(732) 379-8617 info@eyetlaw.com
Eyet Law Featured in Bob Vila Article About the Advantages of Working with Experienced Real Estate Attorneys

Eyet Law Featured in Bob Vila Article About the Advantages of Working with Experienced Real Estate Attorneys

Jan 31, 2022 | Real Estate

If you’re looking to buy or sell property, you probably already have a realtor—but you may not have considered the advantages of working with an experienced real estate attorney.

In a recent article for Bob Vila written by Eyet Law’s Jacob Narva in collaboration with Matthew Eyet, the two explain how important it can be to have legal help while buying or selling a home. 

You can check out the full article here, but here are a few key takeaways from the piece.

A real estate attorney can help you ensure a smooth closing

Working with a real estate attorney is a good way to ensure that your closing agreement reflects your actual intent. An attorney can assist you in drafting the initial agreement—or they can review the standard agreement to ensure that everything is in order.

As Narva points out, the parties involved in real estate transactions often make adjustments to certain terms, even when the standard documents are used.

“Whenever a buyer or a seller wants to include specific terms—like a partial appraisal waiver, rent-back provision, or timeline requirements—it’s important that an attorney confirm the language used actually reflects what is intended.” 

—Jacob Narva, Attorney at Eyet Law

Real estate attorneys can serve several different roles

About half of U.S. states require attorneys to be involved in closing transactions, while other states allow you to choose whether or not you’d like to hire legal representation.

In states that do require the use of an attorney, real estate attorneys may serve as closing attorneys who act as a neutral third party, but they may also represent the seller, the buyer, or both—however, it’s recommended not to have the buyer and seller share the same representation, as this may create conflicts of interest.

Hiring a real estate attorney may actually save you money

Although many real estate transactions go off without a hitch, hiring an attorney can provide important protections against unexpected costs or litigation. Having experienced legal representation on your side can actually save you time, money, and trouble down the road.

“It can be easy to forget the vital role real estate attorneys play. But much like title insurance, on these occasions when something unexpected happens you will be glad you included an experienced attorney in the process.”

—Jacob Narva, Attorney at Eyet Law

Want to know more? We can help

If you’d like to learn more about how an attorney can help safeguard your real estate transactions, check out the full blog here or reach out to our experienced legal team. We’d love to guide you through your options for legal representation moving forward.

RESPA Claims: Get Your Defense Teed Up

RESPA Claims: Get Your Defense Teed Up

Jul 1, 2020 | Real Estate

Courts have been grappling with a recent influx of claims made under §1024.41 of “Regulation X” which implements various provisions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA). The allure of section 1024.41 for borrowers is its effectiveness in obtaining multiple adjournments of a scheduled foreclosure sale. In addition, mortgage loan servicers beware because if a borrower is able to establish a violation of section 1024.41, the servicer could be on the hook for the borrower’s actual damages and all attorney’s fees and costs to bring suit.

With these somewhat elevated stakes in mind, how can a servicer avoid these unenviable consequences? One argument that has recently gained momentum can be attractive to servicers because if correct, the provisions in section 1024.41 that require sale adjournments never get triggered. Stated differently, a borrower is only entitled to the enhanced protections and rights of section 1024.41 if that borrower submits a “complete loss mitigation application” which is achieved when a “servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower.” 12 C.F.R § 1024(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Importantly, note that the adjournment-triggering standard is servicer-centric. Therefore, servicers can precisely dictate what they require for an application to be considered “complete” in this context. Logically, then all the servicer needs to do is adequately convey its requirements to the borrower and the burden shifts to the borrower to establish that a “complete” application was submitted. Better yet for the servicers, to the extent the requirements are easily identifiable and were demonstrably conveyed to borrowers, the complete vs. incomplete test can be applied in the pre-answer, motion to dismiss context, thereby providing servicers with a viable option to avoid going to discovery on every section 1024.41 claim. Since there are numerous ways to properly tee this defense up, please contact our principal, Matthew Eyet, Esq, if you would like to further discuss this or any other financial services litigation issue.