Question about FSBO transaction

[tranquility]

Oh, facts not presented in the initial argument. Sneaky sneaky sneaky.

Not meant to be. I live in a place dominated by Democrats and their mind manipulation makes me forget my reality is not Reality. (That's how they get you. [Boy, now that I think of it, that may REALLY be how they get you. Silly law? Yes. Unless...]) I only tried to express me telling the person I was contracting with what I perceived the law to be. (If I'm not mistaken, based on multiple posts and much inferences and guessing, I might suppose Zigner has a similar law in place. [If not the same one.] I wonder why the like to the statement.)

but you recognize the article? Are you suggesting the OP's story is contrived, an altered rendition of that article? Are you a ghost writer by chance?

but it doesn't menion UPL?

from the specific portion of that publication you speak of concerning the real estate deal.

I just got to the article from a moment of Google-fu. It seemed relevant. The facts were pretty on point, but the focus (hence the law) was not. While the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, if 'splaining contract terms was UPL, I would have thought they would have mentioned it.

 

[tranquility]

ambiguous


does that mean the seller is liable for the cost of survey? Buyers title insurance? points on your loan? Initial escrow payment for taxes and insurance?

One thing I had a hard time telling both buyers and sellers when they asked who pays what. The answer is simple; whomever agrees to pay it.

very few costs are required to be paid by either party. There are a few regarding federally subsidized loans but outside of that, just about everything is negotiable.

the problem; you do not get to go back now and specific diddly squat. Your contract is your contract and especially since you wrote it, ambiguities are held against the writer.

a HUD 1 is based on your contract. If the contract is not clear, the HUD 1 is not going to be able to be completed.

But, what "whomever agrees" is not really a law question, but a question of fact. People have a right to negotiate a contract and express the meaning to the other party what they think it involves. That is how we get: "A meeting of the minds."(Reg. U.S. pat off.)

 

[ksguy]

ambiguous


does that mean the seller is liable for the cost of survey? Buyers title insurance? points on your loan? Initial escrow payment for taxes and insurance?

One thing I had a hard time telling both buyers and sellers when they asked who pays what. The answer is simple; whomever agrees to pay it.

very few costs are required to be paid by either party. There are a few regarding federally subsidized loans hibut outside of that, just about everything is negotiable.

the problem; you do not get to go back now and specific diddly squat. Your contract is your contract and especially since you wrote it, ambiguities are held against the writer.

a HUD 1 is based on your contract. If the contract is not clear, the HUD 1 is not going to be able to be completed.

Not sure if trolling... but I'll go ahead and engage.

As we already established, this is the exact phrasing used in the contract used in countless thousands of transactions in Kansas and Missouri each year. I'm not worried about any ambiguity. Closing costs are exactly that - costs that are settled at closing. HUD even defines it.

 

[justalayman]

But, what "whomever agrees" is not really a law question, but a question of fact. People have a right to negotiate a contract and express the meaning to the other party what they think it involves. That is how we get: "A meeting of the minds."(Reg. U.S. pat off.)

agreed and that is not a concern regarding UPL. It was actually to address the op's statement.

 

[justalayman]

Not sure if trolling... but I'll go ahead and engage.

As we already established, this is the exact phrasing used in the contract used in countless thousands of transactions in Kansas and Missouri each year. I'm not worried about any ambiguity. Closing costs are exactly that - costs that are settled at closing. HUD even defines it.

Me trolling? For Peres sake. I toss out examples of my statement and you question whether I'm trolling?


"closing costs" is ambiguous if for no other reason that it is not used on the HUD 1. So, if you are depending on the HUD 1 to support your contract, you lose.

the term "closing" is used exactly 2 times on the form:

page 1 near the top:

C. Note:

This form is furnished to give you a statement of actual settlement costs. Amounts paid to and by the settlement agent are shown. Items marked
“(p.o.c.)” were paid outside the closing; they are shown here for informational purposes and are not included in the totals.

and page 2 line 1102 (under title costs)

settlement or closing fee



Now, unless you want to limit your closing costs to that closing fee, then you have an ambiguous statement as to what you want to consider closing costs.
and to clarify the point a bit more:

what you consider to be closing costs may not be what the seller considers to be closing costs and without the specific statement of what you are expecting to be considered closing costs the seller is going to be liable for, you have ambiguity and since you wrote the contract (or more accurately; stole the contract), the ambiguities are considered in the best light for the other party.

