Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solicited Real Estate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects amendment that would have required sellers to reimburse appraisal costs in unsolicited real-estate solicitations
Summary
Senators debated and rejected an amendment to Substitute House Bill 1081 that would have required owners of solicited real estate who back out of a purchase contract to reimburse the prospective buyer for the appraisal cost; the committee nevertheless gave the bill a due-pass recommendation to rules committee.
The Washington State Senate Business, Financial Services & Trade Committee on March 26 debated an amendment to Substitute House Bill 1081 that would have required sellers in solicited real-estate transactions to reimburse prospective buyers for appraisal costs if the seller did not proceed with the purchase contract.
Committee staff summarized SHB 1081 as providing property owners a right to an appraisal for solicited real-estate transactions, a right to cancel a purchase contract without penalty under certain conditions, a requirement that purchase contracts include a statement of the owner’s rights, and enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act. Staff said there is no Senate companion and that the bill passed the House 56-39. A page-and-line amendment offered as Amendment B.1 was introduced in committee.
Amendment B.1 would have required an owner who solicited an appraisal and then backed out of the purchase to reimburse the buyer for the appraisal cost and would have required the purchase contract to state the owner’s reimbursement responsibility. Senator Dozier (committee staff earlier identified the amendment as offered by Senator Dozier) and other senators spoke in favor of the amendment, saying it would ensure buyers are not left bearing appraisal costs when a seller withdraws after soliciting an appraisal.
Senator Hasakawa urged a “no” vote on the amendment, saying corporate buyers often solicit offers and sellers should be free to decline if the offer is insufficient; he expressed concern the reimbursement requirement would slow solicitations and disadvantage sellers. Senator Fortunato argued the amendment was fair because a seller benefits from an appraisal even if they decline the sale. Other senators framed the issue as whether an unsolicited approach should impose appraisal-cost liability on sellers. After debate, the committee voted against Amendment B.1; the chair announced the amendment was not adopted.
Despite rejecting the amendment, a committee member moved that SHB 1081 receive a due-pass recommendation and be sent to the rules committee. The committee approved that motion by voice vote; the chair announced the bill passed the committee “subject to signature.”
Staff materials noted the Consumer Protection Act would provide for enforcement and that there was no fiscal impact listed in the committee summary.
