Skip to content
Welcome! Are you part of the community? Sign up now.
x

Posted almost 15 years ago

Attention: Residential Real Estate Agents

This is a great opportunity to learn about “Subject To” and how it works.  As an Estate Agent, adding “Subject To” to your bag of tricks will greatly increase the number of sales and closings you can accomplish.  Do not be surprised if you become the top performing agent in your office soon after you learn this technique.

As wonderful as the opportunity may sound, please be aware that this is not one of those “Get Rich Quick” schemes like listing houses on the MLS.  Subject To” is a very common, but also very misunderstood buying process that many Realtors are oblivious to

Pull out your standard HUD1, and you will find “Subject To” on lines 203/503.  The summarized definition states: Acquisition of title to real property upon which there is an existing mortgage or deed of trust when the new owner agrees to take title with the responsibility to continue to make the payments on the note secured by the existing mortgage or deed of trust

I hope that made sense to you, because it didn’t to me. So let’s break it down into plain English..

What they are trying to say is that ownership of a house can be transferred from a seller to a buyer without the need for the buyer to get a new loan.  The buyer will simply continue to use the existing financing that was put in place buy the seller.  Because there is no need for new financing to be arranged (and we all know how long that takes), the transaction can be completed in a fraction of the time it would otherwise have taken if the buyer had to arrange a loan.

Can’t this put the seller at risk?

Absolutely!  There is a real and present risk that the buyer will not make the payments as agreed, to the seller’s lender.  If this happens, the seller’s credit rating will be adversely affected.  In the worst case scenario, the property could be foreclosed as a result of missed payments.

So why would I even consider this?

As a Residential Real Estate Agent, I am sure you are aware of your fiduciary duty to the seller.  Of course there is the question about whether you should put yourself at risk by informing the seller of options that allow them to sell the property quickly. 

Why don’t we look at the bright side instead? If you work with an investor who specializes in “Subject To” purchases you will be able to accomplish quite a few things.

§  Save the seller a lot of money

§  Close the sale a lot faster

§  Collect a guaranteed commission

§  Gain the confidence and loyalty with your clients

You need to inform your client of all the costs associated with selling their home. In the current market, agents are averaging four to six months to sell a house and that is not considering all of the foreclosures and short sales that are out on the market.  Your client’s holding costs are approximately equal to four times the monthly expenses.  So monthly expenses of $2,000 would amount to holding costs of $8,000.

No here is the kicker.  If your client went down the “Subject To” route, his or her holding costs would be almost zero.  Yes nada! 

How come? 

Well, with “Subject To”, your client will be able to sell the property within a few days, so holding costs will be negligible.  They will also save on commissions, closing costs as well as any repairs they would have needed to execute if they were selling on the open market. Does your client have that much equity in their property?

There is a whole host of other benefits of working closely with a “Subject To” investor.  Since the investor will not earn a dime till they re-sell the property at a later date, or lease it out, the sellers concerns of the payments being made can be assured.

The investor has the ability to close quickly, and will do this at no cost to the seller.  This is because the investor earns money by selling at a profit, not by charging fees.  So the investor would not be expecting any fees from the seller.

The agent representing the seller will receive a full commission for his or her efforts.  Don’t forget this is an actual sale and purchase of property, so the agent is rightfully due their commission.

A successful “Subject To” transaction, will help the agent gain the loyalty of the seller as a client, and reap the benefits of referrals when others need to sell quickly.


Comments (25)

  1. Not a problem, Nick. I stopped protecting my perfect record a few years ago. :)


  2. Wow, I guess I have a little apologizing to do. Jeff Brown's first comment I obviously missed and didn't even realize it until now. I initially saw John Fedro's comment and responded to that. To me, the next comment by Jeff seemed to be a douche so I played ball, not realizing the whole time we were actually on the same page. When he said reread his comments, I still didn't notice his first one where he was obviously saying I was right on the money blah blah blah, basically he was giving an atta boy and I didn't even realize it :( Sorry Jeff, I didn't realize your first comment. It seemed like you were taking a complete 180 with the 2nd comment without realizing you already commented. If I had saw that, your follow up comments would have made more sense.


  3. Ok Nick, its your blog. Merry Chrismas. Brian


  4. Thanks Brian for the additional comment. I won't say I'm talking smack about land trusts, I just don't believe in their use with Sub2 investing. In your comment, you're own exact words are: "The Land Trust is set up with the appearance that the original borrower is still the beneficiary." (quote) You even used the word 'appearance'. And then again here: "This is not FOOL PROOF. The violation HAS OCCURED." (quote) Then what's the point? And lastly: "But the lender would have to PROVE the violation by going the extra step of VERIFYING WHO the beneficiary would be." (quote) Now, just so we're clear. I'm not against Land Trust's. I'm against them in the use of what you're using them for, which is obviously clear, hiding true ownership. BUT, and I mean a BIG BUT, when you include this statement: "Lenders want to know if: the account is current; the mailing address is current (mail getting there); property insured; are they in 1st position." (quote) This is exactly why I do not believe the additional use of a Land Trust in Sub2 investing is necessary. If they're going to call it due, they're going to call it due. Why go through the extra trouble to try and 'Hide' the ownership when you've already violated the terms of the security instrument to begin with. I agree with your last statement, just not in the use with Sub2 investing. On a completely other note. This post has been completely steered in the wrong direction from it's intended purpose. I would delete all of the comments, but they are just too good to delete. I will ask you once though, if you wish to continue this conversation in the direction it has obviously taken, please create a separate post and continue the topic, otherwise, I will delete all of the comments and leave the post as it should have to begin with before the mis-direction occurred.


