Rewriting my assignment paperwork before a deal, and the marketing language trips me
Still no deals. What I've been doing instead is building the paper so that when a seller does say yes I'm not improvising.
Where I've landed so far. Purchase agreement with the seller in my name with the right to assign stated in its own clause rather than buried as "and/or assigns" on the buyer line. Separate one page disclosure the seller signs at the same time saying I'm buying as a principal for my own account, that I do not represent them, and that I intend to assign the contract for a fee that may exceed a broker commission. Assignment agreement to the end buyer that's separate from the purchase agreement. Deposit to a title company escrow, never to me.
The part I can't get comfortable with is how I present a deal to buyers. Every piece of instruction I've read says market the contract, not the property, unless you're licensed. I understand the words. I don't understand where the line sits in practice. If I email my buyer list a photo of the house, the address, and an ARV estimate with a price, have I marketed the property? If I instead write "I hold an assignable contract on a 1,240 square foot ranch, price to assume my position is X," is that materially different, or is it the same act with a different header?
Nebraska and Kentucky both folded public marketing of a contract into their brokerage definitions, which reads to me like the header doesn't save you there anyway.
Decision in front of me: whether to build the whole thing around reverse wholesaling and get buyer commitments before I lock anything up, which kills my public marketing problem but slows everything down.