LawsonGroupMediation

Recently we had a case where an agent reported that the homeowner of a home being sold as a short sale had just died.  What happens then?  Can the home still be sold in a short sale?

I receive a number of inquiries concerning the steps to take when the homeowner dies before the short sale transaction can be completed.

The answer is very straight forward and easy.  Yes, the property can still be sold in a short sale…except when it cannot.

When the homeowner dies with a will, there is only one heir or all heirs agree, and not other creditors other than mortgage holder(s), it is very simple to appoint someone to continue the short sale process to closing.

Actually, this is the one of the most common scenarios:  an elderly homeowner dies with no debts other than the mortage(s) and few or only one heir.

In some states, the Probate Court has a simple process whereby the heir goes to the Probate Clerk’s office, pays a fee, completes a fill-in-the-blank form, is interviewed by the Probate Judge, or Clerk & Master, and is granted the letters of administration.  Other states have a statutory process of completing and filing an Affidavit For Transfer of Real Property in small estate cases, having a deed prepared to transfer the property to the heir, who then transfers the deed at closing to the short sale buyer once lienholder approval has been obtained.  Other states have variations of these procedures where the estate is small.  If your state does not have a simple, inexpensive process for small estates, then a lawyer must be hired to open the estate and obtain the letters of administration.

When you are in the middle of obtaining approval for a short sale and the homeowner dies, do not panic.  Usually the solution is simple.

Best Wishes,

Ken Lawson, JD

In my 20 years of practicing law, I have seen a lot of lawsuits over some of the what sometimes seem to be the least likely situations.

I have written in the past on several cases some various situations in which real estate agents may be at risk from seller clients in short sale cases.

However, as I read the lawsuits, real estate agents are very often at liability risk from the other agent in the transaction, in situations in which your E&O insurance may not provide protection.

One such a situation involves short sales.  It happens often, about half the time right now, that the Secondary Market Investor (SMI) will reduce the real estate agent commissions as a condition to lienholder approval.

Sometimes the servicing lender will also attempt to reduce the short sale commission, however, unless that reduction is a published policy that is enforced across the board, it is discriminatory and illegal, so we are able to prevent that from happening.

If the SMI legally reduces the short sale commission, the cooperating agent may object to having their commission reduced.  Some listing agents solve this problem by only asking for a commission that it would likely be reduced to.  However, if you do not ask for a full commission in short sales, you will not get a full commission.  I often see our agents getting 7% commission, but they would never see it if they did not ask for it.  FHA loans require 6%, but a lot of loans are not owned by Fannie/Freddie and some will lower them to 5% and others will approve 7%.  But…YOU DO NOT GET FULL COMMISSION UNLESS YOU ASK FOR IT!

However, some cooperating agents have been suing listing agents over the reduced commissions.  Others have been filing grievances with the local board and submitting it to arbitration.

Here is what we recommend for those short sale listing agents who want to try to get full commission.  First, insert language in the agent-to-agent remarks that this is a possible short sale and for the agents to see the attached media.  The attached media is a disclaimer that tells them about the possibility of a reduced commission and to obtain from the listing agent the short sale instructions.  The short sale instructions is a Buyer Packet we provide to the agents who work with us.  That packet describes the possibility of reduced commission and instructs them to have a conversation with the listing agent as to how they will handle the reduction in commission, if any.

Then, we provide to the agents a Commission Modification Agreement with the two alternatives to splitting any required commission reduction:  equal or pro rata.   Those two alternatives provide a great way to determine the reduction depending upon whether the published commission is equal or not.

This approach meets the legal requirements for resolving this issue in advance.  The agent would be estopped from claiming that he did not know at the beginning that a commission reduction might happen.

The numbers of agents filing these suits or complaints with the local board is way too high and absurd.  Add to that the problem that there are some boards who are not protective of agents and the problem is magnified.  Then there is one arbitrator of a huge local board who made public statements that he would rule contrary to the law, which shows how biased and stupid some of these arbitrators can be.

I highly recommend that all agents should discuss the possibility of a reduction in the commission at the onset of the short sale and sign a Commission Modification Agreement along with submitting the purchase contract.

Or…… you could simply take the easy way out and only ask for the lowest commission in short sale cases.

