2009 Colorado Residential Contract
Addenda and Clause System Update
The 2009 addenda system has been updated to:
- Conform to the 2009 CREC form changes;
- Help resolve procuring cause disputes;
- Manage buyers' frustration in pursuing short sales and REOs; &
- Eliminate the non-binding feature of the new CREC Short Sale Addendum.
With the 2009 package, you receive:
- Addendum A.
- Additional Provisions.
- Buyer Addendum.
- Seller Addendum.
- Supplemental Seller Addendum Regarding Financial Distress.
- Supplement to Short Sale Addendum (New 2009).
- 72 Hour Accelerated Closing.
- 72 Hour Removal of Conditions.
- Mold Disclosure.
- Notice to Seller.
- Risks of New Construction.
- Broker Rebate to Buyer (RESPA Compliance).
- Termination of Marketing Efforts Without Terminating Listing.
- Notice to Parties Regarding Earnest Money.
- Buyer Notice Regarding Meth Lab per Statute.
- Seller Authorization (New 2009).
- Commission Split Agreement (New 2009).
Addenda Explanation & Order Form
Determination of Heirs Proceedings:
Clearing Title in a Decedent's Unadministered Property
By Michael A. Smeenk, Esq.
When someone dies, their probate assets are typically distributed through a probate proceeding. However, if a probate proceeding is never commenced, or if certain assets are not distributed through probate, those assets remain titled in the name of the decedent. In order for the decedent's beneficiaries to convey good title in the unadministered assets to a third party, ownership must first be transferred to the beneficiaries. One way to accomplish such a transfer is through a Determination of Heirs proceeding, an alternative to probate in Colorado through which ownership of real property is transferred to a decedent's beneficiaries.
Consider the following scenario: A husband and wife owned real property in Colorado as tenants in common. "Real property" in this context could, for instance, mean a home, commercial building, vacant land, or mineral, oil, or gas interests. The owners died out of state a number of years ago, but no probate proceedings were ever opened in Colorado or their state of residence, so their interests in the property were never administered. The owners were survived by two children, the beneficiaries of their respective estates via the laws of intestate succession. The children now want to sell the property to a third party purchaser, but record title is still held in the name of their parents.
Continue
This publication is intended to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher and distributor are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional service, and assume no liability in connection with its use. Copyright © 2009. This is an advertisement.
|
IN THIS ISSUE
The Buzz about Busby - Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc. d/b/a Realty South
By Jonathan A. Goodman, Esq. and Jeremy S. Durham
In January 2008, the 11th Circuit Court's decision in Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc. d/b/a Realty South granted class action status to a group of homebuyers who had paid administrative fees to Realty South, a Mortgage Broker. At the closing of Mr. and Mrs. Busby's residential mortgage loan, Realty South charged a fee of $149, which it called an "administrative brokerage commission," commonly called an ABC. As a result of the ABC, the Busbys filed suit along with other similarly situated homebuyers under RESPA Section 8(b), arguing that the ABC was an "unearned fee."
RESPA Section 8(b) prohibits brokers from charging “unearned fees,” establishing that “no person shall give and no person shall receive any portion, split, or percentage of any charge . . . for . . . a real estate settlement service . . . other than for services actually performed.” The Busby Court draws a distinction between two types of arguably unearned fees for which Plaintiffs may want to bring suit under RESPA Section 8(b). The first category encompasses fees for which “no, nominal, or duplicative work is done.” The second category includes fees in an amount that is “in excess of the reasonable value of goods or facilities provided or the services actually performed.” In other words, the first category includes fees charged although the broker has done nothing, while the second category includes fees that are unreasonably high given the work that the broker has actually done (an “Overcharge”). Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to find that Overcharges violate RESPA, refusing to second guess what price is fair for a service provided by a broker.
Continue
Meet The Attorneys
Kirsten A. Westerland
Ms. Westerland received her Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado in 2007. Her practice emphasizes Civil and Commercial Litigation, Appeals, Real Estate, and Corporations.
Kirsten's Profile
Barbara K. Bogucki
Ms. Bogucki received her Juris Doctor from Saint Louis University School of Law in 2007. Her practice emphasizes Real Estate, and Litigation.
Barbara's Profile
|
|