All Forum Posts by: James Hamling

James Hamling has started 14 posts and replied 4541 times.

The first paragraph of this is a false premise - "That means it has to be paid off when the property changes hands, unless the lender approves an assumption."

This is generally not true. A more accurate statement is:

"The lender has the option to call the note due."

I would bet that several million loans technically do not pass this test, and that many of them are loans against property that were transferred to LLCs, a very common practice that in theory risks the due on sale clause.

Where I think the risk of the Due on Sale Clause comes into play in particular with Subject To is the nature of the buyer and seller.

In many cases the seller is so desperate that they are willing to risk their credit to a buyer who really has no business buying real estate. This desperate seller is highly likely to be bad with money, and is likely to go on to have a bankruptcy or other financial issue a few years down the line. The lender WILL notice that bankruptcy, and that is the time when the buyer is at risk of having the note called due.

This, before we even get to discussing the risk that the buyer fails to service the debt.

It's an extraordinary extension of trust to get into a due on sale deal with someone, and many don't get it when they enter the deal.

"...desperate seller is highly likely to be bad with money, and is likely to go on to have a bankruptcy or other financial issue a few years down the line. The lender WILL notice that bankruptcy, and that is the time when the buyer is at risk of having the note called due."

That's a good point. It's the somewhat quazi-ponzi nature of the economy as a whole, right.

When things are good, all is pumping and appreciating, things go fine because all is pumping and appreciating.

But move into recession or recession like economy, layoff's ticking up as are now, stagnation or recession..... Things start blowing apart fast.

Increase in layoff's will naturally result in increase in BK's, will be curious to see how this flows through to increase in DOS being called. Next 6-12 months will be interesting time as ai and robots disruption process's through.

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Michael Baum:

180 acres is more of a pond IMHO. I would look at the revenue streams first and foremost

Are they willing to carry a contract?

agreed thats a tiny lake cant see it as much of an attraction personally but Hey us west coast folks are used to large lakes we dont have 10k small lakes..

Got me wondering, thinking about lake size in terms of what it can support.

I live on a very popular named lake here in MN, but it get's so packed with water traffic that it feels really small. I'd say it's the smallest size where one could be popular and with traffic. So I looked it up, 451 acres.

I thought it would be smaller, because it feels smaller when busy.

Lake Mille Lacs, over 132k acres, that is "the" lake destination in MN.

State DNR says MN has over 1k lakes of 1k acres or bigger.

Given those #'s and my experiences, IMHO for any kind of resort or scalable site I'd only consider 400+ acre lakes.

0 Votes

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Don Konipol:

Another bag of popcorn, please

Don, you noted I did not take the popcorn bait.. Ken and I have been round and round on this over the years. I know sub to is legal, However I know it can be quite dangerous for sellers. And buyers well they generally never have a clue or are woefully under capitalized to do this safely. ..

I am not an expert on case law on LWO to purchase although I have done some myself.. And from my point of view the lease is separate from the option.. so you have a tenant that has all the protections of landlord tenant law.. And in a separate contract you have an option to purchase which can have non refundable option money. That is about the extent of my knowledge on that subject.. I do recall there was some massive abuses of LWO in Texas to non English speakers so Texas came up with some pretty stiff regulations relating to those transactions.

Correct, LWO is 2 separate instruments: The lease and then the purchase option.

Even if someone trys to jazz up the 2 on 1 same contract, or commingle them as ken detailed, there 2 separate instruments and 1 does not negate the other.

Ken detailed he's promoting a scheme where if a tenant/buyer requests a LWO seller to perform on their landlord duties as legally required, that it then automatically cancels the purchase option and all deposit funds are forfeit as non refundable.

Ken referenced Texas and Arizona, inferring as his markets of deployment and operation for this scheme.

So I linked the Arizona applicable laws for Ken, from the state of Arizona itself. Which ken clearly dislikes. Possibly because it's really clear in the multitude of ways his scheme is illegal in Arizona.

Next Ken decided Arizonas laws are apparently my opinions..... I had no idea I had such power.

