By Robert J. Bruss

DEAR BOB: A four-acre land parcel is listed for sale on the multiple listing service for $120,000. The listing says the parcel must be sold with the adjoining 15-acre parcel for $600,000. That parcel has a separate listing with the same terms. The parcels are owned by unrelated people. I want to buy the $120,000 parcel but have no desire to buy the $600,000 property. Can I pay full price with no contingencies? Is the requirement that both parcels be bought together legally enforceable? It strikes me as discriminatory. -- Tom M.

DEAR TOM: This situation doesn't sound like discrimination based on your race, national origin, age, sex or religion. Instead, there might be a legitimate reason the adjoining owners want to sell their properties to the same buyer.A phone call to the listing agent should clarify the reason. Perhaps there is an encroachment. Maybe there is an easement problem. There could be many other reasons. If you want to buy the $120,000 parcel but not the other one, make your written purchase offer, preferably through your own buyer's agent so you will be fairly represented. The seller of the four acres can reject your purchase offer without giving a reason. Or he can make a counteroffer.

Although it seems strange, insisting that the buyer purchase the adjoining parcel does not appear to be prohibited discrimination.

DEAR BOB: My three-bedroom house is in need of cosmetic work. It is in a desirable, residential neighborhood. I am a half-block from a shopping center, as well as an upscale main street. Some repainting, wall-to-wall carpets, minor repairs and fresh landscaping will make all the difference in my house. I am disabled, with little money, and have done what I can to make the house attractive before it is listed for sale. If my home was in top shape, the real estate agent says, I could get $75,000 more. I know you have said a cosmetic fixer-upper like mine is a wonderful deal for a savvy buyer, but I am terrified that the only people interested will be low-ballers who want to cheat me out of a fair price. I trust my agent's judgment. Am I right in thinking my home will take much longer to sell because of its limited appeal? -- Holly A.

DEAR HOLLY: I hope you interviewed at least three successful realty agents who sell homes in your vicinity before you listed with the best agent for no longer than 90 days. If you followed my advice to compare the comparative market analysis forms of the interviewed agents, you then know the approximate market value of your "as is" home, so you can set the asking price accordingly.

It sounds as if you have a desirable home with a few blemishes. However, you appear to see that it will appeal to a limited market of home buyers willing to put up with the defects, in return for a price discount from a similar home in tip-top condition.The first offer is often the best you will receive, so don't reject it automatically.However, if you and your trusted agent agree it is far too low, then you can make a written counteroffer at the price you are willing to accept.

Presuming you owned and occupied your principal residence at least 24 of the 60 months before its sale, you probably have a tax-free profit up to $250,000, thanks to Internal Revenue Code 121. You are in the driver's seat. Enjoy the home-sale experience, which will probably make you richer than ever before in your life.

DEAR BOB: About 15 years ago, my first wife and I divorced. I recently received a good purchase offer for the vacant lot next door to our former house. I received title to the house in our divorce, but my ex-wife and I still own the vacant lot together. I have no idea where she now lives. I do know that her parents are dead and that her only brother died about five years ago. What should I do? I want to sell the lot quickly. -- Edward E.

DEAR EDWARD: Contact a local real estate or probate lawyer. You probably will need to bring a quiet title lawsuit to determine the title status of the lot. Depending on the result, the court might order the title quieted in your name. Or the court could allow you to sell the lot with half of the sales proceeds held in trust until the status of your ex-wife's interest can be determined. This is definitely not a quick do-it-yourself project.

DEAR BOB: My brother is a real estate agent. Is it a good idea to hire a close relative to sell my house, since I am now living about 1,000 miles away? I did not use my brother when I bought the house in 2001 because I felt it was not a good idea. -- Carol M.

