A double close only works if the closing agent will fund the first closing from the second buyer's money, and that has to be confirmed in writing first

The part worth understanding better is the sequencing. Say earnest money goes hard at the end of the inspection period, while the funding of the first closing is still an open question at that point. That pattern is common, treating the money question as something to settle later because it feels like the easy part, and it is exactly the assumption that causes trouble.

Closing agent policy is the whole thing here and it isn't consistent. I've sat in on files with two different settlement companies in the same metro, one does back to back all day, the other's underwriter forbids it outright. Nobody advertises which one they are. You have to ask, and the answer you want in writing is specifically about disbursing the resale funds into the purchase file, not a general "yes we do double closings."

The 640 inspection you bought to look serious is the line that stuck with me. That was a real cost with no job to do.

The simultaneous or dry close depends on one thing: whether the settlement agent will use money from the resale file to fund the purchase file. Some agents do it routinely, some will not touch it under any circumstances, and some will only do it with the end buyer's lender consenting in writing. Underwriter policy and state escrow rules both drive that, so the answer varies by state and often by individual office. Ask before you commit, and get it in an email.

Transactional funders look hardest at the resale. They are being repaid out of the second closing, so the end buyer's contract and ability to perform is what they underwrite. A financing contingency on the resale side with a lender who won't confirm anything is usually what stops a quote, which matches what you ran into.

On the economics, your 27k spread had to absorb two sets of settlement charges, recording fees at both closings, and transfer tax that in a number of states is charged on each deed rather than once. Add funding points and a doc fee. That is the standing tradeoff against assignment, where the fee arrives without the second set of costs. Confirm the actual fee schedule with the closer and the funder in writing before you price the spread, because those numbers move.

One more thing on the reason you chose the structure. Whether taking title changes your position under your state's brokerage licensing rules is a question about how that specific statute applies, and it does differ by state, so put it to a licensed attorney where the property sits rather than working from what you read. The privacy motive and the licensing motive are separate reasons people use this structure, and only one of them saves the deal you described.

Worth adding to the cost list: in states that tax each deed, transfer tax gets paid twice on a double close. On 91k in and 118k out that can be real money depending on the rate, and plenty of operators discover it at the table. Check the state's rate and who customarily pays before assuming the spread is fat.

A close call like this comes up often on double closes with a similar setup. A closer says yes on the phone, then compliance says no eleven days later, and the deal only survives if an end buyer happens to be all cash and agrees to close the whole thing in one file at the original price under a separate agreement, which isn't something to plan on repeating. Nothing unusual happened here, the missing step was getting the yes in writing from the person who actually decides.

Slow question because I don't want to nod along and stay confused. When people say dry close, they mean the wholesaler brings no money and the end buyer's wire covers both deeds on the same day? And the "closer" is the settlement company or attorney handling escrow, not a person on my team? I'd assumed dry close was the default version of a double close and the funding was the unusual version.

I had this exact assumption sitting in my notes as a fact after months of reading. Deleted.

The cause usually sits somewhere else than the closer's policy. A closing agent's refusal to fund the first closing off the second buyer's money is a wall, but the reason it becomes fatal is a resale contract with a financing contingency and a lender who won't engage. With a cash end buyer, two funders would be competing and the deal would likely close anyway. The real lesson is about buyer financing, not about title companies.

Windlass has it closer to right than the rest of the thread. A good rule after a deal like this dies is to talk to the end buyer's lender directly before going hard with the seller. If the buyer won't put you on the phone with whoever is funding him, he's not a buyer yet, he's a maybe. It costs one call to find out.

Underwrite it as an assignment first. If a deal only works when the spread stays hidden, the deal is thinner than it looks, because a double close costs two settlements plus funding, and all of that should get subtracted at the front. Say 27k minus roughly 3k of extra settlement and tax and roughly 3.3k of funding lands at 20.7k, against an assignment version of 27k with one file to coordinate. That comparison is what decides which road to take, not how the number looks to a buyer.

27k wouldn't scare any buyer I sell to. My people know what I make and they buy anyway because they don't want to talk to sellers. I've stopped assuming the fee is the objection. Half the time the objection is the condition of the roof and the fee is just what they say out loud.

Is earnest money always non refundable after the inspection period, or was that specific to how quill's contract was written? Everything is new to me and I don't know which parts are the contract and which parts are the law.

Rigging, from what I've been told it's how the contract is written, and the contingency deadlines in it are what turn the deposit hard. Mine also varies by which form the state association uses. Somebody correct me if that's off.

Quill, thanks for posting the actual number. I've read maybe forty explanations of double closing and not one of them mentioned that the settlement company gets a vote.

I keep two funders pre-approved with current docs on file and it costs nothing to sit there. Both quotes expire and get refreshed every quarter or so. The reason isn't that I plan to use them, it's that a closer saying no stops being an emergency.

Parcel's second point is the one I hadn't thought about. An extension you already hold versus one you have to ask for is a completely different negotiating position, and it costs nothing at signing.

Inspection on a wholesale flip is fine if you're using it to price the scope for your buyer. Ordering one to look diligent is how you end up with a 640 line item and a report nobody reads. I've done the equivalent, paid an engineer for a letter I never sent anyone.

Adding to my what-the-first-deal-actually-costs sheet: hard earnest money, funder doc fee, second settlement, transfer tax possibly twice. My sheet had "assignment fee: profit" and nothing else on it a month ago.

How do people find the closers who will do these? Is it a matter of calling every title company in the county and asking, or is there a less annoying way? Worth building that list before a contract ever exists.

Bramble, ask the active buyers in your market who they close with. The ones buying five houses a year already know which office says yes.

On the funding side, quill's experience matches what I hear from people who write these checks. They are repaid entirely out of the second closing, so a shaky end buyer means no quote at any price. The points aren't the gate.

Why did the 118k buyer need a lender at all? At that price most buyers on the construction and flip side are paying cash or using a hard money line already open. A buyer at 118k who can't produce proof of funds inside a week is telling you something.

The real question is whether double closing is a workable first structure for someone with no capital and no relationships yet. What tends to save a double close is a relationship, a closer who says yes, a funder on file, a buyer whose lender picks up the phone. Without those pieces in place beforehand, the structure carries a lot more risk than it looks like on paper. Confirming with the closing agent in plain words, before signing anything, whether they will fund the first closing out of the second buyer's money is the step that gets skipped most often.

A third funder refusing to quote under 100k is common in that price band, and it is brutal. Investors working 60k to 90k houses often hit this wall, since minimums plus flat doc fees make the math ugly. Many operators in that range have shifted away from double closing and use their own cash instead, which caps volume to one transaction at a time.

Quill, did the seller's backup offer turn out to be real? That claim shows up often, and it's worth learning how to read it. In cases where a backup was reported, the house has sometimes sat for weeks afterward regardless. It doesn't change your outcome, but it's a useful pattern to track when weighing how much a stated backup offer should factor into a decision.

For anyone chasing income without taking on a second job, this thread is a decent argument that this particular activity is very much a job.

On funding quotes, get the fee structure in writing including anything payable on a commitment that doesn't close. Some short term lenders charge a commitment or underwriting fee up front that isn't refunded if the deal dies, and stacking that on top of lost earnest money makes a bad outcome worse. Terms move around, so the current schedule should be confirmed with the specific lender rather than worked from an old quote.

There are people who coordinate these files for a fee, and after reading this thread I understand what they're actually selling, which is knowing which office says yes and having the funder's docs already on hand. That's a service business.