All Forum Posts by: Jay Gray

Isn't the elephant in the room the probability that these people are lying under oath and committing perjury? 

I'd say go with your gut on that. Mine says it's probably normal for burglars and rapists to carry around tools in their trunk to allow them to break into houses that they aren't specifically authorized to.  Someone like this will probably screw you, eventually. 

@David Krulac Re: "Tax Sale overturned, case dismissed."  back door Vs. front door fiasco, who is at fault? Is the tax agency officially at fault for not providing proper notice? 

So in those cases, where a tax agency ultimately loses for something like "LAST FIRST" (missing comma) -- how does this fare for the purchaser (let's say in PA)?  If the tax liability was $10k and the purchase was $50k - $40k overages. If the tax agency was proven negligent in court and the sale was overturned, aren't you entitled to your money back? Before anyone else takes possession? 

I guess I'm going to find out about these things soon enough. T minus 25 days until the first sale I planning to participate in. 

@Rick Harmon in this imaginary scenario I meant adverse possession but I honestly don't working experience of either.  I was thinking of a scenario where you went to go claim your recently purchased property and throw up a fence and discovered the neighbor has apparently long since claimed the location as their own parking numerous cars and other belongings there. You show them the title and they spit on your shoes and tell you to get off their property (technically your property, maybe) and take your girly man papers with you. 

After looking at "prescriptive easement", it appears that paths and triggers to both are similar - but have different goals or results. In adverse possession it seems they could lay claim to the actual property as their own, in prescriptive easement, they may be laying claim to a certain usage of the property, but not ownership. Is that correct?

They appear to have other listings NY, NV:

http://www.trulia.com/rental/3186967712-1-White-Pl...

http://www.trulia.com/rental/3186971879-6441-Sean-...

So it could be something FBI would interested in, once you have more information.

I assume this is probably them as well:

http://www.trulia.com/rental/3171731133-2409-NW-15...

The easiest thing to do (because attorneys unfairly trade stress for money) is to call the person who stole your images and ask him nicely to stop so you do not have to devote a bunch of your time exposing their hustle.

If you want to play with them a bit first, tell them you would like to arrange a showing of the beautiful mustard colored $1000/mo rental and see what steps they offer you.  That process may lead to the discovery of something larger - like taking applications and credit check fees for a home they are not authorized to represent == FRAUD. 

If that's the case, and I suspect it may be, then many different agencies would readily become involved. For example: http://oag.ca.gov/consumers  or the department of real estate. Perhaps even the FBI if they aren't living California.

I suppose it's fair warning to continually repeat your key points for every person who happens along to ask about Tax Deeds, but the same could be said for repeating "a fool and their money....".  I did enjoy the long list of pitfalls though (e.g. environmental hazards)

Tax Deeds are offer huge opportunities for gains and in most counties you can get into these things for relatively low money (compared to buying property at retail). To me, work is work. I'd rather spend the effort researching these than retail priced opportunities that tie up 10x more money.  

Even a newbie at tax deed investing would quickly (instantly) realize before putting $1 on the table that there are no disclosures or previews. That would become obvious when the auction starts and ends without such things occurring. Nevermind the warnings and disclaimers that are well displayed on county bidding information pages.

The "title defect" (the need for quiet title action) is something that I would think anyone getting into this would budget in as part of each transaction. That's what I intend to do anyway. You want title insurance? Ever want to sell the property as a "regular" sale - better budget for a quiet title action and initiate it ASAP then.

I don't think Adverse Possession is something that needs to be worried about in cases where you can inspect and protect the property before and after the sale. If you see the neighbors crap all over the lot, then perhaps that's something to be concerned with. But it's far more likely that the tax sale is one of many legal actions occurring with the property and the it's well vacated with no trespassing signs already posted. I've looked at a handful coming up for auction in my area and this is 100% the case. 

I wouldn't call getting a deed from a county tax authority a defect exactly. You're in the absolute best and highest priority seat for the title with a MONSTER of an agency in your corner for the transaction. Remember - the taxing agency has and exercises their power to completely obliterate the validity of bank mortgages during the sale process - and that taxing agency is essentially part of your "team", since you are their client/customer in the sale. That's just nuts in the grand scheme of things. The taxing agencies definitely aren't the business of luring in new "suckers" for these sales. 

If nobody does anything (during quite title process), you win. If anybody does anything, you still, more than likely, win. Where were these people during the YEARS that the taxing authority was trying to find them. I don't see judges being very sympathetic here, as they would be fighting against a system that they are part of. 

Riverside seems to be a little sloppier than other counties in terms of sale details, but they're all out there in various publications if you search by APN, and past sales  here:

https://www.countytreasurer.org/TaxCollector/TaxSa...

They also seem to do these quarterly & have a lot of re-offers of the same odd property. 

I was checking one out as example... 2815 Mulberry St. in Riverside (209222016-6).  It's a weird flag lot off an alley street off Mulberry. 

I would assume that these are situations where you might be weary of "Adverse Possession" claims since either neighbor may attempt to claim a slice of the land as their own.  Still, I think that's a situation where you could go in and talk to the neighbors, tell them you bought the land and don't mind if they park a car, boat, etc. on the land while you're not using it - but ask them to sign a contract for usage. I'd think in most cases the people would be all smiles to see that you're willing to formalize letting them use the land (when you're actually protecting yourself from future AP claim)

Interesting the minimum bid was $10.4k and no bid. 

I planning to stay away from oddities like the above and commercially zones properties where they may issues with previous land use. Initially, I'm going to look at single family homes in some less desirable areas and see how it goes. 

Orange Co. CA seems to have had 14 sales in in 2014.  By contrast, Sacramento County currently has 292 of its initial 369 listings remaining with under a month left until the tax sale.  

It's all a learning experience to me though. I'm very curious to see how many of these will wind up getting paid and removed from the auction. Aside from some general looks at the houses in Google streetview, I'm limiting the amount of research I do on any specific unit(s) until the last few days before the sale.

For what it's worth, OC has their last 4 years of sales results online:

http://ttc.ocgov.com/proptax/pta

I suppose some interesting information in there. It does seem like people bid them up (especially the units that look like they may be condos or something).  The lot at 829 MIRAMAR ST in LAGUNA BEACH looks interesting -- it's at the outskirts of of a neighborhood with $1-$2million homes, but looks like you might need an easement or something to get to the property, that is if it is even buildable.  Somebody apparently thought the lot was worth $125k though - which was about 6x the tax due.