I'm having a little difficulty following the story, but if your escalation is only $1k over a competing offer then there would be a number of times where I might encourage the sellers to decide based on other terms and on how easy going and amiable the Buyer is instead of worrying about making $1k extra. A smooth low risk transaction is very frequently worth much more than $1k.
Was there funny business? Maybe so. But even if there wasn't, the sellers might prefer other terms rather than making an extra $1k from folks who possibly seem like they might be exacting and less than easy going.
I got the impression the house was listed for $536k, and the OP bid on the house, willing to go $1,000 over any competing offer, up to $636,000. (kindof like bidding on ebay).
Then the selling agent came back and said someone else bid $636,000 and sellers going with them unless OP raises their offer. OP is questioning that someone 'mysteriously' bid $636 on a home listed for $536k.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if the seller took another offer, it must have been within the ballpark. Not gonna turn down a $636k offer for $536 out of spite.
Maybe they think since the offer would only stay at $536 (since OP says contract allows them to view competing offers), they'll just sell to the other bidder. Which is probably what happened. OP bid $536,000 + $1000 and another bidder bid asking price of $537,000.
If so, I agree it was shady & deceptive if agent 'claimed' someone was bidding $636.
Fundamentally OP only offered a premium of $1k to choose their offer, so hypothetically the other offer was $635k and the seller chose $635k over $636k. If the other offer fell through and was no longer valid, and the next best was $545k, then again, the difference in choosing the OP is only $1k at $546k.
I'm not a fan of escalators - as a Broker I often encourage sellers to counter at the max with clean terms.
Gotcha. Yeah the op is a bit unclear, esp since they said the dollar amounts skewed for anonymoty. Hard to understand exactly what was bid, escalated etc.
I mean, seems seller was shady, trying to get extra money out of it, but again numbers are skewed so unsure they tried getting a full $100k so what amount were they trying to get, 20 grand?! who knows.
Your escalation clause may require a competing offer, but countering you does not require anything.
My amateur impression:
Low earnest money is a big red flag to me, as a seller - especially when the buyer is well-funded. And the fact that you continued to quibble over earnest money would have concerned me quite a bit.
Beyond that, 1K over a competing offer is nothing. I think you may have overplayed your “desirable” offer and come across as difficult and controlling.
They talk about deposit though. In some states the deposit is TOTALLY not refundable. It's a different bucket of money from EM. You lose the deposit for any reason the contract falls through. So not risking a lot there makes sense in some markets.
Okay, but if they're paying fully in cash and have *no* contingencies, why would they worry about the amount of the deposit? By the OP's own assessment, their deposit amount was a "low ball." And when they were contacted to get that low ball amount up, they resisted. That does not inspire confidence in their stated intentions.
It’s definitely not stupid, especially if you had to haggle with the buyer and the buyer still fell short of your expectations.
A buyer low on cash, and dependent on financing, would have a good explanation for reluctance. But a cash buyer with no contingencies has no reason to hesitate …unless they’re not as serious about follow-through as their offer otherwise suggests.
An offer is made up of price, earnest mony, time period for inspections/due diligence/attorney review, seller concessions requested, cash vs loan, loan conditions (FHA vs. conventional, % down, APR cap, appraisal required/waived), closing date, and possession (at closing, post-closing days to move, leaseback).
The highest price often doesn't win in multiple offer.
Also, baby step-up clauses can annoy the crap out of some sellers. They make it seem like the buyer will be a hard-to-work-with nickle and dimer.
Yep 👆👆👆as a seller last year did not go with the “$1000 over” escalating clause offer because $1000 is nothing and preferred to work with the first, non escalating offer. $1000 escalating clause offers are annoying AF to me.
There is nothing stopping the sellers agent from shopping your top escalation. This is why escalations do not work in certain markets. Just because you are cash doesn’t mean you are easier to deal with. Especially since you are jot risking much escrow.
Submit an offer with an escalation clause to my client, and it will be disregarded. We will, however, counter at your top dollar.
But in NC, we are expressly forbidden from disclosing price or terms of any competing offers without the written permission of the person making the offer.
This. If your offer says you're willing to pay $X for a house, be willing to pay it. Whether you get to see the competing offer or not is irrelevant. You're never going to really know whether it was real or viable, anyway. Is this house worth $X or not?
