photo mosaic of Naples, Florida pier, Bayfront, Bayside, dolphin jumping, magenta orchid, water birds silhouetted against the sunset
Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

One of the common “rules” you will hear in real estate is that you should not mix forms.

Do not mix NABOR with FR/BAR. Do not use one contract with another association’s addendum. Do not combine forms unless you absolutely know what you are doing.

As a general warning, that advice is not wrong. Mixing forms can create problems. But like most things in real estate contracts, the better answer is a little more nuanced.

You can mix forms in certain situations. But you need to understand what you are using, why you are using it, and whether the form actually works with the contract in front of you.

Power is knowledge. The issue is not that mixing forms is always forbidden. The issue is that mixing forms without understanding the consequences can create gaps, conflicts, or unintended results.

**As always, please consult with an attorney or your broker before giving legal advice.**

The Main Risk: Some Forms Are Built for a Specific Contract

The first thing to watch for is whether the form you are using refers back to a specific paragraph, section, or process in a different contract.

This is where people can get into trouble.

For example, NABOR’s Buyer Election form is designed to work with NABOR’s inspection process. It ties into the way the NABOR contract handles inspections, defective items, cosmetic conditions, seller responses, repair caps, and buyer elections.

That does not mean you can simply attach a NABOR Buyer Election form to a FR/BAR contract, or even the NABOR’s As Is Contract, and assume it works the same way.

The same idea applies to certain occupancy addenda, repair forms, financing forms, or other contract-specific documents. If the form depends on language in a particular contract, then using it with a different contract may create confusion.

A good rule of thumb is this: If the form references a paragraph, section, deadline, procedure, or defined term from another contract, be very careful before using it. It may not be wrong, but you need to read it closely and make sure it still makes sense.

The Second Risk: Missing Required Disclosures

The second major issue is that you may accidentally miss a legally required disclosure. This comes up often with condominium and HOA documents.

For example, NABOR’s Condo Addendum and the FR/BAR Condominium Rider are not identical. They may handle disclosures, document delivery, rescission rights, and related issues differently.

If the listing agent provides disclosure forms for one contract, but you decide to write the offer on the other contract, you should not assume the original forms are enough. This is a very common scenario.

A listing agent may prepare the package using FR/BAR forms, but the buyer wants to make the offer on NABOR forms. Or the reverse may happen. In that case, you need to stop and ask whether the proper condo, HOA, and statutory disclosures have been included for the contract you are actually using.

In many cases, the safest answer is simple: Use new forms that match the contract. Do not assume that because “a condo disclosure was provided,” the correct condo disclosure was provided. That small detail can matter.

When Mixing Forms Can Be Helpful

Even with those cautions, there are times when mixing forms can be helpful or even necessary. The first situation is when one form set does not have a good option, but the other does.

For example, I generally find the NABOR post-closing occupancy form more practical than the FR/BAR post-closing occupancy form. If I am working on a transaction where the parties need a post-closing occupancy agreement, I may prefer to use the NABOR form because it simplifies the issues I want covered.

That does not mean I blindly attach it to every contract. It means I read it, confirm it works in the situation, and make sure it does not depend on contract language that is missing from the main agreement.

Pro Tip: I typically borrow the language I like from the form, and then paste it in a FR/BAR Addendum to ensure a cleaner format.

The second situation is with broker forms.

Sometimes a brokerage has already prepared a broker compensation agreement, listing agreement, or other brokerage document. Those forms may not need to change simply because the eventual sale contract is NABOR or FR/BAR.

For example, if the broker already has a properly drafted listing agreement, I am not necessarily looking to recreate that agreement just because the purchase contract later uses a different form. The key is making sure the documents do not conflict with each other and that each document does the job it is supposed to do.

Local Practice Still Matters

Another practical point is local custom.

In Collier County, NABOR forms are expected in many residential transactions. That does not mean FR/BAR forms are invalid. It means NABOR is the local norm, and many brokers, attorneys, title companies, and clients are used to how those forms work.