Best Wishes,

Kenneth R. Lawson, JD

A recent court case underscores a recommendation I have been making for agents involved in short sale cases.

The homeowners contracted with a real estate agent to sell their home.  With the drop in market values, the agent helped the homeowners understand that they could still sell their home as a short sale.

The homeowners agreed and the agent went to work listing the property and seeking buyers.  They finally obtained an offer from a cash buyer, which looked great and had a good chance of being approved.

As we all know, this past spring short sale processing by the servicing lender and the secondary market investor (SMI) slowed to a standstill.  The contract terms made the contract terms binding and subject to third party lienholder approval of the short sale within 120 days.  Other terms were the customary subject to inspection, and the state form provided for easy exit fromt he deal by the buyer.

On day 95, the buyers backed out, claiming they had driven by the house for an inspection of the exterior and found it unsatisfactory.  They also claimed that the short sale addendum allowed them to back out of the deal.

The seller clients were livid.  It was now too close to the scheduled foreclosure sale.  They were unable to find a replacement buyer and the foreclosure was completed.  The seller clients sued their agent.  They claimed that the agent had a responsibility to make sure the contract was binding or otherwise they would have rejected the offers until they found a buyer willing to be bound to the agreement.   Since multiple offers were not accepted, the agent was unable to prove there would have been another buyer had the contract been binding.

For this reason, our firm has encouraged agents to have their client sellers sign a Binding Contract Waiver in the event the buyer walks.  There is greater liability in short sale cases because of the extreme result if the short sale fails, in contrast to normal sales.  The Binding Contract Waiver places the seller clients on notice of the possibility that a buyer may be able to get out of the deal and the seller clients would be unable to claim they did not know the risks.

We recommend that you all, as a matter of course, ask your seller clients to sign a Binding Contract Waiver in every short sale to prevent this potential area of liability.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson JD

Ready for change?  Here it comes…or is it?

Through these articles, or blog posts, I have been attempting to educate agents concerning the many, many issues of misinformation that have provided in short sale books, courses, and training seminars.  Since I really have more of a warm heart of a teacher than a lawyer, I want to be of service to those of you who appreciate it.

So, I have helped bring clarity to who owns the note, the secondary market investor (SMI), and who approves short sales, the SMI, not usually the servicing lender the proposal is submitted to.  I have also attempted to help you understand that the old method of analyzing a short sale which merely compared the amount of loss if the short sale is approved has been replaced by most SMIs to the new net-to-lender minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value.  This change started late summer of last year and became widespread by the end of the year.

Now, bloggers are spreading the word about a new system under the new Making Home Affordable legislation.  They are sounding the alarm that there massive change taking place that is replacing the current system.

My response?   Whoaaaa, just a moment!   Stop.  Breathe.  What is taking place is not a major change.  There are a few changes but let’s put them into perspective.

First, the real change is the current political environment.   It does not take a political activist, extremist, or alarmist to see that the current administration and the liberal democratic majority in congress are attempting to change our way of life away from capitalism and substantially closer to the European models of socialism.  This is not a criticism but the reality.  Whether you are democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, progressive or traditionalist, the reality is that from the last election democrats believe they have a mandate to move us away from what they believe are the ills of capitalism.  The vast majority of lawyers are liberal/progressive, and I have my foot in both sides depending upon the issue.

How is this important?  Because there is war being waged between many of the financial institutions and the treasury department.  Treasury now owns both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a growing number of other institutions, both SMIs and servicing lenders.  Treasury is putting the squeeze on financial institutions with the stated purpose to vastly reduce the number of financial institutions.  That is their speak for pushing them to the brink of bankruptcy, then rescuing them (bail-out) and taking ownership.  One of the objectives of socialism is to take over employers, and financial institutions are one of the major 5 critical industries required to make socialism effective.

The MHA legislation was passed to help accomplish this.   Wait, it’s real purpose was to do something to help slow down the massive numbers of foreclosures.  However, the method was chosen to also assist in this societal change.  The main bloggers triggering alarms are stating that Fannie and Freddie own 85% of the mortgage loans.  Well, the government claims this, but it is actually not much more than 65%, but growing.  85% is their objective, a very important objective to meet their goals.