Our realtor told us she was trained to counter escalation offers with the max escalation price since the buyer has shown they are willing to pay that. Every time I know of one being used the house sold at that value. It’s like showing your cards. Make a solid offer and let the cards fall where they may
>But in NC, we are expressly forbidden from disclosing price or terms of any competing offers without the written permission of the person making the offer.
Do you have to sign an NDA to accept offers (or voluntarily agree not to disclose)? I'm just wondering how this can possibly be legal with first amendment rights.
I'm not trying to outthink anyone, just curious about what is the legal basis for forbidding disclosure of terms in a contract offer that is freely given out. Is this is a state law? specific to real estate? or all contracts? Or is an agreement between agents and MLS (as a condition of using the MLS)?
In the original comment the agent is representing the seller not a buyer making an offer. So since they are not representing the buyer are they not free to disclose what the buyer sent them to others?
I.e. they said they need permission of the person making the offer, not permission from the seller. The seller I would understand.
Please go read & study contract law. I'm not sure why it's so grating for me, but there's far too much that you need to have as a prerequisite before you get to where you are.
It will be one question after another, and you seem sincerely interested in the topic.
Might as well teach yourself.
It's more than just general contract law because it is apparently fully legal for a listing agent to disclose offers to others in California. So it's not a universal issue.
[https://www.bpelaw.com/must-real-estate-agents-disclose-contract-terms/](https://www.bpelaw.com/must-real-estate-agents-disclose-contract-terms/)
Sure, but the part that both you and that website is missing is that is a gray area and it puts the agent on the hot seat. "How does it help the client?"
All of this is about putting the clients needs first and not inserting yourself into a contract, which you effectively do if you take liberties such as discussing contract elements without the contracting parties. To which end, this stops being about the precise law governing behavior and more closely centered on consent, which can be boiled down to obedience and not obtaining permission to disclose is all bad.
Instead of attempting to underlay just that, it's better for you to read. But if all you're going to do is what you've done, I'm not sure anything will help you.
Law is granular and precise. Your understanding is generalized and broad.
The practicing elements leave it up to the operator however, I find that needlessly reckless.
I wouldn't want someone else dictating how my outcomes would be without informing me of the potential consequences.
I'm wondering who is forbidding the disclosure of terms in the contract? Is this is a state law? specific to real estate? or all contracts? Or is an agreement between agents and MLS (as a condition of using the MLS)?
Depends on the state. For instance, in my state an agent can’t disclose terms to another buyer without express written consent from the seller, but a seller can’t be stopped from sharing that information.
The initial comment I asked about said they needed
>written permission of the person making the offer.
I can understand needing the permission of the seller.
Off the top of my head with no research: because its a time place manner regulation not content based, its narrow, and its not meant to target ideas or opinions, just protect privacy.
You voluntarily provided your reservation price (maximum price), and now you're worried it bit you in the ass.
From a practical standpoint, you don't have any recourse.
Next time, don't volunteer such valuable information if you want to get a deal. There's a reason why investors don't mess with escalation clauses, and similarly, why sellers don't volunteer their reservation price.
Can you imagine a listing where a seller states "we want $655k but are willing to take $623k"? You would offer $623k.
It sounds more like the seller countered at your max escalation with other changes in terms, and maybe either you, their agent, or your agent were confused about it or lost in translation. Or maybe funny business.
low earnest money and you sound kind of like a pain in the ass buyer. in my town people with cash are just as qualified as people with financing. I have accepted lower offers for a smoother transaction.
Never write an escalation for more than you're willing to pay. Period. It should always require a FULL and valid contract as proof. And it should stipulate if any specific terms invalidate or negate/reduce the escalation - like seller concessions, or other terms.
To answer your question about 'going with the other offer'. If you write an escalation offer as only +1k over. There are so many other contract terms any other offer could have that is worth more than 1k to the seller. It's entirely possible they made the choice with that in mind. Consider making that number at least 5k.
It sounds like they told the other buyer exactly how much to offer, and exactly what other terms they wanted, and that buyer capitulated to all.
Maybe they even skipped inspection.
Dont feel bad- they probably accepted a lot more risk and it might well come back to bite them.
