.
Feedback

Do You Need to Sell Your Home Before You can Buy?

Consider a Hubbard Clause.

Now is a great time to buy Real Estate, mortgage rates are still very low and there is a lot of inventory ripe for Fall picking!

Most people have something to sell before they can buy, and during the hay days of 2004-2007, that would have been a real problem.  Very often great houses would have multiple offers and the offer with the fewest contingencies would have an advantage. In today’s market, while there are still multiple bids on some houses, the reality is that many sellers are willing to consider offers that they would not have considered previously, such as an offer with a Hubbard Clause, which I think can be a win-win for both parties.

A Hubbard Clause is simply an extension of your mortgage contingency. It states that to purchase the house you are making an offer on you have to sell your house first. That said, there are time frames and parameters set up within the Hubbard Clause to give both parties the opportunity to get the job done without penalty. In other words, you aren’t going to add a Hubbard Clause if your house isn’t on the market. This is not a long term agreement. Sellers will want to know that your house is actively on the market, getting showings and even offers. Many sellers understand that you are in the same position as they are and want to work with you if it means getting their house sold.

For the rest of this article visit http://fromtowntoshore.com

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Norwalk Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Thomas Paine June 18, 2013 at 01:50 pm
Why is it the panel for this event does not include a single advocate for gun-owners' rights? WithRead More all due respect to Chief McNamara, why does the panel not include a person who can speak to gun safety from a gun-owning civilian's perspective? ML, you claim that the assembled folks "do not offer judgements about gun ownership" but they are not including a single voice that can offer a perspective on gun ownership. I have been to "education" sessions sponsored by Meg's March for Change and they are one-sided indoctrinations into gun control advocacy. >>>> I was in Hartford for the public hearings in January when both Meg and March co-founder Nancy gave their personal testimonies and they all but threatened the legislators on the panel with election day retribution for all those who did not tow the gun-control line of thinking (i.e. March and CAGV). To suggest that Meg "does not offer judgements" is fallacious and disingenuous.