Subject-to property purchase

Subject-to property purchase

Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes

Hello all! 

It's a long read and I appreciate your feedback.

I'm looking at doing a subject-to transaction, me, as the buyer.  I've got a verbal agreement for these terms: purchase property for $230,000, 0% down, 20 year amortization, record title, long term escrow and buyer pays all closing costs.  I've reached out to an attorney to write the contract.  My attorney is a younger guy and I don't think he has ever written a subject-to contract and doesn't understand the transaction process.  Although he is right on a few items, I think he is wrong on multiple.  First, he said I won't receive title, I did not ask to receive a title, I asked for recording of title.  Second, he talks about the lender changing their mailing address and me not being notified about that causing missed/late payments.  That would be covered under long term escrow.  In the contract I will have a due on sale clause that will require a signature outlining the risk for the seller.   The contract would also have a clause in there about the process for the foreclosure process (following state laws) if payments are missed.   

Here is his response in an email conversation:



So, as long as the mortgage is on the property, you won't be receiving the title, and if you aren't receiving the title you'll basically be renting to own. The problem with this is if you miss a payment, statute supports evicting you within 3 days (as if you were just an ordinary tenant). Taking subject to their mortgage is very high risk.
Since you are currently living there and plan to continue, another risk is that because you won't be receiving title, the property is technically not owner occupied, and that is something that potentially risks the mortgage being called.
There's also a risk that the lender could change their payment address but only sends notice to the legal owner and not you. In that case the mortgage could be called, you'd be in breach of contract, you could lose the property, the sellers could lose it in foreclosure, and then everyone loses out.
This deal isn't actually seller financed, it's an assumption of mortgage, and because of that we recommend getting financing to clear the mortgage first otherwise you risk some of the things happening that I mentioned above.
That being said, if you'd still like to move forward, we are going to need a complete copy of their entire mortgage loan agreement and review thoroughly to make sure we are drafting around those risks.
Let me know your thoughts and if you have any questions or concerns.


Thank you again, I your input is much appreciated!

Eric 


1Reply
183 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
3y
Quote from @Eric Anderson:

Hello all! 

It's a long read and I appreciate your feedback.

I'm looking at doing a subject-to transaction, me, as the buyer.  I've got a verbal agreement for these terms: purchase property for $230,000, 0% down, 20 year amortization, record title, long term escrow and buyer pays all closing costs.  I've reached out to an attorney to write the contract.  My attorney is a younger guy and I don't think he has ever written a subject-to contract and doesn't understand the transaction process.  Although he is right on a few items, I think he is wrong on multiple.  First, he said I won't receive title, I did not ask to receive a title, I asked for recording of title.  Second, he talks about the lender changing their mailing address and me not being notified about that causing missed/late payments.  That would be covered under long term escrow.  In the contract I will have a due on sale clause that will require a signature outlining the risk for the seller.   The contract would also have a clause in there about the process for the foreclosure process (following state laws) if payments are missed.   

Here is his response in an email conversation:



So, as long as the mortgage is on the property, you won't be receiving the title, and if you aren't receiving the title you'll basically be renting to own. The problem with this is if you miss a payment, statute supports evicting you within 3 days (as if you were just an ordinary tenant). Taking subject to their mortgage is very high risk.
Since you are currently living there and plan to continue, another risk is that because you won't be receiving title, the property is technically not owner occupied, and that is something that potentially risks the mortgage being called.
There's also a risk that the lender could change their payment address but only sends notice to the legal owner and not you. In that case the mortgage could be called, you'd be in breach of contract, you could lose the property, the sellers could lose it in foreclosure, and then everyone loses out.
This deal isn't actually seller financed, it's an assumption of mortgage, and because of that we recommend getting financing to clear the mortgage first otherwise you risk some of the things happening that I mentioned above.
That being said, if you'd still like to move forward, we are going to need a complete copy of their entire mortgage loan agreement and review thoroughly to make sure we are drafting around those risks.
Let me know your thoughts and if you have any questions or concerns.


Thank you again, I your input is much appreciated!

Eric 


Sounds to me more like a Wrap than a Subject To. If you are paying more to the seller than what his payment is, it's a Wrap. Yes, title transfers to you and you now own the property. The exisiting mortgage stays in place in the name of the seller only. It is not an assumption. (That's a very different thing.) There is already a Due on Sale Clause in the existing mortgage. That can be handled. Most people, even lenders, do not understand, that a loan/mortgage and ownership/title are two entirely different things. They can be severed. That doesn't make one of them go away though. That is what the Due on Sale is all about. The lender underwrote the loan based on the information provided by the borrower and the property. Now, ownership has transferred and their underwriting is no longer valid. That increases their risk.

