Where a sourcing fee sits on the settlement statement when the buyer's fund will not take it from the seller side
Here is a structuring problem worth working through, because institutional buyers raise it more often now. A private equity group out of Austin sets up a sourcing arrangement on single family value add in the DFW suburbs, $180k to $280k range, at $6,500 per closed deal. Two properties go under contract, one in Mesquite and one in Garland. The fund's attorney reviews the HUD and says the fee has to appear as a buyer side closing cost paid by the fund, rather than as a credit or concession out of the seller's proceeds. Their position is that anything touching the seller side creates a disclosure problem against their LP agreements. That cuts against how most sourcing fees get handled, which is out of the assignment spread or as a seller side line item, so the question of exactly where the money sits on the settlement statement becomes live. A title company will generally place it on the buyer side as an acquisition consulting fee, and will then ask for something signed between the sourcer and the fund spelling out the service being paid for. A two paragraph email chain is not that document. With a closing date on the 14th and a fund attorney moving slowly, the practical risk is that a contact at the fund keeps saying it will get sorted, which is a different thing from it being sorted. What has the room used as the signed instrument in that position?