 

[justalayman]

I recog

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/model-def/kansas.authcheckdam.pdf

DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW
A. General Definition: The practice of law is ministering to the legal needs of
another person and the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the
circumstances or objectives of another person which require knowledge of legal
principles or the use of legal skill or knowledge. This includes but is not limited to:

(2) Giving advice, counseling or rendering services to any person concerning
or with respect to their legal rights or any matter involving the application
of legal principles to rights, duties, obligations or liabilities.

(3) Selecting, drafting, or completing any legal document or agreement
involving or affecting the legal rights of a person.

selecting? completing?

and under exceptions:

(7) A real estate agent or broker, licensed by the State of Kansas, may
complete forms previously approved by a Kansas lawyer including sales
and associated contracts directly related to the sale of real estate and
personal property for their customers.

based on that, I don't see how what the OP has done would not be considered to be UPL.


personally I think it is a bit over the top but who am I, justalayman, to argue with the Kansas Bar Association, after all, they are a bunch of lawyers who surely know more than I do.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree. I make contracts all the time. I went into Trader Joe's this morning and bought a Tejava. I offered them a certain amount of money and they accepted it. It was a contract between the both of us. Sure, it was not in writing; but, it was a contract. I don't see any unauthorized practice of law here and don't find the referenced cases on point.

I also agree. There is no unauthorized practice of law if a party to a contract writes the contract.

 

[justalayman]

I also agree. There is no unauthorized practice of law if a party to a contract writes the contract.

but maybe OP has a defense since they didn't write the contract; they stole it.

maybe I missed it but I didn't see any exception to this:

(3) Selecting, drafting, or completing any legal document or agreement
involving or affecting the legal rights of a person.

the contract involved and affected the legal rights of the seller. By that rule a layperson cannot even fill in the blanks.

 

[ksguy]

but maybe OP has a defense since they didn't write the contract; they stole it.

maybe I missed it but I didn't see any exception to this:

the contract involved and affected the legal rights of the seller. By that rule a layperson cannot even fill in the blanks.

So you've extrapolated yourself to the position that even FSBO transactions with fill-in-the-blank purchased contracts are not legal, which, at least in Kansas, they are - no attorney required. I'm not sure why you've chosen to attack this particular aspect of my circumstances, but I suppose I appreciate the feedback for what it is.

 

[tranquility]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/model-def/kansas.authcheckdam.pdf






selecting? completing?

and under exceptions:




based on that, I don't see how what the OP has done would not be considered to be UPL.


personally I think it is a bit over the top but who am I, justalayman, to argue with the Kansas Bar Association, after all, they are a bunch of lawyers who surely know more than I do.

I can make a contract for myself. Sarcasm is less effective if it intentionally misstates the premise of SOME THIRD PARTY DOING THIS. Sheesh.

 

[justalayman]

So you've extrapolated yourself to the position that even FSBO transactions with fill-in-the-blank purchased contracts are not legal, which, at least in Kansas, they are - no attorney required. I'm not sure why you've chosen to attack this particular aspect of my circumstances, but I suppose I appreciate the feedback for what it is.

seriously not trying to be obtuse and I don't claim to know everything but sometimes something grabs me and won't let go. Sometimes I am correct, sometimes not and while in personal opinion I do not have an issue with a fill in the blanks contract like this, what I read seems to say I am wrong in that so, hang with me for a few minutes while either I am educated or I convince somebody my point has validity.




so tranq;



the link I provided (kansas bar), said nothing about a third party issue. It stated simply:

3) Selecting, drafting, or completing any legal document or agreement
involving or affecting the legal rights of a person.

a fill in the blanks would be completing, yes?

is not the seller "a person"?


on top of that, there are bits suggesting the OP has in fact interpreted the contract for the seller. Even if the writing, completing, or whatever is not an issue, interpreting a contract for a party is UPL. While a person has a right to express their belief as to the intent of any portion of the contract, to me, it appears it has gone beyond that and the OP is in fact affecting the legal rights of the seller in interpreting the for the seller rather than simply stating his interpretation. One of the issues I see as being possibly problematic is the closing cost clause. The term closing costs is ambiguous. There are no legally defined closing costs even though many costs are referred to as closing costs. The problem is; they aren't. They are settlement costs. If one wants to get very technical, the only actual closing cost is what it cost to have an escrow agent, attorney, or whatever preside over the closing. Everything else is a settlement cost and can be apportioned to the parties as has been negotiated.

so, by advising the seller as to what is a closing cost, I see it as UPL.

