"Flipping" House Back To Current Short-Sale Owner's...Very Little Risk ...Is this Doable???

"Flipping" House Back To Current Short-Sale Owner's...Very Little Risk ...Is this Doable???

Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes

I have a rather creative investment strategy that I am seeking opinions/feedback on where you can both flip a short-sale and be the bank at a high APR without ever lifting a hammer. I wish for feedback from others to see if this is doable. Forgive the length of this.

CAVEATS: Certain laws in certain states may not allow Contract For Deed (I am in California) but read on anyway.

You locate a home that is a short-sale with the owners still living in the house who want to stay and continue owning the home (and we'll assume they are a borderline/modest credit risk) but can only stay at a lower monthly payment than they are presently paying.

Let's say you offer the owner's to stay in the house and you will "resell" the house back to them at the current market price, and you will now become their "bank" (terms are below). We'll say they bought the house for $400,000 and have a $375,000 mortgage at 5% APR ($2,100/monthly payment) but today the home is appraised at $200,000 (after repair value). They owe the bank $300,000 on the present mortgage. You make a short-sale offer to purchase the house from the bank. You offer and settle with the bank for $150,000 as an example. The bank knows nothing about the owner's staying or the "deal" you have pending with them. You will not be doing any repairs to the house.

-As the new bank with a $200,000 appraised home, the owner's come up with a $10,000 down payment. You write a mortgage to the current owner's for a short 5-7 year term for $190,000. at a high APR of 8.5%. Because they pose some credit risk and have no credit history with you, their rate is higher but get to keep iheir house at a lower monthly mortgage payment of $now 1400/month.

The owners have 5-7 years to clear up their credit history and get a conventional loan to buy you out on the balance remaining. If they do not, you can either take the house back or extend the loan term. You, the bank, also make the Note assignable and may sell it to a Note buyer at a discount, say, $180,000 (you keep/make $30,000 they make $20,000 =$200,000) if you want your cash back earlier than 5-7 years. An 8.5% APR is attractive to most investors plus a $20,000 profit to boot.

-KEY FACTOR: Because the owner's are a higher risk, and the cost to foreclose is expensive, you write the mortgage with a “Contract for Deed” clause(where the owner is not put on title until agreed to terms are fulfilled). So if they default on the Note you can readily evict them without expensive foreclosure procedures because they are not on title (and they are not renter’s either) and you can take the house back immediately. This is where your investment risk is lowered. If after a few years of good payment history, the owner’s can "earn" the right to be put on title if you so elect to do so per your loan terms. Thus your security, in lieu of a big down payment and knowing you are loaning to a higher credit credit risk, is to use a Contract for Deed, plus earning 8.5% on your money.

-I'd also might consider a $xxxx amount Repair/Security Deposit if they are ever evicted before the 5-7 year term. After this time, the deposit is refunded.. Of course, you’ll need to do a full credit check and employment background check of the owner’s.

-Be sure to have the house inspected and lien search BEFORE you close with the current bank like you would with any house you buy.

-Do this is in a good area that has a desirable value/ in demand/good schools in case you have to evict/resell or sell this to a Note buyer who seeks this.

-During the term the owner’s must pay all the taxes, insurance and maintenance on the house just like any other owner would do. Be sure they send you proof of payments as part of the term (or they can pay you with a separate check and you control these matters). Have an attorney write up the terms of course.

In summary. in this scenario above, you are essentially buying and flipping a house to its current owner's; you make a profit of $50,000 PLUS earn 8.5% per annum for 5-7 years on your money and are fully secured by remaining on title in case of default without having to foreclose. You can also sell (flip) this Note to another investor if you want your cash back earlier than 5-7 years. You never have to pick up a paint brush to rehab or unclog a toilet as a landlord as the tenants are long time owners. Any Note buyer may want to see some owner credit history so keep copies of all payments if you sell your Note.

Thoughts, please? Thanks in advance!

