Get Funded Now

Why Would an Attorney Refuse to Double Close?

Why Attorneys Could Refuse Double Closings?

Double closing is a strategy in real estate where an investor buys a property and immediately sells it to another buyer, often on the same day. This approach can be lucrative, especially for wholesalers. However, double closings are complex and sometimes risky. An attorney might refuse to facilitate such a transaction due to various legal and practical concerns. Understanding why this happens requires a closer look at the issues involved.

What is Double Closing?

Double closing, or back-to-back closing, involves two separate real estate transactions. In the first, the investor buys the property from the seller. In the second, the investor sells the same property to a new buyer. Both transactions usually occur on the same day. The success of a double closing relies on precise timing and flawless execution. If the process fails, it could result in significant financial loss.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Legal and ethical concerns often drive an attorney’s decision to refuse a double closing.

Transparency and Disclosure: 

Attorneys might be wary of potential non-disclosure or misrepresentation in double closings. For instance, the seller might not know the property will be resold immediately, or the buyer might not realize the investor never intends to hold the property. Transparency is crucial in these transactions, and attorneys have a duty to ensure that all parties are fully informed.

Potential for Fraud:

Fraudulent practices, such as inflating the resale price to secure a higher loan, can occur in double closings. If an attorney suspects potential fraud or misrepresentation, they may refuse to participate. Legal liability and charges of professional misconduct are serious risks for attorneys involved in questionable transactions.

Title and Escrow Issues: 

Double closings require meticulous handling of title and escrow arrangements. Some title companies and escrow agents hesitate to manage double closings due to increased risk of errors or disputes. Attorneys may also be concerned about potential title issues, especially if the property’s ownership is transferred multiple times within a short period.

Practical Considerations

Aside from legal and ethical concerns, practical issues can lead an attorney to decline handling a double closing.

Complexity and Time Constraints: 

Double closings are inherently complex and require careful coordination. Attorneys might refuse if they believe the transaction is too complicated or if there’s insufficient time to prepare and review documents properly. The pressure to close both transactions on the same day can lead to mistakes, which could result in legal disputes later.

Client’s Best Interest: 

Attorneys must act in their client’s best interest. Sometimes, they determine that a double closing is not in the client’s best interest due to potential risks. If the attorney believes the client doesn’t fully understand the transaction or could face financial or legal harm, they may advise against proceeding.

Lender and Title Company Policies: 
Lenders and title companies play crucial roles in double closings. However, some lenders have strict policies against financing properties involved in double closings, especially if they suspect the resale price has been inflated. Similarly, title companies might refuse to insure the title for a double closing, leaving the attorney with no choice but to decline the transaction.

Alternatives to Double Closing

If an attorney refuses to facilitate a double closing, investors should explore alternative strategies.

Assignment of Contract: 

Instead of executing a double closing, an investor can assign the purchase contract to the end buyer for a fee. This method eliminates the need for two separate transactions and reduces complexity. However, it requires the seller’s approval and may result in a lower profit for the investor.

Simultaneous Closing: 

A simultaneous closing, where both transactions occur at the same time but are handled as separate deals, can be an alternative to double closing. This method still requires careful coordination but might be more acceptable to attorneys and title companies.

Traditional Wholesale: 

In traditional wholesaling, the investor acts as a middleman by finding a buyer and negotiating the deal but doesn’t take ownership of the property. This approach avoids the complexities of double closing and may be more straightforward for all parties involved.

Conclusion

Double closing can be profitable for real estate investors, but it comes with significant challenges. Legal, ethical, and practical considerations might lead an attorney to refuse to facilitate such transactions. 

By understanding these reasons and exploring alternative strategies, investors can navigate real estate deals more effectively. Whether opting for an assignment of contract, simultaneous closing, or traditional wholesaling, it’s essential to work with experienced professionals who can provide the necessary guidance and support.

One of the greatest advantages of EMD Transactional Funding Service is its ability to provide investors and wholesalers with immediate access to capital. Traditional financing options often involve lengthy approval processes and extensive paperwork, which can delay or even derail a deal. With EMD Transactional Funding, investors can secure the necessary funds within a short timeframe, allowing them to take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities.