All Forum Posts by: Mike B.

I decided to not use an attorney and went ahead and signed all the bank's addenda, and gave them the EM. Hopefully I didn't miss anything, closing is in 3 weeks.

Few questions:
1. In the addenda it said that the purchaser pays all closing costs and if I use their title company the seller would pay for my owner's title insurance policy. Is this normal? And if they are willing to provide me with a clear, insured title, why would I ever choose my own title company? What am I missing here?

2. Also, I checked the property tax payment history and it shows that the taxes weren't paid for the second installment for 2011, and they were due August 1st. Is this common? I made my offer shortly after August 1st so I hope they weren't thinking that I would overlook their unpaid taxes and close anyway. I'm not even sure the title company would let them close with overdue taxes.

3. When I turned in the contract and addenda to the listing agent he seemed very surprised that I didn't have an attorney. Maybe he's new or doesn't get many cash offers or both. He said that he thought I needed an attorney because he thought that "the buyer's attorney prepares the HUD1". He also called it a "preHUD" and a settlement sheet. Isn't the HUD1 prepared by the seller's closing attorney?

4. What are my chances of getting the seller's attorney to send me the closing documents and settlement sheet the day before closing so I can have a couple people review it?

Okay, that's enough noob questions for one post. Thanks in advance for your help!

0 Votes

Yeah ***********, this thread has turned out to be filled with tons of great info. Thanks for your contribution!

Update:

I finally got an offer accepted...I think. I made an offer on a bank owned SFH listed at $70K. I offered $60K, cash, $6K EM, no inspection, 2 weeks to close. The bank countered within 48 hours for $67K, $1K EM, close in 30 days. My RE agent said he didn't think there was any more room for negotiation and I should take or leave their counter. So, I reluctantly accepted.

I told my RE agent that I didn't want to use a RE attorney because I'm paying cash and there's no HOA because it's a SFH. He said that he advises me to use one because,

[b]"They would be the ones to prepare the HUD1, take care of title insurance, etc. That is a part of this I cannot do. You really should have legal advice to make sure it is done right.

They told me it would be 5-7 days before the bank forwarded the amendments. Until we sign those, there is no executed contract. That's another thing an attorney would do for you...make certain there isn't some back-end way you could either lose the deal and earnest money, or find later there are liens that haven't been taken care of."[/b]

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is it really that complicated? I thought that I just needed to show up with my favorite pen and now I'm hearing I need to prepare a HUD1? And the title may have liens on it? Doesn't the seller have to provide a clear title?

My RE agent picked an attorney for me without asking me if I wanted to use one or if I had my own, so I don't know if he wants me to use one because it's a friend or family member of his, or if I'm truly in over my head and can't close on my own.

I'm more than willing to do my homework so I can save on attorney costs, so if anyone has any info or links to articles for how to close without an attorney I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

1 Vote

Originally posted by Harry M.:

I'm against higher taxes, not because I'm greedy, or because I don't want to help poor people, but because I believe that small businesses and successful individuals generally do a much better job of moving money around in a way that benefits society than does government.

For example, suppose that under an Obama government, I am taxed an additional $10,000 per year. Over 2 or 3 years that is enough money to make a downpayment on a property. What happens if I were allowed to keep that money and actually bought that property? Well, as you all know well, properties are tricky little muthas to get up and running and generating cash flow, especially in the early months. Suddenly, I am spending money on real estate agents, title companies, painters, handymen, carpenters, roofers, electricians, lawn mowers, Home depot, the list goes on and on and on. In other words, money is going into the economy. And it happening efficiently because it goes directly from me to all of the above, without middlemen in most cases. And it is done without waste, because these properties represent my family's future financial security - since I have a stake, I take responsibility for what I'm doing.

Now if none of the above happens, and instead the money goes to the government, then what happens? Sure some of it might go to fund some programs which are worthwhile. But before it reaches it's intended recipients, it is filtered through government agency after government agency, and sadly, much of it is wasted on the running costs of these agencies.

I'm not a mathematician or anything, but for your taxes to go up 10K per year you need to be grossing like 250K per year, making you filthy rich IMO :) You'll be able to retire comfortably in a few years at that pace, especially in Dallas. Other people need that money way more than you need an extra property every three years. Like our veterans, for instance. And our veterans will spend the money better than any rich person. They can't afford to put it in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. They shop at home depot, too.

Bottom line is somebody's gotta pay for these countries that we decided to destroy and then rebuild. So either you give up your 10K and retire in 6 years instead of 5, or we take the pensions of teachers and cops to make sure that they have to work every day until they're dead.

0 Votes

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Mike B.:

Originally posted by J Scott:

There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in)

Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though.

That wasn't bolded in my original post...not sure where it got mangled!

I bolded it for easy reference. I wanted to quote your whole post because I liked it so much, so I just bolded the part that confused me so I could ask you about it. Next time I'll be sure to note that the bolding is mine. Sorry about that!

