Well if nothing else this blog has now existed over the life of three versions of the Multi-Board Residential Real Estate Contract. Here’s my analysis of version 4.0. I attended a CBA seminar in May where version 5.0 was discussed but hadn’t seen it used in the real world until the last month or so. Here’s a copy of the v. 5.0 along with a couple comparisons done by the Illinois Real Estate Lawyer’s Association here and here. Here’s a sample copy of v. 4.0 (notice the big red letters).
Honestly, very minimal substantive changes save one. Some changes in 5.0 to be aware of:
9. Attorney Review. 5.0 includes a new paragraph where a party to the contract can propose “suggested changes” to the deal which are different than “modifications” which would constitute a counter-offer. If the “suggested changes” are not agreed upon the underlying contract remains in effect. At the moment I can’t see myself making any use of these “suggested changes.” If I’m suggesting a contract modification it’s because there’s something important at stake, if there’s nothing at stake I’m not proposing any changes (modification or suggested changes).
10. Professional Inspections. 5.0 softens the “automatic kill” provisions contained in 4.0. Now you “may” kill a deal if there’s no agreement regarding inspection issues within 10 days whereas 4.0 declared deal “null and void” if no agreement within 10 days.
11. Mortgage Contingency. 5.0 includes a blank to add a loan amount in the % of purchase price whereas 4.0 had a blank to list an actual dollar value. The reality was that real estate agents were nearly always putting in a % regardless of what the contract form directed.
21. Seller’s Representations. 5.0 expands this listing to include a list of 9 Seller representations AND it state’s specifically that these representations “shall survive the closing.” This could have impact if you get a Seller who lied in the contract. Under 4.0 this sort of thing may have “merged” into the deed (i.e. not survived the closing).
27. Notice. The language regarding e-mail notice is modified to provide for opting out of receiving e-mail notice. Of course 5.0 also says flat-out that if party of party’s attorney provides their e-mail then he can get notice via e-mail unless he opts out. Likely a non-issue…as convenient as e-mail is I don’t know of many attorney’s who use it for formal notice matters under contracts.
Take a look at some of the IRELA breakdowns I reference above if you want to see a comparison of EVERY change. My list was just what I thought were the semi-significant changes. Quite honestly the changes are non-substantial enough that one might question if the new version was necessary or surely the timing of the redo.
No comments yet.