All Forum Posts by: David D.

Will: Good to have another carrier to get a quote from, thanks. The way you posted you makes it sound like we are skimping if we don't pay more than the next guy. Doesn't it come down to the coverage you are getting? Just because you are paying more doesn't mean you are getting more.

J Scott: Same in California. If you are acting as an agent AND principal you must disclose.

If you are a principal that happens to have a license but not acting in the capacity of that license for a particular transaction there is no legal or department of real estate regulation requirement to disclose that you are a licensee.

With the exception that our local mls requires a licensee to disclose that they have a license in the mls listing even if they are listing with another broker.

There is no law, or ca dre reg, that requires you to disclose license status if you are only a principal. I say 'only' because you have a boat load of disclosures if you are acting in the capacity of your license and as a principal.

Your local mls rules might require you to disclose license status when selling. But there is no law that I have ever seen that requires a ca broker to disclose license status when acting strictly as a principal, if anybody knows of such a law please site.

Joel: I got a quote from American Modern for the same property, it was more expensive, I went with the cheaper Foremost. I don't know which has better coverage i didn't read either policy.

Yes, friendly lien heloc, i guess i switched the heloc source from bank (what the thread assumed) to private, but i don't see a private friendly heloc any less legitimate than a bank heloc other than what you pointed out about it looking a little fishy. A bank heloc (first choice) would look better than a private heloc no doubt, but harder to qualify and not in the amount to really cover the equity, thus limited protection. Is a private loan any less legal than a bank loan? I think not.

You get a reconveyence at the time the lien is created, but don’t record, so if/when private heloc lender is run over by a bus, no problem.

This is a good thread, hope it keeps going. I haven’t tried any of this stuff, just thought and read about it.

Jon: I have one policy with foremost too. I haven't received the policy yet to read it. do you know if it has workman's comp coverage? My ins agent says it does but I have doubts. And, yes, it's expensive, $2,800/yr for $220k coverage, vacant policy. According to my agent it will be prorated.

I think Mitch (bullet 1) is saying you can draw up or down on a heloc prior to being served, and I would agree. The issue is more what happens after being served. I'm suggesting you can draw up after being served if the money is used for a legitimate purpose, like defending the lawsuit that started the whole fiasco...how can you not be able to do this.

The reason you want a heloc 2nd vs a straight 2nd is so you can legally create a lien without actually transferring money. If I wanted Mithch's friendly lien bullet 2 to succeed in court I would make the lien a heloc, either 1st or 2nd, that way it's legal and nobody actually had to front any money.

Nobody's talked about a friendly option as a alternative. This might even be a better solution.

You're going to need to draw on that HELOC after being served to defend the lawsuit. If you can't defend you will lose for sure...guaranteed success for the plaintiff.

If my Corporation wanted to do a fix and flip, I could 1) put the necessary money in the corp (either as equity or loan) and do the purchase, fix, and sell; or 2) The corporation could purchase and fix the property using financing. Am I doing something wrong if I, personally, loan the money to my corporation using a note and deed of trust, in an amount equal to the actual cash needed to do the transaction?

Thanks for the response.

Where would they go to get their own report? Is there a way to be assured they haven't changed the report?