Outside of Collier County, FR/BAR is generally more expected.

That matters because people are more likely to understand the forms they use every day. When you move away from the expected form set, you may create extra questions, extra negotiation, or extra attorney review.

Sometimes that is worth it. Sometimes it is not.

The Practical Takeaway

Mixing forms is not automatically wrong. But it is also not something to do casually.

Before mixing forms, ask yourself a few questions:

  • Does this form refer to a paragraph or process from another contract?
  • Does it use defined terms that may not exist in the contract I am using?
  • Could I be missing a required condo, HOA, or statutory disclosure?
  • Does the form conflict with the main contract?
  • Am I using this form because it is actually better, or just because it was already sitting in the file?

That last question is important.

Convenience is not a good enough reason to create ambiguity in a contract.

But when you understand the forms, when you check for conflicts, and when you make sure the required disclosures are covered, mixing forms can be a useful tool.

The point is not “never mix forms.” The point is: know what you are mixing.

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

Give and Take: How to Negotiate Extensions

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

Negotiating the Gray Area — Extensions, Repairs, and Occupancy

There’s a point in almost every transaction where the contract runs out of road—but the deal doesn’t.

Let’s take a common scenario. The lender misses the closing date. The buyer is ready, willing, and still wants the property—but they need an extension.

From the seller’s perspective, this is frustrating. “What’s the point of a closing date if I can’t hold them to it?”

It’s a fair question.

But here’s the practical reality: If this buyer is still the best path to closing—and most of the time they are—then the goal isn’t to punish the delay. The goal is to re-balance the deal.

When you’re negotiating extensions, repairs, or occupancy, the principle is simple: If one party needs something, the other party should receive something. Not as a penalty. As consideration.

This is where a lot of deals either get handled well—or mishandled entirely.

The better approach is: “Yes—but what does the other side receive in return?”

Practical Solutions That Actually Work

Using the missed closing date example, here are a few ways to structure an extension that feels fair to both sides:

1. Release of Deposit to Seller
The seller was expecting full proceeds at closing. That’s not happening on time. Why shouldn’t they at least receive the deposit now?
This creates real commitment from the buyer—and gives the seller something tangible in return for the delay.

2. Lock Prorations to the Original Closing Date
If the closing is delayed, costs shift—taxes, HOA dues, utilities.
One way to neutralize that is to keep prorations tied to the original closing date.
It’s a simple concept: “You can have the time—but it won’t cost me anything.”

3. Revisit Previously Rejected Terms
This is often the most effective—and most overlooked—strategy. Was there something the buyer previously said no to?

  • A repair escrow
  • A post-closing occupancy
  • A credit structure

An extension creates an opportunity to revisit those items.

Not aggressively. Not opportunistically. But fairly.

Circumstances have changed—so the conversation can change.

Where People Get It Wrong

There’s a line here—and it’s important not to cross it. Even when one side is technically “in the wrong,” you can still overplay your hand.

For example: Asking for a higher purchase price.

It almost never works, as it triggers a basic human reaction—defensiveness. The buyer stops thinking about solving the problem and starts thinking about protecting themselves.

The Goal Is Not to Win—It’s to Close

In these moments, it’s easy to get caught up in leverage.

Who has it. Who lost it. Who’s entitled to what.

But the better question is: What keeps this deal moving forward?

Because the truth is, a slightly adjusted deal that closes is almost always better than a perfectly enforced contract that collapses.

Final Thought

Deadlines matter. Contracts matter.

But when something slips—and it will—the focus should shift from enforcement to balance. If both sides give a little and get a little, the deal usually survives. If one side tries to take everything, it usually doesn’t.

And in this business, getting to the closing table is still what matters most.

