Forum Replies Created
June 1, 2009 at 7:47 pm #29450
C. Sanchez and Me have a transaction that the RB agreed to a higher MAV but lower payment. In return they are improving the property and will receive 100% of the Net Proceeds at termination “IF” they obtain financing within 24 months. You can work it anyway that you all agree.
Ok, that’s it! I quit!
It’s C. Sanchez and I (as in eye), not ME. When the object of the sentence is a pronoun, one must use the said pronoun in the objective, versus the subjective case…for crying out loud, Moyes!
It’s “…a transaction in which the RB agreed…” Not That the the RB agreed.
This so terribly upsetting!June 1, 2009 at 6:26 pm #29455
The documents who has?
Who prepared these documents? Who is the trustee?
Our document cover these issues without any problem….June 1, 2009 at 6:18 pm #29475
Good (and needed) info.
billMay 21, 2009 at 6:31 pm #29396
I understood this I know Bill has figured out a way to do this without having a RESPA violation. However, when Bill said “we find a buyer willing to pay 95 percent of value” he lost me. I did not continue on the call after that so I may have missed something.
How in blazes can we realistically find a buyer willing to pay 95 percent of value for a house coming out of short sale???????????
This is not baffling (I don’t think).
1. House for sale has loan against it of $300k.
2. Current TRUE fair market value of $100k. (hence, short sale)
3. Outside short sale negotiators gets bank to accept offer of $60k.
4. Outside investor pays CASH to buy at $60k.
5. End Buyer who lives in the house buys it for $95k.
6. End buyer still saves $5k off TRUE fair market value of $100k.
Speaking of baffling, I was on the call and I raised my eyebrows at 2 other occurances…
(1) In Q&A, lady was raving about the wonders of PRODUCE THE NOTE,
and I believe I heard her say “it WORKED for her”, and she got her house “FREE & CLEAR”. I dunno. Maybe I’m mistaken. Based on what I know (which is limited), a true NOTE RECISSION takes TIME, and MONEY.
Even when a lender gets BEAT DOWN in court, and a JUDGE actually issues a COURT ORDER TO RESCIND, there’s the business of returning parties to their original condition where buyer gets refund of all his payments made, AND IN TURN, borrower must return back some kinda cash for the loan they got (the technical term escapes me at the moment). In effect, the rescinded home loan is no longer enforceable, YET, borrower must do some kinda work out with lender to eventually capture the deed to the home.
Lot’sa technicalities. It’s a little bit more than “it WORKED for me!”.
Heck, I’m uncomfortable even typing all this discussion as this stuff is far afield from PACTrust / NEHTrust.
(2) Another Q&A dude suggested that when on the phone with the lenders Short Sale Negotiators, simply offer to BUY THE POOR PERFORMING NOTE DIRECT FROM THE LENDER. Dude suggested (at least to my ears) that this is STUPID-EASY. Lol.
Mr. Bill was like “all ears” to this concept, especially as it was laid out by Rafael (I suddenly remember his name). Scott Moyes has discussed this issue previously on this board. My limited experience actually being on the telephone with lenders is that they don’t often have the AUTHORITY nor DESIRE to be sellin bank notes ONE-BY-ONE like that. Rafael suggests it’s a PIECE OF CAKE. In fact, I think dude said “I’ve bought notes like that from the bank myself-what’sthebigdeal”. Maybe I heard wrong.
Man-o-man, I left that call thinkin I’m the dumbest guy on earth for making stuff complicated, when I could be doin EASY STUFF like Produce The Note, and buyin notes one-by-one (with a money partner). That’s my two cents.
Kevin, my friend, I’m a little surprised at your condescending tone here, but to clarify…
Profiting in the short-sale market is not “far afield” of the NEHTrust(tm) and the PACTrust(tm). We are in the business of making money for our students and clients, and are always willing to explore new ideas whatever they might be, if they are honest, legal and ethical. The investor who separates the co-beneficiary land trust transfer from other real estate opportunities is probably not going to attain any seven figure wealth right away (unless you count the decimals).
On the subject of demanding a lender’s production of the note, I personally know of no cases where a borrower got his house free and clear because of a forensic audit and didn’t think it happened all that often (as I stated on the call and was promptly corrected). However, “Sharon in Las Vegas” said she had seen two of them happen. It would not be in my nature to call her a liar, even if I thought she was misstating the truth (and I have no reason to think she was). You may have noticed that I didn’t permit her to continue advertising on our call. Whether she has seen these things happen or not is none of my business…personally, I have not seen it happen, but have heard the hype relative to it.
But do consider the fact that regardless of the time, legal hassle and expense involved, an attorney’s getting his client’s house paid for free and clear (while the client is making no payments) would probably have little trouble covering the costs and getting paid well for his services.
Next, regarding getting the note…I do know of a few occasions where investors have been able to buy individual defaulted notes from banks, but doing so is most unusual because, as you quite ably point out, the people you talk to within the lending institutions most often don’t have the authority or first-hand knowledge of policy to say “yes” to anything much. And those who do have the authority are the Note Department managers who are responsible for the hidden and unreported defaults (i.e., hidden to avoid posting full reserve) who are dealing with multi-million-dollar portfolio tapes.
These note folks are simply not interested in allowing cherry-picking by a onseys-and-twoseys-minded investor. But again, I felt that Rafael’s idea might be worth pursuing with some of the private lenders in California and elsewhere who do maintain their own loans (such as the few that I deal with on a regular basis). The single call I made to one of them was productive, but they have to contact their investor (private) to assure that he wants to bail-out with a deep discount (a small and limited operation).
