All Forum Posts by: Kathryn K.

Byron,

I went for the Broker's exam for a number of reasons. For one reason, I came across people in my marketing efforts that were not looking to sell at a discount, but after some discussion, I found they were interested in listing the property instead. I thought it would be another source of income for me to be able to offer that option, and make a bit more than just passing them off as referrals to other agents or brokers.

Additionally, I have been frustrated at trying to get into certain online sites for bank REO's to make offers, but you have to be licensed to get a login. I like the freedom of having my own MLS access and being able to make offers independent of someone else's time, which often does not match up with my own schedule as many agents are super busy people.

Also, here in CA the rules changed on January 1 of this year. In order to qualify for the Broker exam based on a college degree as opposed to two years supervised full-time employment, the degree will now have to be in Real Estate. I passed the 8 required courses back in 2005 and figured I should get my application in before the rules changed. I mailed off my application on Dec. 27th, just shy of the closing date for the "old" rules! If I qualified for the full Broker exam, there didn't seem to be much reason for going for anything less.

Thanks everyone for the congrats! I'm pretty excited.

I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area if anyone wants to network. I'm also looking for feedback on MLS services if anyone in my neck of the woods has any advice.

I have a co-worker who did a deed in lieu on a rental property and subsequently received a 1099 for the difference between what the bank sold it for and what she owed on it, which was 144K. In order to avoid huge tax consequences, her CPA filed for insolvency. The CPA said that the amount (144K) would be applied to any capital gains received if she eventually sold her primary residence at a profit ten years down the road.

Can anyone explain this? Does this mean she owes the 144K if she makes a profit on her primary residence or does this mean she owes tax on it if she makes a profit in the future?

Another question is what if she shortsales, forecloses or does a deed in lieu on her primary residence and buys another primary residence in the future? Will this 144K "follow" her to that residence also? How many years does this hang around affecting her potential to profit in the future?

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this subject. I'm hearing conflicting information from different sources.

I was recently advised by an experienced wholesaler and mentor not to go after the Planned Developments because of the HOA issues. His take on it was that these developments (many of the ones in my area were built in 2005 and are in great condition)suffer the same problem as many condo developments-that with high rates of foreclosures in these developments their HOA's are suffering financially and therefore homeowners can probably look forward to assessments in the future so they aren't really a good fit for "buy and hold" investors. There seem to be some good deals in these developments so I was wondering if anyone had any insight regarding this. My sister owns a condo and was recently talking about how the HOA was in trouble and talking about raising fees and assessing for other routine stuff they can't afford to pay for anymore, so it would seem like a reasonable assumption to make regarding any development with HOA fees. Anyone wholesale PUD's? If so, what info do you look for when doing due diligence on the HOA?

The letter gets more bizarre. Its two pages long.

I've done some googling and it appears that what this letter constitutes is the beginning of "Administrative Process." If I don't reply within 30 days, their claim to the debt is valid. Any time someone makes a claim against you, you have the right to request proof of that claim. So I guess I will request that they pony up the original note, in better jargon, of course.

I just don't know what they hope to accomplish and I hope its not to pursue a deficiency if I end up shortselling.

I found out that this lender had a couple of cases settled in favor of the homeowner when they couldn't produce documentation of their right to collect the debt. The mortgages were wiped out and the homeowners ended up free and clear.

Not sure if this is the proper forum for this question but here is the situation.

I just received a letter from my lender on my primary residence. It basically states how much I owe on the mortgage and that if I wish to dispute this figure I must do so within 30 days. It just came out of the blue and I've never had a letter like this despite many loans over the years.

I am wondering if this is an attempt to find a legal way to disallow a shortsale on a primary residence, in other words, to work around the Homeowners' Exclusion Exemption in some way should I have to sell before the market recovers. (It is upside down)

I also wonder if this may be because they cannot produce the note and I'm hearing of lots of people disputing their mortgages because the note has been sold so many time that no one really knows where it is.

Anyone have any ideas? I'm thinking of disputing it just because I don't understand the implications of the letter and want to bide time until I figure out what their angle is.

For the record, I am current and always pay on time, so I don't have any clue why they sent this.

I know someone with a 4 plex in AZ that quit making payments on the building. (The property was upside down and not cash flowing). His original intention was to try to get a loan mod, but when that didn't work, he listed it with a realtor and is trying to get approval for a short sale. Needless to say, he's been collecting rents and not making any payments for quite some time. I informed him that what he is doing is illegal. (and unethical, but whatever) His response was that the Lender hasn't asked for any payments during the shortsale process, so why should he pay it. Anyway, his wife is totally stressed out and doesn't really understand most of what he does in real estate, so my question here is: What is the probability he is going to get caught for this?

I bought my home in 2004 at a price that was below market and put 25% down on a conventional loan and the house is now 150K underwater. I didn't buy a house I could not afford. I put up a good down payment and thought I made a good decision and I'm still in the same position as Rich, so I kinda sympathize. I only intended to live here for about ten years and I'd like to move in three more years, so I am faced with the "hang on for the long term" or dump it before the homeowners exclusion exemption runs out in 2012. Rich, can you hang on until the market recovers or would you prefer to shortsale it? As someone else pointed out, a shortsale will affect your ability to get another loan for two years, but it won't damage your credit that much. You do have to demonstrate some kind of hardship. Being underwater is one of them, however if your income is substantial it may not be enough.

Doesn't the primary residence tax exclusion run out Dec 2012? If so, this is going to cause lots of new shortsales and foreclosures as homeowners who are currently hanging on and paying their upside down mortgages think about dumping before they have to suffer tax consequences. Some people's homes are so far upside down that it may take longer than five years to recover. So you're either in it for the long haul or you better get out before the end of 2012.

My first deal was quite conventional. I bought a condo that was recently renovated as part of an apartment to condo conversion project. The units sold out is six days, but I asked the listing realtor to put me on a waiting list. The waiting list did not exist until I asked to be on it, but it worked out in my favor because the guy who converted the apartments into condos was going to keep one of the one bedroom units for himself, but he decided to sell at the last minute. It was the best one bedroom unit in the complex and I got it. I paid 20k undermarket for it, bought it at 140K, rented it out with a 95$/month cash flow for 22 months, sold it for 217K with no repairs. Pretty nice return, but I bought it conventionally, putting 20% down. I was lucky I had no rental hassles whatsoever. That was a good deal.

Some deals later I lost a bunch of money, so now I'm wholesaling and bird dogging mainly.