It doesn't matter that it is no longer an owner occupied loan since the loan isn't in your name and he will have already violated the Due on Sale Clause anyway. DOS is rarely called, but it can happen. I've had it happen twice in over 25 years and there are plenty of solutions.

If the lender assigns the loan to another lender you wouldn't get notice. Long term escrow has nothing to do with this. And you can't talk to the existing lender unless you get specific written permission from the borrower.

Your comment: "First, he said I won't receive title, I did not ask to receive a title, I asked for recording of title."
Recording title and receiving title are the same thing. There is no difference. You receive title when it is recorded which is what you'd want in this case.

If your agreement with the seller pays off in 20 years then his loan has to pay off in under 20 years or you have a problem. A Subject To means you are making the payment for the seller, same terms and payoff date. This doesn't appear to be that.

If he doesn't pay his loan you might be foreclosed on. It's better for you to pay the lender directly or through a servicer.

You don't want to add a Due on Sale Clause for your agreement with your seller.

You both are wrong on multiple items. Scary wrong.

Since neither of you seems to know what you are doing, (I've done only these for over 25 years,  I only do creative financing, and I used to be a mortgage originator) I would highly suggest changing attorneys and finding someone who knows how to put this together properly.

Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline

See this reply in the discussion

25 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Lender · CA · Member since 2018 · 638 posts · 393 votes
    3y

    Typically, as far as I understand, in most states, your attorney is correct. You cannot assume a mortgage that remains in someone else's name and then take title (the legal term for transferring ownership). The title/ownership of the home will always remain with the noteholder, and you, the buyer, are essentially establishing a rent to own agreement with the seller. You may, possibly, be able to add yourself to title but the seller has to remain on title if they are on the note/lien/mortgage. Also, what kind of loan does the seller have because not all loans are assumable. The only assumable loans are government (i.e. USDA, VA, and FHA). In the case of the VA loans, people don't realize that they are often handicapping the veteran who may be unaware that he/she is unable to apply for a new VA loan so long as their other VA loan is out there even if someone else assumes it. (There are work arounds for veteran to veteran eligibility transfers but I digress). I'm not an attorney, so take everything I say with a large and healthy portion of salt.

    I keep rereading your portion about recording title, not sure what you mean by that.  

  • Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes
    3y

    Thank you for the Reply Clayton, I am not looking to assume a mortgage, I am looking to keep the mortgage in the current owners name and take ownership of the property with a written contract and record with my county that I am the legal owner (I hope this portion answers your last line). My understanding is that the seller will sell the property to me subject-to an existing mortgage, title can be recorded with my county that I am the legal owner. The downfall to this is the risk of the lender may find out they sold the property and call the note due. So, is there a difference between assuming a mortgage (such as a FHA) and subject-to?

  • Real Estate Coach · Riverside County, CA · Member since 2017 · 238 posts · 157 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Eric Anderson:

    Thank you for the Reply Clayton, I am not looking to assume a mortgage, I am looking to keep the mortgage in the current owners name and take ownership of the property with a written contract and record with my county that I am the legal owner (I hope this portion answers your last line). My understanding is that the seller will sell the property to me subject-to an existing mortgage, title can be recorded with my county that I am the legal owner. The downfall to this is the risk of the lender may find out they sold the property and call the note due. So, is there a difference between assuming a mortgage (such as a FHA) and subject-to?

    Get creative. Creative a corp or trust in a name that makes sense for property. 123 John st LLC or create a trust in the name of the owner "Billy smith trust". Have the owner as trustee of the trust, transfer property to trust, then have owner resign as trustee appointing you as trustee.

    lender will be notified of the title transfer to trust, but looks normal to them. No recording for the trustee change on trust. (Just keep documented safe) and record properly with title for title insurance. 

  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Eric Anderson:

    Hello all! 

    It's a long read and I appreciate your feedback.