About six or seven months ago, when looking for defaulted mortgage tapes (for a now defunct “tape buyer”), I spoke with a small lender in Hawaii who would have gladly sold the two defaulted notes they had (2 out of a total of 30 mortgages), but the discount wasn’t attractive enough, given the distance and the amount of salt water between us.
Now… What has any of this to do with anything? Just remember this:
“Failing to investigate the merit of a stupid idea has been the downfall of many a stupid person.” (The reference is to me, Kevin, not you)
You can use the quote, but I want a royalty… I’ve made a small fortune on the royalties I receive from insurance agents for my most famous phrase: “God forbid!”May 21, 2009 at 5:29 pm #29401
If it were me, and it has been dozens of times….
Um… Who were you during all the other times?May 21, 2009 at 5:15 pm #29408
Same deal…no short cuts.
I’ll Buy Your House ads (newspaper, billboards, bandit signs, a magnetic sign on your car, mailers to foreclosure lists, mailers to bankruptcy filings, mailers to estates sale lists, call on FSBO’s, call on landlords, watch for houses on Craig’s List, FSBO.com, Forsalebyowner.com, Forent.com, renttoown.com, leasetoown.com, getoffyurass.com,Dempseydumpster.com (i.e., hang around the junk yards, Dempsey Dumpsters, unemployment lines and homeless shelters to find out who lost their job and got kicked out of their house (oh yeah, and insane asylums and Taco Bells).
BillMay 11, 2009 at 10:51 pm #29353
The beneficial owner has the…
Almost a perfect response Gary (you’re getting scary), but please always refer to the beneficiaries as “beneficiary (not ‘ial’) interest holders,” not owners of anything. That term “OWNER” can bite you in the gazpacho fork in court.
BillMay 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm #29242
Is this the bozo that bought the club from Cathy Crowe?May 9, 2009 at 8:46 pm #29304
Don’t be too hard on poor Gabriel.
When one hasn’t sense to pour pee out of his boot with the directions right there on the heel, he needs some tender loving care…despite his apparent level of dumbassity.
Note to my buddy Gabe…Advertise on my site again (without paying me) and I’ll send one of my giant Sucker-Monkeys over there to suck your eyeballs out and leave them hanging on your cheek tied in a square knot.May 6, 2009 at 3:30 am #29268
I think you need to re-read Scott’s post. Being a little hard on him here aren’t we? Scott is a sweetie pie and would never talk that way to a network member. I think you’ve misquoted him. Read it again.
BillApril 29, 2009 at 10:17 pm #29238
You are correct, the parties’ beneficiary interest is not loanable under normal circumstances, unless a lender would take the time to analyze the integrity of beneficiary interest in a trust and realize its advantages over holding real property as security (i.e., avoids the time-delays in foreclosure and enables repossession, of personalty, which can be accomplished less expensively and in a much shorter time with much more power than a foreclosure.
In the “quick condominiumization” process (note quotation marks…there is no such word), the parties would need to agree to sell and take their profits at the same time, or they might agree to a more protracted term, giving everyone time to sell their individual beneficiary interest during the course of the agreement (i.e., by Assignment).
If looked at a bit more closely, the features of the concept are probably more analogous to a Co-op than a Condo.
BillApril 29, 2009 at 12:29 am #29130
Listen….I want EVERYONE TO BUY INTO THE SYSTEM...however, lot’s of folks in Hades would love to have some ice water too. My only concern is that our network members get taken care of in the process…the thing that bothers me when non-members get on our site is when they are advertising on my dollar, to my people on my site and giving them a bunch of crap that they (the advertisers) are not paying for. I think someone with something to gain from our participants here might want to pay for a banner ad so they could be free to tactfully promote their stuff.
If ANYBODY has properties that our member’s RB’s can move into on an EHT basis, that’s great. But if Rob (who I’m sure is a good guy) would use our site to pull people to his business without us or our members benefiting…than I’m agin it. And by the way, OUR benefit (NARS’) is in being paid for documentation and legal services when our folks do their deals.
No…nobody ever HAS to buy my stuff. But I would presume that anyone working with us would want to…when they determine that the benefit justifies and outweighs the cost.
Notice that I don’t end every one of my posts by saying: “You need to acquire our Making xxx Easy Course for $XXX before your can understand my answer.” Nope, I just hand out as much knowledge as I can to pretty much anyone interested in it and hope that someday, someway, somehow, someone will see fit to want to pay for our services and materials so I can buy a new pair of socks now and then (I’m down to my last one…not even a whole pair left).
Rob, you’re welcome here so long as you don’t advertise to our detriment or disadvantage…and it would be a good idea for you to know what we do re. the EHT…April 28, 2009 at 7:45 pm #29218
Somebody needs some money somewhere. Unless I missed something along the way. How are we going to make money without money? We are not the Federal Reserve.
You did miss it.
Free real estate means FREE FOR YOU
Yeah! Right on Scott! Say, I give you a limousine with $500 per-month payments, and I have my next door neighbor drive you around in it and pay the payments for you, how much did your limo cost you?
Just remember nuthin’ ain’t worth nuthin’ ‘less it’s free (OK I took some liberty with the quote…sorry Kris).April 28, 2009 at 2:30 am #29176
You can also call me or Jeff (Hatcher) here at the office and we’ll be happy to help you (1 800 207 4273)
BillApril 28, 2009 at 1:59 am #29148
The key to success is:
Leave the “other stuff” to the “other people.”