All Forum Posts by: Matt Feato

At face, this would be a screaming deal. Maybe they just want cash fast and don't want to bother with the rest & the foreclosure time frame?

Due diligence would be done on this property like pretty much any other. Only possible downside is being able to gain access to look inside.

Once bought, you may be able to continue on with the foreclosure process depending on where it's at. Or because of the vacant state, finding the owner for a workout/deed in lieu would be fantastic.

Yep. Do your due diligence on the property too. If it's junk and lots of repairs are needed, then you couldn't even give it away despite either its CMV or ARV.

But you could wholesale the note if you wanted to.

Going to bump this up...

Just recently launched his "product", but I'd avoid this one too. Duncan Wierman did a great write-up as to why, but I took a look at the pre-launch stuff and could tell right away this "product" would offer nothing new/be re-hashed junk.

http://duncanwierman.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/personal-review-of-zack-childress-launch-review-scam/

Yep, add to it him charging $25K for coaching and forget it...almost sounds like Karen Hanover re-dux.

I think I was on that mailing list briefly, but found nothing worthwhile so I hopped off.

The Paper Source I'm liking right now with Bill Mencarow.

Here's another so-called "guru" you might want to avoid...

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2011/lr21885.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21756.htm

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commissionâ€) announced today that the Honorable Richard W. Story, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, entered an order and final judgment permanently enjoining Charles William Petty, II (“Pettyâ€), Visionary Publishing International, LLC (“Visionaryâ€), and Virtual Properties Worldwide, Inc. (“Worldwideâ€) (collectively, “Defendantsâ€). The order and final judgment restrained and enjoined Reynolds from future violations of Sections 5(a), (c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Defendants were also ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of $263,100, pre-judgment interest in the amount of $45,606.24 and a civil penalty in amount of $20,000.

The Court found that, from since at least 2007 to the present, Petty offered and sold at least $236,000 of promissory notes (Notes) issued by the Visionary companies to at least eleven investors in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, California, New Jersey, and Canada. The Court also found that the defendants generally told investors that the Notes were “safe and high-yielding†and that the Note proceeds would be invested in real estate or “real estate related projects.†The defendants also told investors that each Note would be secured by a mortgage security deed on a particular property in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, or South Carolina at a loan to value ratio of no more than 60 to 75%. The Court found that these representations were false because no mortgage security deeds on properties were ever created, and Petty admitted that the Note proceeds were not invested in real estate or real estate related projects.

PA = deed
MA = deed
NY = some lien, mostly deed
NJ = lien mainly
CT = deed

MA & CT with deeds are tough...it's up to each town, and not very often do they auction stuff off (in that it takes forever to do so period, very little decent stuff is at auction or they try to really work out payment plans with the homeowner/just let interest accrue)

hahahaha. Another "great" LA (sarcasm).

115 for a quad (even if you let everyone there stay as is presuming rents are paid OK) works out nicely.

Worst case there's some dickering on the fine points of things. At the same time you do seem very interested in getting this either way, so it might just work out for you regardless.

Good luck!

Just for kicks I looked this up. It is a first, thankfully, so whatever you bid on this is what you get it at.

If you were to go through with this: #1. You'd need the cash. #2. You'd need to do your homework (condition of property, current occupancy, etc.) to ensure things look good to proceed. #3. The opening bid is dirt cheap low :D (not saying it wouldn't obviously get bid up, but still!)

The interest rate and all that just indicates what the note was made out for at the time. Good to notate if you were to do a loan modification with the owner and re-work out new terms. That's about as far as it goes there...

Well you'd have to work with the BK first and foremost, even if you bought the note along the way, in that you may have to wait until the discharge is rendered before proceeding.

Second, ignore the whole foreclosure auction bit. Once you buy, close, and own the note, YOU are the bank. End of story, especially as you're buying it before any foreclosure auction or trustee sale.

So the whole "courthouse steps" auction thing can go by the wayside. The easiest way if you can work with the BK lawyer/getting in touch with the original owner is just do a deed-in-lieu once you own the note properly and you can quietly take possession of the property (then do whatever you want with it). Not to mention you don't have to report it on any credit reports of the owner (the BK is already bad enough). However, by doing a deed-in-lieu, you would have to pay the small liens and taxes off as you are now the owner of the property...if they are that small, you're better off as it'll be less hassle then going through any foreclosure/court proceedings. (tax defaults, heck, maybe you could even negotiate them down a bit...who knows?)

Third, you are buying the note based off of the current market value of the property after doing your due diligence on it...if the unpaid balance is underwater, so be it...it'll be a bigger "discount" that you need (and sounds like you'd get one heck of one right now). If the lender/bank wants too much, pass. It's not worth it. Don't pay "full property value" plus repairs (likely something needed as it's been abandoned for a while), unless if you are renting it out, it still cash flows nicely with your setup, or you love the place so much you're willing to pay that much...

"The bank would never do it" tells me that the bank is calling the note due in full (or for a high amount) and it's in the realms of a possible short sale, given that 150K is also owed on it...

Yet, the listing should have had some indication somewhere that it is (doesn't always say "short sale" usually also "subject to 3rd party" or something along those lines). Not saying or indicating such shows the incompetence on the LA and still puts them in somewhat hot water...

See if another agent can look it up and check the back door comments where they aren't publicly displayed...MLS listings usually have those and if there's any, it can also lead into any possibilities.