    I'm looking at doing a subject-to transaction, me, as the buyer.  I've got a verbal agreement for these terms: purchase property for $230,000, 0% down, 20 year amortization, record title, long term escrow and buyer pays all closing costs.  I've reached out to an attorney to write the contract.  My attorney is a younger guy and I don't think he has ever written a subject-to contract and doesn't understand the transaction process.  Although he is right on a few items, I think he is wrong on multiple.  First, he said I won't receive title, I did not ask to receive a title, I asked for recording of title.  Second, he talks about the lender changing their mailing address and me not being notified about that causing missed/late payments.  That would be covered under long term escrow.  In the contract I will have a due on sale clause that will require a signature outlining the risk for the seller.   The contract would also have a clause in there about the process for the foreclosure process (following state laws) if payments are missed.   

    Here is his response in an email conversation:



    So, as long as the mortgage is on the property, you won't be receiving the title, and if you aren't receiving the title you'll basically be renting to own. The problem with this is if you miss a payment, statute supports evicting you within 3 days (as if you were just an ordinary tenant). Taking subject to their mortgage is very high risk.
    Since you are currently living there and plan to continue, another risk is that because you won't be receiving title, the property is technically not owner occupied, and that is something that potentially risks the mortgage being called.
    There's also a risk that the lender could change their payment address but only sends notice to the legal owner and not you. In that case the mortgage could be called, you'd be in breach of contract, you could lose the property, the sellers could lose it in foreclosure, and then everyone loses out.
    This deal isn't actually seller financed, it's an assumption of mortgage, and because of that we recommend getting financing to clear the mortgage first otherwise you risk some of the things happening that I mentioned above.
    That being said, if you'd still like to move forward, we are going to need a complete copy of their entire mortgage loan agreement and review thoroughly to make sure we are drafting around those risks.
    Let me know your thoughts and if you have any questions or concerns.


    Thank you again, I your input is much appreciated!

    Eric 


    Sounds to me more like a Wrap than a Subject To. If you are paying more to the seller than what his payment is, it's a Wrap. Yes, title transfers to you and you now own the property. The exisiting mortgage stays in place in the name of the seller only. It is not an assumption. (That's a very different thing.) There is already a Due on Sale Clause in the existing mortgage. That can be handled. Most people, even lenders, do not understand, that a loan/mortgage and ownership/title are two entirely different things. They can be severed. That doesn't make one of them go away though. That is what the Due on Sale is all about. The lender underwrote the loan based on the information provided by the borrower and the property. Now, ownership has transferred and their underwriting is no longer valid. That increases their risk.

    It doesn't matter that it is no longer an owner occupied loan since the loan isn't in your name and he will have already violated the Due on Sale Clause anyway. DOS is rarely called, but it can happen. I've had it happen twice in over 25 years and there are plenty of solutions.

    If the lender assigns the loan to another lender you wouldn't get notice. Long term escrow has nothing to do with this. And you can't talk to the existing lender unless you get specific written permission from the borrower.

    Your comment: "First, he said I won't receive title, I did not ask to receive a title, I asked for recording of title."
    Recording title and receiving title are the same thing. There is no difference. You receive title when it is recorded which is what you'd want in this case.

    If your agreement with the seller pays off in 20 years then his loan has to pay off in under 20 years or you have a problem. A Subject To means you are making the payment for the seller, same terms and payoff date. This doesn't appear to be that.

    If he doesn't pay his loan you might be foreclosed on. It's better for you to pay the lender directly or through a servicer.

    You don't want to add a Due on Sale Clause for your agreement with your seller.

    You both are wrong on multiple items. Scary wrong.

    Since neither of you seems to know what you are doing, (I've done only these for over 25 years,  I only do creative financing, and I used to be a mortgage originator) I would highly suggest changing attorneys and finding someone who knows how to put this together properly.

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline

  • Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes
    3y

    John, thank you for taking time to reply, I like your idea on the trust, I had not thought of that!  I think I'm going to change attorneys and mention this idea to them.  Thank you again for your input!

  • Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes
    3y

    @Account Closed, wow, you are a wealth of information, thank you for taking the time to reply and help! You are 100% correct, I do not know what I am doing. I have put many hours in to educating myself on real estate over the past year and on ways to purchase this property. Thank you for clarification on receiving title and recording title. I think I am going to keep looking for an attorney who has more experience in these types of transactions. You've brought up other good points I hadn't considered as well. Long story short, I purchased a duplex with a FHA loan in January but love the house I was previously staying in and want to move back to it after occupying my duplex for 1 year. Another option I have thought of is having the lease re-written allowing me to sublet the property for a year and an option to buy at the end of the lease. It seems like something like that would be safer for everyone involved. What are your thoughts on that? Your writeup was very informative, thank you for sharing it with me!