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

Florida Property Taxes and Prorations: Why the Numbers at Closing Don’t Always Look the Way You Expect

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

Property taxes are one of the most common sources of confusion in a Florida closing, especially for buyers and sellers relocating from the Northeast or other parts of the country where taxes are billed and adjusted differently. It is one of those issues that seems simple at first glance, but the timing of Florida’s tax system, the use of estimates, and the effect of exemptions can all create surprises if you do not understand how the process works.

In Florida, property taxes are posted in November for that same tax year. So, for example, the 2026 tax bill is generally issued in November 2026. That is different from many other states, where tax bills may feel like they are being paid prospectively or on a different fiscal schedule. For clients moving to Florida, this is often the first point that needs to be clarified. The bill that comes out in November is for the year that is ending, not for the upcoming year.

That timing is important because it directly affects how taxes are prorated at closing. If a transaction closes in November or December, we usually have the current year’s actual tax bill available, so the parties can prorate using the real bill. But if the closing occurs before the new tax bill is issued, we typically have no choice but to use the prior year’s bill as the best available reference point. That is not because anyone is guessing blindly. It is because the current year’s final tax amount usually does not yet exist.

Since we often do not have the exact current-year tax bill by the time a property closes, the contract usually addresses this by allowing the buyer and seller to re-prorate once the final bill becomes available if the amount turns out to be different. This is a very important provision, and it comes up more often than people realize.
One common example is when a seller has a homestead exemption that will not carry over to the buyer. Another is when the property has recently changed hands and the assessed value is expected to change significantly. In those cases, the prior year’s tax bill may not be a very good predictor of the final amount that will ultimately be due. The contract provision for re-proration helps account for that difference and allows the parties to true up the numbers after closing if necessary.

Before the actual bill is issued, the first meaningful look at updated taxes usually comes in the form of the TRIM notice. TRIM stands for Truth in Millage, and these notices are generally sent in late summer or early fall. The TRIM notice is not the tax bill. It is an estimate, but it is often the first time we see the updated assessed value for the property and the proposed taxes for that year.

That assessed value is based on the property’s value as of January 1 of that tax year. This is another point worth emphasizing because many owners assume reassessments happen only every few years. In Florida, counties generally reassess property annually. That means values can change every year, and those changes may show up on the TRIM notice before the final bill is issued.

If a property owner disagrees with the assessment, the appeal window is short. A petition generally must be filed within 45 days after the TRIM notice is mailed. That deadline matters. By the time the actual bill arrives in November, it is usually too late to challenge the assessed value for that year.

Florida tax bills also contain two very different categories of charges: ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessments.
Ad valorem taxes are the taxes based on the assessed value of the property. These are the traditional property taxes most people think about when they hear the term “real estate taxes.”

Non-ad valorem assessments are different. They are not based on the property’s assessed value. These can include charges such as solid waste, and in many areas you will see a solid waste line item of roughly $260 or so, depending on the county or municipality. They can also include other special assessments.

One important example is a CDD charge. A CDD, or Community Development District, is a special governmental unit created to finance and maintain infrastructure within a defined community. That can include roads, drainage, utilities, and similar improvements serving the area. If a property is located within a CDD, that fact must be disclosed.

CDD charges can have two components. One may relate to repayment of the original bond or loan used to build the infrastructure. The other may relate to the ongoing annual maintenance and operation of the community improvements. Both can affect the owner’s annual tax bill, and both are important for buyers to understand when evaluating the true carrying cost of a property.

The distinction between ad valorem and non-ad valorem charges is also important at closing because they are not treated the same way for proration purposes. Ad valorem taxes are generally treated as being billed in arrears. That makes sense when you remember that the November bill covers the year that is ending. Non-ad valorem assessments, on the other hand, are generally treated as being billed in advance.

As a result, on many Florida settlement statements, you will see a credit for one type of tax proration and a debit for the other. Clients often assume that must be a mistake, but it is usually the correct result once you understand how the two charges function differently.

This is why tax prorations in Florida are rarely as simple as taking the last bill and dividing by 365. You have to know whether the current bill is available, whether the prior bill was impacted by homestead or other exemptions, whether a reassessment is likely, whether the TRIM notice has provided updated information, and whether the property is subject to non-ad valorem charges such as a CDD assessment. Each of those factors can change the numbers.

