with cash offer without any contingency. I just came to know that the Listing agent from the bank REIMEX bought the home at 25K lower than my offer. I was following up on the property regularly and they kept us in the dark the whole time. The property was initially sold by Duetsche Bank National Trust Company, As trustee. I tried contacting the bank but they respond only via fax or mail with no live person. Don't know what to do.Help!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

There is no requirement that the bank accept your offer.

 

[Zigner]

Oh yeah - US Law Only!

 

[justalayman]

A private seller is allowed to take whatever offer they want to take. They do not have to take the highest offer. While it is usually in their best interest to take the highest offer, they are not bound to. If this was a government entity, it would be different but as it stands, the people the bank has to answer to are its shareholders, not you or the state.

Now, with that said;

was there confirmation your offer was received?
Did you work through an agent or did you do this on your own?

 

[tranquility]

I agree there is no cause of action against the bank.

What about the agent?

Certainly there could be an ethical complaint, but, what else? Even though the agent was not the OP's, the agent has an ethical duty to present the offer to the principal. (This is not negligence as the duty was not owed to the OP.)

But, if the agent represented (Or, implied.) he would present the offer, and didn't, there is a misrepresentation there. I have no idea of the damages, but, some tort.

 

[justalayman]

I agree there is no cause of action against the bank.

What about the agent?

Certainly there could be an ethical complaint, but, what else? Even though the agent was not the OP's, the agent has an ethical duty to present the offer to the principal. (This is not negligence as the duty was not owed to the OP.)

But, if the agent represented (Or, implied.) he would present the offer, and didn't, there is a misrepresentation there. I have no idea of the damages, but, some tort.

the bank would have an action against the agent, not the op. The agent has no duty to the OP.

 

[tranquility]

I am aware there is not an action in negligence. The tort would be actual or negligent misrepresentation.

-Agent said or implied they would present offer.
-Agent didn't. (Assumption as banks usually like more money than less.)
-OP reasonably relied on the agent's representation, causing damages.

As I wrote:

(This is not negligence as the duty was not owed to the OP.)

But, if the agent represented (Or, implied.) he would present the offer, and didn't, there is a misrepresentation there. I have no idea of the damages, but, some tort.

 

[nextwife]

Timelines are also relevant. An offer of x dollars much earlier may have occurred before the REO manager had it on the market LONG enough to charge it down to what the poster's offer had been, but an offer much later, for less, may have occurred AFTER sufficient charge downs had occurred.

Also, a previously unknown defect may have since come to light, such as a bad well or bad septic system, or vandalism, which could alter what the REO manager was willing to take to get rid of it.

Also, the listing agent may have waived commission, so the net proceeds to the bank was likely NOT 25k less that yours.

 

[justalayman]

I am aware there is not an action in negligence. The tort would be actual or negligent misrepresentation.

-Agent said or implied they would present offer.
-Agent didn't. (Assumption as banks usually like more money than less.)
-OP reasonably relied on the agent's representation, causing damages.

As I wrote:

Ok, let's go that way. For the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, there must be pecuniary damages. Please list what such damages the OP has suffered.

 

[tranquility]

It would be great if you read the posts of the person you are disagreeing with. As I wrote:

I have no idea of the damages, but, some tort.

 

[justalayman]

It would be great if you read the posts of the person you are disagreeing with. As I wrote:

If you want to argue fraudulent misrepresentation, you have to have pecuniary damages. Since there are no pecuniary damages, there can be no fraudulent misrepresentation, agreed?

You are the one arguing there is some tort. Rather than just saying: I think there is because...well, I don't know but I think there is therefore anybody that disagrees with me is wrong.

How about; I believe there is a tort in there somewhere but I have absolutely no idea what it might be so take it for what it's worth.

 

[LdiJ]

If you want to argue fraudulent misrepresentation, you have to have pecuniary damages. Since there are no pecuniary damages, there can be no fraudulent misrepresentation, agreed?

You are the one arguing there is some tort. Rather than just saying: I think there is because...well, I don't know but I think there is therefore anybody that disagrees with me is wrong.

How about; I believe there is a tort in there somewhere but I have absolutely no idea what it might be so take it for what it's worth.

Just to mention it...are you aware that Tranq is an attorney?

 

[justalayman]

Just to mention it...are you aware that Tranq is an attorney?

Nope but I ain't afraid of no attorneys.

I typically enjoy and have full faith in his posts/information but in this one, I just think he is incorrect and maybe is offended that it is I that questioned him. If he can support his belief of there being a tort action available, great. If not, then it is what it is. When he tossed out what he believed to be a possibility, all I did was respond with why I believe it is not correct. He argued that he admitted he doesn't know what damages the OP would have. As I see it, OP has no damages so due to that, I believe Tranq's claim to be incorrect as pecuniary damages are a requirement of the tort Tranq is suggesting, as I understand things.

the ball is his to throw back if he chooses. No threat, no animosity, nothing but a search for the truth.

as we all know:

the truth is out there

 

[tranquility]

I am only in the class of:

consumers who have faced similar legal issues

There are damages. At the very least, the OP had to put together a package for the offer, drive somewhere, put a stamp on the envelope or whatever. While we might call them nominal damages, they're still damages. If there are greater damages here, we don't know. I doubt there are enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile and suspect the OP was looking for contract damages and not tort damages. But, if we're talking about some theoretical element called damages, we're fine.

While we don't know the state, one court said on the matter:

Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello, 477 A. 2d 1224

Although distinctions based on common-law writs may once have been appropriate, the requirement of actual damage to sustain a cause of action for intentional torts no longer serves a useful purpose, at least where a victim of an intentional wrong has suffered some loss, detriment, or injury but is 48*48 unable to prove that he is entitled to compensatory damages. His rights have been invaded and he should be entitled to vindication in an award of nominal damages.[3] Indeed, it is difficult to justify permitting nominal damages in a trespass action and not in a case of a wilful and malicious intentional tort. We hold, therefore, that compensatory damages are not an essential element of an intentional tort committed wilfully and without justification when there is some loss, detriment, or injury, and that nominal damages may be awarded in such cases in the absence of compensatory damages.

Reread edit:
When I say we don't know the state, I refer to the OP and U.S. law only and not the case. The case is from New Jersey's Supremes.

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;2960233] But, if we're talking about some theoretical element called damages, we're fine.

we need pecuniary damages. Drive time isn't. Time to write the offer isn't. At most we have the stamp.

I also noted that your quote contained a few words such as: intentional, wilful, and malicious. I suspect at least one of those words is not appropriate, quite possibly two and maybe all three.

I'll have to take this up tomorrow. It's late back here in the midwest.


one last note:

we do not know what transpired. We have no idea what interactions there was between the selling agent and the OP. We don't know that the offer wasn't presented. We are lacking a huge part of the story.