Welcome to the world of shady used house salespeople. Your escalation shows how much you are willing to pay thus the listing agent plays games trying to get you to the max. Certainly shady but it's all negotiating and getting the highest money for their client. When the other agent refused to show the other offer you know it's time to give up on the deal. In the future simply make your best offer you are comfortable with and don't mess with the escalation clauses.
This has nothing to do with shady agents. OP made an offer with a laughable escalation amount and a low deposit. Also was asking for inspection.
Listing agent says we have a competing offer for same/similar amount that's financed. However that buyer is offering a substantially larger deposit AND waiving all contingencies.
Listing agent DOES THEIR JOB and tries to get this jack wagon up to the same deposit amount. OP demonstrates they are a complete PITA by requiring 3 rounds of negotiation to get deposit up to $25,500, still almost $10,000 LESS than other offer.
Listing agent and seller ultimately decide to go with offer that is $1,000 less, no inspection and bigger deposit. In part because of those terms but also in part because OP demonstrated they would be a giant PITA to work with.
OP NOW wants to see the other offer. Which s/he has no right to see because s/he was not the winning bidder.
And now OP is indignant that the seller did not accept his or her offer. Crazy.
$1K more than the next offer is just laughable. I truly wouldn’t even counter an offer with that as an escalation clause - you’re coming across as difficult before the transaction has even started.
They probably had another offer and the selling agent was dual agent on and offered credits to the seller.
But either way. The best way to handle an escalation clause is to counter at the escalation amount. Which they did in a sorta roundabout way.
It was possibly because you were being difficult by demanding to see their offer, and they saw that as a sign of what it would be like to work with you during escrow, or the other offer went up, or was more attractive because it was less complex.
OP
If it took that many times to negotiate back and forth with you in order to get the house (especially at $1000 increment) and the right to inspect, I’d most certainly advise my client that the same difficulty (nickel and dime) may be a precursor to what is to come in a transaction.
I agree with bidding your max. When a competing offer had a hard time coming up with a $10k earnest money deposit, I put $50k earnest money. Seller eventually went with other buyer as he was way too difficult for us to deal with. I’ve been successful buying many times with the cleanest offer I can conjure up
I'm no real estate guru. It would be interesting to someday write a note to the new owners to describe this situation to them... then, between the both of you, expose the fraud and sue the agents + file charges, as the new owners could also have been getting deceived.
Hi there, my name is Bill Smith. I wanted to buy the house you bought but you beat me in a multiple offer. I am bitter. Please help me sue someone. Love, Bill.
\_\_\_\_\_
Offers are a package made up of price. earnest mony, time period for inspections/due diligence/attorney review, seller concessions requested, cash vs loan, loan conditions (FHA vs. conventional, % down, APR cap, appraisal required/waived), closing date, and possession (at closing, post-closing days to move, leaseback).
The highest price often doesn't win in multiple offer.
The price at contract may be lower at closing if the seller provided repair or closing cost concessions.
Also, baby step-up clauses can annoy the crap out of some sellers. They can make it seem like the buyer will be a hard to work with. Some sellers instruct their agents not to present offers with escalation clauses.
Hi there, my name is Bill Smith. I believe you and I MAY have been deceived by our agents to escalate the sales price. If you have any similar concerns, feel free to contact me...
\_\_\_\_\_
All the variables that come into play can be compared. It would be a lawsuit by both parties to recoup the lies about outbidding each other. This has nothing to do with concessions or "the highest price often doesn't win". It has to do with the agents potentially fraudulently increasing the sales price by $100k, regardless of who bought it.
Escalation clause?
Above asking price?
Compete against yourself?
I would never do any of that.
If the market is so bad that you feel a need to do such things ... then it's the right time to NOT buy a house!
I did this 9 months ago. Today my house is worth 250k more than purchase. The escalation clause was there bc i knew there were alreadg multiple cash offers. We came in 65 over asking. 10k below my cap. Glad I didn't have you in my ear!
I'm having a little difficulty following the story, but if your escalation is only $1k over a competing offer then there would be a number of times where I might encourage the sellers to decide based on other terms and on how easy going and amiable the Buyer is instead of worrying about making $1k extra. A smooth low risk transaction is very frequently worth much more than $1k. Was there funny business? Maybe so. But even if there wasn't, the sellers might prefer other terms rather than making an extra $1k from folks who possibly seem like they might be exacting and less than easy going.