DEAR CAROL: If you trust your brother, and if he is a successful real estate agent selling homes near the house you want to sell, why not give him a try for a 90-day listing? Before deciding, interview two or three local agents who sell homes in the vicinity. Compare their comparative market analysis forms with the form provided by your brother. The recommended asking price and probable sales price should be fairly close among the interviewed agents.Only after you interview several competitive realty agents will you know if your brother is the agent who should get your 90-day listing.

DEAR BOB: Please explain the pros and cons of a land contract home sale. -- Dan McF.

DEAR DAN: I do not recommend land contracts, also known as contracts for deed, installment sales contracts, agreements for sale and a zillion other names.The basic land contract concept is that the seller retains title and the buyer makes monthly payments to the seller. If there is an existing mortgage, the seller uses part of the buyer's payments to pay the mortgage payments.

As a buyer, after you faithfully make all your monthly payments to the seller on time, you could find the seller is unable to deliver marketable title. Or, maybe the seller failed to keep up payments on the underlying mortgage(s) and the lender foreclosed, wiping out your land contract purchase.Or, if the buyer defaults, in many states a court action is required for the seller to get the defaulting buyer out of the property.

However, when a land contract seller defaults and is unable to deliver marketable title to the buyer, the buyer's only recourse is to sue the seller for damages. For details, consult a local real estate lawyer.

DEAR BOB: Many real estate sales contracts provide for mediation or arbitration of disputes that might arise after a sale is closed, such as alleged misrepresentation of a property. Do you favor either mediation or arbitration of disputes, rather than going to court? -- Reginald W.A:

DEAR REGINALD: The trend is toward mediation or arbitration of real estate sales disputes, rather than court trials, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Many printed realty sales contracts allow the buyer and seller to agree to mediate or arbitrate disputes, which might arise later, such as when the seller allegedly fails to disclose a known defect in the home to the buyer.Mediation means an expert mediator attempts to get the parties to agree on a fair settlement of the dispute.But the mediator has no legal authority to force an agreement. Because most informal mediations are resolved within a day or two, the cost is far lower than a court lawsuit. If the mediators successfully resolve the dispute, they should insist all parties sign the settlement agreement before leaving the mediation, to prevent later misunderstandings or change of mind.Binding arbitration is different. Before going to trial, the parties can agree to arbitrate their dispute. The arbitrator, chosen by mutual agreement, hears the evidence of both parties and then renders a binding decision, which is then presented to the local court for confirmation. Although arbitration is usually less expensive and faster than a court trial, the parties give up their legal right to a jury trial, appeal of the arbitrator's decision, and court procedures and evidence rules.As a lawyer, my opinion is that it is fine to agree in a real estate sales contract to mediate any disputes that later arise between the parties. However, I do not favor agreeing in advance to give up important legal rights and to arbitrate future disputes. If a dispute later arises that is not resolved by mediation, at that time the parties can then agree to binding arbitration. But I don't think it is wise to agree to binding arbitration at the time of signing a purchase contract.

DEAR BOB: Several years ago, after I inherited the house where I now live, I had never heard of "stepped-up basis" until I read your articles. Although I have no plans to sell, how do I prove my stepped-up basis? -- Stephen B.

DEAR STEPHEN: After I inherited a property in 1991, I had the same issue. My first stop was the local tax assessor's office. In the jurisdiction when the property is located, I learned the properties are reassessed every year so I made a record of that full-assessed value. I checked with several real estate agent friends, who told me the assessed value was pretty close to market value. Therefore, it was excellent evidence of my new stepped-up basis to market value.If I was not satisfied with that property tax assessed value, I would have hired a professional appraiser to establish my stepped-up basis for the inherited property. However, if you need to establish the market value of your home as of the time of inheritance, you need an appraiser who can appraise past market value.

To find such an expert appraiser, the best source is http://www.appraisal institute.org/ .