And then declared me a Mortgage broker, even though I explicitly stated I am a Real Estate Broker and it's, ya know, literally tagged right here along my name..... But hey, I give Ken credit for consistency in his accuracy, or should I say lack there of.

It was never on SubTo, just some hair brained scheme ken concocted with LWO's.

Which as Ken detailed it, was blatant Theft By Swindle, at least that's what it falls under in MN. In Arizona it would be Theft by Misrepresentation. In Texas, Theft by Deception.

A Purchase Option is an equitable interest in real estate, ie valuable property. And taking of such through any kind of deceptive practice or action, well, that's illegal. As well as breaking other laws at same time, such as trying to con a tenant to waive their tenants rights, reprisals against tenants for requests of landlord to do landlord required actions.....

You can't tell a tenant they loose their purchase option and $40k Ken if during the lease something breaks on the home and they ask you to get it repaired, such as the a/c. Which is exactly what you said you do/did and teach others to do.

.
@James Hamling: It was fun until you've became tedious and boring and silly.
Again, please provide the Statute you reference.

You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.

A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.

Ken, STOP distorting!

Your promoting a LWO; LEASE with option.

Hence, your a landlord. Hence, Landlord/Tenant ACT applies, DIRECTLY.

I've only explained this at great detail multiple times, linked the laws. And all you can say is "aaaah, prove it, PROVE IT, no, don't just prove it, RUB MY FACE IN IT, no, don't just rub my face in it, ram it up my nostrils!"

Such a Charlatan.....

@James Hamling: It was fun until you became tedious and boring and silly.

I'm sorry for you (and for your clients) about your ignorance that a separate lease with a separate option is not the same legally, as a Lease Option in the same document. But it is not my job to train you.

Again, please provide the Statute you reference.

You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.

A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.

LMAO.....

Let me get this right Ken. You think that if you write a Lease, and a Purchase Option on the same document, that you've opened a vortex in reality and now shazamed that it's no longer a lease, or a purchase option, but some special "Ken" contract that no longer is held to all the rules and regulations of a lease........

OMG that's hilarious.

Good luck with that defense in court "But, but, but, your Honor, see, it's on the same paper" LMAO.

Your so clueless Ken that you don't even comprehend the simplest of things I've said such as instrument etc.. It's now to the point that it's like I'm arguing with a toddler about the legality of driving through red lights. You clearly are so far out of your depth you don't even grasp the things being said.

Look Ken, a purchase option is 1 set thing in and of itself, legally speaking. You could put it into paper with 50 other things it still is 1 set thing in and of it's own, legally speaking.

Same goes for a lease.

A person who sells a property, and does a lease back with buyer, yes, it is now 2 legal instruments, a purchase agreement and a lease. Yes, they are tied together in their terms but each is a legal instrument of their own conveyance of rights, terms, possessions, care, financial duties AND, subject to the laws and regulations of jurisdiction regarding each individual legal instrument.

A purchase agreement is a legal instrument.

A lease is a legal instrument.

And now your changing things up talking about a Lease Option, when we were talking about LWO Lease with Purchase Option. We never spoke about Lease options, those are a totally different thing.

And for the 3rd time I am NOT a Mortgage Broker, it's literally right there in front of your face REAL ESTATE broker. Do you not know the difference of the 2?

Lol, and again, all this as Ken markets himself as some "coach" for real estate....

Ok, this is into pointless land now, Ken's just going to keep throwing out distortions, misrepresentations, more lies and spin with no end. Ok Ken, you have fun with that.

0 Votes

Quote from @Shuff Mauldin:

The “best” way to be profitable — or, really, giving yourself the best odds to show a profit — is sticking with the asset class that gives you the most outs. IMO, that’s single-family.

Largest buyer pool
By far the most financing options (for the end buyer)
Most importantly, the highest number of exit strategies. --> If the numbers work as a short-term rental, a long-term rental, a flip, a BRRRR, (and so on) you've built in layers of protection. You're really limiting your chances of a faceplant. It's hard to find a deal that's going to check all those boxes but if you buy it as a LTR and you still have options you are on to something.
Ill contrast it with Storage. If I build a facility and it does not work (fill up) I have to wait on someone with so much moxy they think they can do it better... oh, and they are going to want to buy it for 50 cents on the dollar. Awfully hard to repurpose a self-storage building.

