This website is "downstream" from https://disclosure-in-real-estate.bryancanary.com/ and
https://ca-as-is-case-precedents.bryancanary.com/
Those two websites establish the definition for As Is Sale,
and the role "As Is Condition" plays in an As Is Sale.
They are not as closely linked as some might think and if you don't have
those soundly understood start with those websits first.
CA 1102 is a Civil Code in California that was created in 1985 to regulate the "Disclosure Process" in Residential Real Estate Transactions.
CA 1102.7 requires Good Faith in article, act and ‘honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction’.
CA 1102.6 specifies the Transfer Disclosure Statement (the TDS) is a regulated disclosure document.
CA 1102.3 indicates the TDS shall be delivered to the prospective buyer “as soon as practicable, BEFORE Transfer of Title”.
Contract Clause 13B indicates Transfer of Title Transpires at time of Contract Acceptance (as expected)
Contract Clause 14A indicates the TDS can be delivered to the Buyer AFTER Contract Acceptance
And what we've just presented has a conflict in it. Do you see it?
Bullets 3 and 4 define the proper process.
Bullet 5 is what is "suggested" in the state wide contract.
The two processes are mutually exclusive.
Only one process can be correct, and it's NOT Bullet 5.
No need to take my word for it.
I'm going to present it below from various angles.
When done, if you can find an angle missed, you'll be expected to share it.
To see an angle missed and keep it to yourself would be a loss for yourself and everyone else.
Bullets 1-4 = APPROPRIATE
CA1102.6 and 1102.7 are just factual and logical.
CA 1102.3 combines with Contract Clause 13B to fully define the proper Disclosure document presentation process. TDS is due prior to Contract Acceptance.
Unfortunately the contract does NOT present 1102.3 details in writing. It just references 1102 generically. Thus only someone who sought to find and read 11023 and was then able to relate it to clause 13B could discern a proper process.
Bullet 5 = INAPPROPRIATE
Contract Clause 14A suggests to the Buyer and Seller that the TDS is due to the Buyer AFTER Contract Acceptance.
That is the opposite of logical, reasonable and legal.
There are other clauses in the contract that are downstream from this inversion that are problematic as well.
Below, you will find an even clearer presentation of this, including statute screenshots, so nothing can be left to the imagination.
A portion of the population will want to disagree with us solely because they want to retain the opportunity to try to cheat with the benefit of confusing Clauses for cover, as is the case today.
It's a natural desire for some humans to explore. They are rotten but they exist too.
While that is their right to want that type of experience, when their mindset becomes the governing thought, as seems to have become in California how can anything other than thoughts of Khazaria arise?
Now it's time to choose from a larger perspective.
Do you want a society that facilitates scams for commerce, entertainment , and exploration, with no social framework?
That results in anarchy, chaos and Escape from NY scenarios . OR... do you want "something else"?
Those who keep the locking pins in the scaffold uprights have now removed the pins, and seemingly removed themselves from the fabric.
It's a natural reaction when a social fabric becomes too dirty to clean.
Soon the breeze comes to sway the scaffold.
There is a short time to ask the wind whisperers to return the pins to the scaffolding again.
The choice is now yours. Pick wisely.
CA 1102.3 - “TDS due to Buyer as soon as practicable, BEFORE transfer of title”
Clause 13 B - “Title is taken at time of Contract Acceptance”
These two clauses combine to specify a legal, logical and reasonable disclosure delivery requirement inline with Good Faith in article and act.
It is reasonable to think that a buyer should be told the roof leaks in winter and the HVAC system doesn’t work before making a binding offer to purchase.
It is reasonable to think these two clauses and this version of analysis would be included in all Real Estate Agent and Broker Licensing material. It takes less than half a page to define and clarify.
An Accepted Contract contingent on inspections for verification of declared defects creates a clear scenario for damages to the buyer for false and omitted disclosure statements.
This is the process that is generally followed in every state in the United States. This is the process that seems to be only “voluntarily implemented” in some Counties in California outside of Monterey County and voluntarily by some Agents in Monterey County per our own investigations.
It is logical that lawmakers who created this prose in 1985 expected this interpretation and this outcome without any confusion. There is no logical reason for confusion when these two clauses are assessed at face value. They stand for themselves.
This process establishes a playing field for ‘Good Faith” negotiations.
For those wondering about “Transfer of Title” at time of Contract Acceptance... ,
Clause 13B, as written, is correct. It is worth a conversation to understand how the Title Transfer process works as it is not overly intuitive. Once explained it makes sense. A Real Estate sale is not like any other standard commercial transaction I’m familiar with. The title transfers before all due diligence is done. It’s required given the complexities related to time and money required to confirm disclosure statements, time for financing, and formal recording of the transfer to make it public knowledge. Please see https://disclosure-in-real-estate.bryancanary.com/ for details on this if needed.
Clause 14 A - “The Inverted Clauses”
This clause suggests Buyers and Sellers should do the OPPOSITE of what is lawful and logical.
It is unreasonable to think that a buyer should negotiate and agree upon a purchase price on a property, take title to the property, and then get told that the roof leaks in winter and the HVAC system doesn’t work. As crazy as that sounds, that’s exactly what this clause instructs.
