Subject-to vs just having the deed signed over

[Sheri Ulm]

I have a seller with multiple properties he wants me to just take over payments on. I contacted an attorney and was told there is no such thing as 'subject-to' in that state and I would have to do a land contract. My question is: If this guy is willing to sign his property over to me via a deed, couldn't I just have him deed it to me and I stsrt making his payments to the lender? I know it risks having the contract called in but even then attorney said that would be rare as long as payments are being made. So why go thru the hassle and expense of doing a land contract vs just having the seller sign the deed over to me?