Like many things in a real estate transaction, the goal is not just to get to the closing table. The goal is to make sure everyone understands the numbers and why they were calculated the way they were. Property taxes are one of those areas where a little explanation up front can prevent a lot of confusion later.

At Ross Law and Ross Title, we work through these issues every day and help buyers, sellers, and Realtors understand how Florida tax prorations really work. If you have questions about a closing, a settlement statement, or how taxes may be handled in your transaction, we are always happy to help.

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

International Clients Need International Solutions

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

What the End of IRS Paper Refunds Could Mean for International Taxpayers
Effective September 30, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officially started the phasing out of paper refund checks, in accordance with Executive Order 14247. While this transition to digital refunds aims to modernize and streamline refund processing, it presents unique challenges for international taxpayers – especially those without access to U.S. banking infrastructure.

Why This Matters for International Taxpayers

  • The IRS will now issue refunds only via direct deposit to a U.S. bank account or U.S.-affiliated financial institution in the taxpayer’s name. Critically:
  • The IRS does not remit refunds via international wire transfer.
  • Due to U.S. Patriot Act regulations, many non-resident individuals and entities cannot open conventional U.S. bank accounts.

This creates a potential bottleneck for accessing legitimate tax refunds, including those related to real estate transactions, estate distributions, and retirement account withdrawals.

One particularly impacted group: foreign sellers of U.S. real property. Under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA), buyers are generally required to withhold 15 per cent of the gross sales price when purchasing U.S. real estate from a foreign person or entity. The seller may later claim a refund of any excess withholding – a process that, until now, involved the IRS mailing paper checks internationally. This method will potentially no longer be viable under the new mandate.

A Practical Solution: U.S.-Based Virtual Bank Accounts

To help address these challenges, some fintech providers – in partnership with traditional U.S. banks – are offering compliant virtual bank accounts tailored to the needs of foreign individuals and entities.

One leading provider is Currencies Direct, a global leader in cross-border payments and foreign exchange (FX) solutions, backed by Blackstone. Through its banking relationships with J.P. Morgan and Cross River Bank, Currencies Direct enables eligible international taxpayers to open U.S.-based accounts without requiring U.S. residency or physical presence.

These accounts are proving to be an invaluable solution for clients facing refund accessibility issues.

Key Benefits:

  • Direct Receipt of IRS Refunds: Accounts are opened in the name of the taxpayer (individual, trust, estate, or entity), allowing for compliant direct deposit of IRS refunds.
  • Check Deposit Support: Existing or legacy USD checks (issued before the mandate comes into effect) can also be deposited into these accounts.
  • Global Transfer & Currency Conversion: Funds can be repatriated to over 120 countries and converted into local currency at market-leading FX rates.
  • Concierge Service: Clients benefit from access to a dedicated Account Manager / FX Specialist to assist with timing strategies, hedging instruments (e.g., forward contracts, limit orders), and transaction planning.
  • Expedited Account Setup: In most cases, personal or entity accounts can be opened in under 48 hours, with only basic KYC documentation (e.g., proof of ID and address).

Who Stands to Benefit

These accounts are particularly relevant for:

  • Foreign sellers of U.S. real estate (FIRPTA-related refunds)
  • Non-resident beneficiaries of U.S. estates or trusts
  • Foreign individuals receiving 401(k) or pension distributions
  • Global investors with recurring U.S. income or tax interactions

For high-net-worth individuals, international estates, and multi-jurisdictional tax structures, these accounts offer a streamlined and fully compliant solution for managing U.S.-sourced proceeds.

Next Steps

With the new changes, international taxpayers should:

1. Consult their tax advisor to assess the impact of this regulatory change on current or pending refund claims.
2. Establish a compliant direct deposit account to ensure IRS refunds can be processed without delay or disruption.

