All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

I suggest inquiring with a lawyer for the question on personal guarantees and the corporate veil. I think the main idea of my post is that banks don't typically lend to businesses without sufficient assets and business operations - likewise, banks typically don't lend to individuals without income and credit. The practical issue comes to who the bank can recover from after things go bad and personal guarantees help the bank to solve that.

So, for example, you can open an LLC or whatever business vehicle, but practically, banks aren't going to loan you unlimited money since a fresh company probably has no business history/assets. So, they turn elsewhere to satisfy those lending requirements via personal guarantees.

Whoever the loan officer/bank is can further instruct on what they need in order to get a deal done.

Just had my first response to one of my craigslist ads for getting leads. They were not happy. Kept calling me a scam. But Im letting it roll off me because not everyone is going to be happy. At first I was taken aback and a little hurt but then realized It'll be ok and I'm going to interact with a lot of interesting people on this journey.

@Mike S. How do you get the number to directly contact the seller?

HUD ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA LANDLORDS RESOLVING CLAIM
OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION--because of 'unreasonably restrictive two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy'

Read below the Agreement issued by HUD. Does it make sense that many, if not most municipalities only allow 2-per-bedroom as per zoning laws, but HUD says that's discriminatory? So how many people per room is too many? 3? 5? 8? More?

This is just another example of what can happen when the Government gets involved with (IMHO) sensible and responsible practices of landlords and the Gubment looks for reasons to restrict and fine them.  

(OK, I'll step down off the soapbox now.  Thanks for reading.)  

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today announced the approval of a Conciliation Agreement between Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board and a group of Upland, CA, property owners and managers resolving allegations that they discriminated against families with children by refusing to rent to them and by imposing different occupancy terms and conditions to families with children. Read the agreement.

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to deny or limit housing because a family has children under the age of 18, and to make statements or establish rules and policies that discriminate against families with children. Housing may exclude children only if it meets the Fair Housing Act's exemption for housing for older persons.

“Families looking for safe, decent housing shouldn’t be penalized because they have children,” said Anna María Farías, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Today’s agreement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligation to treat all applicants the same.”

The case came to HUD’s attention when Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB), a HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program agency, filed a complaint based on results from their fair housing tests. IFHMB alleged the tests showed the property owners and two property managers refused to rent to families with children and/or offered them different lease terms and conditions. The owners and managers also allegedly implemented an unreasonably restrictive two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy at two rental properties. The owners and managers deny they discriminated against families with children but agreed to resolve the matter through the Conciliation Agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, the owners and property managers will pay IFHMB $10,000, abolish any two-person-per-bedroom policy, remove language regarding the two-person-per-bedroom policy from advertising and marketing materials, and have property managers and staff that interact with applicants and tenants attend fair housing training.

I always purchase a listed property from the listing agent and never use an outside agent. During the last run on property 2000-2007 I lost so many properties because of unscrupulous realtors. I mean realtors were ripping sellers off by selling their property to close friends and investors without giving newbies like me a chance.

I would put bids on properties for over the asking price and the listing agents would eventually sell the properties to their own clients at a lower price and collect the 6 percent commission instead of selling it to me at a higher price and receiving a 3% commission.

That made me so mad that now I do not care who my agent is, I will only purchase from the listing agent because I understand greed. Greed does something to realtors and generally cost the unsuspected home owner.

And guess what I have landed just about every property since I started that philosophy.

I'm sure there are many threads about this so if someone could point me to one of them that would be great.

If i have property i can't avoid paying capital gains tax on, is it a loophole to just do a cash out refi and then a few months later sell the property?

For example, let's say i have a home worth $400,000 and owe $200,000 on the loan. Let's say the bank will give me $125,000 on a cashout refi. A few months later i decide to sell the house and then rather than paying capital gains on a $200k profit, i only pay it on $75k.

Thoughts?

@Chris Levarek @David Martin thank you so much.  Both very helpful!!!

I was very sad to find out the amount single unit tub will cost me $16,000 to repair crack ,leaking from outside.

any suggestion?

Anybody investing in Southern California? If so which location? I'm looking at San Bernadino and Riverside County.  I'm also eyeing South Gate, Buena Park and Paramount. I would love to hear what other places investors are targeting. 

I’m always looking for the right solution to that old question “How Do I make money in real estate.” I will focus on How To Buy Properties because I believe you make money when you buy. What you do with the property afterward is flexible if you buy correctly.

I buy "off market" properties before they hit the MLS. Nothing special about that, but I buy the properties by simply taking over the mortgage. That's HUGE!

Using this technique I bought a 4 Bed 2 Bath in Mesa Arizona

The numbers look like this:

I did this one in Mesa AZ. The underlying mortgage was $223,000 with a market value of $225,000 and a payment of $1217. The seller had taken out a new loan a year earlier, then got married and didn’t want the house. So, basically no equity.

I gave the seller $100 and took over the loan “Subject To”. I paid my contractor $500 to clean up the property, I then sold it to a Tenant Buyer who gave me a $25,000 option fee and pays me $1950 a month. I chose to cash flow the property.

So far, I've gotten $25,000 cash for the option fee, plus about $700 a month for about $8,400 a year for 3 years (so far) so $25,2000 and he's paid down my principal about $12,000 plus I get depreciation plus he takes care of all repairs and maintenance.

So, on $600 invested I've gotten well over $62,800 (so far) on a "slim" deal that had no equity. I don't know what CoC or ROI that is, but it's pretty good.

Now, I could have walked away like everyone else, but I'm not that kind of guy. I could have flipped it but there wasn’t enough equity for that to work, I could have simply rented it out, but then I wouldn’t have gotten the $25,000 option fee, and I could have lived in it. I had a lot of options.

The key was in How I Bought the Property. I didn’t have to worry about bank financing.

Can you do these with no money down? NO, you can’t. You still have to have reserves enough to make the mortgage payment even if the house is vacant. You have the responsibility to keep the seller’s credit report spotless.

But are there ways to make money that other people don't see? Certainly! and I love seeing the expressions on the faces of people from California when I show them the numbers, it's priceless.