Originally posted by @James Wise:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Originally posted by @Greg H.:
Originally posted by @James Wise:
Originally posted by @Randy Connolly:
There are many people who want out of their situation with big payments and if all is upfront as it should be and two people agree on it then if that is the case it wouldn't be slimy.
But Sub2 isn't done upfront with all involved. What about the actual mortgage holder? If the people involved in the Sub2 deal were not hiding it from the mortgage holder than there wouldn't be any Sub2 deals as the buyer would just assume the seller's mortgage. Essentially it's low key mortgage fraud.
Now you are just reaching as is absolutely NOT mortgage fraud. Selling Sub2 violates the due on sale clause which the lender's remedy is to initiate a foreclosure. Of course we all know that lenders are not in the practice of foreclosing on mortgages that are current . Mortgage fraud is a crime while this is a civil action
I agree. It's not illegal to begin with. Lenders know about subject to, they aren't stupid. They see that someone new is writing the check. They do what is in their best interest and that is to leave performing notes alone.
Explain how "Subject To" doesn't fall into this definition.
Mortgage fraud refers to an intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission of information relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan secured by real property.
Your Comment: "Explain how "Subject To" doesn't fall into this definition."
"Mortgage fraud refers to an intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission of information relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan secured by real property."
@James, I believe you have purchased properties before, correct me if I am wrong. You know what underwriting is and where it appears in the purchasing cycle. You also know, presumably that closing happens, eventually ;-) and the borrower makes payments on the loan. It is a tedious step by step process worked out over many decades. It is predictable.
When an underwriter "funds" a loan it is long before a "Subject To" becomes a possibility.There isn't any way I am aware of that one can use "Subject To" to take over an unfunded loan that hasn't closed.
It is the responsibility of the borrower on the note to ensure that the loan is paid every month. It can be paid by someone else's money. That is what is happening when a "Subject To" happens. The buyer has the moral obligation to always pay on time. He can be sued by the mortgagee if he fails to make payments on time. The borrower on the note can contact the attorney general (and some have done so). If the buyer has stopped making payments, they are in deep "doo doo" to use a perfectly acceptable legal term. Then it "can" become mortgage fraud, but only if payments were missed, not because someone took over the payments.