Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
Creative Real Estate Financing
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated 3 months ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

60
Posts
23
Votes
Bob Asad
23
Votes |
60
Posts

Wouldn't a Subject To Hold the Seller from Moving on?

Bob Asad
Posted

I've been reading more about subject to and here's what I've learned:

-Good for sellers who are off market

-Have low to no equity

-Have a mortgage with a low interest rate (less than 5%)

-Be absentee or out of state (vacant property, or have a tenant)

The buyer would then take over the mortgage payments, and have the seller sign the deed over to the buyer. The mortgage would stay under the seller's name.

The buyer could then rent out the unit, renovate, etc. to increase cash flow or make more money.

But aside from a possible "due on clause" being called by the mortgage company, what's the benefit to the seller?

They are held hostage by the buyer until the buyer fully pays off the mortgage. So the seller cannot go get another loan for a car, house, apartment, etc. so it damages their credit by stretching them too thin.

Am I missing something? In other words, it doesn't make sense for the seller. And equally for the buyer, if you want to renovate and refinance or cash out, wouldn't you have to pay off the entire mortgage at that point and the bank would know it was always the buyer paying off and not the seller?

Loading replies...