Under the new system, you will hear about the net present value formula that servicers will use to determine the list price and the price the property can be sold for.   This is nothing more than a new label for the current net-to-lender minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value.  The SMIs will provide instructions to their servicers to approve these short sales up front rather than submitting the short sales to the SMI each time for approval.  The SMIs will have their own trained representatives in the loss mitigation of the servicer to oversee the same system we have now.  The only real change will be that they will be able to use that to guide the agents as to the price reduction strategy to use in listing.

In my blog articles, I have made references to current experimental programs between Fannie, Freddie, Treasury and a number of servicing lenders.  Well, it is this that I was referring to.  It will likely continue to widen as they experience success and train everyone.  It is merely the moving of the current system to having the lenders work more up front to help agents meet the current requirements.

I will provide more information about this in the future.  However, I encourage you all to not panic, not react hastily, and not become overly concerned about its affect on short sales.  Yes, there will be new forms and communication with servicers before listing the short sale, but it is not as big of a change as many fear.

The political pendulum continues to swing back and forth between a capitalistic society and a socialist society.  We do not yet know if the current swing will become entrenched, but if it does not, the new changes in short sales will likely remain.  It is a sensible approach to try to solve the short sale problems.  However, even with these changes there will be unplease consequences.  Government always seems to create as many problems as they solve.  Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, but sometimes it brings relief.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson, JD

There was a recent press release from the U.S. Treasury that stated that the Treasury Department would soon finalize plans to increase incentives for “banks” to approve short sales.

The “banks” here includes both the servicing lenders and the secondary market investors, and it is usually (but not always) the secondary market investors who approve the short sales.

The problem first came about when the mortgage crisis hit and people began losing their homes en masse.  The Treasury Department did little at that time.  This crisis also increased almost exponentially the numbers of short sales being processed by the servicing lenders and reviewed by the secondary market investors.

The servicing lenders were also in a severe financial crisis and many failed.  So add a financial crisis to suddenly needing many more processors to handle foreclosures and short sales, and this spelled trouble…in the form of extremely long short sale processing time.

Then came bailouts and servicing lenders now had incentives to foreclose.  Short sale buyers would not hang around for so many months, and many short sale packages were tanked by servicing lender processors.

In the last few months, Treasury has conducted a number of experimental programs with Fannie, Freddie, and a number of servicing lenders to find ways to efficiently process short sale proposals.

However, the biggest emphasis has been on getting servicing lenders to approve loan modifications.  With the law change in May requiring them to process workouts, loan modification approvals increased from about a reported 15% rate to a reported rate of approval of about 35%.

Now Treasury is trying to offset the previous disincentives to process short sales by approving more money to the lenders.  This is like what happened to bread in the 60′s.  Do you remember?   Bread bakeries took much of the nutrition to make white bread and added a little back.  They then proclaimed how great they were for adding nutrition.

Short sales are improving, however.  Our firm has seen a great reduction in the length of time it takes for servicing lenders to process our short sale proposals and forward them to the secondary market investor, and for these investors to approve them.  Many MI carriers, however, are still slow in processing and approving, but some are also improving.

Let’s hope that we see more improvement very, very soon.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson JD

Ken Lawson, JD your short sale coach

I watch a lot of real estate agents, investors, and other business people struggling to stay on top of all the many details in running a successful business.

Moving a business from a start-up or even a stumbling position to an income-producing successful business is all about conforming your business to a successful model and then creating systems that are either automated, performed by “trained monkeys”, or minimize the amount of time taking care of the business of business.

Systems consists of people, technology, checklists, or procedures.  Anytime you find yourself getting bogged down, you create a system to open up the bottleneck.

One way to obtain more results with less time and effort is to leverage resources.  That means that you use other people to do more of what you do now.  In real estate this, of course, could refer to an assistant.  The assistant will do work for less cost than you do yourself.  The idea with leveraging the use of assistants is to delegate everything that does not require your skills to perform to the assistant.

Can’t afford an assistant?  If you cannot afford a full time assistant, considering paying another agent who has an assistant for some hours for your work.  Another alternative is to get together with other struggling agents and start a joint venture and share the expense of an assistant.

Leveraging means more than getting an assistant.  Leveraging applies to using other firms as well.  For example, leveraging TheLawsonGroup Mediation Services would allow you to focus on listings and just turn them over to us to deal with the banks.  Many of you are already using us to leverage your own success.  There is no cost to you nor do our fees come out of your broker commissions.