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

I Might Have Some Trauma After This Deal

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

The Missing Tract: A Closing That Tested Everyone — and Still Closed (Mostly)
A listing agent we’ve worked with for more than a decade referred a seller to me and asked if I could step in to help get a deal to the finish line. Later, he told me this was the most challenging transaction he’s ever been a part of.

I took that as a compliment.

Not because anyone wants a hard closing — but because difficult closings are where professionalism matters. And because on every transaction, no matter how routine it seems, our process is the same: we start by searching for the problems that can ruin a deal.

Liens. Permits. Survey issues. And, of course, title. The reality is that my job can blur lines occasionally — attorney, counselor, problem-solver, traffic cop — but my priority never changes:

Convey marketable title.

Marketable Title vs. Insurable Title (What the Contracts Actually Require)

This distinction comes up more often than people realize — especially when a transaction is under pressure and everyone wants to “just close.”

Marketable title means title that is reasonably free from doubt and defects such that a prudent buyer would accept it, and the buyer can later sell or finance the property without facing a real risk of litigation or loss. It doesn’t mean “perfect,” but it does mean no meaningful cloud on ownership.

Insurable title is different – and much easier to achieve. It simply means that if there is a defect, a title insurance company is still willing to issue a policy (often with specific requirements, exceptions, indemnities, escrow holdbacks, or a claim being opened). In other words, the insurer is willing to backstop the risk, even though the record may not be fully cured.

Here’s the key point that many parties miss: Both NABOR and FAR/BAR contracts require marketable title — not merely insurable title.

So even if a title company is willing to insure over a defect, the contract standard still matters. We can’t simply look the other way because it feels practical in the moment. If we know there’s a legitimate cloud on title, the issue has to be addressed through curative work, a contractual solution, or (when necessary) a litigation path — not avoidance.

That’s exactly what happened here. Once we discovered a missing tract in the chain of title, we couldn’t unsee it — and we had to build a path to a responsible closing.

How We Found the Problem

Title work is not just “pulling a deed.” True title review is a disciplined process: canvassing every conveyance, lien, lawsuit, and recorded event affecting a property across decades, then confirming that the legal description and chain of title align cleanly from owner to owner.

In this case, that deep dive uncovered something that changed everything:

A deed recorded in 2005 was missing a portion of the property — specifically, Tract C — from the legal description.

Here’s the part that makes your stomach drop:

The seller’s current deed (the vesting deed) included Tract C.

But the deed immediately prior to them did not include Tract C.

The result was simple and devastating: Our sellers weren’t the owners of that piece of land.

That’s not a technicality. That’s not a harmless typo. That is the kind of defect that can derail a sale, trigger litigation, and put a buyer in the middle of someone else’s ownership claim.

How Did This Happen?

The honest answer is the hardest one: Everyone missed it.

The attorneys from the last closing missed it. The Buyer and Seller missed it. The issue sat quietly in the public records long enough to become “normal.” And yes — I’ll even say the quiet part out loud: I wish we had missed it too.

Not because ignoring problems is acceptable. But because once you see something like this, you can’t unsee it — and now you own the responsibility of solving it.

The Problem-Solving Phase

Once the defect was confirmed, we moved quickly through every viable option.

1) “Maybe Tract C was recorded somewhere else.”

Sometimes a missing parcel is the result of a separate conveyance or a mis-indexed instrument. We searched:

Collier County Clerk

Lee County Clerk

No luck. Tract C wasn’t hiding. It was missing.

2) “Maybe the prior attorney had an explanation.”

Sometimes there’s context: a scrivener’s error, a corrective deed never recorded, an agreement in a file drawer.

We reached out. There was no explanation — and no solution.

3) “Could title insurance help?”

Somewhat — but not in the simplistic way most people assume.

Title insurance can be part of the solution when a defect exists and the insurer is willing to insure over it (or accept a claim and indemnify against loss). But insurance is not the same thing as curing the public record — and it does not automatically convert a defect into “marketable title.”

