All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

This thread is chock full of things that don't add up.  You would probably find most of it somewhat entertaining.  The OP didn't offer the properties for sale at 25% of value.  She's trying to get out for loan value and to recoup her costs.  She bought these from a TK provider then refi-ed out for max value so she ended up in for essentially zero cash out of pocket. From the numbers provided by at least one of her PMs, she's still in the black.....but horribly upside down.  And as she periodically reminds us, they are "cash flowing", even though one is boarded up and vacant (again). However, depending on when she's posting and which PM or TK company she is angry with, they are either POS props or really a-ok props.  IMO this is where the rubber really meets the road on TK strategy.  How do you get out if you got in for more than they are worth?  How do you get out when no one wants them?  Exit has to be a consideration on any rental purchase, not just TK.

Indeed the thread is long. I'm going to again suggest that you read every word of it. This thread is a free, detailed analysis, with Memphis professionals weighing in. The thread provided the OP's 3 properties with more exposure and advertising than your average MLS listing. Yet she still owns them, she still can't sell them for loan value, and one of them is boarded up producing no income. If you are a Memphis local, even more reason to read the whole thread. Enjoy!

 Read the thread.  All the addresses, the condition, opinion of values, rental pool and neighborhoods are given by several agents and PMs. some of whom were involved with the property.  This thread is a must for anyone considering these props.

So, it's many month later since you started this thread.  You still own all three props.  You still owe more than they are worth, or perhaps values are up to loan value on the two better ones. The one I called "untouchable" is again vacant, boarded up and vandalized in spite of your opinion that it is not in a bad area and that you had a viable tenant.  I'm curious, what's your exit plan now, especially on the untouchable one?

It must have been frustrating.  But at the same time something wasn't registering with those involved.  If you threaten violence it's not protected by free speech.  If you openly suggest hate, say by hanging a noose in the front yard, that suggests possible violence, that's not protected by free speech either.  The judge you "had access to" was not sitting in court, and if she was, she would have had to respond to a request for a restraining order and would not have been able to cite free speech.  If free speech applied to threats, that would mean every person who has been threatened would have no right to a restraining order which is just not true. I would be very interested to see a judge ignore such a request. The take away from your example and this thread was the mistake of waiting for police to be agree with the tenants. The courts and advocacy groups would have gotten them a restraining order asap with proper evidence.

If you and the tenant were to do it differently, wouldn't you go to harassment, threat of violence and hate crime on the first call to the police? Hate speech when perceived as a threat to quiet enjoyment, not to mention safety, isn't protected by free speech.  Your tenants needed to escalate the issue immediately, regardless of the opinion of the responding police offers.  With pictures and supporting statements from witness and police, your tenants could have gone to court to get a restraining order immediately.  A noose isn't considered a yard decoration, a judge would consider it a threat and harassment.  Never take the word of the responding POs on an issue like that.  They don't make or interpret law.  If the police weren't able or willing to talk some sense into the neighbor, your tenants should have been in court the next day.

RMs where the borrower is deceased present few opportunities unless the amount of the loan payoff is in line with your purposes.  Even then, unless the property is held in a trust there is no one to buy from.  If the property is held in the name of decedent, you'd need a RM balance leaving sufficient equity to cover the costs of the title fix.....which assumes there are known heirs whom can act as admin/exec in a probate action.  Or from whom you can buy their interest in the estate.

 I would have settled for even one correction or "rebuttal".  But oh well! 

Without a borrower statement or demand to the lender or published notice of default, the unpaid balance on the lien amount is an unknown. Similar to a HELOC, the recorded doc shows the max. line of credit. However, I sure see A LOT of upside down RMs in my farms, even after the supposed recovery.

Can you please post about the misinformation in the thread? This is an educational forum.  Let's use it to be helpful. Pronouncing information as wrong without some back up isn't helpful.   If you have knowledge that can correct or enhance what's here, please share!