On a JV wholesale split, should both partners appear on the settlement statement or should one invoice the other

Question

Take a JV wholesale deal where one partner sources a 3/2 in a working class suburb under contract at 118k, a buyer at 141k, and 23k of spread before title fees, while the other partner brings the buyer and runs the walkthrough. The split between them can be papered two different ways, and each has a real cost attached. Structure one: both partners appear on the settlement statement, title cuts two checks, split evenly. The argument for it is that nobody has to trust anybody, the escrow agent handles it, and if the deal shrinks at the table both sides eat it proportionally without a conversation. Whether a given title company will even cut two fee checks varies by company and by state, some closers won't do it at all, so this is not purely a preference question. Structure two: the assignment fee goes to one entity, which then pays the other partner under a JV agreement after funds clear. The argument for it is control, over what happens if the buyer pushes for a repair credit in the last 48 hours, and over keeping a second party off the statement so title has one less reason to ask questions. The part that matters on deal three is what each version does to the relationship. The single-invoice version means the other partner never has to rely on anyone's word. The split-statement version means somebody does, and that reliance carries a cost even when everyone behaves perfectly. There is also a real argument that being on the statement is the only practical remedy a JV partner has if the other side goes dark after closing. Which way should this get papered when the fee is real money and the partner is new?

jordan_ellis2 · Answer

No closings yet so take the observation for what it's worth, but I've read maybe fifteen JV agreements now while trying to figure out what I'd sign, and the ones that put both parties on the statement almost never say what happens when the fee shrinks. They say 50/50 of the assignment fee. Then the buyer asks for a 4k roof credit and suddenly the question is whether that comes out of the fee at all or out of the purchase price, and the settlement statement just does whatever the closer decides to do.

Quarry, your version at least gives you a moment to have the conversation before money moves. That seems like it matters more than who is on the paper.

mikeoconnell7 · Answer

The trust point you made is the real one, and it's worth pushing on from the other direction. Think about anyone whose business runs on fee agreements where they are the one waiting to get paid after somebody else's money clears. It changes behavior. They chase, they document, they keep a copy of every email, and they price in the possibility of a slow payer. That behavior is a product of the position rather than any feeling about the counterparty. If your partner ends up in that posture with you, deal three costs more than it should. He'll want a bigger split or a tighter agreement or a deadline with teeth. That reaction comes out of the position he's in. So both names on the statement for a first deal together, then your structure once there's history. The shrinking fee problem pike raised is solvable with one line in the agreement saying reductions to the fee are shared pro rata and neither party can agree to one without the other. Get your closer to confirm in writing whether they will even cut two checks before the deal gets built around it, because that answer comes back no often enough to matter.

On a JV wholesale split, should both partners appear on the settlement statement or should one invoice the other

2 replies