Nelya Calev

All I can say for those of you that missed it, well... it was a lot of fun. Here is my son Nathan having fun at the lake. I think by far this is the best shot of Nathan EVER!!! Because he doesn't like taking pictures

This one is also shot of my two boys. Eitan and Nathan

That would be my mentor Denny Buck who didn't want to show his face

Our wonderful Chris. I am not sure who is next to her

Hollie is always here to help.

Here is Kathy and Chris our brokers. They were nice enough to grill for us. Yummy!!!

Staircases are funny. They look rather simple but contain a lot of interesting parts with interesting names. My two favorites are "balusters" and "newels". Newels are the fancy posts that one can find at the end of the staircases, while balusters are thinner and comprise most of the staircase. Typically you'll have ten or more balusters in between a newel.

Now that you know what a newel is, we are currently redoing our staircase. We found a contractor who specializes in staircases and he worked with us to come up with a parts list for Stairwarehouse.com. They have some beautiful pieces on their web site and I highly recommend them despite the mishap - which was entirely our fault.

We decided to do red oak for the treads (to match our flooring) and Brazilian cherry for the railing and newels. The balusters are iron. For the newels, we went all out and purchased gorgeous intricately carved box newels.

The newels are hand crafted by an Amish craftsman in Ohio and when they arrived were as gorgeous as we expected. We couldn't wait to install them. When our contractor arrived, he took one look at them and exclaimed

They're too big.

Huh! Weren't you right there when we measured all of this! Unfortunately, because they are hand crafted and custom to order we cannot return them. Stairwarehouse did give us a great discount on replacement newels, but we are now stuck with $3,000 in newels we cannot use.

I am of course trying to sell them through numerous channels. My hopes are that one of the builders we work with can use them. The reality is they are too big for most homes.

When we started this remodel, the goal was to make our home nice enough that we will not want to leave it for some time. However, we now have these newels to remind us that there are just some things about our home that will never work.

Therefore, the true price of these newels is not $3,000. They are two million dollar newels. It will take approximately two million dollars to buy a home large enough that we can redo the staircase with these newels. So we'd better start saving!

Not long ago I mentioned a property not far from where I live. The property started out as a normal listing, then failed to sell over time. After numerous price reductions, it became a short sale. After even further price reductions, it finally sold.

The agent who sold the house served as a dual agent in the transaction. Approximately one month after the home sold and a few small changes were made to the property, it was listed again with the same agent. The remarks for the property mentioned that it was a recent short sale and had been updated so it now is an even greater bargain! Of course, the home is again going through price reduction after reduction.

If I were the original owners, I would be extremely suspicious of the agent. Was the agent entirely neutral in this transaction? Did the agent honestly try to sell it before the prospect of dual agency arose?

There is another agent who also sells a number of homes in my area. What I find remarkable is she serves as a dual agent on almost all of her properties. I don't know about you, but when I list properties at a good price I tend to receive offers. Shouldn't the odds favor that most of her homes are not sold through dual agency?

These are just some examples of why I believe dual agency should not be allowed. When I sign a contract with my sellers, they are paying for the following.

- My advice for preparing the home for sale and pricing

- My marketing and sales skills

- My negotiation skills

However, in the case of dual agency they suddenly lose the third item. I now must remain a neutral party between the buyer and the seller because by law I cannot disclose any financial information to the other party. Therefore I cannot even suggest a response for either the buyer or the seller without the advice being tainted.

This also applies to the buyer. Sure, we have the buyers sign papers informing them what dual agency is, but how many of them truly understand this? The purpose of the selling agent is to bargain hard for a price and conditions for the buyer, which I cannot do while under contract with the seller.

The argument I hear from many agents is that if the listing agent finds buyers for the property, it is in the best interest of the seller. This is true, but the listing agent does not need to actually represent them. I have found buyers for my properties before, and I always refer them to other agents.

This is a win win situation for all parties. I can still negotiate hard for my sellers. The buyers have their own representation. I am paid for finding buyers for the property and the selling agent receives a solid lead.

In the cases above, if you were the sellers wouldn't you honestly be a bit suspicious? In the case of dual agency, how are the sellers to know that their interests were kept secret?

Say a home is for sale for $450,000. According to the realtor it is worth this much but hasn't sold for a month. The sellers are willing to go as low as $400,000 and the realtor knows this. Now all of the sudden a dual agent deal arrives for $400,000. The realtor cannot provide any advice to the sellers about whether to accept or counter to the deal. Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?