  5. Hey Nick, Keep up the good work, and Nick, don't "dis" land trusts! They are awesome! You can shout "no thanks", but don't "dis em!" "Actively hiding" is not what I am about. Read this Garn St Germain Act of 1982 about the exceptions re: due on sale clauses. A land trust is a legal device that allows a property owner to legallly hold property without being on title. This is accomplished by establishing a trust (many docs) whereby a trustee is selected, empowered, and entrusted (often by the beneficiary) to handle, manage, convey and perform other actions pertaining to the property. How can you MINIMIZE the risk of the lender calling the mortgage due? The Land Trust is set up with the appearance that the original borrower is still the beneficiary. The true "sale" of the property occurs when the original borrower ASSIGNS their BENEFICIAL INTEREST of the trust to the buyer. This is not FOOL PROOF. The violation HAS OCCURED. But the lender would have to PROVE the violation by going the extra step of VERIFYING WHO the beneficiary would be. Lenders want to know if: the account is current; the mailing address is current (mail getting there); property insured; are they in 1st position. You do not NEED to have a land trust to do sub2. Land Trusts are awesome privacy tool. You can do both. RE Asset Protection. Just have an attorney do an asset search on you. Land Trusts help you LOOK POOR and OWN LITTLE! Merry Christmas Nick! Brian Gibbons


  6. Brian, that is where you and I differ. I do not believe in actively hiding the transfer of the ownership through trusts in the way that is widely taught by gurus. Unless you're Illinois or Florida, they really don't have the protection gurus preach. I've always enjoyed your creative career Brian and I appreciate the comment, however, you will probably never see me use or post anything about using a land trust.I would much rather have a solid exit plan in place.


  7. I do not see land trusts here being talked about with Sub2, Nick. Sub2, Land trusts, DOS, Garn St Germaine Act of 1982. They all go together. Sub2 is 1 tool. A great tool if used with care. Keep up the great "Buying Creatively" Posts, Nick! Brian Gibbons, REISkills


  8. Exactly Eric.


  9. Nick, I've been doing Sub2 deals in Phoenix since 2002. They are starting to get popular again because of the current real estate climate, i'm sure I don't have to go into those details. But anyway i've been called by lenders after having found that I own the property via sub to and it has been transfered to me.. and guess what? Not once and I mean not once have the lender ever called the loan due! Their main and primary concern was and is are you going to make or continue to make the payment! Remember they know that john doe was behind in payments or about to be, close to foreclosure. etc., and all of a sudden payments are being made or negotiated. Why would they call the loan due in this type of climate where non performing loans and foreclosures are the norm? Keep on doing what you are doing, because I certainly am! Most of the negative comments about Sub To transactions and due on sale issues are from those who have never done them. My 2 cents.... Eric


  10. Nick -- I've answered the question in two ways already. First, I referred to my original comment, asking you to please show where I ever said it was illegal. Then I pointed out that for the most part it's a contractual issue. I never said you expressed the opinion lenders 'couldn't' call their loans. I was unsure of your stance and asked you to clarify, so I wouldn't be assuming. My exact words: "If I bought a property from you, subject to, and the lender found out, calling the loan, what would your recommendation be? What should I do at that point? Or, are you saying they can't call the loan due and payable? The issue here is clear. If I'm the lender, and you've taken over a property with one of my loans, I own you if I choose." I'll be answering the entire question on a blog post this coming week. Your apathy for my experience in doing 'them' is noted. Fair enough. As far as 'challenging' you, I asked a simple question. If that's uncivilized I offer my sincere apology, as it wasn't my intention to come here in any way but as a reader participating in the give and take of a blog post, nothing more or less. Also, if that's what 'hijacking' a post is, I apologize for that too, as it was not my intention in any way. I'll conclude with the observation that your readers are well served by the information in this post. They would do well for themselves applying its advice. In fact, in my post I will refer to this one, recommending they apply the information in this post. The only point I was making, apparently poorly judging by your responses, is that investors buying properties subject to are at great risk, with no power. Mea culpa. Merry Christmas!


  11. Well, subject to is a great blog topic but as long a 99.99% of mortgage holders put an alienation clause in their deeds I don't see how I can use it in my business.


  12. Jeff, I don't really care how long you've been doing 'them' If you've been doing them so long, why don't you answer your question? You present yourself as too smart to assume that I am saying 'They' can't call the loan due. Please, give yourself more credit than that. The issue isn't whether or not the lender will or will not call the loan due, again, that is for another blog post, so quit adding to the hijacking of this one. The issue is your post gives the impression that it's 'contractually illegal' and John's post is clearly stating that in some states it is illegal. If you would like to rephrase your comment, then I would suggest doing that. Lastly, don't challenge me in your last sentence. It makes it hard for me to keep this civilized.