There is another way to leverage other people.  I know several successful agents who use other agents to do the detail work and take a negotiated referral fee.  One of these agents made over $120,000 last year solely from referrals.  She limits her time almost exclusively to marketing.

Leveraging, however, consists of technology as well.  Our firm uses Google Apps Intranet connected to our firm website.  This intranet service provides excellent processing and categorizing of emails, a great calendar integrated with the task list, and the ability to store all of your documents, and even create them, online.  For teams, it allows messaging and chat, checking each others’ calendars, and both public and private access to documents.

One great feature of Google Apps is that all of my emails can be viewed from my Blackberry (many of you already have that) and my calendar is sync’d with my blackberry when changes are entered.

However, when I coach real estate business, the most common error I find is the improper use of organization and time.  I wrote an article on this some time ago.  I did not think that I needed training in time management — until I received training in time management.  Now I understand it to be absolutely essential in moving a business into a successful enterprise.

For a free time management summary with forms, send an email to Info@LawsonGroupMediation.com and insert in the subject field: “Time Management”.

For those of you who are submitting your own short sale packages to servicing lenders, it is imperative to leverage systems to cut your time.  For example, we perform activities most agents do not do.  We complete a document review when submitted to us by agents (setting up the file and reviewing the documents until complete accumulates approximately 1 hour).  We then perform both a legal analysis and a market analysis that accumulates another approximately 1 hour.  Drafting the proposal and submitting it to the lender will add about another 1 hour.  We have very specific times when we call the lenders, so we spend very little time on the phone with them.  Even with lenders who are problematic we have efficient systems to keep the time to a minimum.  To perform all of these additional activities increases the likelihood of approval, so we leverage technology, procedures, and checklists to make it happen and keep our costs low.

For those of you who are not yet successful, I hope this article has started you thinking creatively to leverage anything around you that will save you time, produce greater results, and make your business a success.  If you need help, we are here and available to provide you with whatever assistance you need.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson, JD

Ken Lawson, JD your short sale coach

A lot of people have been required to sign a promissory note as a condition to the lender approving a short sale.

The promissory notes are usually for a small to moderate percentage of the deficiency balance, paid over ten (10) years, with no interest.  The promissory note requirement is usually a good deal, and see my other articles on this subject concerning predicting when a promissory note will be required.

However, many homeowners are in severe financial distress, and the thought of having another payment following the short sale is not a happy one!

Most borrowers after a short sale need to find a place to rent, and another payment on top of rent might often push the borrowers over the edge.  It is often the case that a short sale falls through simply because the borrower rejects the idea of a promissory note.

However, do not despair!  There is a way out of it.

Your seller may only have to make the promissory note payments for a year, or even less.

Why?  Because after the file is closed and the new loan (promissory note) has been set up for collections, a short time is required for the lender to see that the borrower makes faithful payments.  If so, then about a year out (often as soon as immediately, depending upon the lender), the borrower can seek to settle the debt for a fraction of what is owed.

“But for how much?” you might ask.  Almost any lender will settle a promissory note for 80%, without hesitation.  60% takes some discussion and effort to convince them, but many will do it.  To settle the debt for 50% may require financial distress on the part of the borrower, with low income and difficult circumstances.

The best way is to go to a lawyer and have the lawyer draft a letter and fax it to the lender’s customer service department (collections), with a copy to the lender’s bankruptcy department.  The lawyer can state that the borrowers have come to him to discuss the promissory note obligation, and their difficulty paying it.  They are considering bankruptcy, but this promissory note is the only issue causing that consideration.  The lawyer then makes an offer for 10%-30% depending upon the borrowers’ financial condition.

In my law practice, we often contacted various creditors when the clients did not really need a bankruptcy, but did need relief.  10%-30% was often the amount for which the lenders would settle.  However, it was often the case that my being an attorney was the instrument that got them to agree.  Why?  Because the lenders know we are serious.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson, JD

TheLawsonGroup Mediation Services

In the last article, we discussed the basis upon which lenders will seek a deficiency balance and how to predict it.

The question then comes to the issue of when a promissory note will be required as a condition of approval of the short sale. Since the debtor owes the entire deficiency, a promissory note with no interest and easy terms for only a portion of the balance is not unreasonable.

