Skip to content
×
PRO
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
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
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

All Forum Posts by: Daniel Hart

Daniel Hart has started 53 posts and replied 193 times.

Originally posted by @William Hochstedler:
Is there a TILA right of rescission or borrower foreclosure redemption play on the original loan here?

Wm

There is neither

Originally posted by @Steve Babiak:
Originally posted by @Daniel Hart:
Wayne, good thought but there were actually excess proceeds and I believe he already received them.
...

How did he get entitled to the overage if he did not lose his interest in the real estate at the foreclosure?

The overage should only have been paid to the former owners who lost their interest in this property ...

I misspoke, I know it was disbursed, but not necessarily to him. I agree that it would be improper to release proceeds to him.

Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Daniel Hart Two questions:

1) Was the father alive or deceased when the original mortgage was executed?

2) Who owned and borrowed against the other 75%? I thought the son was one of the borrowing owners, but now don't see any evidence of that.

I believe the father was alive at the time. The other siblings owned and borrowed against the house. Neither the son or father borrowed against the house.

Originally posted by @Account Closed:
I think it's not hard to see why the OP is posting here. He's clearly not looking for legal advice and has said as much. He's looking for problem solving angles for his buyer. An attorney got him and the buyer into this mess, and now attorneys for the attorney E&O insurance policy and attorneys for the title company are involved saying that that neither policy covers this issue. Hard to get excited about getting another attorney involved at this point.

If the end buyer decides to go after the OP, then he'll get an attorney and figure out whether to defend himself or settle. That hasn't happened. In the meantime, he's looking for a solution, if there is one, for his buyer who now owns only a partial interest.

YES! Thank you! :)

Thanks everyone, lots of good thoughts. I'll update the thread when/if something happens. The only upside is that the transaction was done in my s-corp and that corporation doesn't have any assets, but of course that doesn't help the buyers.

Wayne, good thought but there were actually excess proceeds and I believe he already received them.

K Marie, the son is crazy and wants far too much to make a buy out feasible

K Marie, good point, I don't recall if the fathers estate was probated or not. Everyone feels that he is able to sign off on the deed if he will agree to an amount, but I'm not sure where that confidence came from.

Bill, sorry it was mainly Tiffany I was referring to regarding the confusion of who's loan it was. You're right, the title company who represented the lender way back when royally screwed up.

K. Marie, The hard money lender is secured with a deed of trust. I'm pretty sure they had lenders title insurance. It's something worth exploring.. The buyer may have to let the lender foreclose.

Wayne, the father had 25% interest, he died at that same interest was passed to the son. So that interest was never mortgaged and can't be foreclosed away.

Wayne, the crazy person is the son of the father who owned the house but didn't sign the mortgage. He would have inherited the interest far before the foreclosure.

Joel, definitely a lesson learned, and next time I will indeed ask to see in writing that it's clear, or I'll be emailing instead of calling.

Joel, sadly there is nothing in writing either between myself and the buyer or myself and the closing attorney. I suppose we all assumed if an attorney is handling the transaction it will be done correctly and we can rely on their statements. We now see that this is not the case.

Challenging the foreclosure itself is definitely an option for the buyers, but they have limited funds and probably won't want to do it.