  13. Nick -- If you reread my comments, I've not once called subject to transactions illegal. I've been doing this for over 40 years now. We agree, it's not illegal. If I bought a property from you, subject to, and the lender found out, calling the loan, what would your recommendation be? What should I do at that point? Or, are you saying they can't call the loan due and payable? The issue here is clear. If I'm the lender, and you've taken over a property with one of my loans, I own you if I choose. Frankly, I'd love you to show me where I'm in error here. Love it to death. :)


  14. Jeff, that's not anything new. Sub2 investors are very well aware of the 'Due on Sale' Clause or as you're calling it, 'Alienation Clause'. That doesn't mean you "Can't" or "Shouldn't" do Sub2's and certainly doesn't mean it's "illegal". I appreciate your knowledge elsewhere, but, I would ask that you spend a little more time researching Sub2 investing before making comments that are only made by those that consider what they 'hear' to be fact and base their knowledge on those assumptions of knowledge.


  15. Nick -- The problem that will bite the investor sometimes isn't a legal, but a contractual issue. The loan contract clearly states in virtually all loans now, that a transfer of title, i.e., 'alienation' makes the loan due and payable. Sometimes the words 'in default' are specifically used. I can't imagine a loan not having that clause these days. The lender doesn't even need the courts. You either pay the loan off in its entirety, or they go through non-judicial foreclosure.


  16. John, can you reference where this is stated that it is illegal? I have a feeling you're mistakenly assuming these laws are specifying 'Subject -To' as just because someone transfers ownership, doesn't mean its a 'Subject-To' as I am referencing it as lines 203 and 503 on the HUD1 settlement form. Are you sure, you're not referring to laws that keep from letting shady 'consultants' take deed of a property in foreclosure promising the homeowner relief and the property still end up foreclosing. Which even still, I believe is different from 'equity purchasers' Thanks for the comment, I'll be looking forward to what you find.


  17. Nick, Some states have recently made it illegal to transfer ownership 'subject to" the existing mtg if the home is in foreclosure. probably brought about by sleazy investors. But sub 2 is defiantly a great way for sellers and buyers to go! and they work great. great post -john


  18. Hey Nick -- We (me included) closed a buncha sales in the mid-late 70's & 80's subject to the existing loans. What you've outlined as the risks to the seller are right on the money. Here's something on the contractual side to consider. The lender, assuming the loan contract includes an 'Alienation Clause', may, if they so choose, 'call' the loan at any time they choose, since the title has been 'alienated' via the transfer of ownership. If the lender discovers their original borrower no longer owns the property, they can, and more likely than not, will, call the loan -- making it immediately due and payable. If the new owner can't or won't pay, they can opt to foreclose. What's your experience been with that scenario? Thanks


  19. Thanks James and everyone who's commented. The idea is to open the idea up to agents that selling Sub2 can and is a great way to sell properties for sellers. All to often they cost the seller money that could've been saved from the expenses paid while it's being listed and the agent could've received a commission a long time ago. While it may be a little less than if they were to hold out for a higher price retail sale, nonetheless it's it still is a commission and they will be able to say they can get a property sold in a few days and not be lying about it. Agents for the most part have no clue what a Sub2 is or how it can help not only help their client but how it can help them as well. I spend a lot of time just trying to get agents to understand life exist outside of traditional home sales. Feel free to copy this and send it to agents or direct them here for more info on Sub2's


  20. Once again, great info NIck. I have not ever performed a transaction using a subject2. But, you are making me rethink somethings. Thanks


  21. Norm, Yes Yes no and marketing for them would consist of your same marketing techniques, however instead of marketing for sellers, you would market or buyers. In my experience, it's easier to find buyers than it is sellers yes, a sub2 would be a great option for that situation. If they want cash(meaning they're not really motivated) you could wrap it or could pay them for a portion of their equity, obviously the less the better. A true Sub2 is where they walk away and deed you the property and you pay them no money and you don't have a wrap


  22. Very Good! Where do I vote? My question is: The best case scenario is you find a buyer or tenant buyer, and get rid of it quickly...Yes/no? An ok situation would be you find tenant buyer and they rent til their contract term is up, and then buy...yes/no? A bad situation is if all the tenant buyers keep defaulting, and you have to keep finding buyers, or you eventually have to make payments...yes/no? Is it difficult to find tenant buyers? How and where would you market for them? Here's a situation: Husband and wife getting divorced. Owe 60k. Listed at 119k, price had just been reduced from 129k. Moderately motivated. This is an actual call from a bandit sign. I will make an offer, but if they're not to keen on my offer price (obviously, lower than they'd like) would Sub 2 be an option for them, based on the numbers I gave you, and if they baulk at the wholesale offer.


  23. Thanks guys! Remember if you like it, share it with others using the 'share' function :)


  24. Nice Nick, you sub2 guru (used only because it rhymes!)


  25. Awesome stuff NICK!