Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Buying & Selling Real Estate
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated 7 months ago,

User Stats

41
Posts
17
Votes
Patrick K.
17
Votes |
41
Posts

regarding subject to financing.

Patrick K.
Posted

Hi all, I have been watching a lot of Pace Morby's videos these days. He is an advocate of subject-to financing to purchase properties. 

In all the videos I have watched, he talked about all the up-side of subject-to financing. but the downside is rarely discussed. I thought I could use BP's collective brain power to help educate myself further on this subject. For all questions below, it is assumed I am the buyer, who wants to assume the seller's loan and take the title of their properties. 

The pinkest elephant in the room is what happens when I as an investor default on the loan payment. I understand the ownership goes back to the original seller. However, if this is during an economic downturn when default would likely happen, there might be no equity in the house for the original seller, and I can't see how a seller would be comfortable being ultimately responsible for a mortgage that might last 20-30 years. It felt like a glorified rent-to-own agreement. 


Any thought would be appreciated. 

Loading replies...