Is there another asset class that has caught up I'm not thinking about?

Multiple exit strategies, way too little is said of this and it's value.

And with it, multiple pivot strategies.

Speaking with a client just yesterday, he had a property he bought to OO.

He then started house-hacking via room rentals.

Than he did some basement improvements, and shifted to doing ti more like a duplex so didn't have to share his living space.

Now most recently did the whole place a standard rental after moving to a new OO home.

And now, engaging into adjusting layout, maximizing bedrooms and going to turn into a sec8 rental and gain another 30% gross revenues.

Why sec8? Beside the added revenues, the neighborhood has gone into decline, retail value dropping. Via the multiple strategies feature to it we not only can pivot strategies to mitigate the negative BUT actually PROFIT.

SFR's are so unique and rare in this regard.

1 Vote

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Don Konipol:

Another bag of popcorn, please

Correct, LWO is 2 separate instruments: The lease and then the purchase option.

Even if someone trys to jazz up the 2 on 1 same contract, or commingle them as ken detailed, there 2 separate instruments and 1 does not negate the other.

Ken referenced Texas and Arizona, inferring as his markets of deployment and operation for this scheme.

Next Ken decided Arizonas laws are apparently my opinions..... I had no idea I had such power.

It was never on SubTo, just some hair brained scheme ken concocted with LWO's.

Which as Ken detailed it, was blatant Theft By Swindle, at least that's what it falls under in MN. In Arizona it would be Theft by Misrepresentation. In Texas, Theft by Deception.

Ken, STOP distorting!

Your promoting a LWO; LEASE with option.

Hence, your a landlord. Hence, Landlord/Tenant ACT applies, DIRECTLY.

Such a Charlatan.....

0 Votes

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @Don Konipol:

What @Ken M. and @James Hamling are “discussing” is an APPLICATION of state (s) law, which in reality would be decided by trial, i.e. judge / jury.

Ken says he’s worked the particular strategy/method he uses a number of times without losing a case in court. This of course doesn’t tell us IF it has been tested in court and if so the outcome; we’d need to read the trial transcript to really understand.

James presents a “theory” of applicable state law and the statutes relevant to such that suggests that the strategy utilized by KEN M may be a violation of said laws or statutes.

What we haven’t discusses is HOW Ken S is able to obtain $40k option fees; the relationship with the renter when he realizes the contract he signed “requires” him to pay for all maintenance and repairs; and the ethical issues, if any of such an “apparently” one sided transaction between a sophisticated, experienced investor and a presumingly naive, inexperienced consumer.

Although I’m. BIG believer in FREE MARKET economics, I would be furious if my inexperienced son or daughter paid their life savings of $40k as an option fee and didn’t understand the implications and nuances of the “deal”. Just my opinion.

.
Nonsense.
In a bank loan you have to put $80,000 down. You don't get your $80,000 back if you default on a bank loan.

But here, the $40,000 option fee, or whatever amount is applied to the purchase if they stay in the deal. These are investment properties.
The buyer has to qualify for purchasing the property the same way he would if he were to use a bank. Dodd-Frank is followed although it's an investment property. All transactions have to have a purchase and sale agreement, a title report, done through escrow, underwriting, have disclosures and are entitled to have an inspection and appraisal. They have 30 days to back out without consequence. It's a specific purchase and sale agreement.

You see, there's more, but if I give away all the sauce, who needs me? :-) Lol

"In a bank loan you have to put $80,000 down."

Oh BS and you know it!

FHA, 3.5% down. How about VA. Or how about the myriad of down payment assistance and endowments out there, especially when used in conjunction with another low down options.

It's become all but standard today that buyers can be out of pocket as low as 1% at closing. And no, were not talking 1-off or weird janky things, Rocket Mortgage has a program that get's people down to 1%. And there is a slew of others.

