- RichcogMember@richcogJoin Date: 2005Post Count: 2
I have a friend who wants to buy another house (worth about $270K), but needs to sell their own home first (worth about $290K).
If they wait to sell their home, the new one may be sold. They don’t want to use bridging finance. They are retired.
Does anyone have any creative ideas how they could achieve this goal?
RichardfoundationMember@foundationJoin Date: 2005Post Count: 1,153
I’d try a real estate agent.[blink]oshenMember@oshenJoin Date: 2005Post Count: 112
Only thing I can think of is to get a contract on the one they are selling with a long (maybe 3 month) settlement. Then they should have plenty of time to find another one to buy if the one they want has sold already. On the contract on the one they buy, they can make it subject to sale of their current property. If they already have a contract, that shouldn’t be a problem for anyone.
Or, they could try and get a contract now on the one they want with that condition if the vendor will allow it. Get a long settlement and hope they can sell the current property in the meantime. Nothing to lose if they can’t.
I think bridging loans are much cheaper now than they used to be, so that might still be an option. Maybe one of the mortgage brokers here could shed some light on that subject.emcdonaldMember@emcdonaldJoin Date: 2004Post Count: 162
In the current market (a much slower one) we have found vendors to more likely to consider a contract with a ‘subject to sale clause’. To protect the vendor we would also insert a sunset clause. This basically means if another buyer comes along with an offer at the right money, the original buyers have 24 hours in which to make their offer unconditional before the other party had a chance to purchase it.
I think Oshen’s suggestion was an excellent one, make an offer with an extended settlement date.
e xTerrywParticipant@terrywJoin Date: 2001Post Count: 16,213
Easy. They could obtain a loan on the new one using the current one as additional security. A No doc would work. Once they have moved into the new one, they can then sell the old one and pay off the loan.
Discover Home Loans
[email protected]DazzlingMember@dazzlingJoin Date: 2005Post Count: 1,150
Noel Whittaker warned in his books years ago about doing this. The original “lived in and loved” home, turns into a cold, empty house with a commensurate drop in value.
His opinion was a ‘home’ sold on the ‘feel of it’, and the option of moving out before selling is about the best way of killing the ‘feel’ of the home.
Real touchy touchy feely stuff, but worth significant $ to the Seller.
All do-able what you say however, just the $’s are being neglected, and I imagine the original question is addressing this point, as is looking for the optimum.
“No point having a cake if you can’t eat it.”wilandelMember@wilandelJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 761
Dazzling – your post was definitely not a nonsense post and what you said is a valid point. I agree that is is usually a lot harder to get good $$ selling an empty house, rather than one that has beautiful furniture in it, that suits the home.
One way around this could be to not shift out of your home that you are trying to sell, until it is sold. That way you still have the touchy feely stuff, and get your new home, and can move in anytime after it is unconditionally sold.
Del [biggrin]DazzlingMember@dazzlingJoin Date: 2005Post Count: 1,150
I think the ‘nonsense’ bit was added by one of the Admin folk in relation to another post altogether ??
Just looked a bit weird as it followed directly behind mine…and has since been removed…
“No point having a cake if you can’t eat it.”