Still, in the right deal, it can be one layer of protection while the true cure is being pursued.

4) “File suit.”

This would likely require a quiet title action, and depending on the facts, could involve an adverse possession theory or other equitable claims. The issue wasn’t that suit was impossible — it was time.

A lawsuit like this could easily take six months or more, and that’s assuming everything goes smoothly. And the longer the timeline, the smaller the chance this buyer sticks around. So we kept that as the last resort.

5) “Find the 2005 seller.”

This became the best remaining path: locate the party who still appeared to own Tract C and obtain a corrective conveyance.

The 2005 seller had passed away more than ten years ago.

But here’s the break that changed everything:

Her daughter — the successor trustee — was still living.

The Human Moment That Saved the Deal

At this point, the listing agent and I went full investigation mode. We tracked down a mailing address. Through a neighbor, we learned a phone number.

And then the best possible thing happened:

She answered the phone. Jackpot.

It didn’t solve the issue instantly, but it moved us from “theoretical options” to “a real person who might actually help.”

Where We Landed (As of This Article)

This is where the story ends… kind of.

As of the writing of this article:

  1. The daughter seems willing to sign, but she hired an attorney to guide her — which is understandable, but it introduced delays we didn’t have.
  2. The prior title insurance company accepted the claim and agreed to indemnify the buyer against damages that might arise from this defect. That didn’t cure title, but it created meaningful protection.
  3. The seller agreed to escrow funds to cover potential costs if a lawsuit becomes necessary, while also buying time to obtain the daughter’s signature.

With those layers in place — and after more than two months of relentless work — we closed.

  • The seller received all but 10% of their proceeds (held in escrow), allowing them to move forward with their life and their next home.
  • The buyer received their new home with a clear plan, multiple layers of protection, and a realistic path to resolve Tract C in the coming weeks — or worst case, months.
  • And just as importantly: everyone was paid.

Why This Closing Worked When It Shouldn’t Have

This deal didn’t close because the problem was small. It closed because the people involved refused to quit.

We pieced together enough of the puzzle to make a closing responsibly possible. Every piece mattered: persistence, creativity, communication, documentation, strategy, insurance leverage, and a willingness by both sides to stay solution-focused.

It’s not “done” yet — but it’s moving in the right direction.

Lessons Learned

1) Title issues don’t care how nice the house is. A beautiful home with a broken chain of title is still a broken deal.

2) “Insurable” isn’t the same as “marketable.” Insurance can help manage risk and create a path to closing, but the contract standard still requires a real plan to deliver marketable title — not a shrug and a signature.

3) Work with the best people you can find. None of the professionals in this story caused the defect. But the outcome depended on their skill and work ethic.

This property would not have closed if the buyer or seller had tried to save money by hiring a less competent Realtor, attorney, or title company.

Because when a deal gets hard — and some deals will — competence is not a luxury. It’s the difference between closing and collapsing.

Mixing Contract Forms: You Can, But Be Careful

Multiple Offers – How Awful

Christian Ross | Ross Title – Ross Law

“I really hate multiple offer situations.” Who knew?!

I recently spoke to a REALTOR® who said, “I really hate multiple offer situations.” Was this was a confession of weakness? If you’ve ever actually managed one—ethically, transparently, and in a way that truly protects your customer—you know exactly why that comment resonates.

Multiple offers aren’t “hard” because the market is hot. They’re hard because the margin for error gets razor thin: one sloppy communication, one perceived favor, one unclear instruction from the seller, and you’ve got an ethics complaint, a licensing issue, a reputation problem, or all three.

Below are three real reasons multiple offer situations are stressful—and how to handle them without losing control of the deal.

1) Ethics: “Fair and equal” treatment… while still maximizing your customer’s outcome

The ethical tension in multiple offers is obvious: you owe duties to your customer, but you also have obligations about honest dealing and proper presentation of offers.