A process approved for Disclosure Delivery AFTER Contract Acceptance creates a playing field for FRAUD. An process that allows for such a situation creates a “gypsy logic loop” for disclosure fraud. If a seller lies and gets caught, s/he can admit to lying but claim there were no damages since the false disclosure information was not required to be provided to the buyer for consideration to start with, per the contract.
It is NOT reasonable to think that lawmakers seeking to create a Consumer Protection code for disclosure in 1985 would think the instructions in Clause 14a meet the goal of Consumer Protection NOR would they be deemed due to “reasonable confusion” with written requirements.
California Real Estate Brokers, Agents, and Real Estate Attorneys are all operating as if 14A is correct with no regard for failure in good faith negotiations that creates at face value as well as the the lack of Consumer Protection provided by default.
When California Real Estate Brokers, Agents and Real Estate Attorneys were asked about the conflicts verbally, all would talk around 14A without answering directly. When asked to put their positions in writing, NONE would do it. NOT ONE. Does that seem odd to you?
To date, over 70 Attorneys at over a dozen law firms, both Real Estate Attorneys and non Real Estate Attorneys have REFUSED to review our claims against the Brokerages for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and racketeering, while simultaneously refusing to state anything verbally or in writing that would indicate our presentation of proper procedure, that contradicts that suggested by the contract, is not accurate.
To date, MCAR (the Monterey County Association of Realtors), CAR (the California Association of Realtors), NAR (the National Association of Realtors ), MCBA (the Monterey County Bar Association), Coldwell Banker and Keller Williams has refused to put any statement in writing declaring a belief that the Standard California Contract aligns with CA 1102 or Consumer Protection.
They also refused to declare they've been facilitating transactions with a Contract that accurately reflected CA Consumer Protection Law.
Cheaters will be cheaters and so far, all are wise enough not to incriminate themselves further, but damn does that put sh-t on their shoes, and other body parts soon enough.
None of this made sense until it was discovered the CA Bar is being sued
for Racketeering for mis-managing their Attorneys for decades.
Then it made more sense.
Our pursuit of remedies for Wrongs against us in a gross Case of Broker Involved Disclosure Fraud has seemingly exposed a 38 year Hoax that is currently being perpetrated on 40 Million Californians by 440,000 Licensed Real Estate Professionals in California, a subset of 270,000 Attorneys, as well as 100's of Regional, State and National Realtor Associations and Brokerage Companies.
If you have another explanation for this behavior from these Licensed Professionals, Associations, Organizations and Corporations, we want to hear from you.
If you know what we've exposed is true, we want to hear from you too.
How does a society survive with this level of manipulation between Professionals and
the socio-economic peers they need for clients?
It doesn't. Not "As Is", anyway...
I have heard the term Hoax used many times. I always thought it was being used out of context until I looked it up for this project. I didn't realize it has an inherenlty large scope included, nor did I realize it was related to "preposterous". I always just thought it was a "dirty joke". When I read the definition, I understood a lot more in context.
" a plan to deceive a large group of people by tricking them into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous".
This is an example of a "Commercial Hoax" with the Following Benefactors:
Insincere Sellers - Our population is filled with people who do not want to be honest about damages. What some may view as a small percent of our population is likely larger than most imagine.
Insincere Brokers - This provides insincere Brokers and opportunity to cater to insincere Seller's with greater (secretive) confidence they can try to work some things through the transaction and help them clear themselves in escrow if they get caught. Sincere Brokers who want a cleaning marketplace will not get as many listings when insincere Brokers exist to serve those with lesser intentions.
All Real Estate Attorneys and Mediation Companies - All Real Estate Attorneys and Mediation Companys benefit when a clear line related to responsibility is blurred or removed. It allows people to believe they can do things they shouldn't and it allows others to question things that are illogical, both of which lead to legal fees.
At this point in time, it's extremely difficult to determine if it was the Brokers or Real Estate Attorneys who may have driven this Hoax into existence.
What is clear at this time is that it could have only stayed in play for 38 years with the cover provided by "confidentiality" requirements for Mediation, and/or false beliefs conveyed about "confidentiality requirements" for negotiations outside of mediation, as was attempted with us by a CA Attorney.
OR
We're wrong about all of this. Nothing we've said is correct, even though all the clauses we've quoted are in fact truthful. check for yourself). We are the ones trying to play a HOAX on everyone else, although I can't for the life of me imagine how the opposing side would claim any other interpretation would be represenative of "Good Faith Negoitions in Article and Act".
At this time it's believed that well over 1 TRILLION in transactions have transpired since 1985 resulting in over 55 BILLION in commissions to Real Estate Brokers overseeing Transactions with Contracts that provided a Seller Bias.
It's impossible to calculate the revenues and benefits to the Legal Lobby, which are losses to all consumers. It's also impossible to know the value of the defects Seller's inappropriately passed off due to a process biased for the seller in an illegal manner. It must be in 100 MILLIONS or Low BILLIONS.?
Of course, this all assumes you agree with me and Option 1. '
If you don't, please put your opinion in writing.
Let's have a written debate.
All Attorneys should love a good debate.
Broker's with confidence about their position and practice should too.
Please tell me where I'm wrong, in writing, so it can be shared with others.
Email opinions to me at support@brics-practice-management.com attn: Bryan.