  • Corby GoadeBusiness Member
    Investor · Boise, ID · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    3y

    Good for you! You don't need an attorney to write the contract- in Idaho, you can do this with form RE21 and RE17, we do those deals all of the time. 

    Honestly- the easiest way for a novice to do this in Idaho is to find an investment friendly realtor who will write it up for you for a flat fee and run it through an experienced title officer. The agent will make sure the contract is legal and binding and the title officer will make sure you have legally vested interest in the property and that the morgtage is being paid monthly through long term escrow. 

    I see deals like this fall apart all of the time because the contract structure isn't binding and neither party wants to pay anyone for help- if the deal is good and works for you, save the money from your attorney and just have your realtor write it up and guide you through the title and escrow process. 

    Best of luck!

  • Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes
    3y
  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 


  • Real Estate Coach · Riverside County, CA · Member since 2017 · 238 posts · 157 votes
    3y

    I agree with Corby - in the absence of you having the right contract, an investor friendly realtor could help, 1-2% isn't a bad commission for simply writing up a contract for you, 3% is a little much with the amount of work involved.

    Its not a wrap around, its a straight subject to.  Purchase the property with the terms you are looking for, as long as escrow understands (find an escrow used to this type of escrow), then have it go through title in conjunction with escrow.  Now it will be recorded properly with title insurance. 

    A separate addendum can be handled for the terms of the subject-to so at least both parties know their position.  If you transfer the property in to your personal name, there's always a chance the lender could call the note due, hence my creative suggestion, but I haven't seen one being called due.... but it could!...  

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 



    Please be specific as to what and why you believe is not accurate so I can be better informed.

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.

  • Rathdrum, ID · Member since 2022 · 14 posts · 4 votes
    3y

    Thank you everyone for your responses, I think the best answer at this time is to ask the current owners if I can sublet the property (full disclosure) until my occupancy of one year is up at my duplex I purchased in January then do a conventional loan for the property.  I've studied and studied on subject-to, thought I had a good idea of how to execute the transaction but I have learned today I don't have the knowledge at this time to finish in a timely manner.  If I want to keep the property available for me to purchase, that's the only solution I've come up with.  If you have any pointers, I'd appreciate them. Thank you all again for your ideas and helping clarify some issues I have!

  • Investor · Austin, TX · Member since 2021 · 9k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    3y

    Eliminate the inexperience and find a real estate attorney who drafts these in his sleep. 

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline

  • Wale LawalBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Houston | Dallas | Austin, TX · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    3y

    @Eric Anderson

    Here are a couple of important tips for investors who are considering a subject to deal:

    Hire a Real Estate Attorney: It’s vital that you hire a real estate attorney to oversee the subject to deal. The attorney will help create a legally binding contract between you and the buyer/seller so that you’re protected if things don’t go smoothly. They can also help you navigate “due on sale” clauses that might be featured on the mortgage loan.

    Plan Your Investment Strategy: If you’re pursuing a subject to deal for real estate investment, make sure that it fits your overall investment strategy. A subject to is generally a high-risk investment, so be sure to counterbalance it with low-risk investments, like rental properties or property management income.

    Research the Loan Terms: You should always perform your due diligence before buying any type of property. In this scenario, study the loan terms before you make any agreements. There may be hidden items and clauses to watch out for, such as prepay penalties. Also make sure to understand whether the interest rate is adjustable or fixed, and whether or not insurance and taxes are already included in the monthly payment.

    Analyze the Investment Property: Run a thorough investment property analysis to make sure you’re making a worthy investment, and that your exit strategy is sound. For example, conduct a rental market analysis to estimate your potential rental income or run neighborhood comps to see if your after repair value is worthwhile.

    All the best!

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline


    I'd have to read the pleading of your case to understand the courts rational for the decision.

    I will reiterate, I believe in a title theory state, the only thing the Borrower retains is equitable ownership and not title, which resides with the Trustee.  When the debt has been fully repaid the Trustee must reconvey title to the Borrower, not the Borrower successor who the Trustee has now relationship or obligation.  Now perhaps if you received a Warranty Deed a court might find through the legal theory of "after acquired title" the Grantee of the deed may now have fee simple title after the recon, but I doubt many people would rely on the theory to to find you have insurable title until after it had been adjudicated.