Steven

0Reply
47 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
14y

Steven Marks I honestly didn't finish reading the whole scenario after I saw you want to buy on a short sale, not disclose to the bank that you will rent to own back to the bank.

I'm sorry to say, but this isn't going to happen. I know we all want to help the homeowner and trust me I do to. But the bank will make you sign all kinds of paperwork that says you agree to not allow the seller to remain in the property and have no agreement to sell the house back to the homeowner. The bank simply won't allow this. If you violate the banks rules and get caught, this could be a case for fraud. But that is for a judge to decide.

The only way you can achieve what you want to do is to buy the note at a discount from the bank. You are now the mortgage company. However I have no experience myself doing this strategy so I couldn't give you any advice on it.

Also in Colorado there was an investor who actually went to jail by doing these transactions and he was plastered all over the news! You just don't want to get a bad reputation by trying to be the nice guy. I know it sucks, but things can get twisted around so badly in these transactions that make the investor out to be a shark when all they were doing was to try to help.

I suggest to just buy the short sale and do a fix and flip, fix and hold, or hold for the specified amount of time the bank is requiring and then resell.

I do rent houses to my short sale homeowners all the time, but I never rent to them the house that I am short selling. I move them into a different house.

If you do decide to go through with these transactions, I would recommend you seek an attorney's advice.

See this reply in the discussion

32 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
    14y

    Steven Marks I honestly didn't finish reading the whole scenario after I saw you want to buy on a short sale, not disclose to the bank that you will rent to own back to the bank.

    I'm sorry to say, but this isn't going to happen. I know we all want to help the homeowner and trust me I do to. But the bank will make you sign all kinds of paperwork that says you agree to not allow the seller to remain in the property and have no agreement to sell the house back to the homeowner. The bank simply won't allow this. If you violate the banks rules and get caught, this could be a case for fraud. But that is for a judge to decide.

    The only way you can achieve what you want to do is to buy the note at a discount from the bank. You are now the mortgage company. However I have no experience myself doing this strategy so I couldn't give you any advice on it.

    Also in Colorado there was an investor who actually went to jail by doing these transactions and he was plastered all over the news! You just don't want to get a bad reputation by trying to be the nice guy. I know it sucks, but things can get twisted around so badly in these transactions that make the investor out to be a shark when all they were doing was to try to help.

    I suggest to just buy the short sale and do a fix and flip, fix and hold, or hold for the specified amount of time the bank is requiring and then resell.

    I do rent houses to my short sale homeowners all the time, but I never rent to them the house that I am short selling. I move them into a different house.

    If you do decide to go through with these transactions, I would recommend you seek an attorney's advice.

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Thanks Monica!!! I have yet to jump into the Short-sale market and was wondering what or if any land mines there might be and I guess I found this here and seems quite plausable that bank would prohibit this (though I suppose the owner's could move out for a while and move back in...but too much of hassel and not worth the risks). I appreciate your insight. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming!

  • Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
    14y

    Steven Marks No problem Steve, I'm glad your getting help now before diving in and finding out what you wanted to do wasn't doable. Here are some blogs I wrote that might help you.

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/blogs/2849/blog_posts/21697-what-you-need-to-know-before-investing-in-short-sale-s-and-pre-foreclosures

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/blogs/2849/blog_posts/21586-arms-length-with-short-sales

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Thanks so much Monica! Very helpful!

    By the way, do own the city Breckenridge, too (I'm sure you get that all the time)? :)

  • Rental Property Investor · Mercer Island, WA · Member since 2008 · 22k+ posts · 14k+ votes
    14y

    Another factor to consider in a deal like this (beyond violating a written agreement with the bank who approves the short that the seller won't receive any benefit) is that a judge may decide you've made a loan. Rather than the complex agreement you describe (I think, I didn't read the whole thing either), you've loaned the owner $150K. You've collected $10K up front. You're collecting payments based on $190K at 8.5% with a big balloon due in 5-7 years. A judge might recompute the interest rate based on a $150K loan with that big balloon and declare the whole deal illegal because it violates usury.

  • Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
    14y

    Jon Holdman Yeah I didn't even think of that. Good point Jon.

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Thanks and all makes sense! Though the banking industry would do itself good if it acted like a real business and do away with all these silly conditions and just worry about getting whatever they c money back they can no matter how, no matter what the means and no matter to whom, and not concern itself with a lot of this periphial stuff as to who might live there post short-sale, etc etc. Take the money/offer and run, and move on. But that's not the world we / they live in and that's another subject for another day. Thanks guys!

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    14y

    Steven Marks, sorry, but not so creative. It's called "fraud", it's against the law, eventually it would catch up with you. No amount of money is worth the risk!

  • Joel OwensBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    14y

    Steven this strategy was put into use about 4 years ago.I haven't seen this in awhile.

    When the government has loopholes and other known problems they sew them up quickly.Years ago it was seen as a grey area.Today they are definitely tagging it as fraud.

    I never did any type of these transactions but did hear they were occurring.

    I would stay clear of these types of strategies in today's environment.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    If you could financially perform then find a different buyer. California has some serious laws governing selling back to a pre foreclosure seller. And as mentioned its seems to be lender fraud unless you do put a different buyer in play. And there are plenty of short sellers who have 10k who would love to buy a home.

    In the big picture it seems like a bucket load of risk for such a small payoff when there are numerous minimal equity sellers willing to sub2 for uhaul money which you could wrap with an anticipated future value.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Jon. In California seller financing isn't subject to usury.

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Thanks to all who responded here and for your input and thoughts. I have done straight REO purchases via my agent and am not that intune into the the finer legal points of short-sales as I have not really delved into them like other R/E transactions.

  • Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Michael Quarles:
    Jon. In California seller financing isn't subject to usury.

    Perhaps that is true - I wouldn't be able to say one way or another. How about SAFE Act implications?

  • Involved In Real Estate · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2010 · 341 posts · 86 votes
    14y

    I like the idea but would take it in a different direction. Contact the lender and ask them to sell the loan to you as in an assignment. The owner is still in the house, you own the loan, and you can modify the loan to the terms that you agree upon aka Principal Reduction.

    You have the right concept but the wrong vehicle.

  • Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
    14y

    It's a lot of risk and there are laws against these transaction in Colorado as well. So not only will the lender not allow it, some states won't allow either. CA and CO are 2 that we know of so far.

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Assigning the loan you would think is the most common sense way of doing this but I'm leaning torwards Monica who is probably correct, banks aren't going to do this. I suppose if banks would assign loans all of this would be so much more easier and get these toxic/underwater assets off the the market faster.

  • SFR Investor · IN · Member since 2008 · 137 posts · 24 votes
    14y

    Steven,

    There are ways to do this more subtly. You could simply lease-option the house back to the sellers - completely unrecorded. They are in a beggar's position, so don't give away leverage unnecessarily through complexity.

    I've done this many times in a previous life. It is my belief that you've just bought a rental property and your first tenants are the people that already lived there and failed to make payments. In all likeliness, you will be the next "creditor" to realize their eventual failure. I say this empirically, and not with undue cynicism or scorn. Just be prepared. Peace.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Vincent D.

    Most Lender Arms Length Affidavits actually state you can’t do what you’re describing above.. And if you do then you’re committing a form of fraud..

    Here is my Short Package if you care to read an Affidavit

    http://www.yellowlettermail.com/Documents_Needed.pdf

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Michael Quarles:
    Jon. In California seller financing isn't subject to usury.
    This is not true at all. A loan carrried back from the seller to the buyer for a home is a loan and is subject to usury in CA which limts the interest rate at 10% max unless the loan is underwritten by a broker.
  • Flipper/Rehabber · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Will Barnard

    4. Seller Financing – Seller Carryback Loans Are Exempt From Usury

    In California, when a seller of real estate finances the purchase for the buyer with a note secured by a deed of trust, the financing is commonly referred to as a seller carry back loan. When a seller finances a real estate purchase, the seller is acting as the bank or lender. Oftentimes, a seller will offer to carry back all, or a portion, of the purchase price in order to get the home sold, especially if the banks will not offer to lend the total amount of financing needed to fund the desired purchase price.