0 Votes

Originally posted by Karen M.:

Mike B. The reason he couldn't get anything passed was that his own party doesn't agree with some of his extreme policies, or his budget.

It doesn't matter who opposed him, Karen. The fact is he faced opposition, and you said he didn't. It seems disingenuous to say his "extreme" policies have failed when they haven't been implemented due to opposition.

1 Vote

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

I think they got really ticked off with BO being sworn in, that they see the country going toward the "minorities" and it scares them, that now the best thing to do is to strip the country and funnel as much as possible to the 1 or 1/2% upper class, go global and to heck with the country.

Of course. People are all for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality when it's their speech, their religion and equality for people of their color and beliefs. People scream this is a Christian nation, completely ignoring the fact that the reason this nation was formed in the first place was because our forefathers were forced to adhere to a particular religion and decided that was wrong. To argue that it's a Christian nation because the founding fathers were Christian would be like arguing this is a white, male and slave-owning nation because our forefathers were white males who owned slaves. I've yet to hear anyone make that claim.

Speaking of Christianity, the funny things is that Christianity was created by an upper class who wanted to keep the lower class in check to avoid uprising and disruption of the class system. Here we are 1500 years later and it's being used the same way again and people don't even realize they are being brainwashed and controlled.

The Republicans have convinced the masses that we need "less government" when it comes to business regulation and then at the same time convince the same people that we need more government when it comes to social regulation. Hmmmm, I wonder why they'd want to do that? The only reason I can think of is to make the rich richer and the poor more oppressed and controlled.

It's hilarious hearing people scream "LESS GOVERNEMENT" and then scream that we need more laws to restrict speech, drugs, sex, marriage, travel, etc. Brainwashing at its best.

Think about it -- the Republicans have convinced those making the least money that those making the most money are the ones who need the tax cuts, the subsidies, the legal loopholes, etc.

It's F****** brilliant how the ultra-rich in this country have gotten the underclass to serve their whims. I wish I was half that brilliant...

It's time to wake up people. There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in) and there's nothing wrong with less government (including less legislation of morality by one group's standards), but to vote for what's good for a small group of people vs what is good for the nation as a whole is just ridiculous.

For those who honestly believe that this is a land of equal opportunity for all, I have this question: Why aren't you ultra-rich? Is it because you don't work hard enough? Because you're not smart enough? If I have more money than you do, does it mean that I am smarter and harder working than you are? If not, then the equal opportunity argument doesn't hold.

And before anyone starts telling me that I'm just a jealous socialist, keep in mind that I'm probably part of (or close to) the "1%"...socalism would result in me having less than I currently do. But, I'm okay having a little less to ensure that everyone has at least the very basics. That's not socialism...that's humanity.

Wake up people.

Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though. It's almost as if you're implying that there's an argument about whether or not to reduce the deficit/debt. I thought the argument was about how to solve the problem, not the problem itself.

A friend of mine told me about a poll he saw a couple years ago that your post reminded me of. The poll said that 16% of Americans believe that they are currently in the top 1% of income earners in the U.S., and 60% of Americans believe that one day they will be in the top 1%. 60%!

0 Votes

Originally posted by J Scott:

So, let's get back to the original topic of this thread -- Paul Ryan.

Again, I'll probably vote for the Romney/Ryan duo -- not because I particularly like their views on anything, but after bitching for years about the soaring deficit/debt, perhaps the Republicans will be forced to do something about it if they take office. And the tiny, tiny chance that will happen is better than the zero chance that the current administration will.

My head just exploded. The Republicans have a plan to reduce the deficit? I must be watching too much MSNBC because I haven't heard of it. But even if they do, voting for Romney seems like a hail mary for a chance to put a bandaid on a gunshot wound. I thought a better approach would be to look for long term solutions.

0 Votes

Originally posted by Karen M.:

Barrack Obama isn't the one to do it. He had both houses for two years, no opposition, and failed.... there's no excuse other than he doesn't know how to do it! Obviously most of you disagree with me...

If he had no opposition then why didn't he get single payer healthcare that he wanted, or even a public option? I'm disagreeing with you because saying he had no opposition isn't true.

0 Votes

Originally posted by Karen M.:

Mike B. Actually most independents are fiscal conservatives, so Ryan should be a perfect choice. Besides, what is it Obama does for Independents?

If they're fiscally conservative then they won't like hearing that Ryan's budget proposal adds trillions to the deficit while slashing social security, medicare and medicaid. That's all the independents are going to hear about from now through November, and a lot of them will stay home on election day because they think either choice will increase the deficit.

0 Votes

I don't know what Romney was thinking with this pick. He's just energizing his already energized base while losing independents.

1 Vote

All Forum Posts by: Mike B.

Mike B. has started 2 posts and replied 29 times.

Post: New member from Chicago

Post: New member from Chicago

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?

Post: Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?