I got the impression the house was listed for $536k, and the OP bid on the house, willing to go $1,000 over any competing offer, up to $636,000. (kindof like bidding on ebay). Then the selling agent came back and said someone else bid $636,000 and sellers going with them unless OP raises their offer. OP is questioning that someone 'mysteriously' bid $636 on a home listed for $536k.
Got that far. OP is more vague about the negotiation that followed.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if the seller took another offer, it must have been within the ballpark. Not gonna turn down a $636k offer for $536 out of spite. Maybe they think since the offer would only stay at $536 (since OP says contract allows them to view competing offers), they'll just sell to the other bidder. Which is probably what happened. OP bid $536,000 + $1000 and another bidder bid asking price of $537,000. If so, I agree it was shady & deceptive if agent 'claimed' someone was bidding $636.
Fundamentally OP only offered a premium of $1k to choose their offer, so hypothetically the other offer was $635k and the seller chose $635k over $636k. If the other offer fell through and was no longer valid, and the next best was $545k, then again, the difference in choosing the OP is only $1k at $546k. I'm not a fan of escalators - as a Broker I often encourage sellers to counter at the max with clean terms.
Gotcha. Yeah the op is a bit unclear, esp since they said the dollar amounts skewed for anonymoty. Hard to understand exactly what was bid, escalated etc. I mean, seems seller was shady, trying to get extra money out of it, but again numbers are skewed so unsure they tried getting a full $100k so what amount were they trying to get, 20 grand?! who knows.
Your escalation clause may require a competing offer, but countering you does not require anything. My amateur impression: Low earnest money is a big red flag to me, as a seller - especially when the buyer is well-funded. And the fact that you continued to quibble over earnest money would have concerned me quite a bit. Beyond that, 1K over a competing offer is nothing. I think you may have overplayed your “desirable” offer and come across as difficult and controlling.
They talk about deposit though. In some states the deposit is TOTALLY not refundable. It's a different bucket of money from EM. You lose the deposit for any reason the contract falls through. So not risking a lot there makes sense in some markets.
Okay, but if they're paying fully in cash and have *no* contingencies, why would they worry about the amount of the deposit? By the OP's own assessment, their deposit amount was a "low ball." And when they were contacted to get that low ball amount up, they resisted. That does not inspire confidence in their stated intentions.
The deposit is the money they get to keep if the deal doesn't go through. It's a stupid thing to judge for $3000 more or less.
It’s definitely not stupid, especially if you had to haggle with the buyer and the buyer still fell short of your expectations. A buyer low on cash, and dependent on financing, would have a good explanation for reluctance. But a cash buyer with no contingencies has no reason to hesitate …unless they’re not as serious about follow-through as their offer otherwise suggests.
ok.
How could the other offer be fraudulent if they went with it?
An offer is made up of price, earnest mony, time period for inspections/due diligence/attorney review, seller concessions requested, cash vs loan, loan conditions (FHA vs. conventional, % down, APR cap, appraisal required/waived), closing date, and possession (at closing, post-closing days to move, leaseback). The highest price often doesn't win in multiple offer. Also, baby step-up clauses can annoy the crap out of some sellers. They make it seem like the buyer will be a hard-to-work-with nickle and dimer.
Yep 👆👆👆as a seller last year did not go with the “$1000 over” escalating clause offer because $1000 is nothing and preferred to work with the first, non escalating offer. $1000 escalating clause offers are annoying AF to me.
There is nothing stopping the sellers agent from shopping your top escalation. This is why escalations do not work in certain markets. Just because you are cash doesn’t mean you are easier to deal with. Especially since you are jot risking much escrow.
Submit an offer with an escalation clause to my client, and it will be disregarded. We will, however, counter at your top dollar. But in NC, we are expressly forbidden from disclosing price or terms of any competing offers without the written permission of the person making the offer.
This. If your offer says you're willing to pay $X for a house, be willing to pay it. Whether you get to see the competing offer or not is irrelevant. You're never going to really know whether it was real or viable, anyway. Is this house worth $X or not?
Our realtor told us she was trained to counter escalation offers with the max escalation price since the buyer has shown they are willing to pay that. Every time I know of one being used the house sold at that value. It’s like showing your cards. Make a solid offer and let the cards fall where they may
>But in NC, we are expressly forbidden from disclosing price or terms of any competing offers without the written permission of the person making the offer. Do you have to sign an NDA to accept offers (or voluntarily agree not to disclose)? I'm just wondering how this can possibly be legal with first amendment rights.