    I also believe an attorney would feel obligated to advise his/her client of possible pitfalls in a subject to transaction which is what it appears this one was doing.

    Since you appear to enjoy reading about title disputes, you might take a look at Mayfield v. First City Bank which went to the Florida Supreme Court and Suntrust Bank v. Northern which went to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  They both deal with what the Courts found were novel situations.  Yes, I was involved in both.

    MAYFIELD v. FIRST CITY BA | 116 So.3d 1261 (2013) | 40114003890 | Leagle.com

    SUNTRUST BANK, N.A. v. NO | 433 B.R. 532 (2010) | 20100809583 | Leagle.com


  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline


    I'd have to read the pleading of your case to understand the courts rational for the decision.

    I will reiterate, I believe in a title theory state, the only thing the Borrower retains is equitable ownership and not title, which resides with the Trustee.  When the debt has been fully repaid the Trustee must reconvey title to the Borrower, not the Borrower successor who the Trustee has now relationship or obligation.  Now perhaps if you received a Warranty Deed a court might find through the legal theory of "after acquired title" the Grantee of the deed may now have fee simple title after the recon, but I doubt many people would rely on the theory to to find you have insurable title until after it had been adjudicated.

    I also believe an attorney would feel obligated to advise his/her client of possible pitfalls in a subject to transaction which is what it appears this one was doing.

    Since you appear to enjoy reading about title disputes, you might take a look at Mayfield v. First City Bank which went to the Florida Supreme Court and Suntrust Bank v. Northern which went to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  They both deal with what the Courts found were novel situations.  Yes, I was involved in both.

    MAYFIELD v. FIRST CITY BA | 116 So.3d 1261 (2013) | 40114003890 | Leagle.com

    SUNTRUST BANK, N.A. v. NO | 433 B.R. 532 (2010) | 20100809583 | Leagle.com


    Rationale isn't my concern, (it was 6 years of twists and turns and litigation and multiple courts and lots and lots of "professional witnesses" and lots and lots of very expensive attorneys on their side and multiple judges and I won at each court)

    The ruling is the only thing that counts ;-)

    Your Comment: "Yes, I was involved in both."

    Very cool!

    I love learning, I'll take a look.

  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline


    I'd have to read the pleading of your case to understand the courts rational for the decision.

    I will reiterate, I believe in a title theory state, the only thing the Borrower retains is equitable ownership and not title, which resides with the Trustee.  When the debt has been fully repaid the Trustee must reconvey title to the Borrower, not the Borrower successor who the Trustee has now relationship or obligation.  Now perhaps if you received a Warranty Deed a court might find through the legal theory of "after acquired title" the Grantee of the deed may now have fee simple title after the recon, but I doubt many people would rely on the theory to to find you have insurable title until after it had been adjudicated.

    I also believe an attorney would feel obligated to advise his/her client of possible pitfalls in a subject to transaction which is what it appears this one was doing.

    Since you appear to enjoy reading about title disputes, you might take a look at Mayfield v. First City Bank which went to the Florida Supreme Court and Suntrust Bank v. Northern which went to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  They both deal with what the Courts found were novel situations.  Yes, I was involved in both.

    MAYFIELD v. FIRST CITY BA | 116 So.3d 1261 (2013) | 40114003890 | Leagle.com

    SUNTRUST BANK, N.A. v. NO | 433 B.R. 532 (2010) | 20100809583 | Leagle.com


    Rationale isn't my concern, (it was 6 years of twists and turns and litigation and multiple courts and lots and lots of "professional witnesses" and lots and lots of very expensive attorneys on their side and multiple judges and I won at each court)

    The ruling is the only thing that counts ;-)

    Your Comment: "Yes, I was involved in both."

    Very cool!

    I love learning, I'll take a look.

    Correction: The reasons given why it was ruled in my favor were that

    1) I had recorded the Deed and wasn't trying to hide anything

    2. I made the underlying payments and made them on time

    3. The lender had cause to know the ownership had changed hands even though the trustee was not involved and did nothing. (it was recorded)

    4. The seller was deemed to be a "not credible witness.

    So, that much I know.

    However, I don't know the specific rationale of each judge along the way. I can guess but I wouldn't want to say in a forum, as I may be slightly off and for future reads, I don't want someone assuming if they do the same thing I do, they will get the same results. But, I know items 1,2,3, were critical elements and the trustee fought the transfer and lost.