I could be wrong; have been before; will be again but I see this as likely to have crossed the line into offering a legal opinion that affects the legal rights of another.

 

[LdiJ]

seriously not trying to be obtuse and I don't claim to know everything but sometimes something grabs me and won't let go. Sometimes I am correct, sometimes not and while in personal opinion I do not have an issue with a fill in the blanks contract like this, what I read seems to say I am wrong in that so, hang with me for a few minutes while either I am educated or I convince somebody my point has validity.




so tranq;



the link I provided (kansas bar), said nothing about a third party issue. It stated simply:



a fill in the blanks would be completing, yes?

is not the seller "a person"?


on top of that, there are bits suggesting the OP has in fact interpreted the contract for the seller. Even if the writing, completing, or whatever is not an issue, interpreting a contract for a party is UPL. While a person has a right to express their belief as to the intent of any portion of the contract, to me, it appears it has gone beyond that and the OP is in fact affecting the legal rights of the seller in interpreting the for the seller rather than simply stating his interpretation. One of the issues I see as being possibly problematic is the closing cost clause. The term closing costs is ambiguous. There are no legally defined closing costs even though many costs are referred to as closing costs. The problem is; they aren't. They are settlement costs. If one wants to get very technical, the only actual closing cost is what it cost to have an escrow agent, attorney, or whatever preside over the closing. Everything else is a settlement cost and can be apportioned to the parties as has been negotiated.

so, by advising the seller as to what is a closing cost, I see it as UPL.

I could be wrong; have been before; will be again but I see this as likely to have crossed the line into offering a legal opinion that affects the legal rights of another.

If your theory is correct, then any time two parties to a contract disagree with an interpretation of a clause in a contract that they would both be committing UPL.

Massive numbers of contracts are used in businesses that have never been written by attorneys. I have written contracts myself and successfully defended them in court without ever being accused of UPL.

 

[tranquility]

If your theory is correct, then any time two parties to a contract disagree with an interpretation of a clause in a contract that they would both be committing UPL.

Massive numbers of contracts are used in businesses that have never been written by attorneys. I have written contracts myself and successfully defended them in court without ever being accused of UPL.

Of course that is true. We can go on and on with examples of how such an interpretation is silly, but it won't point out the problems any clearer so I will stop.

The OP has little to worry about regarding UPL either in a criminal or civil sense. At worst, IF the OP did make some legal representation and that representation was reasonably relied upon by the contract partner and that reasonable reliance caused damages (All three elements are missing in my mind.), THEN the contract partner may have some rights against the OP.

 

[justalayman]

LdiJ;3297901]If your theory is correct, then any time two parties to a contract disagree with an interpretation of a clause in a contract that they would both be committing UPL.

that is not what I said. A person has a right to their opinion. It is when they counsel the other party in such a manner as to the law and affecting their decision, it becomes UPL.


a disagreement is one thing but if I go:

here is a clause. This is what it means. The law (not the terms of the contract) requires you to...


that is UPL


if I say;

here is a clause. My interpretation is....

You do whatever you believe to be correct but I think [this] is correct and i'm moving forward based on that.

Obviously that is a very simplistic explanation but hopefully yuo get the point. In one situation the person is interpreting the law and advising the other party as to their rights and requirements under the law. In the other, it is a statement of disagreement.

I have written contracts myself and successfully defended them in court without ever being accused of UPL..

whether you have been accused or not is irrelevant. I have many times driven above the speed limit and even been in court to address OTHER matters but strangely enough, never was charged with speeding. Just because you are not called on it doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Now mind you, I do have an issue with the clear statement of the Kansas bar that even completing a contract (I am presuming that a fill in the blanks contract would meet that description) by a layman (excepting real estate professionals) being considered UPL. In itself, it suggests nothing that would be acting in a manner that is advising the other party as to the legality or legal obligations imposed by the contract. If the party started advising (counseling) the other party as to the meaning of the laws involved and especially how it could affect them, that is where I see UPL as an issue.