All Forum Posts by: Joseph Ziolkowski

Thanks Jon! I see what you're saying about the lease option. And it makes a lot of sense. I guess what I'm not wrapping my head around yet is why the signed quitclaim in escrow wouldn't work. Only because it would be instant and totally out of his hands, you know? Is it just not an accepted practice, or is there something about it that I don't understand?

I would want a government full of folks that understand that they are just people like the rest of us, subject to the same folly and misgivings. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that the vast majority of them on both sides are elitists in their hearts, and carry such an insane sense of arrogance that despite their inherent lack of wisdom and perspective, they honestly think that they know better than we do what's best for us, and act upon that without regard for the freedom that is supposed to be part and parcel of why we are so lucky to be living here.

Thanks guys! Jon, safe to say you could stand to forget more than some of us will ever know? :) Ok, so with a warranty deed, a wrap, or any of these suggestions, if something went awry, she would have to take him to court and sue him to regain her interest? Or foreclose?

Oh, and for the record, she's very ok with giving ownership. She wants that sucker gone. It's the fact that she is still ultimately responsible for the mortgage that is making everone nervous.

Ha! Thanks Nick, that was helpful. I wasn't sure if it would sound stupid to someone used to doing it. I trust the guy, but my parents (who will have a say in this) are really nervous about anything creative. So, if this guy puts in the purchase contract that he will deed it back if he falls behind 30 days, what is my sister's recourse then if he doesn't? She would have to take him to court, right? She can't afford that and doesn't need the hassle (in that worst case scenario) and I just thought the quitclaim would save her from having to do that. No dice though, huh? I actually heard that in a webinar a few months back. Thanks :cool:

Hi all! My sister called a local investor to purchase a townhome that she is making payments on but not living in. There is little equity, and she just wants to be rid of it, and it sounds like he wants to take over payments and leave her name on the mortgage. My question is this. To protect her interests and make sure she doesn't get stuck with a non-paying investor attached to the property, would it be out of line to make it a contingency of the sale that the investor signs a quitclaim deed, put in escrow at the title company, that says that if he doesn't make payments for one month, two months, etc the quitclaim will be released out of escrow and he automatically is off of the property? How might that best be done? Also, would it be out of line to ask him to put x months worth of payment (in line with the quitclaim agreement) in escrow as well, all to be released to her if he defaults? It's the only way I know of to protect her in this. Also in a sub2, is it common to stipulate in the contract a certain time that the property will be sold/refinanced etc to get her name off of it? Sorry so many questions, but I'm a wholesaler, and know little of the ins and outs of sub2's. Thanks for any wisdom you all can offer. :cool:

I'm with James on that one. Well worth the price of admission. But the upsell webinars are always free anyway.

And again, no disrespect is meant J Scott. Even though we seem to disagree on this. I know it's a heated discussion, and thank God we still live in a place (for the time being) where we can have it, you know? I just really want us to be able to get to a place where we can debate what actually happened, not reality itself. This is not a quantum physics thread. It's a political thread.

Well said Mike. And thanks for coming to my defense on that one jawsette. It was way too far past my bedtime for me to be digging that stuff up :) That's the problem with with these politically biased "fact" sites. If we can't even agree on what the heck really happened, we can never reach a logical concensus between the right and the left. And it's vital that we do so if we can ever come together as a country. We well have to get around to doing that someday if we're going to thrive the way that we can. A simple macro-economics class would really help to clear all of this up...

Then why keep coming back? What most people forget is that when Clinton touted his so-called surplus he forgot to add in the social security deficit. Oopsie...common rookie mistake, and you hate to see a president do it. As far as the whole "misssion accomplished" thing, that particular mission had been accomplished. He never said the whole war was over. How could it be? They weren't all concentrated in one place. We weren't fighting against a country man. We're fighting an ideology, that as one of its main tenants calls for our destruction. Look up the last imam. It calls for world destruction so that the world will be made pure and there will be the Islamic equivelant of paradise on earth. At least that's what these looney tunes believe. What quicker way to bring that about than to threaten the greatest power this world has ever known? The ruler of Iran actually said that. If you don't keep up on this stuff, then you're doing nothing more than spewing dangerous propaganda. I'm all for speaking the truth, but you really do have to keep up and take it all into account. I know it's fashionable now, and politically expediant to bash Bush and say what a great job Obama is doing, but it's also drivel if every single thing is not taken into account. imo