The fact is, a lot of people out there do not have good opinions of realtors as a whole. This is one of the reasons. Imagine you pay an attorney in a lawsuit to defend you and he goes to the other side and accepts a fee for disclosing all of your secrets? This is the same thing that occurs with dual agency. Sure, it is illegal for the agent to do this, but it is also extremely difficult to prove in court that he/she did it.

For these reasons, I think we should not allow dual agency. It is just too easy to abuse.

It is well known that the vast majority of hardened criminals do not start out with severe crimes. They start out with very small crimes and when they discover that they can get away with them, they move on up from there. Many of the criminals of tomorrow, though, will be of a completely different start.

The simple fact of being foreclosed on has turned out the worst in people . Say you have a car that you want to sell, and someone comes up to you to buy it. The buyer only can put a small deposit down on the car, so you agree to let him pay you monthly for the rest. After some time, he stops paying you monthly. You keep asking for payment, but he does not give it to you. After a year and a half, you demand your car back. He takes a sledge hammer and smashes it to pieces. Wouldn't you be a bit perturbed.

Yet this is exactly what is happening now. People who simply made bad financial mistakes take absolutely no responsibility for it themselves. They blame the banks entirely and proceed to trash the property. Some of them even return to the properties while they are on the market and do more damage.

In one particular case, the previous owner complained that her appliances were expensive and that it wasn't fair to leave them to the bank. On behalf of the bank, I arranged for cash for keys to buy the appliances at brand new prices and the owner agreed. Shortly after the transaction and after the property had new locks, she broke into the property and stole the appliances and ripped the doors out.

What this person did constitutes theft. I called the police and took all the necessary steps. Now, she has several children who live with her. What lesson did she just teach them? These children now believe that theft can be justified.

Thefts like this are becoming more and more common. In one case where someone broke into the home and stole all of the faucets and light fixtures (the day before inspection) I called the police and the response was that they could not due anything due to 'humanity laws' concerning the previous homeowner. In this case, I believe it was someone other than the previous owner but still was quite upset that the police considered it a non-issue.

These people committing these crimes will not stop here. They now fully believe they can act with impunity. They can take a loan out for something they cannot pay, get away with not paying for over a year, then trash it without repercussions. They can then continue to break into that property and steal with impunity. Do you really think they won't translate that to other crimes?

Yet the public sympathy continues to be on the side of the poor homeowners being booted out by the evil banks after living in the house rent free for over a year. Certainly the banks can be faulted for giving out loans that should never have been given and then investing these funds in poor places, but that argument is akin to me giving you a gun, you shooting someone, then blaming it on me.

After a home has been foreclosed, I work with banks to sell them. Typically, I am the one who informs the previous homeowner that he/she no longer owns the property and must vacate. Different people respond to this in different ways of course.

What I am seeing though, is a very dangerous trend. It is a trend that must be stopped in its tracks, or it will have very serious complications for us all. This trend is the previous homeowner destroying the property.

One recent case really boils my blood. All the more so since I went out of my way to work with the guy. While the bank was rekeying his home, he called me crying that his stuff was still in the house. I spoke to the vendor who was changing the locks and told him to stop so the previous owner could reclaim his things. Instead of retrieving the few belongings left at the house, he trashed it.

The electrical panel was ripped out and the water heater was torn out of its place and left in the front yard. When I stepped inside the house I could hear the buzzing of live wires and thank god I did not step into the flooded utility room which due to the live wires could have been a death trap.

He even left the door wide open and I shudder at thinking what could have happened had a neighborhood child happened to walk in. The neighbors were so dismayed at seeing the carnage that they called the police. When the police officer arrived he called for backup and upon finding the owner - who admitted to doing all of this damage - they told him to leave and never come back.

Why was he upset? He was upset because he could no longer pay back money he had borrowed because his store had less business. He had also stretched himself too thin by buying more properties than he could afford. And this is the bank's fault?!

What we don't realize is when these people do these things to houses, it affects not just the bank. The bank will obviously sell the house for less, which affects the property values of the neighbors. This in turn affects taxes and the economy in general. The money lost when the house is damaged does not come out of thin air - it is paid for by the rest of us.

There are also the safety aspects. Someone could have been killed fixing the electrical issues in this home. The home could have caught fire and spread to neighbors' homes. This is an extremely dangerous issue.

Sadly, I only see this trend increasing. The sympathy out there right now is for the homeowners - who find nothing wrong with the fact that many of them chose not to make house payments for a year or more and the bank had the 'nerve' to take the house back.