Originally posted by @Gary Van Horn:
The two get confused by many people. Buying subject to the existing mortgage has been around a long time. It is often coupled with an exit strategy of selling under a lease option. The reason for the coupling is the property has no or very little equity and is not a "deal" as you commonly hear the term used. You will only be successful on a "subject to" buy if you have a very motivated seller who needs to move on because, they will stay on the Mortgage as the primary obligee ,while you have promised in your contract with them to pay their mortgage. This is their "least worst option" (with apologies to Phil Grove). They really don't have any other choice as the property simply isn't "sellable". The advantage to the investor is that they have no skin in the game and have control over the property. Usually, the property really can't be "sold" as the mortgage payoff & closing costs exceed the current ARV. The only really viable exit strategy is to find someone who currently can't qualify for their own mortgage and lease the property to them on terms that pay the existing mortgage and if possible add some cash flow for you. Also you take an upfront payment for the option, which gives you the cushion if the lease doesn't work out. That's the gist of it. Don't try it without proper legal counsel, as the uninitiated can get burned, if the paperwork isn't properly done. It is a strategy I employ and is very viable in the current market.
Thanks for the response Gary! Quick follow up I would be targeting people who haven't been able to sell for 5 months to a year. The beauty of the system appears to be that my credit nor my money is directly tied to the existing mortgage from what I see. I'd like to do right by the seller as my intention is to solve their problem but also profit. Would you set up the deal having a 2-3 year deal with the seller covering just their mortgage payments and find a motivated buyer under a 1 year option?
Also quick example:
Let's say the house is worth 100k and the owner has 95k left. Require a payment of 700 for Mortgage with a 2000 down payment requirement, that I would agree to contingent of me finding a qualified buyer within the term. I then find a buyer willing to pay 110k with 7000 fee option (2k to the seller and 5k to me non refundable) lease rate of 900 for 1 year with option to extend a year (2400 a year rental spread) and have lease agreement where there cover all repairs and maintenance. If the option is picked up I would then make the additional 3k from the locked in price, the original seller would have 100k loan taken over by the new lease buyer and I'm removed from the equation all together correct? Just trying to make sure my logic isn't terribly flawed. Thanks again for your help.