0 Votes

Quote from @Don Konipol:

What @Ken M. and @James Hamling are “discussing” is an APPLICATION of state (s) law, which in reality would be decided by trial, i.e. judge / jury.

James presents a “theory” of applicable state law and the statutes relevant to such that suggests that the strategy utilized by KEN M may be a violation of said laws or statutes.

You nailed it pretty succinctly Don.

My experiences in the court room, as in MN they schedule all housing/tenant related cases in same court room and time blocks so I am not talking just cases I was involved with but those fun-ones I got to be a spectator for.

In my experiences, the moment a case detailed where a Landlord got a tenant to sign away tenants rights, oh-nelly was the Judge not happy. From there forward you could tell Judge had the notion Landlord was a liar and cheat on everything until evidence to the contrary was shown.

That's first place I see Ken's scheme going off the rails, he is doing a lease which makes seller a landlord, and then trying to vacate tenant rights laws via agreement. That will loose every-time.

Second is then assigning financial loss, a reprisal, to the tenant/buyer if and when those tenants rights are enforced. Strike #2. I have 0 doubt there not a snowballs chance in hell that scheme of Ken's would fly with a Judge.

Third, which is a grey area thats not as cut and dry as the above but with the above, it's a really strong probability, is a seller doing the above getting nailed with some form of Theft by Swindle. Because of intent, and savvy. Seller created the instrument, with knowledge and intent, to deprive tenant/buyer in 1 way or another. And with that, take from buyer/tenant their "property", which in this case is the equitable interest in property, the purchase option, and/or the $.

$40k for a Purchase option is a wildly exorbitant option fee for something as small and simple as a SFH. That's something more akin to the option fee's paid on large tracts of land, and I do mean large. I have seen that.

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Don Konipol:

Another bag of popcorn, please

Correct, LWO is 2 separate instruments: The lease and then the purchase option.

Even if someone trys to jazz up the 2 on 1 same contract, or commingle them as ken detailed, there 2 separate instruments and 1 does not negate the other.

Ken referenced Texas and Arizona, inferring as his markets of deployment and operation for this scheme.

Next Ken decided Arizonas laws are apparently my opinions..... I had no idea I had such power.

It was never on SubTo, just some hair brained scheme ken concocted with LWO's.

Which as Ken detailed it, was blatant Theft By Swindle, at least that's what it falls under in MN. In Arizona it would be Theft by Misrepresentation. In Texas, Theft by Deception.

0 Votes

Quote from @Vernon Martin:

I have considered going 'all in' into real estate but I am not sure in todays market, what is a profitable strategy. Any advice would be appreciated.

I am 45 and have years of experiance working in construction, project management, sales and business management.

I am currently a business owner doing agricultural retail. While it is still profitable, I've been struggling with being at a disadvantage against competition and I often don't enjoy what I do. I am considering leaving the industry and doing something in real estate.

I previosly flipped a house and currently own one, six unit apartment building.

I live close to Iowa City.

I have a reasonable amount of cash and equity.

In today's market, where do you see oportunity in real estate? Any suggestions?

House hacking is not an option (I have a family).

If asking what is the most profitable, simplest, assured path to successful entry into Real Estate Investment.....

It is: Get a Real Estate License, Learn wholesaling, put the 2 together.

Everything starts with ability to source leads. Foundation of all things, right.

And in sourcing leads, it costs $$$$.

As a licensed agent you have more monetization options at your disposal, for said leads.

This increases profitability, lowers expense.

Next is training. As a licensed agent, you have maximum access to training and education opportunities and resources.

Now credibility, which speaks back to leads in manner of convertibility of leads into closed monetized deals. Being licensed increases credibility.

Now network. As a licensed agent you have the greatest access to network opportunities and resources, which again feeds back like credibility to lead production, conversion, monetization.

In summary, the best way to become a real estate professional is to become a real estate professional.

1 Vote

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @James Hamling:

@Ken M. you promote:

- Buy off-market: ok, obvious reasoning for that, no explanation needed there.

