All Forum Posts by: Cheyenne Davis

Thanks guys :)

Wayne,

do you have a link to read the rule? I can't find seem to find it.

I was told today that the contract can't be executed prior to 90 days, which sounds ridiculous. That would mean you have to hold it for 4 1/2 months, when they clearly intended the deed to be recorded 90 days prior to being re transferred.

I've read that there are some exceptions to the 90 day flip rule that was reinstated on January 1, 2015. I'm hoping I can get some clarification from some of the FHA/mortgage experts here.

We purchased an REO from HUD back in early Feb of 2015 and have renovated it and just put it up for sale. We have 2 offers, both with FHA borrowers. We never planned on making the property available to FHA borrowers, but now that we've got these 2 offers, I'm tempted. I've both read online and heard from mortgage brokers that if you purchase a HUD home, you can resell it within the 90 days to an FHA borrower. Here's a copy/paste of what I read:

"For those who utilize FHA financing, the 90 day restriction will begin on the 1st of the year. All executed contract before 11:59pm on Dec 31, 2014 will still be waived. After, the first of the year, there will be some exceptions:

1. Hud properties under REO

2. Sales by other federal agencies of REO properties

3. Sales of properties by non profit organizations approved for resale by HUD

4. Sales by state or federal financial institutions such as Fannie, Freddie or GSE

5. Sales of Hud properties where the President declares it a federal disaster area"

I was told earlier today, by a mortgage broker, that the HUD exemption is only when a borrower is buying a home from HUD using FHA financing.

So, can anyone tell me with certainty what the correct answer is?

Matt,

MIDFIRST BANK owns the property. It's not a Fannie Homepath, but thanks for the info on those deals. Good to know.

Correct, meaning "It seems like, as long as there is no assignment or any other fishy looking items on the HUD, they should care less, since the POF was just needed to make sure the buyer was qualified to close in the first place"? Correct? :)

We have an REO under contract and used our company bank statement as POF. We funded escrow from the same account. We've decided that we want to have one of our private lenders fund the deal, instead of using our own funds. Has anyone ever run into an issue at closing with the funds to close coming from a different name/account than originally used for POF? It seems like, as long as there is no assignment or any other fishy looking items on the HUD, they should care less, since the POF was just needed to make sure the buyer was qualified to close in the first place.

They're being investigated and will be served with cease and desist papers from the state, so they wont be bidding any new jobs. I do not know that they have received the cease and desist from the state yet though. My guess is they haven't, BUT I don't think they will be bidding on any new jobs for a while. They know they are facing several criminal charges, so I doubt going through the process of setting them up will work. Not a bad idea, but I think it's wishful thinking at this point.

That's what I was afraid of. The latest issue is that we can't serve them because they have the wrong addresses registered with the state. There's tenants living in the house that they use as a business address and the tenants don't know who the company is. Any ideas on how that process of service would work? Or getting in front of a judge since we can't even serve them??

These people are not licensed GC's. They advertised that they were, but they aren't. They also advertised that they have the license to draft legal documents, prepare taxes and manage and list properties. They aren't GC's, realtors, attorneys or accountants. The DBPR is going after them and it appears the state attorney is moving forward with fraud charges and possibly a couple other charges. I would agree that they "know" the law when it comes to filing a lien, but that's only because they have pre-paid legal. They apparently don't know the law as it applies to unlicensed activities.