Growing up on Long Island, I always knew who I was, an Islander. I was a fan of the team since an early age from watching the glory this team creates when they score a goal or knock an opponent to the ground. Yet, that is not why I am a fan or why I am writing a politically charged post on a blog designed for the real estate community. Instead, I am writing to endorse the new arena proposal for only one (1) reason, IDENTITY. I am an Islander. We only have one (1) professional sports team. The team represents us throughout the entire Country as our ambassadors. The team lets out-of-staters know who we are; that we exist. They are the welcome wagon to our beaches, restaurants, entertainment and wineries. The Islanders represent Long Island and it is imperative for our community to keep our team.

Now the owner, Charles Wang, may be bluffing when he states that this is his last go at saving the Islanders in Long Island, but I don't like playing with fire. Let's keep our team. If you are a Nassau County resident I strongly suggest voting YES for the coliseum on Monday.

Thank you. Let's Go Islanders.

The rationale for this rule is that the referral fee would work a conflict of interest for the attorney working on the transaction where he / she would be motivated personally to have the deal close to get a commission instead of blocking a deal if such action was in their client's best interest.

The opinion does have an exception though. The exception is that if the attorney's clients gives informed consent to the referral fee and the attorney transfers the referral fee to the client such an action would be acceptable.

Therefore, the takeaway is an attorney cannot benefit financially in any way from referring a broker in a deal in which the attorney is working in a transactional representative capacity. Instead, the attorney must have unabridged motivation to guard the real estate client's best interest.

Yet, I was called this morning by a contractual purchaser of a property where the contract allegedly does not include any right to cancel for the seller if the lien holders will not release their liens by way of an accord and satisfaction - the traditional short sale scenario. The contractual purchaser wants the property without any liens. Now what?

I suggested that the seller should be able to sue for either specific performance (forced sale with paid off liens) or for benefit of the bargain monetary damages. Yet, I cautioned that not only are the terms of the contract operative and may preclude either remedy, but that this is not often frequented territory and its therefore unpredictable.

What do you think? Should the seller just be able to cancel the contract? Or, should the seller have to reach into their own pocketbook to satisfy existing liens? What happens if there is nothing in that pocketbook?

Remember law is not often easily predictable and many different factors will play into the result.

Maybe, the easiest solution would be for the potential purchaser to just go to the beach and forget the whole thing. It is awfully hot to think of anything else.