General Question

livingchoice's avatar

Do I need a Lawyer?

Asked by livingchoice (553points) June 15th, 2011

I’m closing on a home and a friend noted that I should get a lawyer. Do I really need one when closing on a home? Did you use one for your home? What are the dangers of not having one?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

wundayatta's avatar

There were two lawyers at our closing. One for them and one for us.

Closings are very complex. You want to make sure you don’t agree to something that could really hurt you. I’d have a lawyer.

josie's avatar

You should have a lawyer present at the closing of any important business deal.

gorillapaws's avatar

Yes you should. You don’t want to find out down the road that there is some major technical legal issue with your mortgage. Closing lawyers are fairly cheap compared with the overall cost of a home and the potential costs that could occur if an important detail goes overlooked.

Cruiser's avatar

Look for a RESPA closing statement online and see if you even come close to understanding it and you will see why you need a lawyer.

Lightlyseared's avatar

If you ever find yourself asking “Do I need a lawyer?” the answer, invariably, is yes.

livingchoice's avatar

What type of Lawyer should I look for. I have no clue.

gailcalled's avatar

There are reasonably priced local lawyers who specialize in real estate closing. Ask your realtor or a friend.

iamthemob's avatar

@livingchoice – I assume that you have a broker. He or she should have a recommendation for an attorney. Realize that a lawyer in these circumstances isn’t like having a lawyer for a claim – these lawyers will deal with more administrative concerns, but may help you avoid giving up rights or future claims that you would otherwise have a right to.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Sad but true, you’ll need to spend the money. What really burns me is spending money for the title search. The property was fine when the previous owners bought it. Right? . They didn’t change the borders did they? If you were selling and it was a cash deal I’d risk it and say you didn’t need one. But, since you are sitting on the other side of the desk, pay the bucks. Lawyers gotta eat, too.
Too bad it has to be this way.

Judi's avatar

It really depends on the state you live in. Here in California it is very rare. I have heard that in some East Coast states it is quite common. Ask your realtor what is normal for your area.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

True story: I was buying a small pacel from my neighbor. It was vacant land, so I relied on the sellers attorney. He ended up conveying all of my neighbors land, including his house to me. Unless you don’t mind losing your investment have a lawyer on your side.

Judi's avatar

That sounds like the attorney was on the wrong side! If you do get an attorney, make sure it’s a real estate attorney and inquire into the number of transactions he/she has closed. As the previous poster demonstrated, the wrong attorney can really screw things up.

BarnacleBill's avatar

@worriedguy, having run titles for a living when younger, you want to have a title run and title insurance. People try to sell houses they don’t own. Churches even sell property they don’t own.

I’ve run titles before where the wife found out the husband forged her name to second and third mortgages, which turned up as unpaid during the title search. When you buy a house, you buy all the unsatisfied liens against the property along with it. If you buy property that’s been in foreclosure, the primary mortgage holder must pay off all the secondaries before selling you the property.

As a buyer, you really do want the title exam.

If you buy a house with a conventional 15 or 13 year mortgage from a major lender, and you understand the terms of your loan, you don’t really need an attorney; the bank attorney and the closing attorney represent your interest. The bank is going to want to make sure they are primary, and everything is paid off. If you are doing any sort of clever financing, or not going though a regular lender, or are part of a special lending program, you will want to have an attorney at the closing, just in case you’re not as clever as you think you are.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@BarnacleBill But why do they keep going back to the 1800’s. Why not just confirm the last owner (the seller) owns it free and clear? The seller already did the search back to whenever when they bought the house. It seems like duplication of effort and increased cost .

HudsonHero's avatar

I used a lawyer who specialized in home buying. (I didn’t use a realtor) He was able to catch things that I would not have and protected my interests.

YARNLADY's avatar

In California it is very rare to have a lawyer. Most transactions are covered by enough regulation to protect the seller and the buyer. However, if you have a question, by all means consult a lawyer who specializes in real estate transactions.

We have a family lawyer, so we have him read any contract before we sign it, but just for clarification purposes. If he says don’t do it, we don’t, but so far that hasn’t happened.

WasCy's avatar

What’s important is having a lawyer review the contract before you sign it. Simply “having a lawyer at the closing” may be a formality that is “too little, too late”. After the review and advice / approval, then the lawyer should show up as more than a mere formality at the close to be sure that your interests are met, because funny things often happen at the close, and you want to be sure that you don’t sign away your interests or sign on for something at the last minute “just to make things simpler”, for example.

BarnacleBill's avatar

@worriedguy, they should not go back to the 1800’s. They should be going back to the last time title insurance was purchased, as the insurance guarantees a clear title prior to that. I’ve never run titles in NY state, but pretty much everything that came before Kentucky’s statehood in 1792 is referenced by metes and bounds and last conveyance—“Beginning at an oak tree on the southwest corner of of the property conveyed to Baltus Green by deed on June 2, 1840, then commencing 600 feet to a rock… and containing 34.26 acres” Being part of the same property conveyed to Worried Guy by deed on June 2, 1994, and recorded in Fluther County, NY in Deed Book 3 page 2”

This method of property description relies on a survey, and uses markeers that are no longer there. So many law suits sprung up because Kentucky military land warrants were used as currency following the Revolutionary War (no central bank) that all states entering the Union after that went to a township/lot/block method of recording property. Property parcels became squares or rectangles, marked off on a master plat, which made conveyance much easier.

I forgot where I was going with this…

LuckyGuy's avatar

@BarnacleBill Well wherever you were going, it sure was interesting. Thanks.

livingchoice's avatar

Thank you all for your input. Looking for a real estate lawyer now. :O)

Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther