All Forum Posts by: Andy B.

I had thought the 50% rule was used to account for all expenses except the mortgage (so it would include Taxes and Insurance) -- am I reading that wrong?

I mixed them up after I printed them -- but I like the one that has the hand written 1540 sq.ft. best with my second choice being the one designed by Michael.

Just because the wife is listed as the manager of the LLC does not mean you bought from the wife -- you still bought from the LLC and the guy most-likely is part of the LLC.

The title company should have reviewed the LLC documents to make sure the person signing the deed was authorized to do so, so there is nothing illegal in a person authorized to represent an LLC doing this even if someone else is listed in the corporate documents as the "main" person.

There are ample examples of a municipality taking private property so it can be sold to a private company which will result in a higher tax base. Just look to the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London {New London wanted to seize a bunch of homes so a developer could build a campus for Pfizer - court said that the states get to decide what "public purpose" means and upheld the right}

Based on the Kelo decision, it would be likely that this concept could be considered "public", but it is a stretch even with the broad Kelo ruling. These mortgages being targeted are current and the homeowner is making the proper payments -- I do not see how it can be argued that people who are currently making their mortgage payments are creating a "blight" that hurts the public. If they were going after loans that were past due and ready for foreclosure, that would be different - since foreclosure and vacant homes hurt everyone around them {personally, I still do not feel this is correct - but apparently the court did not take my feelings into account}

Another problem is that to use Eminent Domain, the governemtn is forced to pay fair market value for the thing taken -- in the example in the article of the $300K mortgage, I do not know that they can claim $120K is the fair market value. I am not knowledgable in valuing notes, but I understand the value of the property that the lien attaches to is just one aspect of the valuation -- credit of borrower, payment history, etc. all factor in.

What I think will sink this idea is that the city is not the one pressing this issue, it is a venture capital company. The argument will be that the venture capital company is looking to acquire good value notes at discount prices (which is why they are going after the notes where the borrower can actually pay) and are simply going to give a kickback to the city based on the profit.

Also, I think if one note gets seized, I can see every bank in CA banding together to fund the defense regardless of how small the mortgage holder is -- this is potentially billions of dollars of loss to the banks, they will throw millions of dollars at making sure it does not happen and I bet the venture capital group that is pressing this is not going to fund the city's defense.

Welcome Josh glad to have you aboard.

Do a little search for teh DFW ahppy hour meet-up (can't remember the exact title now) but a bunch of the DFW BP people are going to meet in Arlington - you should come out.

Bill Gulley I don't think selling now will work, but he is exploring that idea, the problem is that this has been officially announced and ground is being broken within the week, so the damage is done I think.

I am thinking it might be better to wait and see if there is any expansion or subdivision plans for tribe members or whatever that may buy the neighborhood and that would be the best bet.

Of course if the traffic, noise and crime gets out of hand, it may be a different story.

I've got a friend who said that an indian casino is going to be built next door to his small neigborhood (50-60 homes in neighborhood) -- the casino property will be directly adjacent to the neighborhood (as-in sharing a common boundary line). And, they will both share a common entrance road off the main access road (casino will have other access, but this is the only neighborhood access -- there will be no pass-through traffic in the neighborhood).

My thoughts are that it can be bad or good -- values could go up if the casino creates a commercial growth response and a developer wants the small neighborhood for a commercial project, golf course or something along those lines. But, as far as residential goes, I think it is bad. Too close to the "evil" gambling and the threat of increased crime (whether true or not, the perception will detract) and any casino workers that want to buy to be close to work will be lower income people, so at best they will maintain market level (but based on my friend's income level, I think they will be a step down).

What are BP's thoughts on the situation?

for a house, you probably do not have an issue with drilling (and lack of repair to surface) - just loss of income from captured minerals.

Check the local restrictions on drilling and I bet the house and lot are too small to drill on, so no surface rights will be infringed upon.

Rule of thumb used to be 200 yards from a house, but each local municipality has their own rules, so if it is a concern you should check it out.

This used to not be a big deal so no one bothered to keep them -- however, with the natural gas surge and the "fracking" plan, small lots in residential neighborhoods can be "drilled".

Basically, the state and county laws seems to place a certain restriction on how close a drilling operation can be to homes. This radius was recently reduced (at least in the DFW area due to the Barnett Shale formation) and drillers started drilling on open land area and then drilling parallel into neighboring areas -- I've heard they can go 15-20 miles away from the drill site. The "fracking" then occurs and gas is drawn from this parallel bores. So, neighborhoods are now available for the capture of natural gas making the mineral rights within a subdivision worthwhile.

I used to own a home in Arlington and sold it - thinking I should plan to keep the mineral rights, but did not -- two weeks after close, I got a letter from Chesapeake wanting to pay me so they could harvest natural gas from under the house. Since I did not keep the rights, I did not ge tthe money.

I fully expect many homeowners to start to expressly reserve mineral rights in the future

As an aside, mineral rights in Texas pass with the sale of the land unless the sale express states that they do not -- so if no deed has reserved the minerals rights, they are not severed.

Also, Title Insurnace is having trouble with these issues and will no longer grant title insurance on mineral rights without additional fees (maybe not even then - it's been a while since I attended that seminar).

I have a 2.5 car garage in Texas -- but my door is sized for 2 car.

I would guess these guys are taking the door out of spite and to get the scrap money.