DEAR BOB: As a home buyer's agent, I thought you and your readers should know the best way I've found to prevent "offer shopping" by some unscrupulous seller's listing agents. Some listing agents refuse to allow me to present my buyer's offers. Just to thwart that possibility, I always write in the offers, "this offer to be presented to seller only in the presence of the buyer's agent." If the seller's listing agent refuses to let me directly present my buyer's offer to the seller, I either politely phone the sellers directly or drive over to the sellers' home to inform them that their agent refuses to let me present the purchase offer. I have found this prevents offer shopping and establishes my client as a serious buyer. -- Shirley T.

DEAR SHIRLEY: Thank you for sharing that strategy to overcome listing agents who insist on controlling the situation, often to the detriment of their home sellers. As the home sale market cools, I think you will find listing agents much more cooperative and less inclined to engage in offer shopping.

DEAR BOB: As a real estate agent, I am concerned about the confidentiality of purchase offers from buyers. I know, as a listing agent, it is not advisable to disclose the price the seller accepted until after the sale closes and the price becomes public record. But what about purchase offers during the negotiation procedure? On behalf of my buyer, I recently presented a home purchase offer, which the seller counter offered. While my buyer was considering the counteroffer, the listing agent told other agents about the offer price from my buyer and the seller's counteroffer. As a result, another buyer offered $3,500 more than the counteroffer price and the seller accepted that offer before my buyer could reply to the counteroffer. Shouldn't purchase offer negotiations be confidential? -- Helen R.

DEAR HELEN: The job of the listing agent is to obtain the highest price and best terms for the seller. I am not aware of any ethical violation if the listing agent lets it be known the counteroffer price that is acceptable to the seller. It is not an illegal or unethical act by the listing agent if another buyer exceeds that counteroffer price to obtain the house.

Q: DEAR BOB: We own a two-bedroom, one-bath home in top condition in a popular vacation area. In August we signed a 90-day listing with a real estate agent. She warned us that the average sales time in the market was about 150 days. We received one low-ball purchase offer. The house has been off the market since our listing expired. We have talked with several other local agents and they all advise us the market has slowed in the last few months and two-bedroom houses are not in great demand. Although we don't have to sell quickly, we want to sell because we rarely use the house. What would you do in our situation? -- Daren W.

A: DEAR DAREN: You own what is known among real estate agents as a "difficult house." Over the years, I've bought and sold my share of such residences, although I didn't know they would be difficult houses when I bought them. I found one technique that always works with such houses: a lease with option to purchase.

Most real estate agents will never tell you about lease-options. The reason is the agent has to wait for most of his sales commission until the option is exercised, often in a year or two. I bought my current home with a lease-option. The sales agents had to wait about six months to receive their commission until I exercised my option after I sold my previous residence.My favorite way to sell a home with a lease-option is to run a classified newspaper ad such as "$10,000 moves you in. Open Sunday 2-4. Bring your checkbook." The ad then describes the house and lists the address.

When properly marketed, lease-options work to sell difficult houses. There are always more lease-option buyers than sellers.

DEAR BOB: We plan to sell our home in a popular city location so we can move to the suburbs. I am concerned that while we wait for our house to sell, the perfect house will become available where we want to move. Can we get a loan on our current home to give us the cash to buy our next home? -- Angelina L.

DEAR ANGELINA: Yes. The situation you describe is perfect for a bridge loan. Presuming your have good credit and good income, your bank should loan you almost the full amount of your realistic home equity, which you can then use for the deposit and down payment on your new home.

Another easier alternative, if you have a large home equity, is to obtain a home equity credit line secured by your current residence. Many banks loan up to 80 and even 90 percent of market value on home equity credit lines. Then you can just write a home equity credit line check for the cash you need to buy your next home.

DEAR BOB: Last fall my husband and I moved from out of state and bought a home. The sellers accepted our offer with no contingencies. All the papers were signed; we even had the movers all arranged. A week later, our real estate agent called to say the sellers "changed their minds." Because we had already accepted a good offer on our old house and had to move, this put us in an extremely stressful situation. We ended up making another trip to the area and purchasing another home, which we don't like as well. I think the sellers should pay us the cost of our second trip and our cost of having their house professionally inspected. Should I contact a lawyer or at least go to small claims court? -- Joyce B.