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline


    I'd have to read the pleading of your case to understand the courts rational for the decision.

    I will reiterate, I believe in a title theory state, the only thing the Borrower retains is equitable ownership and not title, which resides with the Trustee.  When the debt has been fully repaid the Trustee must reconvey title to the Borrower, not the Borrower successor who the Trustee has now relationship or obligation.  Now perhaps if you received a Warranty Deed a court might find through the legal theory of "after acquired title" the Grantee of the deed may now have fee simple title after the recon, but I doubt many people would rely on the theory to to find you have insurable title until after it had been adjudicated.

    I also believe an attorney would feel obligated to advise his/her client of possible pitfalls in a subject to transaction which is what it appears this one was doing.

    Since you appear to enjoy reading about title disputes, you might take a look at Mayfield v. First City Bank which went to the Florida Supreme Court and Suntrust Bank v. Northern which went to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  They both deal with what the Courts found were novel situations.  Yes, I was involved in both.

    MAYFIELD v. FIRST CITY BA | 116 So.3d 1261 (2013) | 40114003890 | Leagle.com

    SUNTRUST BANK, N.A. v. NO | 433 B.R. 532 (2010) | 20100809583 | Leagle.com


    Rationale isn't my concern, (it was 6 years of twists and turns and litigation and multiple courts and lots and lots of "professional witnesses" and lots and lots of very expensive attorneys on their side and multiple judges and I won at each court)

    The ruling is the only thing that counts ;-)

    Your Comment: "Yes, I was involved in both."

    Very cool!

    I love learning, I'll take a look.

    Correction: The reasons given why it was ruled in my favor were that

    1) I had recorded the Deed and wasn't trying to hide anything

    2. I made the underlying payments and made them on time

    3. The lender had cause to know the ownership had changed hands even though the trustee was not involved and did nothing. (it was recorded)

    4. The seller was deemed to be a "not credible witness.

    So, that much I know.

    However, I don't know the specific rationale of each judge along the way. I can guess but I wouldn't want to say in a forum, as I may be slightly off and for future reads, I don't want someone assuming if they do the same thing I do, they will get the same results. But, I know items 1,2,3, were critical elements and the trustee fought the transfer and lost.


     Sorry, the link I included was for the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the matter.  Here is the link to the DCA opinion.

    MAYFIELD v. FIRST CITY BA | 95 So.3d 398 (2012) | 20120802195 | Leagle.com

  • Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:
    Quote from @Account Closed:
    Quote from @Peter Walther:

    I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states.  As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender.  If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released.  On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law.  Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate. 

    Maybe this will help:

    Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor

    Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor: 

    • Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)

    Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.

    AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022

    NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

    Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)

     My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.


    I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ.  Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.

    I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there.  I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.

    I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.

    If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.

    Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.

    Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.

    *****************************************************************

    Short Version:

    When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.

    I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.

    Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.

    The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.

    It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.

    Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.

    What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.

    Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."

    I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.

    I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."

    I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background

    Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help

    Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties

    https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline


    As been said, the devil is in the details so without the pleadings I'm just guessing that the court found the WD was valid and therefore there was a valid transfer of the equitable ownership (see after acquired title) and therefore you had an interest in the property (equitable ownership not title) that required you be provided notice of any action, therefore you were named in the suit.  If you give me the style of the suit and the location and if the Clerks records are available online, I can take a look at them.  

    After-Acquired Title legal definition of After-Acquired Title (thefreedictionary.com)

  • Drew SygitBusiness Member
    Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    3y

    @Eric Anderson pursue the deal!

    The only thing intimidation should do is push you to find better answers:)

    Find an attorney that can handle what YOU want to do and act as a witness in case the seller lated challenges you.

    We've done Subject-To deals with a title company handling the closing. 

    Biggest challenges:

    1) Keeping the lender in the dark about the Subject-To transaction, but NOT doing it illegally. 
    - Inform lender property will be a rental, which supports changing mailing & email address they have on file (to you).
    - Have yourself added as additionally insured to seller's insurance policy.

    2) Accessing loan info and acting on behalf of seller
    - You'll need seller's SSN and loan number so you can log into lender website for payments, tax info, etc.
    - You'll need a Specific Power of Attorney from the seller, to sign for them on any existing loan docs, regardless of who the lender is.

    3) You'll also want seller to sign a disclose acknowledging they understand the Due on Sale risk and everything above. Have it notarized by an attorney, so they can't claim they never signed.

    Good luck!

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.