• Best Instructor Ever.

• Andrew is riveting and brilliant. A joy to watch and learn from.

• Andrew can take a difficult to understand topic and make it easy to follow and comprehend.

• Andrew Lieb is the only instructor that can keep me interested and awake when the content becomes boring. He is intelligent, well prepared, & entertaining. He is the only instructor for me.

• I think Andrew Lieb is passionate and extremely knowledgeable. He makes an otherwise confusing subject easy to interpret and absorb!!!!

• I loved the live interactions. Great sense of humor and outgoing personality made it interesting.

About The Course

• THEEEEE BEST!!!!! Enough said. Period.

• The best overall experience I've had. Thanks!

• He breaks it into parts that makes so much sense, and keep you on your toes. No sleeping in this class@ :-) Even online, he makes it very interesting! 

• I have had the opportunity to take this course in person and online and felt that this online format allowed me to better understand the subject. Particularly the section where you go through each possible way of filling out the form and what type of agency makes sense for what type of consumer. I feel more knowledgeable and confident with agency after completing this online course.

• Was in the dark, now I see the light!!!!!!

• This course exceeded my expectations and gave me a fresh perspective on the use of the Agency Disclosure form. I will be amending the way I present the form given the information I received and my improved understanding of the document.

Instructor: Andrew Lieb, Esq

Date: May 12th, 2015 at Viana Hotel & Spa in Westbury

Course Summary: You get the client, spend months looking for the perfect deal, find it, negotiate it and send it to an attorney to close it. Then, what? It dies. Have you ever wondered if you could do anything differently to have more of your deals close? Learn some of the main reasons that deals die like issues with the Sales Agreement, Title, Escrow Deposit, Closing Date, Financing / Contingencies and the Seller’s Concession. Next, learn how to proactively save your deals and earn a commission. Knowledge is commission.

To Register: Login To Your Lieb School Account and Click "Enroll" or "Join Waiting List"

Wednesday July 31st at 4:30pm in Rockville Centre

Divorce Deals: Selling the Marital Residence

Last evening, Lieb School came back to Newsday to start out 2013 lineup of courses. The first topic up was Deal Killers, which is my favorite course of all of our 15 licensed courses offered in our Course Catalog.

A large section of Deal Killers is devoted to not letting your deal die through understanding mortgage contingency clauses and how real estate agents should negotiate the shift of risk from the buyer to the seller when such a clause is added.

While discussing the topic last evening, we addressed a mortgage denial and explained the burdens of good faith and diligent efforts on a buyer. Next, we explained that even if  a buyer engages in some breach of the clause in bad faith, they may still prevail in cancelling the contract and having their down-payment returned if their breach is not the basis upon which the denial occurred.

To illustrate, I suggest our readers review the recent Appellate Division case of Ettienne v. Hochman where this precise scenario unfolded just this month. Therein the contract called for the buyer to apply for a "no-income-check mortgage", which the buyers failed to do and it seemed as if they were in breach. However, the Court looked to their basis of denial and found that "it would have been futile for them to additionally apply for a no-income-check mortgage" because they were denied based upon "their credit history" and not the type of mortgage applied for.

The takeaway for our readers is that while it matters that the buyer applies for precisely the mortgage called for in the contract of sale, a breach may not result in the buyer sacrificing his down-payment (assuming it is the liquidated damages for breach), if the buyer's failure to apply for the precise mortgage is unrelated to the basis for denial.

This case illustrates the exception to the rule where one would ordinarily have to follow the terms of the contract to the letter to be in compliance.