All Forum Posts by: John Rooster

bangs head on desk

You don't know the buyer is even getting a loan. The buyer may be paying cash. You are conflating The Bank selling the property with a hypothetical insured lender which doesn't exist. Point missed

That isn't a court case. Try better

No it isn't. That is just silly. We are not talking about getting a loan. We are talking about buying an REO. If he is paying cash he is not lying to a lender. He is only lying to the Seller. You might think it ok to have clauses in contracts which discriminate against certain classes of people, I don't. I see it as a civil rights issue.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

lol

Denver market has picked up quite a bit in the past three weeks, especially at the low end, I put a townhouse on the market Friday at 109K, I got an offer Sat. for 115k no concessions. It was a foreclosure I bought 3.5 years ago for 45k. I estimate I could only have gotten 80k march 2012, and 95k March 2013. And it snowed Saturday

All else being equal, it seems to me that Austin, who is locating these properties should be getting the bigger cut. But all is rarely equal, one or more of you is probably dead weight. And thus such partnerships rarely work.

This. You don't know the street name, so I don't see it as a big oops.

Yo! <fist pump>