- Buy via Sub2: I assume this is to mitigate $ outlay into securing inventory, correct?

- Sell via LWO: Why? Why LWO? Is this to "hack" the market for driving buyers where buyers are a bit thin? Or to "hack" the price you get on contract where current market price is a bit lower because your getting buyers chasing their hopeium of being able to buy in those near term years?

Why LWO vs C4D?

LWO opens one to all the downsides of tenant laws, and you loose uncapped earning potential because sold a purchase option on it capping self.

Step 1, I 100% get and 0 qualms with, it's just factual.

Step 2, ok, it's a method and while I have some qualms with it there all centered around the mechanics of who and how. Done right, 0 issues with it. The rub is so much BS promoting how to do it wrong out there.

Step 3, the LWO has me confused. Buyers are tenants so held to all that jazz as a landlord, and concerns it drives the wrong kind of tenant/buyer. Making for a setup of non-closing buyers and a revolving door of damage repairs.

.
Your question: "Step 3, the LWO has me confused."

It gets a little complicated so I'll try to make sense. When you want to provide financing to a buyer and you want to sell as a seller doing Lease/Options as creative finance:

1. I get 10% non refundable Option Fee upfront - on a $400,000 house, that's $40,000.

2. Yes, under the lease agreement you become a landlord and have all of the landlord responsibilities. However, in the separate document, the Option, the Optionee takes over responsibilities for maintenance & repairs. Now, the landlord/tenant laws generally make the landlord responsible for those items. So, included in the Option is a clause that the Optionee takes full responsibility for the property as though they already own the property. If they violate that maintenance clause, they lose the Option and the nonrefundable option fee. They are still tenants for the term of the lease, but no longer have the Option. Under the Lease agreement, they can still demand that I fulfill the Lease terms and fix the roof, replace the AC, repair the porch, which I will gladly do, but then they lose the Option. (the strategy has not yet been disputed in court, as most people just make the repairs.)

I had a call in Arizona during the summer once, it was 115 degrees, "Hey Ken, the AC broke, will you have it fixed" I said "sure, we always follow the contracts, let me take a look at the Lease and Option agreements" I texted the part from the Option agreement that it is their responsibility to fix the AC, "but I will have it fixed and we will throw away the Option". "The Option fee is nonrefundable". "Which would you like us to do" They said "don't worry, we'll fix it". I bought a floor AC Unit from Lowes and took it over for them to use for the three days it took to for them get someone out to repair the AC. There was no arguing, no confrontation, no problems.

2. When you own a property, you get the tax write offs and depreciation. When you sell a property you pay capital gains. About one out of three of our Lease/Options, "fail" That is, the Optionee decides not to exercise their Option. So, we re-Lease/Option for another 10% Option fee to someone new.

We treat people as grown ups and if they change their mind, it's their decision. We remind them that the Option fee is non-refundable. But we do offer to apply the Option fee to a different property if that is their preference. Any "improvements" they make stay with the house, of course. We remind people every 6 months, that it takes time to put together financing to complete the Option purchase. We document everything. We provide documentation that they paid on time, when they have paid on time.

This is all done by text, which is efficient and gives us documentation on what went on. Yes, I've won court cases based on text documentation. There are other "tricks of the trade" we teach those who want to use this strategy.

This would not fly in Minnesota, not at all.

State law on tenant rights supersedes any agreement otherwise, and thus you can make any contract you want but second it goes to court the Judge will say it's unenforceable and throw it out.

Next, a 10% of purchase price Option Fee, wowzers that's expensive. That is way above market rate in MN. That's in-line with C4D down payments.

And that's the rub, your doing a C4D, but calling it a LWO so you get the tax benefit's of a LWO and the benefits of a C4D. That may go under the radar in some markets but I have 100% certainty the AG's office would catch that right off the bat and then one would have a whole other level of legal hell to deal with. Because next there gonna start pealing the onion of ALL your transactions, even digging into closed ones for past years.

Minnesota AG's office is no joke, you do NOT want to be a target of theirs. Keep in mind, this is the same group who took down Phillip Morris.