    In California, some courts have held that a seller carryback loan (a.k.a. purchase money debt, Time Price Doctrine) is not a loan, but a sale on credit. As a credit sale debt, a seller can carryback a note, secured or unsecured, and such may not be considered a loan subject to California's usury laws.

    This is from an article at http://www.yourlegalcorner.com/articles.asp?cat=biz&id=97

    However if you google usury and seller finacing youll find hundreds of articles.

    If my memory serves this was actually a question on the California Brokers Exam...

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Thanks Vincent.

  • SFR Investor · IN · Member since 2008 · 137 posts · 24 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Michael Quarles:
    Vincent D.

    Most Lender Arms Length Affidavits actually state you can’t do what you’re describing above.. And if you do then you’re committing a form of fraud..

    Here is my Short Package if you care to read an Affidavit

    http://www.yellowlettermail.com/Documents_Needed.pdf

    ...and technically, driving 56mph in a 55 zone is a punishable infraction as is spitting on the sidewalk, but I'll take my chances. in this case, though, renting back to a defaulted owner is not usually a good play anyhow, so it's moot. Besides, its impossible to keep up with regulations. next year, the fed will be screening for people wearing their underwear backwards.

    [Removed]

  • Developer · Encino, CA · Member since 2009 · 65 posts · 15 votes
    14y

    Originally posted by Michael Quarles

    Jon. In California seller financing isn't subject to usury. This is not true at all. A loan carrried back from the seller to the buyer for a home is a loan and is subject to usury in CA which limts the interest rate at 10% max unless the loan is underwritten by a broker.

    Will, you are correct in certain respects but Seller Financing is typically indeed exempt . Here is a good once-over of the laws in CA governing usury.

    http://www.nvlawllp.com/publications/CAUsuryLaws.pdf (see page 1, column 3, second paragraph).

  • Rental Property Investor · Colorado Springs, CO · Member since 2010 · 476 posts · 305 votes
    14y

    Vincent D. I don't understand how you are doing these transactions if the bank has you sign an arms length affidavit that states the seller shall not remain in the property and can't repurchase the property.

    I have 3 different attorney's plus a file attorney that reviews all my files, and they ALL agree that doing these transactions even without having a bank arms length affidavit is crossing the line and not recommended. The thing they always tell us is the story of the CO investor that went to prison for doing these transactions. He was doing the same thing. He was getting down payments from the sellers and he was buying their house on a short sale or non short sale. He then lease optioned the home to the sellers knowing that they would most likely get behind again. In most cases the previous homeowner would get behind and then the lease was violated and he got them out of the house.

    Well the homeowners complained about this to the attorney general or somebody, the case the homeowner made was this investor was trying to help us keep the house and we paid him tons of money and now he kicked us out of the house. Poor, poor us! Well of course, like always the investors were made to be the bad guy. This eventual went to court and he was charged with fraud somehow and is now in prison. I don't know what actually happened. The investor very well may have been a shark or he may have been a good guy stuck in a bad position thinking he was doing right. But whatever the case, I think it's too risky!

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    14y

    Look at this from the banks standpoint. If homeowners in default were granted short sales from banks, and they had someone that would come in and buy for the discounted price, and that buyer then sells the original owner back the property at the discount price plus a small profit, the banks are out a huge amount of money.

    At the same time, the fact that most banks won't modify loans encourages such ideas, and doesn't exactly cause people to be sympathetic to the banks or their stockholders. However; it's still fraud, and illegal.

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