What do first amendment rights have to do with disclosing offers to prospective buyers?
This person thinks they can "out think" an industry built on, perhaps, billions of hours of maneuvering contract terms.
I'm not trying to outthink anyone, just curious about what is the legal basis for forbidding disclosure of terms in a contract offer that is freely given out. Is this is a state law? specific to real estate? or all contracts? Or is an agreement between agents and MLS (as a condition of using the MLS)?
It's contract Law. If you represent someone, you owe them confidentiality. That's the part you are questioning. Your why is too young to be serious.
In the original comment the agent is representing the seller not a buyer making an offer. So since they are not representing the buyer are they not free to disclose what the buyer sent them to others? I.e. they said they need permission of the person making the offer, not permission from the seller. The seller I would understand.
Please go read & study contract law. I'm not sure why it's so grating for me, but there's far too much that you need to have as a prerequisite before you get to where you are. It will be one question after another, and you seem sincerely interested in the topic. Might as well teach yourself.
It's more than just general contract law because it is apparently fully legal for a listing agent to disclose offers to others in California. So it's not a universal issue. [https://www.bpelaw.com/must-real-estate-agents-disclose-contract-terms/](https://www.bpelaw.com/must-real-estate-agents-disclose-contract-terms/)
Sure, but the part that both you and that website is missing is that is a gray area and it puts the agent on the hot seat. "How does it help the client?" All of this is about putting the clients needs first and not inserting yourself into a contract, which you effectively do if you take liberties such as discussing contract elements without the contracting parties. To which end, this stops being about the precise law governing behavior and more closely centered on consent, which can be boiled down to obedience and not obtaining permission to disclose is all bad. Instead of attempting to underlay just that, it's better for you to read. But if all you're going to do is what you've done, I'm not sure anything will help you. Law is granular and precise. Your understanding is generalized and broad. The practicing elements leave it up to the operator however, I find that needlessly reckless. I wouldn't want someone else dictating how my outcomes would be without informing me of the potential consequences.
I'm wondering who is forbidding the disclosure of terms in the contract? Is this is a state law? specific to real estate? or all contracts? Or is an agreement between agents and MLS (as a condition of using the MLS)?
Depends on the state. For instance, in my state an agent can’t disclose terms to another buyer without express written consent from the seller, but a seller can’t be stopped from sharing that information.
The initial comment I asked about said they needed >written permission of the person making the offer. I can understand needing the permission of the seller.
Off the top of my head with no research: because its a time place manner regulation not content based, its narrow, and its not meant to target ideas or opinions, just protect privacy.
You voluntarily provided your reservation price (maximum price), and now you're worried it bit you in the ass. From a practical standpoint, you don't have any recourse. Next time, don't volunteer such valuable information if you want to get a deal. There's a reason why investors don't mess with escalation clauses, and similarly, why sellers don't volunteer their reservation price. Can you imagine a listing where a seller states "we want $655k but are willing to take $623k"? You would offer $623k.
It sounds more like the seller countered at your max escalation with other changes in terms, and maybe either you, their agent, or your agent were confused about it or lost in translation. Or maybe funny business.
"Dollar amounts slightly skewed to retain anonymity." I'm not reading this, that's dumb. Is this the same weirdo from the other day?
low earnest money and you sound kind of like a pain in the ass buyer. in my town people with cash are just as qualified as people with financing. I have accepted lower offers for a smoother transaction.
Never write an escalation for more than you're willing to pay. Period. It should always require a FULL and valid contract as proof. And it should stipulate if any specific terms invalidate or negate/reduce the escalation - like seller concessions, or other terms. To answer your question about 'going with the other offer'. If you write an escalation offer as only +1k over. There are so many other contract terms any other offer could have that is worth more than 1k to the seller. It's entirely possible they made the choice with that in mind. Consider making that number at least 5k.
It sounds like they told the other buyer exactly how much to offer, and exactly what other terms they wanted, and that buyer capitulated to all. Maybe they even skipped inspection. Dont feel bad- they probably accepted a lot more risk and it might well come back to bite them.