Although usually the secondary market investor (SMI) requires seeking the deficiency balance after short sales, but sometimes it will be the servicing lender.

I am poviding merely a guide. Promissory notes are not always required, but the following factors may be helpful to be prepared if a promissory note is required in your short sale case.

1. Borrower has assets. A borrower with a true hardship may still have substantial assets, even if those assets are exempt, such as IRAs and retirement funds.  Even though creditors may not be able to forcibly take those assets, a borrower may still pursue a short sale. However, the SMI is not required to approve the short sale unless the borrower agrees to the promissory note.

2. Borrower is an investor. If the borrower has other property and making other mortgage payments it may trigger the requirement for a promissory note. When lenders see mortgage payments being made to other entities, they may require a promissory note.

3. Borrower rehabilitation. When the entity sees the borrower unloading a lot of debt with a good income, they may require a promissory note. Borrowers with deteriorating health or elderly are less likely targets of a promissory note, but borrowers young enough to be financially rehabilitated may be so required.

4. Lender/SMI needs. Entities in deep financial trouble may increase the cutoff for requiring promissory notes.

5. Purchase price below net to lender minimum threshold. Some SMIs will allow an offer to be approved even if the offer is below the net to lender minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value. An offer that is $20,000 below may require up to a $20,000 promissory note.

6. Lender requires a financial statement. Whenever a lender requires a financial statement to be completed 0by the borrower, it may be not only to confirm hardship, but it may help determine if they are going to require a promissory note for part of the deficiency. Some lenders require them of all, but for others it may be a clue to whether they are seeking the promissory note.

These 6 factors are not in themselves reliably predictive of whether a promissory note will be required as a condition of short sale proposal, but they can alert the short sale Realtor to brace for that possibility.

If I can be of service to any of you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best Wishes,

Ken Lawson JD

TheLawsonGroup Mediation Services

Many homeowners and agents alike as what the odds are they will be required to pay a deficiency balance after a short sale.  Many bank release documents will not specificially state whether the short sale will be in full satisfaction of the debt.

We’ve noticed a gradual change from a willingness to include language forgiving the debt to some even stating specifically that they are leaving open the possibility of seeking the deficiency balance, even though in fact they may not likely pursue it, unless of course, the debt is far in excess of the fair market value and the homeowner may either have assets or can be rehabilitated.

Pursuing the deficiency balance

The decision whether to pursue a deficiency balance rests with the secondary market investor (SMI) unless the servicing agreement permits the servicing lender to do so.

Then, the policy decision may be made from a public relations and political analysis.  With the federal government so actively involved in the explosion of foreclosures, bailout programs, and attempts to reduce foreclosures, there is presently negative pressure on lenders to not pursue deficiency balances.  This pressure will help determine whether to go after only the most egregious cases or to expand the criteria.

Finally, the decision for pursue a deficiency balance involves the a nexus between the capacity of their legal, bankruptcy, and collections departments and the facts of each case.  A certain predictable percentage of their customers will file bankruptcies, so these entities will determine how many and which customers to pursue for the deficiency.

The borrowers likely to be pursued are those who the lender sees may become solvent in a reasonable length of time.  If the servicing lender owns the note, they may be more aggressive.  A medical doctor in his 40′s, with a good income with a temporary financial trouble due to loss of business from the clinic mismanagement will likely recover financially after his change of clinic.  Particlurly if a deficiency is large, the greater the likelihood they will pursue the borrower.

How to know when the borrower is in the clear

Each state has laws called “Statutes of Limitations” or “Limitations on Actions”.  These are laws that place a time limit after which the creditor can no longer sue a debtor for a debt, which can range from 2 years to 10 20 years.  However, the borrower will seldom need to wait this long.  Even the IRS does not collect tax debts after 10 years, with exceptions.

If the lender required a Promissory Note for part of the deficiency, it is highly unlikely that they will seek more.  Indeed, if they do, the lender may face some legal trouble, for which they are fully aware.

If a lender is going to seek a deficiency, it most likely will occur within the first year.  Each year, in January, the lenders must issue their 1099s.  A 1099A or 1099C will be the form they use to report to the IRS the amount that has been forgiven in a short sale or foreclosure.  So, if the borrowers receive a 1099 for the deficiency balance, the lender may be “estopped” thereafter from pursuing the debtors.  The lender receives a tax benefit from the forgiveness, and the borrower may incur a taxable event as a result, so the lender may be estopped from further action.

