All Forum Posts by: Jarred Ross

You still looking for some assistance on this @Jeffery Speck ? 

 If you're still working on this deal, let's connect. If the property needs to be probated, I think I may have some resources for you. My business exists specifically to help close deals with deceased owners/probate issues all the time all over the country.

I'll second this. It's all I used starting out and I still use it for ease and speed when I need a number quick and dirty. You can use reverse address search to to find who else may live in the house and try calling them to get to your owner in question. 

Depending on what your call list consists of you'll have a harder time finding info on the person. For example if you're hitting probates hard you may have a tough time with finding the owners and may need to identify the heirs to call instead. 

If I was spending that kind of money I think I'd build a nice pyramid. Something just a little more permanent

I just don't see why it even became a requirement instead of a "rider" on the owner's policy. It all requires the same research and legwork right?

I also wonder what % of total claims goes to paying lender policies compared to owner policies? 

 Solid take. I agree about things changing. Real estate is a very slow industry to change, title companies included. I agree with you on the parallel of 6% realtor commissions and closing costs. The only reason its the standard is because it has been for so long (and lobbying, lol). At the least, it's reasonable to explore alternatives.

 What does a lender's policy cover that's not covered by the owner's policy? 

Go ahead, require title insurance on a mortgaged deal, no issue there. Government mandated or not. But one policy seems adequate. Why is there a separate fee, equal to the first, that insures the same thing, just a different party? Honest question

My point is it's the only thing we insure like that. Your car insurance has named insured, so you don't have to pay for each driver separately each month. Maybe there's a small surcharge to add additional drivers. But it's still one policy. This makes more sense to me. 

But that's a lenders risk to take isn't it? I understand the title industry has a huge financial interest in maintaining the standard, but if it doesn't have some net benefit to consumers does it have a place in the market?  

I was referring to customary per the lender. Every mortgage I've seen the borrower has to pay the lender's policy. I'm sure there's some out there that differ.

I'm wondering when and why it became commonplace for lenders to require their own policy, and coincidentally how that become the borrowers problem. 

When you get a car loan, you don't have to pay a second insurance bill to cover that lender 

Taking AOL's instead of title insurance is an interesting move from Fannie and Freddie. I wonder if they're hoping to reduce closings costs and allow more buyers into the market? There must be some underlying cause. I've always wondered why it's become customary for the borrower to pay the cost of a lender's policy anyway. Couldn't the policies be combined, to protect the interest of all entitled parties to defects? The double dipping seems like bloat to me, with consumer's shouldering the cost.

AOL's offering's I've seen all have some type of liability policy in place from the provider. I don't see it as an issue on certain deals, especially in the case of new or newer properties. I'll still be taking owners policies on whatever I buy for now

Consider what's being built or rehabbed around. If the rest of the block is still single family, it'll be a harder battle getting a variance I'd think. Permit Philly is a company that handles that whole process with the approvals. Other people and attorneys do it too I think. Lot dimensions are important in the consideration.