Home › Forums › General › EHTrust/EHT Topics and Creative Real Estate Financing › NC house bill 725
July 13, 2005 at 1:22 pm #793
Maybe I should make this a new topic:
The NC house bill 725 provides exemptions
(b)July 13, 2005 at 6:11 pm #11211
OK. I went back to the original thread after making two posts and deleting them. You should have kept this there, IMHO.Quote:Trying to untangle the wording for the definition of a “real estate transaction”, I come up with this short form (for our purposes) which may be easier to understand….
In trying to be helpful you slaughtered the text and gives evidence to my understanding that you have a wrong impression about the passage’s meaning.
See if this makes more sense:
(4) Real estate resale transaction. ? Any agreement [that gives the buyer] right of possession [where] a buyer contracts with … the owner … to transfer … title … to the [buyer] or into a trust [where the buyer] serves as [the] beneficiary….
What has been said in the other thread aparently didn’t register with you. Go back and read Alan’s excellent post. He does a nice job of breaking it down.
That definition of “real estate transaction” does not describe what we do. Period.
Now throw in the following:
This Article shall not apply to … Any real estate resale transaction [protected by] 12 U.S.C. ? 1701j 3(d).
Go back to Garn-St. Germain per the quote. If you’re not intimately familiar with this provision of federal code, you won’t understand how critical this special exemption is to NEHT trusts. This is the federal law that explicitly enables what we do.
I’ll not rehash those fundamentals here.
To quote Alan, referencing the bill text:
“The Person” here referred to, or the other’s named, are serving as “Beneficiary.”July 13, 2005 at 7:10 pm #11212
I’ll definetely look into your comments.
I am not worried about legal transactions I understand or deals where I can estimate the risk.
Needed feedback from you “oldtimers” on the board, before commiting $$$ to the membership package.
I also didn’t mean to cut anybodies comments down and thought I made it clear that I needed help in understanding.July 14, 2005 at 12:25 am #11213
As happens all to frequently with on-line messages, re-reading my message sounded kind of harsh in a couple of places. It’s always annoying how difficult it can be two bring emphasis and nuance through such a stale medium.
I’m not the big expert… but I do sit in for the big dope once in a while.July 14, 2005 at 2:38 am #11214
I can understand your confusion in the wordingJuly 14, 2005 at 6:18 am #11215
You and I both know joining the NARS team was the best thing we could have done for ourselves. Thats why we both push eachother because we want to be successful in this business. Trust me, my friend we will be. This business is about attitude and you and I both have it. We are in my opinion in one of the best markets for doing the landtrust method. Now less go out there and kick some butt.
Dave Vegas Mintzer
One of your best friends.
Your my boy. Peace.July 14, 2005 at 1:02 pm #11216
After re-reading the original post I got through the first two paragraphs and then it hit me, Functional Fixiness and Cognitive Ridgitity.
Do the words, “unless prohibited by applicable law” ring a bell?
No State Government or Lender Contract can overwrite “Applicable Law”.July 14, 2005 at 7:22 pm #11217
Scott you are absolutely right on this issue.. state law can NOT supercede federal law.
Just as John Cash Locke consulted with the AG in NC on his subject to method of investing, I do hope and wish you scott or Bill or whomever can enlighten these elected officials.
I personally think the john cash locke should not have made misleading statements regarding land trust just because other scam artists happen to use that method to perpetuate a fraud..
I feel that john cash comes across as any investor who invests via land trusts is in some way trying to hide something and as such that person or entity is doing something wrong..??? well that is what trusts are for asset protection so that got me confused…at least we are NOT violating the lenders due on sale clause !!! and just getting a seller to quit claim or grant claim the title to us especially when most of them are probably under some form of duress in the process..???
I wonder what the effect would be for the AG office when he has loses in court contesting a NARS trust and how that could affect the AG politically.
Hey prosecute the land trust schemers that is what they are there for but leave us NARS guys alone!!!!!
DAVE M :you are right on track so keep swinging that bat and you will get a hit sooner than you think…July 21, 2005 at 8:57 pm #11218
Two things – 1) form an inter vivos beneficiary directed revocable trust and name a remainder beneficiary of your choice; then 2) lease the property to anyone you choose, including your remainder agent if you wish.July 22, 2005 at 1:01 am #11219
Your not only a good shepard but an excellent sheep dog.July 28, 2005 at 10:28 pm #11220
Glad to meet you.
Currently I am in North Carolina talking with State Legislators and the powers to be in the Attorney Generals office to explain the side of creative investors no matter what their preference of investing is.
The representatives from the Attorney Generals office called me a while back to ask questions about creative investing, the reason being there are many pending investigations going on because of complaints filed by sellers who feel they have been wronged by an investor.
I just last week spent over an hour and a half on the phone listening about all the scams that have been reported to the AG’s office.July 29, 2005 at 5:29 pm #11221
Two (2) things…
Owner places property in asset protection trust
Property is leased to a co-beneficiary of the trust under a triple-net lease
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.