All Forum Posts by: Mike Miller

When a person defaults on their payments, after a certain period of time if you don't pay it off, the bank just forecloses on you right? But then some people have trustee sales instead? How does that work, the bank gives you the chance to auction it as a trustee sale before foreclosing? 

What brought this up, is a guy I was talking with has been postponing his trustee sale for the past 7 years, living  in the house for free. Everytime it comes up for auction, he manages to postpone it. At what point does the bank say enough is enough, and just foreclose on it? Why would it keep coming up for auction after this long?

That's what I was missing, forgot about the inspection and appraisal aspect, as then the bank may, 1) take a while to appraise it, 2) Disagree with it's value and reject the loan, the whole deal falls apart. So then a couple weeks is wasted.

Probably not best choice of words, I just meant "financed offers", a person taking out a loan for the purchase.... vs cash.

I get the general idea of why a cash offer is better, it's quicker, more secure, probably won't fall through in escrow, can display POF.

But other than that, if you are underwritten and already approved for a loan amount, what's the huge difference if the seller still is going to get the same amount of money in the end, say $2M from a cash offer versus $2M from a person borrowing. If it's between a borrowing offer or no offer at all, Id think they'd still want to take the borrowing offer. It's not like a loan gets paid to the seller in installments over time or can be reversed like a credit card charge, once it's approved, the seller gets the full amount and it's sold, right?

Hi Fred;

Yeah, I sort of agree, but not sure with the law differences between the state. I know you dont need a contract/lease, but would think you need to at least be paying something for rent. But not sure....

Okay, Im not concerned at all, were close family friends, just was curious. I know from other peoples perspective, it seems like a bad idea and risky, but there's really no issue, just was curious if he's tenant. 

Without disclosing personal details as to why, basically I am letting a friend's son stay at rental house I have, for free for a bit. I am not charging him rent. He is the only one living there. He is reimbursing me each month for all the utilities, water, electric, and Comcast. 

 I know them, and there is not any issue. But was just curious if he's considered a tenant now, because he's been there 6 months, reimburses me for utilities, and receives mail there. BUT does not technically pay rent, and we've never signed any type of contract or anything. Would he technically still be considered a tenant? 

Thanks

I ended up contacting a few RE attorneys. One said a flat rate of $10K, another said it usually doesnt pass $2K (for total hours billed). But basically safe to assume 2 or 3 thousand dollars total. Which is a huge savings. 

I agree, but I was wondering about total cost. How they compare typically compared to agent.

Most of the articles online I googled are referring to the pros and cons of agent vs attorney when selling a property or finding one. Obviously an agent is best for marketing and searching. But when you are talking directly with an owner and they want to do it off market to save an agent commission, I would like them to have some form of representation so they dont come back saying I deceived them or whatever. 

So I know its usually charged hourly, but how does a RE attorney's total costs compare to using an agent, for one home transaction? Say the 5% agent commission was going to be $80K HAD they gone on market, is an attorney much less than that typically?

Does the attorney handle both parties for the exchange, me and the seller, or do I have to hire my own for my side?