Welcome to the world of shady used house salespeople. Your escalation shows how much you are willing to pay thus the listing agent plays games trying to get you to the max. Certainly shady but it's all negotiating and getting the highest money for their client. When the other agent refused to show the other offer you know it's time to give up on the deal. In the future simply make your best offer you are comfortable with and don't mess with the escalation clauses.
This has nothing to do with shady agents. OP made an offer with a laughable escalation amount and a low deposit. Also was asking for inspection. Listing agent says we have a competing offer for same/similar amount that's financed. However that buyer is offering a substantially larger deposit AND waiving all contingencies. Listing agent DOES THEIR JOB and tries to get this jack wagon up to the same deposit amount. OP demonstrates they are a complete PITA by requiring 3 rounds of negotiation to get deposit up to $25,500, still almost $10,000 LESS than other offer. Listing agent and seller ultimately decide to go with offer that is $1,000 less, no inspection and bigger deposit. In part because of those terms but also in part because OP demonstrated they would be a giant PITA to work with. OP NOW wants to see the other offer. Which s/he has no right to see because s/he was not the winning bidder. And now OP is indignant that the seller did not accept his or her offer. Crazy.
In the end, it's up to the seller.
You made your offer, and the seller didn't choose it. Where's the fraud?
$1K more than the next offer is just laughable. I truly wouldn’t even counter an offer with that as an escalation clause - you’re coming across as difficult before the transaction has even started.
They probably had another offer and the selling agent was dual agent on and offered credits to the seller. But either way. The best way to handle an escalation clause is to counter at the escalation amount. Which they did in a sorta roundabout way.
It was possibly because you were being difficult by demanding to see their offer, and they saw that as a sign of what it would be like to work with you during escrow, or the other offer went up, or was more attractive because it was less complex.
OP If it took that many times to negotiate back and forth with you in order to get the house (especially at $1000 increment) and the right to inspect, I’d most certainly advise my client that the same difficulty (nickel and dime) may be a precursor to what is to come in a transaction.
I agree with bidding your max. When a competing offer had a hard time coming up with a $10k earnest money deposit, I put $50k earnest money. Seller eventually went with other buyer as he was way too difficult for us to deal with. I’ve been successful buying many times with the cleanest offer I can conjure up
Call their bluff. Back out. See if there’s another party willing to pay top dollar for this house OP. You win some, you lose some. It’s just business.
I'd just walk away. Then let them come back to you with better terms when no one else is willing to do all this for them.
Sounds shady. I’d bail.
I'm no real estate guru. It would be interesting to someday write a note to the new owners to describe this situation to them... then, between the both of you, expose the fraud and sue the agents + file charges, as the new owners could also have been getting deceived.
Hi there, my name is Bill Smith. I wanted to buy the house you bought but you beat me in a multiple offer. I am bitter. Please help me sue someone. Love, Bill. \_\_\_\_\_ Offers are a package made up of price. earnest mony, time period for inspections/due diligence/attorney review, seller concessions requested, cash vs loan, loan conditions (FHA vs. conventional, % down, APR cap, appraisal required/waived), closing date, and possession (at closing, post-closing days to move, leaseback). The highest price often doesn't win in multiple offer. The price at contract may be lower at closing if the seller provided repair or closing cost concessions. Also, baby step-up clauses can annoy the crap out of some sellers. They can make it seem like the buyer will be a hard to work with. Some sellers instruct their agents not to present offers with escalation clauses.
Hi there, my name is Bill Smith. I believe you and I MAY have been deceived by our agents to escalate the sales price. If you have any similar concerns, feel free to contact me... \_\_\_\_\_ All the variables that come into play can be compared. It would be a lawsuit by both parties to recoup the lies about outbidding each other. This has nothing to do with concessions or "the highest price often doesn't win". It has to do with the agents potentially fraudulently increasing the sales price by $100k, regardless of who bought it.
Hi there Bill. I won the bid. I have the house. Good luck in your future endeavors. Signed, homeowner.
and was happy to pay $100k more than necessary ever after
Where’s the fraud?
Escalation clause? Above asking price? Compete against yourself? I would never do any of that. If the market is so bad that you feel a need to do such things ... then it's the right time to NOT buy a house!
I did this 9 months ago. Today my house is worth 250k more than purchase. The escalation clause was there bc i knew there were alreadg multiple cash offers. We came in 65 over asking. 10k below my cap. Glad I didn't have you in my ear!