I don't know enough of the legal in's and out's in every other state but I am willing to bet there is more like MN then not, which would find your work around for tenant laws doesn't hold water and throws that out. And would see straight through what your doing, and open to all the liability from such.

I say not worth it.

If gonna do a C4D, just do a dang C4D. Don't try to scam your way around things to squeeze some extra pennies out of it at risk of blowing up your everything.

Honestly Ken, this is no better then what Pace is doing. Your better then that Ken. Take the high road. Don't try to scheme for every penny ignoring risk and liability exposure. Which BTW, last's for years and years on end even years after a deal is done and closed out. Because all it takes is that 1 instance, and then they dig through history to find every single potential instance for all years they can nail a person for.

Your comment: "I am willing to bet there is more like MN then not" and "it's blatantly illegal in MN" "if a person did that in MN you'd be guilty as sin." ** hilarious
So don't do it in MN.

But your opinion and Minnesota laws don't fly here. ;-) Get used to it!
Yes, thank God for many reasons that Arizona and Texas are not Minnesota. Lol

By the way, and this should go without saying, you are selective in your limited processing and never mention that someone should get properly trained and consult an attorney wherever they are going to invest. I have said that so many times, I say it in my sleep. But, lacking ethics, you fail to include fact and that these are local issues.

I make local recommendations and you should admit I always tell people to check with the attorney that is going to represent them in court. Yes, I've been to court, numerous times and I've always won. I know what passes muster in an area before I engage. :-) Your personal opinion carries no weight in court. Lol

Turns out what your preaching Ken, is also ILLEGAL in Arizona..... https://housing.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/L...

A LWO is a lease, and with that CANT have any terms of a tenant waiving their tenant rights. And with that taking a $40k option deposit, non-refundable, as a penalty for wanting repairs during lease time, which is a tenant right and a Landlord responsibility; ILLEGAL.

Just like in MN, in AZ your scheme Ken, is illegal a whole slew of ways.

In about 5 min I found half a dozen ways it's blatantly unenforceable or out right illegal.

.
That's rich! A guy from Minnesota telling someone an Arizona practice is illegal.
First of all, you quote things that weren't said. You fill your argument with half truths.

I'm glad I don't invest in Minnesota, for a reason (or two). :-)

And then you try to fool people and try to support that false assertion by linking to the entire landlord/tenant act. What goes with that? Show the specific violation. It's like saying "it's against the law to outrun a road runner" and then linking to the Wilderness Act.

I'm afraid that just doesn't fly.

You have to link to the SPECIFIC statute and case law to support your argument, and I 'm afraid that doesn't exist. Your "feelings" of what should be legal and illegal just aren't supported by facts. Stick to Minnesota. Also, read up on leases and options.

Oh, and you should actually read what I wrote, but maybe you can't discern

Discern
"To see and identify by noting a difference or differences; to note the distinctive character of; to discriminate; to distinguish." and "To see by the eye or by the understanding; to perceive and recognize.to discern a difference'

so you lump it all together to try to justify your position.

Sorry, bub, and I rarely say this since I try to be nice, "You're Wrong" full stop. But, we can still debate. ;-)

Charlatan..... your definitively a charlatan Ken.

You detailed your scheme. I responded with highlights and summaries of the distortive and illegal practices with it.

I than linked directly to Arizona statutes of law.

You respond Ken, with slander, distortion, misrepresentation verging into out right lies.

End of story. Good day to you Sir.

0 Votes

1 2 3 4 5 6 … →

All Forum Posts by: James Hamling

James Hamling has started 14 posts and replied 4541 times.

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Am I crazy to purchase a resort on a lake in Minnesota?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

James Hamling has started 14 posts and replied 4541 times.

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: Am I crazy to purchase a resort on a lake in Minnesota?

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Rounded Star Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Rounded Star Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Am I crazy to purchase a resort on a lake in Minnesota?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause

Post: What is the best starting strategy in real estate to be profitable?

Post: Your Loan Has A Due On Sale Clause