DEAR JOYCE: Unless there was a legal loophole in your home purchase contract allowing the sellers to cancel the sale, you should not have allowed them to cancel just because they "changed their minds." At the least, you should have been well compensated for agreeing to cancel the purchase.

Your legal recourse was to hire a local real estate lawyer, file a specific performance lawsuit to force the sellers to complete the sale as agreed and record a "lis pendens" against the title to effectively prevent them from selling to another buyer or refinancing the property. Your agent should have told you consult a lawyer.However, if you canceled the purchase contract and accepted a refund of your good faith deposit, the sellers probably have no further obligation to you unless they agreed in writing to compensate you for your additional costs.

Just because you think the sellers should pay for your extra expenses doesn't mean they are legally obligated to do so. If you really wanted that house, you shouldn't have agreed to cancel the sale.

DEAR BOB: There is a house listed for sale in my town that has a for-sale sign from a real estate brokerage that is at least 125 miles away. Why would any home seller list with an agent whose office is so far? I might be interested in buying the house. Are there any special precautions? I tried phoning the brokerage and was told I had to have my own buyer's agent call to inspect the house. Should I be wary? -- Paul G.

DEAR PAUL: There are many possible reasons why that house is listed with an out-of-area realty agent. For example, many FHA, VA and bank foreclosures are listed with one or two brokerages that handle sales throughout an entire region or state. Frankly, this makes managing multiple foreclosed properties easier for the lender, but it is not the best way to earn top-dollar sales price. No out-of-area realty agent can make as good a sales effort as a local agent.Another reason for listing with an out-of-area realty agent is the home seller might be a friend or relative of the listing agent. That's no way to hire a listing agent, but many people do it anyway.As a buyer, you definitely need your own buyer's agent when attempting to buy a home listed with an out-of-area realty agent. Often, the house doesn't have a lock-box and inspection access is not easy. Or it might be difficult to negotiate with the home seller through the out-of-area realty agent.

Personally, I've bought several bargain properties that were listed with out-of-area agents who had no clue as to the property's true value. You might be on the trail of such a below-market price bargain purchase.

DEAR BOB: I strongly disagree with your recent item where you said a home buyer might have to pay his or her buyer's agent if a home is bought from a "greedy" do-it-yourself home seller who refuses to pay the agent half of the customary sales commission. Home sellers have the right to sell their homes alone without having to pay a sales commission. Why don't you mention the "greedy agents" who charge a 6 or 7 percent sales commission just for filling in a few blanks on a sales contract?

-- Zygmont C.

DEAR ZYGMONT: Most "for sale by owner" house and condo sellers are only too happy to pay a sales agent who produces an acceptable buyer 50 percent of the customary sales commission, usually meaning 3 percent of the sales price.However, some "greedy sellers" don't understand the benefits of having a buyer's agent represent the buyer. Those buyers' agents do double-duty of guiding the FSBO sale to a successful completion. Yet, some FSBO sellers stubbornly refuse to pay the buyer's agent even half of a normal commission, so then the buyer might become obligated to pay his or her buyer's agent.As for your comment about "greedy agents" who charge 6 or 7 percent sales commissions, are you aware how sales commissions are split among sales agents and their brokerages? Usually, the listing agent and the buyer's agent each receive half of the gross sales commission. Then half of that portion of the commission goes to the agent's brokerage. Of course, the exact split of the sales commission depends on each agent's agreement with the brokerage.

The result is what seems to you like a huge sales commission is split four ways and the agents really aren't as "greedy" as you might think.

Readers with questions should write Robert J. Bruss at 251 Park Rd., Burlingame, Calif. 94010 or contact him via his Web page,http://www.bobbruss.com

Bob Bruss Mail Bag

By Robert J. Bruss

David Soleyman - Cell: 703 362-5404 - Or E-Mail Me!