...he terminated the covenant right before he put it up for sale... my guess is, he actually wanted to sell the house, and he knows that his transfer fee covenant could have scuttled a million dollar deal. 

It's doubtful that he took off the covenant because of the legislative fight in Texas, as Alderman allegedly claims, since that fight occured well before May 2009-- the bill covering transfer fee covenants was passed in 2007.  So, if the article is accurate, Alderman is probably not being truthful about his motives.

Of course, he put the covenant back on the property later according to the article... to try and show a little faith for his product no doubt, but the damage is done.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't, indeed-- and rightfully so!

It is just mind blowing.  WELCOME BACK.  Hope you had a great vacation.

It is not just my theory.

Consider the comments of Judon Fambrough, a member of the State Bar of Texas and a lawyer with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University:

The statutory language prohibits the transferee, his or her heirs, successors or assigns from paying the fee. Taken literally, this language prohibits anyone who takes the property from the immediate buyer, such as the buyer’s heirs, successors or assigns, from ever having to pay the fee.

Legally speaking, to assign means to transfer. An assignee is someone who receives property from another. So anyone purchasing the property from the present owner is an assign (or assignee) and is prohibited by law from paying the transferee fee.

And, the comments of R. Wilson Freyermuth, the John D. Lawson Professor of Law and a Curator's Teaching Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, which were published in an ABA article, Putting the Brakes on Private Transfer Fee Covenants:

Transfer fee advocates may argue that private transfer fee covenants are enforceable under the Texas statute because they obligate the seller to pay the fee, not the buyer.  This argument is of doubtful validity, however.  First, it is inconsistent with a literal reading of the statute; even if a buyer is not liable for the fee that accrues when the land is acquired, the covenant still imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay "a fee in connection with a future transfer of the property" (that is, a future resale).... Thus, the better view is that the Texas statute operates as a ban on private transfer fee covenants on residential real property.

I think I am in pretty good company, with these distinguished law professors, when in comes to a proper interpretation of the Texas statute.  When you succeed with your argument in a court of law, you have an open invitation to post a new blog here and boast that you were right and I was wrong.  I promise to take it with grace... once all appeals are exhausted, of course.

If I am doubting your claim unfairly then I apologize.  But my theory still seems much more credible to me than your explanation, even given your version of the facts, which doesn't really contradict the theory that removing the covenant was related to the effort to sell the house.  Besides, I simply  find it hard to believe that you would let yourself be bullied into altering your own personal finacial decisions by the NAR, an organization which you claim was calling you a liar, and an organization which you have expressed your obvious disdain on numerous occasions.

P.S.  Since you now put the tranfer fees back on your home, I think you ought to disclose in your listing on owners.com and realtor.com that the property is encumbered with one of your transfer fee covenants.  It's probably more relevant to a potential buyer than whether the home has ceiling fans or an ice maker in the bar.

Disclosure of a transfer fee on the owner's dioscloure document when selling a home is a great idea and one which I am sure Mr. Alderman and Freehold would suppor.  That is what they do in California but the NAR objected to that there. It clear that the NAR doesn't really care about full disclosure, they simply want to ban these fees because they call them a "commission-ectomy".  They are not out to protect consumers.  They are out to protect themselves and their buddies in the title industry. 

If I were to accept the fact that realtor.com would refuse to display the listing were Alderman to insist that the transfer fee be mentioned in it, the fact is that the tranfer fee is not disclosed in Alderman's listing on the FSBO site where he has the home listed-- a listing that I have to assume is under his full control.  If he really supports the disclosure of the transfer fee, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and disclose it there?

Mr. Aldreman has stated many times that he favors disclosure, but when it comes to selling his home with one of these covenants, he seems to realize that it isn't a good selling point.  That does kind of lend support to NAR's argument.  If Mr. Alderman really believes that full disclosure is in everyone's best interest, and the homeowners would welcome the chance to get a discount on the purchase price knowing it would cost them 1% on the back end, why isn't he touting that great benefit?

I'd also be curious to know if the list price of $1,395,900 reflects the appropriate discount for the covenant.  The Williams County Auditor has the value listed as $651,837 for 2009, down from the 2008 value of $708,886.  Looks like Mr. Alderman is looking for top dollar, it will be interesting to see what the property appraises for and what the sales price is.  I'll do my best to contact the eventual buyer and ask them what they think of the deal they got.