This discussion is only a guide, and there are differences between specific lenders and SMIs.  It is important to encourage your sellers to consult with a competitent attorney in their local jurisdiction.

Please note: I have endeavored to provide general guidelines.  Because there are a lot of SMIs, and even greater numbers of servicing lenders, many thousands of varying loan products, and often different procedures in different states or regions, many of you may find cases that deviate from the above discussion.  Please keep this in mind.

Best wishes to you all,

Ken Lawson JD

TheLawsonGroup Mediation Services

Training, Coaching, and Mediation of short sales

I often find agents mistaken in their beliefs why short sales are not approved, or do not otherwise close. While I certainly applaud successful short sale agents, there is widespread misunderstanding and misinformation about this topic.

As an attorney who has not only sold real estate (well, for a year and a half, that is), and has represented and dealt with servicing lenders and secondary market investors (SMI) over the last 20 years, I have a unique understanding of these entities and relationship with them. A number of those institutions have managers and executives who are friends of mine, and we have on numerous occasions discussed the issues causing short sales to not be approved.

So, here are the top reasons that a short sale does not close as I experience them with the agents who work with our firm and confirmed by my contacts in the mortgage lender/SMI industry.

6. Not submitting multiple offers. I’m sorry, but I must respectively disagree with those who hold contrary opinion.  My contacts tell me that providing multiple offers have indeed helped them to see that the agent is doing all they can do to get the home sold. When there is a borderline case, the multiple offers can make the difference.  However, the servicing lenders generally do not like them.  There is also a side benefit: if the selected buyer walks, there is another purchase contract that can carry the deal to close.  However, in some areas, multiple offers are not permitted.  Some say they are not legal.  Wrong!  They are legal, however, both the listing and the purchase contracts must be drafted properly.

5. Not submitting a proposal.  Many short sale instructors merely teach to send in a complete short sale package. It is true that you must have complete documentation, but it is important to draft a full proposal, as well. Organizing your request to approve a short sale has often made the difference between success and failure with the agents who work with our firm. The proposal should contain specific features and I outline them at length in both of our publications. My SMI contacts state that properly drafted proposals are given very careful consideration and they have approved our format.

4. Causing the proposal to be tanked. Many agents still think that the servicing lender is the one who approves the short sale and that they can actually negotiate with that lender’s “negotiator”.   However, most loan notes are actually owned by the SMI and either they, or an MI insurance carrier if they have paid off a claim, approve or reject the short sale. The servicing contracts provide limited authority to servicers and it is very common for servicer employees to cause the proposal to be tanked if they can get away with it. Any excuse may trigger this behavior: incomplete or mistakes in drafting proposals, getting them angry, etc, can cause your proposal to be tanked.

3. Not communicating adequately with parties. Buyers are patient…to a point. Same with cooperating agents. We provide weekly updates to all parties, more often when things happen. Buyers must be part of the process and be motivated to hang in there when approval takes a long time.

2. Not meeting the definition of “hardship”. Like a criminal case wherein each element of the criminal statute must be proved, in short sale cases the hardship letter and financial documents must prove each element necessary for a secondary market investor to render a finding of “hardship”, and approve the short sale. The hardship metter must contain certain elements, without which, the case will be rejected.

1. The most important reason that a short sale is not approved is not meeting the net to lender minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value. In the past, secondary market investors utilized the short sale versus REO comparison analysis to approve or reject a short sale. However, almost all SMIs have changed over to the minimum threshold analysis. That analysis ignores the amount of the debt and focuses on proof of the current fair market value of the property. For different SMIs and even different products, there is a set minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value that must be received in order for the proposal to be approved.  Many agents eroneously believe they are still using the old comparison analysis.

So, the bottom line is this: if a proposal meets the definition of hardship, that hardship is supported by the financial documents, you do nothing to cause the servicing lender to tank the proposal, and the offer meets the net to lender minimum threshold percentage of the fair market value, the short sale will be approved and if a qualified buyer remains, the transaction will close.

Best wishes,

Ken Lawson, JD

TheLawsonGroup Mediation Services