In Florida, license law specifically requires that offers and counteroffers be presented in a timely manner unless the customer has instructed otherwise in writing.

That sounds simple—until there are two, three, or twenty (!!) offers landing at once, each with different terms, deadlines, and escalation language.

The best way to stay clean is to systematize the process. A few practical guardrails:

  • Get the seller’s written game plan up front.
    Do they want:
    • highest and best by a deadline?
    • to counter only their top 2–3?
    • to accept first clean offer that hits a number?
    • to disclose “multiple offers” to encourage stronger terms (or not)?
      (This is strategy—but it needs to be the seller’s strategy, documented.)
  • Communicate one standard set of instructions to everyone.
    Same deadline. Same submission method. Same disclosure language. Same expectations.
  • Avoid “shopping” offers in a way that looks like favoritism.
    Multiple offers create a natural temptation to “work” one buyer harder than another. Even when you’re trying to serve the seller, uneven communication is how accusations start.
  • Document everything.
    When emotions spike, receipts matter. If someone later claims you didn’t present their offer or you steered the process, your paper trail is your best defense.

NAR also publishes guidance for REALTORS® on presenting and negotiating multiple offers, emphasizing protecting the client’s interests while staying within ethical and legal duties.

2) “Unfair dealing” perception—especially when you represent both sides (and that’s becoming more common)

Even when you do everything right, the perception of unfair dealing is almost guaranteed for the buyers who aren’t chosen—because losing feels personal in a bidding war.

That’s manageable when there are clearly separate agents on each side. It becomes far more volatile when the listing agent ends up involved with the buyer side too (whether as a single agent, transaction broker, or even no brokerage relationship).

And yes—this is a conversation that’s growing louder because of the post-settlement environment. Several industry observers have predicted an increase in dual agency / one-agent transactions as commission structures and buyer-representation behavior shift.

Whether true or not, this is where complaints come from.

3) Managing the seller’s expectations (before they get entitled)

Multiple offers can also inflate the seller’s ego. It happens fast:

  • The seller starts believing every request is unreasonable because “we had ten offers.”
  • They become less cooperative on inspections because “buyers should feel lucky.”
  • They expect the deal to be painless because “we’re holding all the cards.”

Then the inspection hits—and reality returns.

A strong listing strategy includes training the seller that the “best offer” is often the one most likely to survive inspections and financing. Also, if the seller becomes rigid or punitive, they can turn a strong contract into a failed transaction.

If you don’t set that expectation, multiple offers can create an ungrateful seller problem: they got the number they wanted, and now they refuse to do anything reasonable to keep the deal together.

4) Backup offers: helpful tool, but only if everyone understands what they are (and what they are not)

A backup offer is not “almost under contract.” It is a real contract in second position, typically contingent on the first contract terminating.

Backup offers can be valuable because:

  • they reduce the seller’s downtime if the first deal collapses,
  • they keep leverage on the primary buyer (sometimes),
  • they provide an orderly Plan B without re-listing chaos.

But they also create risk if poorly explained.

5) The MLS status issue: can you keep the listing Active while under contract if everyone “agrees”? No.

This is where a lot of agents get tripped up, especially when a seller wants to “keep it active to collect backups.”

At least in Naples (NABOR’s MLS guidance), the rule is blunt:
“Under no circumstances can a property that has a contract on it be left as Active. Even if the sellers are accepting backup offers, the home must be placed in pending or pending with contingencies status.”

And status changes must be timely—NABOR MLS rules require status updates (e.g., pending to closed, etc.) within a defined window (commonly referenced as three business days).

So even if the buyer and seller both say, “We want it to stay Active,” that agreement does not override MLS compliance rules. The MLS is not a private marketing preference; it’s a rule-governed database.

Closing thought
If you run a multiple offer situation like a system—clear seller instructions, equal communications, tight documentation, sober expectations on inspections, and clean backup offer handling—you don’t just “win the deal.” You reduce the risk of the deal (and your reputation) unraveling after the excitement wears off.